Acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit the bread taken he made it his not anothers but his owne bodie e Serm. de Coen Cyp. Panis iste non effigie sed naturâ mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro That bread being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the word is made flesh f Iustin Mart. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imp. Those words in S. Iustine ex quo carnes nostrae per mutationeÌ„ aluntur be a description of the bread before consecration as in Tertullian those vetus figura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are taught that the meate on foode bread and wine made Eucharist by the prayers words of consecration of the Word of God are his flesh and blood Breade and wine before consecration but after coÌ„secration flesh and blood This was the doctrine of that age D. Featley Heere D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of institution Answer This is false in that you say he was forced In the very g See p. first words of his answer when you had onely alledged the words of institution before you had vrged any thing he of his owne accord told you there was a figure but not an emptie figure which answer you haue hetherto beene impugning And in his answer to the next argument he of himselfe repeated it againe to shew that he did stand vpon the same grouÌ„d still which he knewe you could not vndermine Moreouer in saying he was driuen to it here you make your owne tale vncoherent for in this place of your relation the dispute as you put it downe is not about our Sauiours proposition as it is in the gospell This is my bodie but about an other made out of Tertullian The figure of my bodie is my bodie which wordes whether they be figuratiue or not figuratiue are not the words of institution D. Featly Thus they grewe to an issue M. Featly affirming that he demaunded no more then to haue him graunt there is a figure in these Words hoc est corpus meum Answer The issue of this argument was that you D. Featly could not proue Tertullian said our Sauiour made the breade an emptie figure of his bodie this Authour speaking there of an (a) Non intelligeÌ„s veterem istaÌ„ fuisse figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Hieremiam c. Cited pag. 15. old figure before signifying our Sauiours bodie which figure he our Sauiour now as Tertullian saith turned into it Acceptum panem corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his bodie That there is a figure in the words but not an emptie figure was tould you in the beginning and you did vndertake then to disproue it if you be now contented with such an one and desire no more after all your labour then was before offered you gratis your aduersarie must haue the honout of making you change your minde D. Featly As for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach it is nothing but a meere fiction of your owne braine As if you should say this is a shadow but not a (a) You shall reade in Scripture of shaddows which were not meere shaddowes And if shadows may positiuely be seene as you wil say you haue seene many they benot meere shaddowes AppareÌ„t nobis huiusmodi omnia nigra a quibus rarum paucum lumen repercutitur Atis Co. c. 1. meere shadow Answer Here at length the Doctour giues the reader notice of the distinction tould him in the beginning of a meere figure not a mere figure which being not able to disproue he sleightes calling it a meere fiction So leauing the reader to subsume that either the sonne of God whom the Scripture calls the figure of his Fathers substance is a meere figure void of being God without diuinity or that he is a meere fiction Nor doth he mend the matter much by contracting it to speach for his reader in that kinde also wil subsume and thinke that either the Scripture is a meere figure or hath no figure in it Because according to the Doctour a speach cannot be mixt in part proper and figuratiue in part Neither is it the same reason of a figure image or signe as of a shadowe in your sence for a signe an image a figure is not necessarily void of being as you conceaue a shadow to be Sacraments are signes and haue some being man is an image of God yet a substance the sonne of God according to S. Paul is the figure of his Fathers substance but not an emptie figure vnlesse that be emptie which hath in it a whole infinity of perfection He is the image of God and yet hath the Diuinitie all in him In like manner that whereof we speake the Eucharist is an image a figure a SacrameÌ„t of the body not emptie but such one as hath withall the bodie in it This was said at first since when you haue but gone a round and are now euen there where you beganne THE SECOND Argument taken out of S. Augustine D. Featley S. Augustine lib. 3. de doctrina Christ saith that speach of our Sauiour vâ—ses you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. is figuratiue therefore the other this is my bodie is so too D. Smith I distinguish the * were it denied that S. August speakes there of SacrameÌ„tall eating the Minister could not proue it recondeÌ„dum in memoria c. Antecedent There is one eathing that is figuratiue both according to the thing and the manner too so the Fathers in the old law did eate Christ an other eating there is which is proper in regard of the thing but figuratiue in the manner because the thing eateÌ„ though it be taken into the mouth and let downe into the stomake is not brused and cutt according to the coÌ„mon manner of eating And such a figuratiue eating of the bodie of our Sauiour S. Augustine meanes and sayes that the speach â—oh 6. is figuratiue in this sence to witt according to the manner for else-where he saith that wee receaue with faithfull heart and mouth the mediatour of God and man Lib. 2. coÌ„t Aduers leg ca. 9. man Christ Iesus giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke VVhere it is manifest that he speakes of proper eating of the flesh of Christ according to the thing eaten because he saith wee receaue the same flesh with the mouth which we receaue with faithfull heart and also because he doth adde presently that that our eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his bloode seeme to be more horrible then killing and shedding of mans blood whereas a meere figuratiue eating wherein the flesh of Christ it selfe is not eaten but the figure onely doth not seeme to haue any horrour as the eating of our Sauiours flesh which is receaued without all hurting of it seemeth to haue though indeede it haue not
and Chamier lib. 10. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligimus vt sit positum est pro significat In which way the wordes are thus to be interpreted Hoc this thing est doth signifie corpus meum my bodie A construction so absurd that the very Authors are ashamed of it and therefore couer it vnder metaphors clowdes of obscure speaches that it appeare not to the Reader D. Mortons pretence for it is this that the subiect is proper bread which bread saith he doth signifie but is not the bodie That it is bread he perswades himself because our Sauiour tooke bread and the Fathers sometimes call it bread Which is no good Argument for the Greg. Nyss orat catec c. 37. Ser. de Coen apud Cypr. Gaudent in exod tr 2 Cyril Hier. Catech. 4. Cyrill Alex Epist ad Calos Aug. Serm 28. de verb Dom. lib. 2. con aduers leg c. 9. Hier. Epist ad Hedib q. 2 Ambros Myst init c. 9. Chrysost Hom. 83 in Mat. 24. in Pri. ad Cor. Fathers when they speak of that which is heere after consecration expounde themselues as you will see hereafter for Doctor Featlie doth obiect the same of bread which is changed by the power of Omnipotēcie not in shape but in nature of supersubstantiall heauenlie not proper bread in which sence our Sauiour calls his flesh meate and himself bread Ioh. 6. Whereupon whē they take the word properlie they saie that it is not bread not that which nature made no sensible thing but the flesh of Christ the bodie which was crucified the mediatour the Lord of all Neither doth it follow that it is bread properly because he tooke such bread into his hands for he chāged it by his omnipotence Panis omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro Oblata conuertons in Veritatem propriae carnis In illud quod est immortale transelementata corum quae apparent natura into flesh as they likewise teach vs. and our Sauiours words according to their natiue proper sence do D. Morton Instit of the Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 72. confessedlie import as much for they signifie that his bodie is now in that exteriour forme wherein before there was bread Which doth inuolue a change In a corporall feast suppose a Prince makes it that which was bought aliue is serued in before the guests And consequentlie it is not rigorouslie speaking the same thing though it be vulgarlie esteemed the same Homo mortuus quanquam figurae formam habet eandem tamen homo non est saies the Philosopher lib. 1. de Part Anim. c. 1. And elswhere he tels vs Homo mortuus dicitur aequiuocé Liuing and dead things haue not the same forme and therefore if you beleeue him be not the same things Vide eundem lib. 1. de Gener. t 23. not aliue In this spirituall feast exhibited by the Prince of heauen that which was brought into the Church not aliue is he is the Creators Sonne and himself omnipotent that makes it presented to the communicants his guests aliue Influit oblatis vim vitae S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos cōuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis He doth flow in to the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh Neither was he long about it but said the word Statim per verbum in corpus mutatur vt dictum est à Verbo hoc est corpus meum S. Greg. Nyssen Orat. catech c. 37. suddainlie the thing was donne Whereupon this ensued that his bodie was at once in two places In the one situallie as other bodies are in the other sacramentallie according to the manner of a spirit This as our greatest Aduersaries confesse doth vnauoideablie follow vpō the natiue and proper sence of our Sauiours words And Antiquitie so vnderstood and beleeued it affirming that verie bodie which was crucified for our sinnes to be vnder the S Aug. Conc 1. in Psal 33. l. 9. Conf. c. 13. Serm. ad Neoph. apud Bed in c. 10. ad Cor. In the 4. Argu. one place will be discussed S. Chrys Hom 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Cyrill Catec 4 S. Ansel in c. 11 ad Cor. forme or shape of bread and that blood which issued out of our Sauiours side the verie price of our Redemption to be in S. Chrys Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. S. Aug. Epist 162. Serm. ad Neoph. S. Leo Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens sept .. S. Greg. mag lib. 4. Dial c. 58. S. Cyrill Catec 4. the chalice and thence powred into the mouthes of the Communicants They beleeued that the most precious bodie in heauen was at the same S. Chrysost l 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 24. in Epist ad Cor. Hom. 17. in Epist ad Heb. S. Greg. Nyss Orat. Catech c 17. S. Cyrill Alex. anathem 11. in Conc Ephes lib. 11 in Ioan. c 27. Conc. Nicen. 