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
father whom it represents is God the sonne God the Father is the second person the first or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father if not then this instance proues not your distinction which manitaines a figure to haue a veritie ioyned with it Censure 1. Tim. 1. Some the Apostle saies will needes be Doctors of the law though they neither vnderstand what they say nor of what thing the speake and among these Doctors M. Mirth you take a place violating with a prophane temeritie the sacred mysteries of Religion and vndertak to teach diuinitie to graduates in Diuinitie before you can speak sence in matter of Diuinitie For which reason this worthie specimen of your improficiencie therein which being the first in your book I haue transcribed deserues not a relation yet since you giue it for a lesson to better then my self and call for good attention with pray Sirs D. Smith E. S. take notice that I will ouer it once againe with as many pauses for the reuerence to such a Master as there be parts in it Waf. I grant since the Diuiné essence was incarnat that the sonne is essentiallie the same with the father The sonne essentiallie the same with the father how not absolutlie but say you since the Diuine essence was incarnate Before it seemes he was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall his generation was not eternall or if it were the essence which by this generatioÌ„ he receaued was not the same which God the Father hath but another for had he receaued the same as the Scriptures teach and the Catholik church beleeues he had beene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantiall before the incarnation which is more then your Mastership doth admit A bad lesson that is Master Mirth which can-be learned without forgetting of the Creed Waf. Who though quoad hypostasim in respect of his fillation he be a distinct person from the father yet quoad naturam according to his essence he is equallie sharer of the same God head is not an other but the same God Hetherto it hath beene beleued in the Church that the sonne of God receaued by his eternall generation the Diuinitie all the whole nature or essence together with all the essentiall attributes That there is in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coll. 2. â— all the fullnes of the Diuinitie and our Sauiour himself to his father Ioan. omnia tua mea sunt thy creatures are my creatures thy perfections my perfections thy substance my substance and thou thy self art my Father but now the case is changed in M. Mirths lesson the Diuinitie is diuided betwixt the Father and the sonne and each hath an equall portion of it the sonne is a sharer in the Godhead and equallie sharer with the Father What part he leaues the Holie Ghost I doe not find whether he the Holie Ghost hath an equall share with the Father and the sonne or none at all as not being incarnate for the Sonne got his share this Master thinks since the Diuine essence in him was incarnate since which time he is essentiâ—llie the same with the Father Waf. But I pray Sirs take notice that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are spoken of the Sonne as his Diuinitie manifested it self in his humanitie Why not rather if I may be so bold to speake to so great a Master of the Sonne as consubstantiall to the Father as the Auncients haue vnderstood it especiallie Ioan. 1. since it followes immediatlie that He caries or sustaines all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word of his power this he doth not as man but as God and as God also the world was made by him Hebrâ— 1. as you find immediatlie before and the like in S. Iohn per ipsum facta sunt omnia all things were made by him who was in the beginning before the Incarnation they were made by him by the word which was in God and was God by this intellectuall subsisting Word which doth expresly represent God the Father and is his liuelie image Imago Dei inuisibilis and his eternall Sonne the splendor of his glorie 2. Cor. 4 Coloss 1 Hebr 1 Sap. 7. Basil Hom 15 de fide Epiph. in Ancor Ambâ—l 2 Exam Greg. Nyss li de diff ess hyp the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his substance the spotles glasse wherein he beholdes his owne glorious maiestie CaÌ„dor lucis aeternae speculum sine macula Dei Maiestatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imago totum in se monstrans patâ—â—m the expresse image shewing the father all within himself by him I say by this Word mundus factus est reuolutions of ages the whole world was made not by him as appearing in flesh as man noâ— but by him as God Had you rather heare a Protestant speake then me His diuine nature hath no lesse then three to expresse it sonne brightnes and character and two to proue it the making and supporting all Agreeablie to these three we beleeue of him that he is consubstantiall as the sonne coeternall as the brightnes coequall as the character against the new heads of the old Hydrasprung vp againe in our daies Andr Serm. vpon this text Hebr. 1. you proceede Waf. So then as the Diuinitie of the sonne did manifest it self in the flesh he had the image of his fathers person engrauen in him so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Be it that it signifies to engraue an image this grauing is not proper neither the Diuine not the humane nature is carued or graued properlie but metaphoricall signifying the expressing of an Image And what ChristiaÌ„ Diuine doubts but that the sonne of God being Verbum aeternae mentis is and from all eternitie an expresse image of his Father infinitelie more expresse more liuelie more cleare then the nature or soule or vnderstanding or arte of man as shewing the whole Diuinitie within it and comprehensiuelie representing God the Father Will you denie this Master Mirth will you denie that the Sonne of God did still represent his Father and that he is his eternal Image if you do you blaspheme and if your words as they are by you intended in way of answer be wel considered you do But we must on to your Conclusion which is Waf. Tell me then is this Image the same with the father whom it represents is God the sonne God the father is the second person the first or is the Diuinitie of the sonne as manifested in his flesh the person of the Father Birckbeck Featlies companion obiecteth that the signe and the thing signified cannot be the same in that verie respect and point wherein they are opposite If he meanes by that his manner of speach in that verie respect and point that the relations be distinct or not the same there is no question of it one relation is not the other If he meanes that the same thing in