1. in Act. Vatic S. Cyrill Hieros catech 4. time in many places heere on earth that they had Iesus the Mediatour God and man he being at the same time in heauen heere in their S. Cyrill Catech. myst 5. S. Chrys Hom. 24. ad Cor. lib. 3. de Sacerd. Hom. 46. in Ioan. hands and receaued him with their S. Aug. l. 2. con Aduers leg c. 9. Tract 59. in Ioan. Origen Hom. 5. in diuersa S. Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13 S. Cyrill Hieros Catech. 4. S. Leo. Serm. 7. de ieiunio mens Sept. mouth The ground of which beleefe were the foresaid words and asseueration of our blessed Sauiour to whose Authoritie they had submitted their vnderstandings Take eate this is my bodie They did not presume to dispute with Him about the nature of quantitie or substāce or Or repute it absurd he should be in a mans bellie VVhat is better what purer what more glorious thē the blessed Trinitie and is not the blessed Trinitie in euerie place and now you stop your nose in euerie thing The bodie of our blessed Sauiour is immortall impassible and existeth in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit place they were sure he knew these things better then they did or by that little which man knowes or seemes to know define his Power Art but ingenuouslie honoured and willinglie heard Him as the Master of men and Angels in Coloss 2. whom are hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge To feare least the bodie which is substantiallie indiuiduall should be distracted into two bodies by this accidentall and superuenient manner of existencie is a fault in the braine liable to the name rather then any signe of a good and sincere iudgment It is in the Sacrament according to the manner of a Spirit as before hath beene obserued and Spirits are not subiect to distraction by quantitie VVhen a man is beheded is his soule cut in two though that happen and whilst they are in it to be diuided One Angell is able to moue so to be
those words id est figura Corporis mei whether they be ioyned in construction to the subiect hoc or to Corpus the praedicatum since he whose words they be doth admitt and teach a change whereby the figure is fulfild and therefore is no more an emptie figure according to that which was answered in the beginning of this argument Now to come to D. Featleyes relation first he demaundes a place for the figuratiue Protestant exposition out of any Protestant more pregnant then is this of Tertullian vpon the sight thereof he will if you take a Ministers word yeeld the better Answ Tertullian doth not exclude the presence of the bodie to the mouth or to the signes but doth teach it euen heere in this place which you thinke is against it as hath beene shewed already But your men exclude it as you may remember by that which you were tould in the beginning Confessio Czingerina Signa nō sunt substantia signatorum sed tantùm accipiunt nomina The signes Eucharisticall bread and wine are not the substance of the things signed bodie and blood but take their names onely The Heluetians Panis non est ipsummet Corpus Christi sed eius signum dumtaxat The Eucharisticall bread is not the verie bodie of Christ but a signe of it onely Zuinglius Panis figura tantummodo est the Eucharisticall bread is a figure onely And Praeter panem non est quicquam ampliùs There is not any thing besides bread These and many other of this kind and out of English authours too be cited by my Lord of Chalcedon Collat. Doct. Cath. li. 1. c. 10. ar 1. Secondly he saies the Words id est figura are to be referd to the praedicatum as all men doe in the like It was answered that Tertullian himselfe did not alwaies referre to the praedicatum what followes in that manner much lesse could it be truely said Mar. 9.17 Dicendo denique Christus mortuus est id est vnctus id quod vnctum est mortuum ostendit id est carnem Aduersus Praxean c. 29. that all without exception doe And to giue you an example in Tertullian he in his booke Aduersus Praxean speakes in the same forme saying Christus mortuus est id est vnctus Where that part of the speach id est vnctus is an explication of the subiect Christus And that the words id est figura in the other speach are so to be referd it was then proued out of Tertullian himselfe who questionles is a good interpretor of his owne minde and out of this verie place by diuers reasons Which reasons D. Featley was not able to disproue But the reader will say be it so let the wordes be ordered as you say hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum what reason haue you to adde more words in the proposition as quae fuit vetus making the sence to be This which was an old figure of my bodie is my bodie Answer In the proposition no words are added but in the explication of the proposition the word figure is determined according to the minde of Tertullian by the words vetus and quae fuit that you may know of what figure he speakes veterem istam fuisse figuram It is Tertullian doth tell the sence of Tertullian Thirdly Tertullian saies D. Featly could not be so dull as to thinke our Sauiour meant the bread Which Was in the old laWe a figure of his bodie is noW his bodie Answer He saies expresly that he our Sauiour made it his bodie Wherefore now bread according to Tertullian not remaining breade but changed is his bodie This Tertullian did beleeue and teach there in that place telling vs that breade was of old a figure of our Sauiours bodie non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis c. which he proues out of Ieremie and that this old figure bread was by our Sauiour made his bodie acceptum panem Corpus suum illum fecit The bread taken he made it his body So now it was no more bread in substance but another thing It was a Serm. de Coen changed in nature b Greg. Nyss orat Catech transelemented c Cyrill Hier. Catech. myst 4. Itaque illuminator Antiquitatum c. Cited p. 20. not bread in substance but the bodie To shewe that our Sauiour in assuming those elements breade and wine to consecrate therein his bodie and blood did intend to fulfill two old figures is the very scope and drift of Tertullian in that place and the partiall Scope of his booke as all may knowe that can reade and vnderstand latine and this according to Tertullian is the sence of our Sauiours words this thing in my hand made of breade an a Ierem. 11.19 old figure of my bodie is my bodie Out of this D. Featley in his relation striues to proue that the words of institution be figuratiue for saith he this proposition this figure is my bodie cannot be true but by a figure sith neither the substance of breade nor the accidents are properly the bodie of our Sauiour Answer The question is not whether there be any figure or no but whether heere be a figure excluding the veritie as you were tould in the beginning and your selfe vndertooke to proue Neither are those wordes you speake of this figure in my bodie the words of institution wherefore if there were a figure in them it would not follow there is a figure in the words of institution And if there were a figure in the words of institution it would not yet follow that it is a meere figure such a one as doth a Vide Tertull. l. 5. cōtr Marc. c. 20. Plane de substantia c. exclude the veritie for which kind of figure you dispute This the reader may conceaue if he call to minde those other wordes hic est calix c. Where Catholikes doe graunt a figure indeed but such a one as doth consist with the verity of the bloode To that expounding proposition made out of Tertullians comment vpon the word hoc which comment is this id est figura I answer that the word figure is there extended to signifie the thing made of a figure as in scripture the word a Gen. 3. dust is sometimes vsed to signifie the thing made of dust b Ioh. 2. water to signifie the thinge made of water and c Exod. 7. rod to signifie the thing made of a rod. Puluis es Virga deuorauit Gustauit aquam c. And in this sence the proposition is true for the thing made of bread an old figure is our Sauiours bodie and properly too for substance To the proofe videlicet neither the accidents of bread nor the substance of bread is properly called the bodie I answer that it is true withall it is true that the thing made of bread is properly the bodie d Tertul l. 4. contr Marc.
speeie it was S. Augustine saith (b) Li. 9. Conf. c 13. victima sancta qua dâ—letum est chirographum this which is also dispenced from the (c) Ibid. altar the Disciples did eate they did eate (d) Tract 59. in Ioan. Mat. 26. panem Dominum bread our Lord a delicacie no doubt The thing in the chalice in the forme of wine was his blood so he told his disciples This is my blood It was sanguis humanus in aliena specie that which (e) Serm. ad Neoph cit Paschas ep ad Fâ—ud Idem que asserit SaÌ„ Chrys HoÌ„ 24 1 Cor. issued out of his side though not in the same forme the very (f) Ep. 162 price of our redemption and the Disciples did receaue it and (g) Ibid. Iudas though he did not beleeue dranke it too This is the Feast which our Sauiour made these be the delicacies which the best Antiquitie did feede vpon according to S. Augustine who did well reflect on your difficultie yet found no difficultie in the thing it selfe (h) 2 coÌ„t Adu leg c. 9. Wee receaue I repeate what you were tould before with faithfull heart and mouth the Mediatour of God and man man Christ IESVS giuing vs his bodie to be eaten and his bloode to be drunke though it seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh then to kill and to drinke mans bloode then to shed it For such as wil peruse S. Augustines words I wil put theÌ„ downe at leingth Ferebatur Christus in manibus suis quando commendans IPSVM CORPVS SVVM ait Hoc est corpus meum (i) He that carieth a man carieth his soule quodammodo See the Bachelours Answer to the fift obiection and the words of the Canon Hoc est in the fourth ob ferebat enim ILLVD Corpus in manibus suis S. Aug. in Psal 33. conc 1. Tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desiderauit VNDE sciret dispensari VICTIMAM SANCTAM qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis lib. 9. Confess c. 13. Illi manducabant PANEM DOMINVM ille panem Domine contra Dominum illi vitam ille poenam Qui enim manducat indignè iudicium sibi manducat Tract 59. in Ioan. Hoc accipite in pane quod pependit in cruce hoc accipite in calice quod manauit de Christi latere Serm. ad Neophit Tolerat ipse Dominus Iudam diabolum furem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles nouerunt PRECIVM NOSTRVM Epist 162. D. Featly S Augustine by figurata locutio meant such a one as could in no sence be proper for he distinguisheth proper from figuratiue Answer Proper and figuratiue in the speach are distinct and as farre as the speach may be taken properlie there it is not figuratiue but it is figuratiue where in proprietie it imports a crime And because part of the speach whereof we dispute may be taken in proprietie part cannot therefore it is mixt as being not purelie figuratiue nor purely and entirely proper D. Featlie A proper figuratiue speach is as a man should say a white blacke colour How can that be Answer And a mixt speach is as if one should saie a mingled colour may not that be In a mixt-coloured habit blacke is not white or white blacke yet the garment hath both so a figuratiue sence is not proper nor a proper sense figuratiue but in the same speach both may be And as S. Augustine here calles this speach figuratiue in regard of the manner of eating though the same speach in regard of the substance receaued be not figuratiue Com. in câ— ad Ephes so doth S. Ierome who liued at the same time 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 1. Cor. 15.44 termes the bodie Spirituall in regard of the condition it shall haue in the resurrection though for substance it consists of mater still and by corporeum differ from a Spirit intrinsecallie as much then as it doth now And as you cannot argue out of that place of S. Paul it is spirituall therefore it is a meere Spirit or it is a spirituall bodie therefore it is not a bodie properlie no more can you make such arguments our of S. Augustines wordes and say it is figuratiue therefore it is a meere figure or it is figuratiue eating therefore it is not eating properlie The reason is because eating may be figuratiue some times in regard of the manner of doing as a bodie may be spirituall in regard of the manner of being though neither the substance of the one be spirituall nor the essâ—nce of the other figuratiue The discourse about the proprietie of those words Hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie against which you did obiect that none of ours acknowledge any figure or improprietie in them at all whereby you seeme hetherto not reflecting on that which in the beginning was tould you to haue conceaued our tenet so as if we held and beleeued a pure proprietie for substance and manner giues me occasion to enlarge my self heere a little by way of digression My Lord tould you that the words are proper in regard of the thing signified but that in regard of the manner there is not exact proprietie wherefore the speach may be said to be secundum quid improper or figuratiue but not absolutè and simpliciter for the reason by him specified So the Logicians do say that an Ethiopian is white secundum quid but absolute blacke This seemed to you strange as if it had neuer beene said before by any Catholike deuine and therefore you poore he thought the Protestant cause was gained as soone as you did obserue which was not so soone as you might haue donne that there was an improprietie and figure in the manner whereas all learned men doe knowe and your owne Masters doe confesse that such an improprietie or figure is admitted by our Deuines And that the Controuersie betwixt vs Protestants is not about that but about an other matter to wit Whether the thing in our Sauiours hand after consecration were his bodie truelie according to the substance This I say and not that other is the Controuersie for it is certaine and agreed on all sides that it was not there existent according to the manner of a mans bodie it was not locallie extended and visible in its owne forme and shape this was and is still out of Question So that when you disputed you did not indeed knowe the state of the Question Neither when you were tould yea many yeares after Sunt ergoea qua sunt in voce earum quae sunt in anima passionuÌ„ notae A rist li. r. periher c. 1. Dictiones significant primò intentiones quae sunt in anima CoÌ„mentat Ibid. haue you beene able if willing to conceaue it
nothing els as to the communicantes after faire promises of the bodie and blood of Christ present by (a) VVafer pag. 8â— Mor. p. 135. Gods omnipotence changing the exteriour elementes and penetrating into our soules according to the substaÌ„ce of flesh and blood you giue nothing but meere bread and wine Apologist Doctor Smith should haue proued that the same proposition may be true in a natiue genuâ—ne and proper sence though the wordes be vsed in a peregrine figuratiue and impropre sence Censure It was ridiculous enough to challeng at buckler onlie as he did who came into the feild to answer distinctions but to be an andabatarian in such a combat not daring to open his eies to behold his enemies so blunt a weapon is superlatiuelie absurde His populus ridet The word questioned for improprietie is corpus in this proposition hoc est corpus meum This word corpus doth directlie signifie if we speake as the chiefest Science doth conceaue it the (a) Fit conuersio totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 4. Ex vt sacramenti quantitas dimeÌ„siua corporis Christi non est in hoc sacrameÌ„to S. Tho. 3. p. q. 76 a. 4. proinde neque ea quae sequuntur quantitatem Ex vt realis concomitantiae est in hoc sacramento tota quantitas dimensiua corporis Christi omnia accidentia eius Ibidem vide eundem 1. p. q 76. a. 4· ad 1. substance or part of substance which requires three dimensions leingth breadth and thicknes according to which notion it is in the words of institution taken properlie and the proposition proper by the possessiue meum this word corpus bodie was determined to a mans not whose soeuer but our Sauiours The same word Corpus Bodie both in the apprehension of the vulgar as you may learne by present experience when you please and according to the Philosopher as heereafter shall appeare doth import withall the naturall manner of being of such a substance which manner is to be a thing extended according to the foresaid dimensions and a mans bodie to be a thing figured and visible which manner of being naturallie flowes out of that kind of substance and vsuallie comes into the conceit with it And in regard of this manner the proposition is improper for such an extension imported also commonlie by the word corpus is not there It is improper I say if you regard the manner of being vsuallie imported also by the word corpus bodie but proper if you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified by the same word If you regard the substance of the thing directlie signified the wordes are taken in their natiue genuine and proper sence and the proposition is in that kind natiue genuine proper If you regard the manner of being imported also vsuallie by the word the attribut is not taken properlie nor the proposition proper Had you opened your eies to look vpon the distinction which you answer RelatioÌ„ pag. 39. you might haue seene that in these wordes This is my bodie there is a figure not a meere or naked one voide of truth and proprietie because although they signifie that the Eucharist is the bodie of Christ trulie reallie and properlie according to the thing yet they doe not affirme it to be the bodie of Christ after such a corporall and naturall manner as other thinges are the thinges which they are sayed to be but after a spirituall inuisible mysticall sacramentall manner and such a one as doth figuratiuelie shew and represent the naturall manner of being of the same bodie in another place Now though for words to be taken in their natiue sence and not to be taken in their natiue sence as long as it is secundum idem be contradiction yet to be taken in their natiue sence according to the substance of the thing directlie signified and not to be taken in their natiue sence according to the manner of being vsuallie imported also by them is not secundum idem nor any contradiction Apologist Good Master Doctor take notice that since a propâ—r speache is when wordes are taken in their genuine sence and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sence that to be taken in their natiue sence and not in their natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction because the sence would be natiue and not natiue Censure Against whom do you fight good Andabatarian who tould you that the speach was proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper absolutè simpliciter that the wordes were taken in their natiue sence and that they were not taken in their natiue sence that secundum idem they were and were not This is a fiction of your braine a chimericall goblin that your ignoraÌ„ce hath made for your argument to fight against Those against whoÌ„ you preteÌ„d to deale haue noe such thing they doe not saie the speach is proper absoluté simpliciter and that it is absolutè simpliciter figuratiue they say onlie that it is proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue or improper secundum quid Which you will proue to be a contradiction when you proue this to be so Aethiops est niger Aethiops est albus secundum dentes and haue demonstrated against the logick rule that an argument holds well from secundum quid to simpliciter Open your eies braue challenger and read in great letters what they defend THE SPEACH IS ABSOLVTè TO BE SAID PROPER AND FIGVRATIVE ONLY SECVNDVM QVID By this time hauing beene distempered with a giddines of vnderstanding so that you could hardlie peceaue what you were to doe you are reeld ouer the entrie into the matter of the first argument where you beginne to shew your Diuinitie and will reade a lesson to my Lord and S. E. before you know what it is your self My L. had said figures some were not meere figures as were the legall but had the veritie ioyned with them of which kind he brought 3. the first an increated figure the sonne of God who is according to the Apostle the figure of his fathers substaÌ„ce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath it also with him yea and in him heereunto M. Mirth as followeth Apologist I graunt since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the Father who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his filiation he be a distinct person from his father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same godhead and is not an other but the same God But I pray Sirs take notice that these wordes are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie so then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in his flesh he had the image of his fathers person ingrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies tell me then is this image the same with the