substance cannot in regard of diuers accidentall formes be denominated by them both he begs and cannot proue it By his example in the Trinitie the sonne is not the Father it seemes he meanes the former Paternitie and filiation be opposite relations which cannot one be affirmed vpon the other either in abstracto paternitas est filiatioâ— or in conâ—reto pater est filius yet the minister beleeues I suppose that both are in God where they be subsistent And though the Father be not the sonne yet the Father is with and in the SoÌ„ne this he beleeues too and this is enough to iustifie the distâ—nction which I am defending Those who call the Eucharist a signe do saie also â—hat it is the bodie Ex duabus rebus constat Eucharistia terrena coelesti the bodie and the species But none euer said that to be the bodie was to be the signe or that it was the bodie and the signe secundum idem And since it includes both within it's notion it is easilie vnderstood how both secundum diuersa may be verified That which is inuisiblie within the bodie is signified it hath the one relation that which is without exposed to our eies the species Sacramentum tantum doth signifie it hath the other relation attributed to it these things be distinct and the relations being opposite be in their kind distinct also Some too say that it is the signe of our Sauiours bodie as visible in it self vpon the Crosse because the species do represent that also or bring it into the memorie of beleeuers as hereafter you will heare when wee come to the place which is vrged out of Gratian. Heere in this place it is sufficient to note that it followes not The Sacrament is by some called a signe or figure Ergo they did not beleeue the bodie is within it within it I say this doth not follow wherefore that part of the distinction wherein it was said some figure may haue the veritie within it may stand if not then this instance proues not your distinction which maintaines a figure to haue a veritie ioyned with it Cens That the soÌ„ne is not the Father or the second person the first a child but seuen yeeres old could tell and yet that instance of the eternall sonne being the figure of his fathers substance doth illustrate what was saide in the explication of the distinction namely that a figure may haue the veritie ioyned with it God the Father being inseparablie with his sonne whom the Apostle calls the figure of his substance and in him too if we beleeue the sonne himself the Father is in me and I in the Father Ioh. 10. v. 38. and afterwards againe twice in one chapter giuing motiues also to persuade men to beleeue it And if the sonne hath the Fathers essence in him how can the Father be separated from the Sonne can he leaue his essence and be gonne Againe as the Father hath immensitie so also hath the Sonne how then can the Father be any where and the Sonne not there also or the Sonne anie where without the Father with him He is verbum mentis an intellectuall word and therefore immanent abiding in the conceauer and so present with him Vnigenitus in sinu Patris No violence can separate or diuorce them hauing both but one nature one existence and that vncapable of diuision as being in it self a pure act It may be further added that were the words of the Apostle vnderstood of the sonne of God as man and only so my Lords instance would still be good for God the Father is neuer separated froÌ„ the Sonne wherfore God the SoÌ„ne being within that humanitie God the Father was not absent The fullnes of the Diuinitie did doth inhabâ—te and dwell in him corporallie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture saies and Col. 2. 2 Cor. 2 Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi Do you not beleeue that the Father is in me Io. 10. Now Sir to returne to the wordes againe if the place of S. Paul doth not make good what was told your Doctor vzt that some figure had the veritie ioyned with it it is either because the sonne of God is no◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the figure of his Fathers substance and this you will not say because S. Paul affirmes it or because that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Father is not with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in effect you doe saie and therein denie the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reuealed in Scripture which is a foule errour in Diuinitie It is pittie that vnlearned men be permitted to vent in writing such stuffe fit for nothing but to breede Apostasie and vndoe the simple reader Nauim si poscat sibi perornatus arator Luciferi rudis exclamét Melicerta perisse Frontem de rebus If he who knowes no starrs should come from plow And in his start-ups moderate the sterne The Sea-god might exclaime shame 's no where now When dunces needs will do before they learne Apologist So then this similie makes nothing against vs since it onlie illustrats such a figure as to which the thing signified is present Censure If it doth that it doth all for which is was brought But see your giddines you scarce haue breathed since you said this instance proues not your distinction which maintaines a figure to haue the veritie ioyned with it Apologist The king in triumph may be the same king which ouercame in the warre but he in this solemnitie represents some past actions and postures of his behauiour in the conquest not himself that triumph is the figure of the kings victorie not his person Censure One instance was enough to make the distinction vnderstood and after much adoe you haue in fine granted as much vzt that the former instance doth illustrate