quod in hac sententia obscurum est si legas hoc modo numquid ergo hic quia in effigie eum Dei collocat aeque non erit Deus Christus vere si nec c. postea vere Deus predicatus this being not a meere emptie signe or figure but such a one as hath in it the substance of the thing signified and represented as your Doctor was told in the beginning And according to this Author our Sauiour turning the substance of bread into his bodie did by this meanes put the veritie within the figure and so left it such a figure as we speake of not emptie as before in Ieremies tyme but full The very same is imported by the the wordes which you cite in the first place representare is rem aliquam praesentem sistere to exhibite a thing present And our Sauiour by turning the substance of bread into his bodie doth thereby exhibite his bodie present vnder the figure of bread and so properlie doth represent it In this signification Orators Lawiers and Deuines vse the word and Tertullian himself very frequentlie as where he saith that our Sauiour a. Tertull de Resurr car represented the thinges foretold by the Prophets that the b. Ibid. generall Iudgment shall consist of a representation of all mankind that God (c) li. 4 con MarcioÌ„ See store of testimonies of this kind in Card. Peron pag. 211. 212. representing Christ said This is my sonne c. itaque iam representans eum And this is the natiue and proper signification of the word To exhibite a thing present in a signe or figure is not so properlie rem sistere praesentem as is the other exhibition of the thing in it self wherefore that signification is lesse proper yet in this sence also the word is heere verified for the Sacrament is a signe or figure of the bodie and it hath also the bodie in it Our Sauiour himself who did institute it was the figure of his Fathers substance and had his Father in him suprà pag. 178. The second place you bring is this panem corpus suum appellans where you suppose the word panem to be the subiect and to be taken properlie SubiectioÌ„ est in Grammaticae prior nominatinus de quo aliquid dicitur Grammatici vocant suppositum vocatura nonnullis antecedens quia in ipso sensu debet semper antecedere etsi in oratione interdum sequatur Deus erat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nobilitas sola est atque vnica virtus Keker ex Melancth which if it could be proued would not yet serue your turne for we could easilie expound the wordes by others of the same Author before cited panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc c. The calling would I then say was practicall such as turned the bread into his bodie dicendo hoc est c. corpus suum illum fecit Dixit factum est he made it to be so and he made it dicendo Call to minde the Speaker and you will not think the thinge to him hard or difficult It is he per quem omnia facta sunt He that sendeth forth light Baruc. 3. and it goeth calleth it againe and it obeieth with trembling The starres haue giuen light in their watches and reioyced they were called and they sayd we are heere and they haue shined to him with cheerfullnes that made them Benedictâ—one etiam natura ipsa mutatur S. Ambr. de myst init c. 9. Ante verba Christi Calix est viui aequae plenus vbi verba Christi operata fuerint ibi sanguis efficitur qui plebem redemit Idem Sacram. l 4. cap. 5. Inuenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod sanguinem practice dixit S. Cypr. li. 2. Ep. 3. Sacrificium verum plenum tunc offert Sacerdos in Ecclesia Deo Patri si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse Ibidem And had there beene in this Father any obscure speaches touching this matter the diuine Prouidence hath not left vs without meanes to learne his minde for together with his booke there is come into our hands from Antiquitie such a comment Sermo de Coena that wee neede not studie long to finde it out Panis non effigie c. Did the word panem stand for Bakers bread I would say that this bread was by the wordes of consecration changed panem corpus suum fecit dicendo hoc est c. and so no more bakers bread after consecration though before it were it is afterwards the bodie of Christ supernaturall heauenlie bread the bread of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemes bread it is in the shape of bread but in substaÌ„ce it not bread Cyrill Qui est à terra panis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 percipiens vocationeÌ„ Dei iam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrena c Caelesti the bread which hath being from the earth receauing the call or inuocation of God is now not common bread but Eucharist consisting of two things the earthlie and the heauenlie Iren. lib. 4. c. 34. This answer you see is readie if that supposition of yours could be made good But your obiection is not so farre aduanced as to require an answer and you are engaged in a further busines being to proue that when the consecration is donne the bakers bread remaines according to this Author which is contrarie to his words before alleadged corpus suuÌ„ illum panem fecit the bodie of Christ is not you know bakers bread and by consecration our Sauiour did this Hoc est corpus meum dicendo By the order of the wordes you cannot get aduantage as before I did insinuate now confirme it by this that indifferentlie he puts either first lib. 3. contra Mar. c. 19. Panem corpus suum appellans and lib. 4. cap. 40. corpus suum vocans panem See the margent aboue pag. 191. Wherefore omitting that dispute which is not heere materiall let vs inquire what the word panem be it the subiect or the predicate doth signifie in that propositioÌ„ Whereunto it is easelie answered out of the same Author that it signifies not proper but mysticall not earthlie but Heauenlie bread The veritie of which answer appeares by the scope of his discourse He is expounding an obscure place of antiquitie found in Ieremie the Prophet Mittamus lignum in panem eius which wordes are vttered in the person of the Iewes By lignum he meanes the Crosse that eius is referd to our Sauiour of whom the Iewes spake mittamus lignum let vs cast wood vpon let vs crucifie panem eius the word panem and that word onlie is obscure If it be taken for earthlie bakers bread the seÌ„se would be let vs crucifie bakers bread which could not be the sence What bread then is this which they threaten
to crucifie it is Heauenlie mysticall bread not bread in substance but the bodie of Iesus Christ Against this bread they did afterwardes conspire they did crucifie this bread Itaque ill c. pag. 192. And that indeed this mysterie was couched vnder those words in the Prophet mittamus lignum c. our Sauiour himself best able to tell the meaning of Antiquitie declared in calling his owne bodie bread Ioh. 6. and afterwardes exhibiting it the very same that was crucified in the forme of bread by turning bread into it and so giuing it Matt. 26. Lue. 22. On the other side if we make of the words that construction which you would haue you I say who contend that in the proposition before alleadged panis stands for earthlie bread figuratiuelie representing the bodie the sence would be that the crosse was cast vpon that earthlie bread that bakers bread was crucified which is false and ridiculous Si panem eo sensu corpus suum Dominus appellauit faciebat ad vanitatem Caluini vt panis crucifigeretur Why because the crosse was to be laide vpon that bread whereof our Sauiour did interprete the speach or words of Ieremie mittamus lignum in panem You had from me in the former place obiected one reason why Tertullian did not vnderstand improperlie the predicate corpus in our Sauiours words hoc est corpus meum Heere now you haue an other out of this second place which declares that he vnderstood it to be so farre from a meere figure or bread-a-figure that it is he beleeued the thing it self which was crucified which agreeth well to the determination that our blessed Sauiour himself doth adde by way of difference to distinguish it from corporall bread-a-figure He doth not as you would haue Tertullian against his owne discourse expound him meane to say this is a figure or vnderstand by the predicate or word corpus the figure of a bodie the whole sence then had beene this This â—s a figure which is crucified for you but he saith this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my verie bodie which is giuen for you And so much you Chamier doth acknowedge against Featlie Quaeritur quid sit corpus meum sanguis meus Nos candiâ—e liberè ac libenter respondemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum cum Heâ—ychio in Leuit 22. Sancta Sanctorum sunt propriè Christi mysteria quia ipsius est corpus de quo Gabriel ad Virginem dicebat Spiritus Sanctus superuenier c. Est igitur corpus illud id est solida substantia humanae naturae quam assumptam in vtero Virginis circumtulit in Hypostasi sua verbum Etenim omnino Christi corpus non nisi dupliciter nominatum est vel proprium illud a nobis designatum vel mysticum quod est Ecclesia the Question is what is Corpus meum my bodie sanguis meus my blood whereunto wee answer ingenuouslie openlie and willinglie with Hesichius that it is litterallie to be interpreted The mysteries of Christ are properlie the holie things of holies for it is his bodie of whom Gabriel said to the Virgin the Holie Ghost shall come from aboue c. It is therefore that very bodie that is to say the solid substance of humane nature which being assumed in the Virgins woombe the word caried about in his Person For Corpus Christi signifies but two things in all the proper bodie which wee haue now specified and the mysticall which is the Church so he a protestant and he instar omnium you know the man that said so and if it be so then a greater scholler then he that said so your Master Featlie The third place corporis sui figuram pani dedisse will neither yeeld solid proofe for you nor vs because omitting the cause of doubting whether they be Tertullians words or no which is insinuated together with the reason by Pamelius out of whom you reade pani the lection and it seemes by some defect in a copie out of which other later were transcribed is doubtfull whether it should be pane as Latinius thinks or panis as most do reade with Beatus Rhenanus or pani as Pamelius found in one of the three Vatican copies which he had and where the ground shakes none but W build on it Moreouer none of those lections do fauour you and were it pani the sence would be that he gaue to celestiall bread his bodie the figure which was before by turning the substance of it into the substance of his bodie and with the exteriour shape which was left couering the same so ioyning figure and veritie together and by the one confirming to vs the other leauing the Church withall a Sacrament consisting of them both not the bodie onlie that were not a Sacrement and the communicant would haue horrour to receaue naked flesh nor the figure onlie that would haue beene elementum egenum futurorum vmbra a signe and nothing but a signe but figure and bodie to and so that the tyme of meere figures exspiring the former substance of the figure Vt ergo in Genesi per Melchisedeth Sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham possit rite celebrari praecedit ante imago Sacrificij in pane vino scilicet constituta Quam rem perficiens adimplens Dominus panem calicem mixtum vino obtulit Et qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimpleuit S. Cypr. l 2. Ep. 3. bread by conuersion passeth into the veritie the bodie thus were it pani the place would make for vs and imply a transubstaÌ„tiation as I haue declared neither would the words admitte any other so genuine a sence as his for if you take pani for bakers bread the construction supposing which is a thing manifest and aboue demonstrated that the figure he speakes of was an old figure would be corporis sui figuram pani dedit he gaue to bakers bread the old figure of his bodie which figure also was bakers bread which is as much as if he had said he gaue bread to bread old to new iumbling belike both together to make one loafe of two as some doe mingle beere old and new together when the one is newlie made and the other growing soure Pane and panis were further from your purpose as I could easilie shew if any should pretend it the fittest if you could find it in any copie were panem but hitherto no such appeares and if it should in time we should not be to seeke a solution hauing allreadie said that the sacrament called also by the name of bread for diuers reasons els-where specified is a figure of the bodie but not a meere and emptie figure I had allmost forgot to take notice of your translation of the wordes corporis sui figuram pani dedisse he gaue to bread to be the figure of his bodie If he had donne so either at the supper by making of it the blesed Sacrament which is a figure though not
Church which holds and beleeues the bodie signified properlie by those words to be reallie and trulie there according to the veritie and substaÌ„ce of the thing which euen according to your owne rule is enough to make the speach proper in that sence for you saye that proposition is proper in which the predicate doth in i'ts natiue sence signifie that thing which agrees to the subiect the same proposition in as much as it is compared to the manner of the thing is figuratiue and improper for the bodie hath not in the Sacrament the common manner of a bodie as extension of parts in order to place and visibilitie but another manner as your Doctor was also told Which being so the Question was touching the modus loquendi Whether this mixt proposition being proper in regard of the substance and improper in regard of the manner or generallie Whether a proposition which is proper in regard of the substance improper in regard of the manner be flatlie and simplie to be said proper or improper Whereunto it was answered and well that a proposition is absolutlie and simplie to be esteemeed proper or figuratiue proper or improper rather from the thing which it affirmeth then from the manner and consequentlie since the proposition hoc est corpus meum is proper in regard of the thing it affirmeth it is absolutelie to be said a proper speach The reason of the rule is manifest for the denominatioÌ„ is to be taken from that which is the principall and the thing doubtles is more principall then the manner of the thing the substance more principall then it 's accidentall manner an Ethiopian though he be white secundum quid is absolutelie or sine addito said black Your owne rule before cited confirmes all this but this is not the first time you fight against your self we know the same thing may be signified by diuers propositions whereof some be proper others figuratiue as in holie Scripture we find the Diuine perfections to be signified sometimes by proper speaches and sometimes by metaphoricall But the Question was Whether one and the same proposition not diuers but one being proper in regard of the thing signified and improper and figuratiue in regard of the manner were to be called absolutlie sine addito proper and onlie secundum quid according to the manner figuratiue As if it had beene demaunded whether one that is white onlie secundum dentes and all the rest black be flatlie or simplie to be said white or black the Answer was that the proposition hauing in it the foresaide mixture was rather to be saide proper and the man rather to be saide black which is true notwithstanding that there be other meÌ„ some white some black and other propositions some figuratiue some proper respecting the same thing Apologist No proposition is figuratiue according to the thing signified Censure You meane that it hath not that denomination as it is vnder a reference to that thing Before you said it I thought otherwise and shall do so still euen of that which you bring for Instance Herodes est vulpes that your proposition is figuratiue in comparison to the thing signified which is Herods Wilines this wilines of Herod the proposition doth signifie and affirme not properlie it is not the proper significatioÌ„ of vulpes but metaphoricallie and by translating the word to signifie that wherein Herod hath some kind of analogie or agreement with a foxe Orators look not for Metaphors in things but in words Ad vnum verbum contracta similitudo as you know by the nature of metaphors out of Aristotle Tullie and others And because vulpes the predicate doth not properlie but metaphoricallie signifie that thing which is affirmed vpon Herod therefore is the proposition figuratiue and improper euen by coÌ„parison to that thing it is an improper signe of that which you would haue me to conceaue The word indeed hath an other significatioÌ„ which is that we call proper which your dictionarie leads you to but according to the thing which answers to that it 's proper signification the proposition is not verified In all other pure figuratiue propositions you shall find the same and therefore you must alter your vnlearned assertion that no proposition is figuratiue according to the thing signified and all your discourse that depends vpon it wherein impertinentlie to the matter in QuestioÌ„ you compare one materiall obiect or thing to seuerall propositions whereas you should compare one proposition to the principall and proper or secundarie and improper obiect of it's termes The proper obiect of this word or signe vulpes is a foxe it signifies that thing properlie and taking it as it signifies to vs that thing the proposition is false the improper obiect whereunto by translation it is extended is a wilie fellowe and taking it in this sense the proposition is true neither are these thinges in this manner signified one and the same thing vnles a wilie man perchance be properlie with you a foxe Moreouer the manner of signifying in wordes is either proprius natiue proper Sensus sacrae Scripturae literalis mysticus Sensus literalis proprius improprius Sensus mysticus alleg tropol anagoric vt infra or improprius and translatitius metaphoricall and improper Euerie word that hath a metaphoricall signification hath a proper also as appeares by the etymologie of the name and the way to know in which sense the proposition wherein it stands is verified and consequentlie whether it be taken in the proper or the metaphoricall sence is to compare it to the thing Herod is a fox Mirth is a locust If you compare the proposition in it's proper signification to the thing it is improportionable difforme and false if you compare the same material proposition in it's metaphoricall signification to the thing it is proportionable conforme true Wherevpon we conclude the speach to be metaphoricall If the proposition be according to the natiue sence verified vpon or in the thing we say that it is proper as these other Herod is wilie Mirth is an Heretick If it be verified according to the substance of the thing properlie signified not according to the manner it will then be called proper absoluté sine addito taking the denomination froÌ„ that which is principall For wee say that a thing is white or not white not because all is so but because the greatest or most parts be so Dicimus enim aliquid essâ— album aut non album non quia totum esâ— tale saith the Philosopher 6. Phys. tex 38. sed quia maximae partes eius plures sunt talâ—s though not omnibus modis in regard of the improprietie annexed respectiuelie to the manner as this hoc est corpus meum Before I leaue this point I must put you againe in mind how you do still weaken your owne opinion more more and fight against your fellowes whilst you contend that heere corpus the predicate
proue that one the same proposition could not be proper absoluté simpliciter and improper or figuratiue absoluté simpliciter your labour was impertinent since the proposition in Question was neuer said by my Lord or S. E. to be such neither haue they said that any other proposition had the two sences mentioned in that manner That the same man may be white secundum quid and absoluté black the same speach improper secundum quid and absoluté proper hath beene said and the speach obiected hoc est corpus meum is such That this or anie other is absoluté proper and absoluté figuratiue or improper or the same man absolute white and absolutè black is the meteor of your braine which like an Ignis fatuus leads your argument still out of the right way The sence of a place of Scripture is either literall or mysticall Some places haue both as that Abraham (a) It is written that Abraham had two sonnes the one by a bond-maid the other by a freewoman But he who was of the bond-woman was borne after the flesh but he of the free-woman by promise 24. which things are said by an Allegorie for these are the two testaments the one from the mount Sina which gendreth to bondage which is Agar c. 26. But Hierusalem which is aboue is free which is the mother of vs all c. Now wee brethren according as Isaac are the children of promise 29 but as then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit euen so it is now Ad Galat. 4. duos filios habuit vnam de ancilla vnam de libera sed qui de ancilla secundum carnem natus est qui autem de libera per repromissionem Gal. 4. The mysticall sense is threefold allegoricall tropologicall and anagogicall and the same place may some times haue all three For example in the place now cited and as it is expounded by the Apostle there is the Allegoricall Haec sunt duo testamenta c. v. 24. the Anagogicall illa autem quae sursum est Hierusalem c. v. 26. and the tropological sed quomodo tunc is qui secundum carnem natus fuerat persequebatur eum quisecundum spiritum ita nunc v. 29. Concerning literall senses it is the tenet of S. Augustine lib. 12. Confes that there may be diuers tWo three four or more in the same words and since a word may haue many significations why might not the Holie Ghost vnderstanding all verities and all significations of all words vse the same words in the same speach as that in the beginning God created Heauen and Earth in many significations at once This speach in Isaie generationem eius quis enarrabit the Fathers vnderstand sometimes of the temporall sometimes of the eternall generation of our Sauiour and that of God the Father in the Psalmes Filius meus es tu Ego hodie genui te the Apostle takes in one sense Act. 13. and in an other sense Heb. 1. Touching the mixture of proper figuratiue it hath beene tould you that the same place may be proper absolutè simpliciter and figuratiue secundum quid you crie out for one such and do not mark that before your face you haue alreadie two nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis c. and hoc est corpus meum That this is proper according to the substance of the thing signified we proue by the common rule of interpreting the Scripture when it proposeth dogmaticallie matters of Diuine beleefe and the same is confirmed to vs abundantlie by other places of Holie Scripture which do concerne this Sacrament and sacrifice and by the testimonie of the Holie Ghost in the Catholik and vniuersall Church which did euer beleeue it since our Sauiour truth it self spake these wordes That the same speach is figuratiue improper in regard of and respectiuelie to the manner of the thing which māner vsuallie the word corpus doth import it is euident for the bodie hath not in the sacrament extension of parts in order to place but is there all in euerie part of the dimensiōs of bread according to the manner of a Spirit When M. Mirth had come thus farre imagining poore man that he had got some victorie he puts a crowne vpon his head and snatching the trumpet giues notice of a new battle wherein he meanes to set vpon the little digression of S. E. which digression he cruellie dismembers and spurnes the pieces of it ouer the rest this Section to and fro contemptiblie I cannot without pittie see the thing so misused perhaps if the parts be gathered together the discourse may stand againe and affright him in the middest of his triumph Apologist Next I will runne ouer againe this section and page by page will answer the daintie subtilities of Master S. E. and iustifie our Doctors discourse against his Notes Censure If you will proue your tenet you must ouer againe and a thousand times againe and then will find your self as the mill-horse doth after all his labour euen there in the end where you were in the beginning Did not this appeare in your Doctors first argument and in this you now prosecute which is the second can you do more then he but now forsooth you will answer page by page and in matter of Logick Philosophie We haue lost allreadie to much time in hearing your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this though the matter come neerer to your cap will most liklie be lost also but you teach wee must harken you will answer subtilities you say page by page that is exactlie Fortasse cupressum Scis simulare Apologist you say words do signifie conceptions I would haue you know there is a great deale of differēce betwixt conceptio and conceptus Censure Satis pro imperio What S. E. meant by a conception you haue presentlie in his next words The conceptiō is an Image representing the thing which wee think on This Image vitallie proceeding in the minde is properlie in English named a conception of the vnderstanding Confer pag. 8. Some name your Mastership will allow it in our language such as may distinguish it from the obiect or the thing conceaued I pray you turne your Dictionarie and find what name this is turne to which word you please conceptus or conceptio S. E. vsed neither but onlie said words do signifie the conceptions of the mind which English you cauilling at should haue mended seeing you will needes make your self his Master and haue taught him and your owne Dictionarie to speake it better in good English and such english as doth not equallie signifie things obiected whether they be feigned or not feigned For proofe of this Assertion words do signifie the conceptions of the mind he needed not your helpe hauing cited in the margine these words of Aristotle which it seemes you do not vnderstand sunt ergo ea quae sunt in
He who doth offer to perswade vs that the Canon-lawe that Gratian that the Masse it self is against the reall presence as heere in this argument he vndertakes to do what will he not affirme what testimonies will he not presse to serue him what so strong that he will not wrest what so sacred that he will not violate he might aswell vrge against vs the Canon made at Trent in this matter and outface me that in this defence I do not auouch but oppose it I cannot think him in his wits that vndertakes to perswade me white is black neither is he much wiser that takes on him to know the meaning of the Church better then Shee her self Ea quae in voce Arist sūt earum quae in anima passionum notae Where the wordes are obscure or ābiguous it is better the speaker interprete his owne mind then you that are not of his counsel I am sent hither by Waferer to see how the Doctor doth vrge the Canon of Gratian which I will examine God willing before I returne to looke againe on his pamphlet but since insteed of one Canon I find two drawne together to make the greater noise I must giue the one a lift to remoue it out of my waie before I meddle with the other Which waie the mouth of it stands the Doctour he stood in his owne light could not see He tels vs it is against the Reall presence Why so Master Featlie because a. Featl Conf. with M. Musk pag 66. it is verie incongruous to pray to God to looke downe mercifullie vpon Christ and to accept the bodie and blood of his sonne as he did Abels sacrifice of first fruites yet the Canon of the Masse doth so Offerimus tibi de tuis donis datis hostiam puram c. panem sanctum vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicut accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui Abel Wee offer vnto thee of thy benefits and guifts a pure hoast the holy bread of eternall life and the chalice of euerlasting saluation Vpon which vouchsafe to looke downe with a fauorable cleere countenance and to accep of and auow them as thou hast vouchsafed to accept of the guifts or oblations of Abel thy child Answer That quae is not referd as you pretend to Christ or his bodie absolutè reade againe and marke it Neither would anie scholler conclude suppose your premises had beene right ergo the Canon denies the reall presence it affirmes it and in those verie wordes But rather thus ergo that prayer is not well conceaued or is incongruous Which is farre from your mark Wherefore to help out your argument you adde an other peice Per quem Christum haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sāctificas viuificas benedicis praestas nobis by whom o Lord thou doest euer create sanctifie quicken blesse and bestow vpon vs all these good things Whence your inference is as before that the Canon is against the reall presence But I turne it vpon you The words cannot be verified without a reall presence ergo the Canon by them doth make for the reall presence And the auncient Fathers who dedeclare themselues to be directlie for the reall presence vse the same kind of speach To beginne in S. Cyprians time one as auncient as he tels vs vsque hodie veracissimum Corpus suum creat sanctificat benedicit till this verie day he doth create and sanctifie blesse his owne most true not a meere figure then and most holie bodie How so let the same Authour tell how the Sacrament for of that the Canō speakes is made Panis iste non effigie sed natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro Well but how quickned sicut in persona Christi humanitas videbatur latebat Diuinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter Diuina se infundit essentia Another Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis vt corpus vitae quasi quoddam semen viuificatiuum inueniatur in nobis Serm. de Coena Cyp. S. Cyril Alex. Epist ad Calos That bread being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotencie of the word made flesh and as in the Person of Christ the Humanitie did appeare and the Diuinitie lie hid so heere a Diuine Essence doth vnspeakeablie infuse it self into a visible Sacrament He doth flow into the things offered the power of life conuerting them into the veritie of his owne flesh that the bodie of life might as a certaine quickning seed be found in vs. The like is in S. Chrrysostome S. Ambrose and others as you might haue learned partlie out of Gratian whom you cite had you but read him Moreouer in Scripture it self these words haue a larger sence then that which you conceaue a. Ioan. 17. Ego pro eis sanctifico meipsum there sanctifico is offero or sacrifico himself being as the words import both the victime and the Priest b. Psal 101. Populus qui creabitur laudabit Dominum c. Psal 50. Cor mundum crea in me Deus Praecipio d. 1. Timot 6. tibi coram Deo qui viuificat omnia These words viuificat and creabitur haue a latitude as you see And since allmightie God doth not onlie giue life but still conserue it e. Hebr. 1. portans omnia verbo virtutis suae why may not he be said in that regard also still to quicken why cānot an action of omnipotencie able to abstract accidents from the subiect still keeping them in being and vnder them to make a succession of substances be called in large sence at least creation since none but the Creatour can in chief or as principall produce this effect and he who puts in the Sacrament the bread of life which heauenly bread liues it self and giues life to the receauers why may he not be said in a large sence at least to quicken the thinges that are before the Priest And you Master Featlie that are so strait-laced as not to suffer words to be euer vsed but in one sence and that of all the most rigorous what sence will you find in Scripture where words are not euer vsed so or to forbeare that question and come neerer how will you expound of bread and wine which is your intent these wordes by you obiected Haec omnia Domine semper bona creas sanctificas viuificas and the like before cited out of the Fathers was your communion-bread made of nothīg is it aliue did the Church in her liturgie meane to professe this was this the Fathers meaning shew me to vse your owne wordes Featl pga. 68. Master Featlie in what tolerable sence those elementes may be said cōtinuallie to be created and made aliue sith before they cannot be said not to haue beene or to haue beene
takeÌ„ sometimes pro corpore connotando species continentes Sometimes pro speciebus connotando corpus contentum sometimes pro toto composito for the whole consisting of the bodie and the species both According to which diuersitie of acception such propositions as ouer hastie or vnlearned men think opposite will be found to containe a good sence Hauing freed the Canon from you M. Featlie and got possession of it againe I will turne it against your Apologist to driue away that sillie troope of Arguments which he hath brought into this Section You remember the charge that was in it This in substance â— in the Sacrifice of the Church two thinges one the species of the elementes and this visible the other the inuisible bodie of our Lord. 2. the inuisible thing the flesh is couered with the visible 3. the flesh is a Sacrament of the flesh 4 the inuisible and spirituall flesh in the Sacrament doth signifie the visible palpable bodie which was vpon the crosse 5. the Heauenlie bread which is indeed according to the substance flesh is the sacred signe or Sacrament of the visible mortall bodie 6. the act of immolatioÌ„ performed by the Priest is called the passion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio The Reader remembers all this I request him also to reflect vpon the discourse of S. E. pag. 71 which Master Waferer with all his Arts doth impugne and I am now defending the substance of his Argumentes for his words do not merit the transcribing is without order for he hath none at all as followeth Waferer S. Augustine saith Epist 23. Secundum quemdam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Answer That which is Sacramentum tantùm Aliqui putabaÌ„t species solas esse SacrameÌ„tum Vide Suarez disp 42. 2. is secundum quendam modum to wit significatiue Corpus Christi that which is res Sacramentum is corpus Christi or caro spiritualis veré and the same is corpus Christi visibile vt visibile secundum quendam modum to wit representatiue the Canon sicut ergo c. illius quod visibile c. Waferer The same thing cannot represent it self for there is similitude betwixt the representing and the represented which similitude cannot be in case it be the same thing Answer Why not if it be as our Sauiours bodie is in diuers exteriour formes or shapes at once why may it not by the one represent it self as existeÌ„t in the other the similitude such as it is is not founded as you conceaue in the substance preciselie wherefore they be not the same in that verie respect and point and was aboue also answered Birckbeck pag 180. but in the exteriour shapes or formes which be not heere the same in the representing and the represented Thâ— Canon Carne inuisâ—bili significatâ—â— visibile Domini corpus Waferer It is not onlie without groundâ—th the Gospell but also false to saie â—he same bodie was in diuerse formes or shapes at once Answer Our Sauiours bodie was in the shape of bread inuisiblie This in my hand is my bodie and it was visiblie sitting at the table at the same time hâ— said take eate this is c. The Cà non Carne inuisibiâ—i intelligibili spirituali significatur corpus Domini visibile palpabile The Quod then is the same Waferer If one and the same thing can be in seuerall formes one forme may represent the other but the thing represents not it self Answer had your opposition beene to purpose you should haue put it thus but the thing by the one caÌ„not represent it self as in the other which was the proposition you vndertooke to disprooue I doubt whether your eies be fellowes you mistake so oft that which is before them and it seemes if I may speak according to your Philosophie that either they be meere accidents or the one is not like vnto the other For in both is am I not mistaken the same forme or substance S. Pâ—ete fishing was a figure of S. Peeter preaching What did accidents onlie fish other accidents preach 〈◊〉 was the fisher a figure of the preacher â— Peter in one action of himself as in the other this matter is allreadie dispacht pag. 185. seqq where you shall finde an answer to your discourse about the Manna The Canon Caro carnis sanguis Sacramentum est sanguinis Waferer The bodie is not in the Sacrament in it's proper shape Sed Christus post resurrectâ—oneÌ„ suâ—m diuersa actione diuersa que temporum ratione sui ipsius typum gessit figuram Vt enim aâ—t Augustinus apparens duobus Discipulis c Alger de Sacram. l. 1 c 18. Ille contendat Christum mentitum esse singendo qui negat eum quod signifie â—uiâ— impleuisle faciendâ— S. Aug. de mend â—on Cons c 13. ad illud sinxit se longius tre longius naÌ„que profectus super omnes coelos c. Ibid. how then can the Sacrament represent it as so existent Answer The shape represented is the visible shape and forme our Sauiour had The Canon Carne inuisibili significatur visibile corpus and againe Sacramentum est corporis illius videlicet quod visibile Neither is this representation vniuocall or the relation naturall to the species as you suppose but it is founded in the Diuine action or institution which serues it self of that analogie which the matter doth afford Reade your owne wordes pag. 60. Most certaine it is that the sacramentall signes and actions are the memoriall figure of no other bodie then that of our Sauiour on the Crosse Your Questions about the meaning of the word hoc into which you would haue the whole proposition ô worthie man to write Diuinitie to be transubstantiated will finde an answer in the next SectioÌ„ though you must not expect that I repeate there againe in terminis so choise a peece of M. Mirth No more with Gratian for this time Waferer The species you now dispute against that which was answered to the wordes of the Glosse cannot be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference the wordes of S. E. to our Sauiours bodie which they couer Answer Why so Waferer Nothing is a sacrament in respect of couering Answer That which inuisiblie coÌ„taines and exhibites to vs not onlie grace but the Authour of grace may therefore well be called a Sacrament such couering well deserues the name though couers be not all Sacramentes Howbeit you mistake S. E. who told you the reference to the bodie inclosed was enough to draw vpon it this title Coeleste Heauenlie The sacred bodie of our Sauiour is within the species whence it comes that the one hath rationem contenti the other continentis which notions are conceaued you know relatiue and since a relation is specified by the terminus that relation is not naturall which is terminated vnto and reciprocated with that which is aboue nature To inquire for an
action making immediatlie these râ—ferences were needles Euen in those that are naturall the Philosopher lookes for no other action then that which makes the foundation which he calls the fundamentum where one thing containes another the reference followes of it self That by the consecration the bodie is put within the species the Glossâ— whose Authoritie you are againe scanning told you and by the words of Institution it is manifest Suprà pag. 75 Matth 26. The Canon Caro eius est quam forma panis opertam accipimus But why should you make anie difficultie about the title of sacred and heauenlie drawne vpon the species in a sence equiuocall by reasons of the reference When wee vrge against you the Fathers to proue that our Sauiour in the Eucharist is to be reuerenced and adored then you tell vs that the worship is exhibited to the formes because they be sacred and you can fetch examples from Baptisme how then comes it to passe that whilst you dispute against vs The words Reuerâ—nce Honour AdoratioÌ„ simplie in themselues without the adiunct and additament Diuine cannot conclude the Diuine woship proper to God Vnder the degree of Diuine worship wee our selues yeild as much to the Eucharist as S. Augustine did to baptisme wheÌ„ he said epist. 164 wee reuerence baptisme wheresoeuer it is Morton of the Masse l 7 c 2 sec 3 Diuine Nazianzene teaceth that the Angels are present at baptisme and do magnifie or Honour it with their presence and obseruance Idem Sect 2. VVere the Crucifix as glorious as either art could fashion it is but a meere signe inuented by man and thâ—refore how infinitely more honorable in all Christian estimation must a Sacramentall signe be whâ—ch onlie the God of heauen and earth could insitute Idem li. 4. c. 2. Sect 3 in the Challeng Reuerence is a due respect had vnto things or persons according to the good qualities that is in them this is either inward or outward the inward is our estimation of them according to their conditions and properties the outward is our open expression of our said estimation whether by words or acts their inward c. Idem l. 7. c. 9. See the words of D. Androes cited p. 373. and what both of them say to Theodoret adorantur symbola vt quae illa sint quae creduntur whereof Andr in his Op. posth and Mort l. 7. c. 2 and cease to declaime against vs for the relatiue honour wee giue to reliques and other holy things obseruing withall that they both come short of Theodoret adorantur vt quae illa sint they loose their sanctitie But see your braines turne about and you will bestow the same title vpon bread and wine and that the thing which iust now you disliked in regard of reference to flesh blood Take my opinion say you that meere accidents can neither properlie nor improperlie be called Coeleste Sacramentum in regard of their reference to our Sauiours bodie which they couer VVafer pag 57. but bread and wine may be so called and why in regard of their mysterious vse and signification how so the reference vnto that Coelestiall foode which they are then made instrumentes to conuay vnto vs giues them that denomination So you The seuerall comparisons of the Sacramentall species comes heere too into the Ministers head and troubles him so many relations in one thing to the bodie visible existent on the crosse to the bodie inuisible contained within and to the grace which being a Sacrament it doth also relate vnto Three relations in one thing this makes him sweate with labour to coÌ„ceaue it But there is one thing your owne self Master Waferer wherin there be more then thirtie to your Father to your brothers to the communitie whereof you are a part to your alas poore flocke to your mother Vniuersitie to your masters there to your seruant what spend I time to reckon as many senses and powers partes as manie seuerall accidentes and qualites and habits as you haue as manie seuerall vertues as are in you but I must not found on them least my nuÌ„ber proue to short as manie seuerall comparisons as you haue to bodies I omit all other thinges which would make the number more then double liuing or not liuing celestiall or terrestriall greater or lesse then you so manie relations you Master Waferer haue Number them if you can aâ—d you shall finde for euerie one that I promised a thousand do you sweate vnder the burden You told vs but a while agoe that bread and wine haue a reference to the bodie and blood of Christ VVafer pag. 34. and it is your common tenet and the great mysterie which you do mngnifie and extoll as a thing aboue the capacitie and conceipt of Christian men though neuer so learned yet least you want an Aduersarie you pleade against this also now your owne self There is saie you a relation inter signum and signatum which relation cannot be founded in the colour of bread VVafer pag 58 because no relation is founded in qualitie but relatio similitudininis now the colour of flesh and bread is not a like and so there can be no relation of similitude betweene them and so on you go to conclude that the relation which wee admit is no where but in a Iesuites doting head See your owne kâ—kerm of the institution of signes VVas it not you â—hat obiected out of Tertull. and the Glosse the word representat and are not you the men would haue the Sacrament to be a signe which if it were so his condition were yet better then yours for he hath within the consecrated species that which is indeed heauenlie the best thing to speake with S. Chrysostome that is in all the world whereas your Sacrament is reallie nothing els but bakers bread with the relation of a signe which relation your owne argument comes back vpoÌ„ you is not founded in the colour nor in the substance of bread flesh and bread are not alike but onlie in the supposed institution which kind of relations being not reall giue me leaue to conclude in your Logick yet more ciuillie that it is no where but in the sacred pia mater of a Catharist Waferer I haue four reasons why I dislike your opinion which defends meere accidents to be called a Sacrament Answer you are content that a peece of bread wherein there is no thing els but bread the rest being in your head onlie be called a Sacrament why then may not those species be so called which do couer and infold that great mysterie of pietie which was manifested in the flesh iustified in spirit appeared to Angels and was preached vnto Nations if the price of our Redemption the Mediatour betwixt God and man the holie of holies if Deus absconditus be within those species withdrawne from our sight and they not onlie signifie but exhibite him to the receauer why may they not
is not to be so wise as you that your neighbour and you were substantiallie distinguished that his substāce was not yours nor your substance his by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from a stock and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from an asse and by something which is in you substantiall you are distinguished from your neighbour you will not denie this what these are Called euerie Punie can tell you Apologist T 's an infallible axiome that one numericall substance can haue but one manner of b. Mirth I hope can distinguish betwixt an accidentall presentialitie and a substantiall subsistence subsisting Censure If you meane naturallie this axiome is nothing to purpose heere nihil ad rhombum wee talke of that which God hath supernaturallie effected If you meane supernaturallie it is a meere begging of the Question to call that an axiome which no man yet euer auouched and your aduersaries do denie Where did you euer reade vnles it were in some of your pufellowes lying pamphlets that the same indiuiduall substance could not haue supernaturallie diuers accidentall manners of being or that an indiuiduall nature could not haue an other manner of subsisting then naturallie it hath The humanitie of our Sauiour hath another manner of subsisting then ours it subsisteth in the Word is this naturall or supernaturall and accidentallie wee shall be changed when this corruptible shall haue put on incorruption and this mortall haue put on immortalitie is not this likewise aboue nature or is the state of a glorious bodie naturall to the bodie or impossible that Master Waferers Axiome forsooth may stand and in the sence wherein it were to serue his turne One numericall substance can haue but one manner of subsisting Apologist Though place and quantitie be not in the essence of a bodie yet it is a contradiction in it's existence to be without either and consequentlie to create Christ such a bodie in the Eucharist which is not indiuiduall is a meere contradictorie fiction Censure I doubt I shall be thought a foole for disputing with such an one as you are Master Mirth who told you that the bodie which is in the Eucharist is not indiuiduall who spake of such a bodie who told you that it had not there quātitie or that it was no where or do you dreame if you did not and that the matter were not impertinent to this argument I might hap to aske you touching those your imaginations how you proue it a contradiction for a bodie to be without quantitie or a bodie hauing quantitie to be without a place I learned once from Aristotle that quantitie is not substance nor substance quantitie which being supposed and the thing is certaine in it self you will haue much adoe to inferre a contradiction out of these two propositiōs Substantia est Quantitas non est or these other Quantitas est Substantia non est Contradiction being affirmatio and negatio eiusdem de eodem and secundum idem you cannot Master Waferer much lesse can you proue it is a contradiction for a bodie to be without a place Locus is a. 4. Arist 4. Phys t. 41. continentis terminus immobilis primus as the Philosopher defines it who tels you likewise that b vniuersum non est in loco the vttermost heauē or bodie whateuer it be is not properlie in a place No other bodie doth containe it if it did this were not vttermost Yet wee saie not that our Sauiours bodie is no where or that it is not in the Church or that it hath not quantitie or that it is not indiuiduall these are aegri somnia they be your dreames Master Mirth who vnderstand not this mightie argument which you tooke out of your Master Featlie in whom I will go see for I cannot learne of you what the meaning of it is Alia sunt in loco secundum potentiam alia verò secundum actum Vnde cùm continuum quidem sit quod est similium partium secundum potentiam in loco partes sunt cum vero separata sint quidem tangunt autem se sicut collectio secundum actum sunt Et alia quidem per se sunt vt omne corpus aut secundum loci mutationem aut secundum augmentum mobile alicubi perse existit coelum autem sicut dictum est non est alicubi totum neque in quopiam loco si quidem nullum ipsum continet corpus secundum autem quod mouetur sic locus est partibus altera enim alteri adhaerens partium est Alia verò secundum accidens sicut anima coelum partes enim in loco quodammodo omnes sunt in eo enim quod circulariter sunt continet alia aliam vnde mouetur circulariter solum quod sursum est Omne autem non alicubi est quod enim alicubi est ipsum aliquid est adhuc aliud quiddam oportet esse extra hoc in quo quidem continetur extra autem omne totum nihil est Aristot 4. Phys t. 45 Terra quidam in aqua haec in aëre hic verò in aethere hic verò in coelo coelum autem non amplius in alio est Ibidem t. seq Simul autem manifestum est quod neque locus neque vacuum neque tempu◠est extra coelum Quapropter neque quae illic sunt nata sunt in loco esse neque tempus ipsa facit senescere neque vlla transmutatio vllius eorum est quae super extima disposita sunt latione sed inalterabilia impassibilia optimam habentia vitam per se sufficientissimam perseuerant toto aeuo Lib. 1. de Coelo t. 99. 100. Huiusmodi substantiae separatae dicuntur a Philosopho esse ibi id est extra coelum non sicut in loco sed sicut non contenta nec inclusa sub continentia corporalium rerum sed totam corporalem naturam excedentia S. Tho. Ibidem Vide eundem in 1. d. 37. q 3. a. 1. ad 4. Non reputo inconueniens quod Angelus sine loco possit esse c. De quo plura Caietanus Nazarius alijque He proposeth it against Master Wood and will needs proue the bodie if it hath diuers Sacramentall presēces such as wee beleeue it hath is therby diuided in se in itself so that it is no more one and the same but diuers bodies this he striues to conclude out of the distinction of the Sacramentall presences Featlie pag. 134. seqq wherof one is at Rome for example and another is at Paris But he striues in vaine for the Dualitie is of presencies not of bodies there are two presences in one and the same bodie and these two presencies which are accidentes separable from the forsaid bodie relie vpon it as their subiect and presuppose it in being euerie moment wherein themselues be so farre they are from destroying it Neither of them is the
efficere siue ij Messaliani fuere siue Armeni siue Anabaptistae siue alio quocunque nomine cum ijs profitemur nihil habere commune saies your Master Chamiere citing the Hugonots Confession Li. 2. de Sacr c. 2 and though you haue not read so farre perchance in him you should haue knowne at least what your e. Sacraments ordained by Christ be not onlie badges or tokens of ChristiaÌ„ mens profession but rather they be certaine sure witnesses and effectuall signes of grace c. Art 25. owne article teach in this point You had examples in the efficacie of other words whether the instance be made in propositions or speaches which be not propositions it imports not Lazarus come foorth which was the Royall f. Cyrill Caten commaund of him whom all creatures obaie and they were efficacious too the words I saie were efficacious not the omnipotencie onlie which was principall but the words were efficacious in their kind Dixit factum est S. E. did little think it would be necessarie to put a Scholler in mind that according to the Philosopher Propositions some be practick factiuae so his interpreter turnes the word lib. de motu Animalium cap. 4 some speculatiue that Science is diuided by speculatiue and practicke and that Deuines do consider in God not onlie speculatiue knowledge but practick also Psal 32. Sap 7. Heb. 1. Verbo Dei Coeli firmatisunt Dixit facta sunt Omnium artifex sapientia Portans omnia verbo virtutis suae What kind of vertue those words haue whether Physicall or onlie Morall the Schoolmen may dispute without preiudice to the generall consent in matters defined or vniuersallie receaued Apologist That prettie kind of Sophistrie which perswades me to heere out the proposition operatiue before the conformitie betweene the subiect and the predicate can be graunted as supposing the period of it to finish the substantiall change besides that it is sâ—ender and boyish it is also impertinent because it plaies vpoÌ„ a string allreadie broken attributing that change which is to the pronunciation of this proposition which I haue allreadie refuted Censure Ex tripode pedanticallie as all the rest Can you iudge of the coÌ„formitie or difformitie betwixt the subiect and the predicate before you know what it is or do you know what I would saie before you heere me speake Mirth is a is this true or false Your conscience belike tels you what the predicate is to be S. E. cannot perswade you what can your owne Master do Longè consultius Scotus saies he Chamier l. 10. de Euch. c. 20. Conceptus qui causatur per orationem prolatam non habetur per eam nisi in vltimo instanti prolationis orationis Recte Certum est enim nunquam posse totum obtineri nisi ex omnibus simul partibus Quia autem oratio successiuè perficitur non possunt omnes eius partes simul haberi nisi in instanti eius postremo ideoque nec ipsa tota and I think you will not saie that you know the conformitie before you conceaue the proposition But it is impertinent why so because it plaies vpon a string allreadie broken attributing that change which is to the pronunciation of the proposition Were this the string still he might to keepe your metaphore plaie on for it holds as you perceaued in your last paragraff But you mistake the string which drawes a man to heare out the whole proposition before he knowes or graunts the truth of it or the conformitie betweene the subiect the predicate is the light of reason or abilitie to iudge which string if you haue allreadie broken you were best for your credit pleade that it was high set Nullum magnum ingenium siue mixtura dementiae Apologist Let S. E. flourish it as he will our Doctour iustlie laies tantalogie to his Lordships charge which blow his Champion seeking to ward laies himself and the weaknes of his cause to an easie censure Censure If identitie of the thing signified by the subiect and by the attribute of a proposition though the manner of signifying and conceauing be groundedlie or cum fundamento diuers suffice to note it of tautologie then is it tautolegie to saie pointing at Featlie this is a man a liuing creature a substance and the sence will be this is Featlie Featlie Featlie For there is ideÌ„titie of the thing signified by the subiect and the thing signified by those attributes man liuing creature substance all these being reallie identified to the subiect which is Featlie And if the speach be nugatorie and the same coÌ„ceit bread by the subiect by euerie one of these attributes the whole speach may be resolued by subordinating still the same word to the same conceit Ea quae in voce sunt earum quae in anima passionum notae Whether in such propositions the attributes be superiour predicamentall degrees or be differences or be metaphysicall properties it matters not so there be reall identitie betwixt the thing signified by the subiect and the thing signified by the attribute wherof S. E. gaue examples God is wise iust omnipotent eternall Omnipotens est aeternus aeternus est omnipotens Reade his discourse againe and obserue in him these words Confer p. 923 9. This must be graunted that identicall propositions all haue the vice of tautologie if the difference of formalities be not to be regarded in speach if the distinction of a double identicall proposition be now to be reiected Apologist simple simple simple simple simple simple Censure The truth is so simple verie simple and the professors of truth should be so simple The word is honorable among Christians though filled with bitternes as it comes out of the mouth of Heresie which it self euer doubling thinks there is a fault plaine dealing Wee tell our mind openlie wee do not lap our cause vp in folds as you sonnes of the old Serpent do telling vs your tenet in this point is incomprehensible and yet easie graunting and strait denying againe a reall presence and then though no man can tell certainlie what you saie wee must beleeue you and if wee do not wee be simple simple It is an old trace this he that shewd it you taught it others Si bona fide quaeras concreto vultu Tertull. suspenso supercilio Altum est aiunt Si subtiliter tentes per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant siscire te subostendas negant quic quid agnoscunt Si comminus certes tuam simplicitatem sua caede dispergunt Simplices notamur apud illos vt hoc tantum non etiam sapientes quasi statim deficere cogatur à simplicitate sapientia Domino vtramque iungente Esto prudentes vt serpentes simplices vt columbae Aut si nos propterea â—nsipientes quia simplices num ergo illi propterea non simplices quia sapientes Nocentissimi autem qui non simplices sicut stultissimi qui