such a figure as to which the thing figured is present wherefore I neede not proceede vnto the second wherein it was said that the King shewing in triumph how he did behaue himself in the warre Rclat pag 15. VVaf pag. 24. is in this latter action a figure of himself as in the former and the lesse neede there is because instantlie you accord saie T' is true If it be true then it may stand to shew that the substance of the thing signified or represeÌ„ted may be in the signe or figure for the king in the warres and the king in the triumph is the same King the same bodie the same substance Whether he be in this posture or in that whether he fight or floorish whether he be in this motioÌ„ or in that other he is one and the same maÌ„ the actions are distinct but not the person Moreouer as the King triumphing is the signe he figure the thing represeÌ„ting so is the King victorióus subduing his enemies the thiÌ„g signified called to mind represeÌ„ted By the glorious shew at home he would represent bring to mind his Royall
Catholike Relator did beginne and therin he did your Doctor more honor in the estimation of such as might be able to distinguish a graue Scholler from a trifling Punie then if he had wire-drawne his discourse into more parts importing but the same and for the leading Enthimeme traced in this with a Coxcomb in his forhead Positio quam defendis falsa est Ergo falleris But if I mistake not your pulse another thing it is that grieues you which you doe not complaine of Your Doctors argument was presentlie cut of with a distinction in so much that he was faine to take another and from Scripture which onlie you thinke able to warrant a tenet in matter of faith to passe to the Fathers whom notwithstanding you do not hold to be infallible in their Iudgment as he was told at the same time For auoiding of which disgrace in changing so soone and so oft his Medium he hath premised a syllogisme with all kind of medium's in it that so changing neuer so oft he might be said neuer to change As if I should argue thus That doctrine which hath 1 no foundation in the word of God and is 2 repugnant to the doctrine of the true auncieÌ„t Church 3 ouerthroweth the principles of right reason implying 4 palpable absurdities and apparent 5 contradictions is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall This is Featlies Maior I subsume But Caluins doctrine of the Eucharist is such Quamuis incredibile sit in tanta locorum distantia carnem Christi ad nos penetrare vt sit nobis in cibum tamen meminisse debemus quantum arcana Spiritus Sancti supra captum nostrum emineant debet fides concipere quod mens non comprehendit Though it be incredible that the flesh of Christ should penetrate vnto vs in so great a locall distance to be our meate yet wee must call to minde how much the secrets of the holy Ghost are aboue our capacitie and faith must conceaue what the vnderstanding is not able to comprehend Caluinus lib. 4. Institut cap. 17. Ergo Caluins doctrine of the Eucharist is to be reiected as erroneous and haereticall Let me call this my maine argument and I will leap from place to place all the Topicks ouer without changing my Medium iust as your Champion doth Now touching this Argument you will thinke that by denying the Minor you do satisfie for the present till further proose be made why then should not our Defendents deny all be satisfaction enough for yours in that which M. Featly barely had affirmed and for the rest which was one parte onlie the first which he did vndertake to prosecute an Answer met his proofe and dispatcht it Which made you step out into the list to do you knew not for feare what or against whom At last it was resolued vnder your Cap that you would answer the distinction but because it were to much for Hercules himself to deale with two at once you would first of all challeng S.E. for smothering the maine Argument Wherunto his Answer I know would be this that it was fullie satisfied and dispatched there being nothing obiected which was not directlie answered either by denyall if it were barely affirmed euen according to the relation of your owne Doctor or by distinction of a terme in the proofe of that which was vndertaken as in his Notes you find more at large Apologist Doctor Smith would father a false opinion vpon vs that we hold there is a meere figure in the words This is my body whereas wee most plainly affirme that the Sacramentall elementes are not meere emptie signes of the body and blood of Christ but a true and liuely figure of them Censure First you challeng and next you giue the lie wherein you shew your self more cholerick then mindfull Are not you the man who maintaine that a proposition cannot be mixt partlie proper and partlie figuratiue The distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speach is nothing but a meere fiction saith your Oracle in his Relation pag. 293. and pag. 294. how saith he caÌ„ the same speach be figuratiue proper that is proper improper a little after what is this to proue that a speach which may not be properly taken such is euerie figuratiue may be properlie taken and so figurata and propria both And you Master Waferer to the same tune pag. 17. Since a proper speach is when wordes are taken in their genuine sense and a figuratiue when they are translated or taken from their genuine sense to be taken in their natiue sense and not in there natiue sense besides that it is a meere fiction is a plaine contradiction And pag. 36. That there can not be a proper and figuratiue sense both in one and the same proposition I haue already proued So you vitula tu dîgnus Whence it followes that the proposition which wee speak of This is my body is according to you meerelie figuratiue for figuratiue you say it is and all figuratiue speaches are you say meerely figuratiue the case then staÌ„ding so the thing that fawnes on your learned Mastership may put forth the toÌ„gue quantùm sitiat canis Apula taÌ„tùm to lick vp againe this Doctor Smith would Father a false opinion vpon vs that we hold there is in the wordes This is my bâ—die a meere figure Whilst the standers by take notice that you confesse with all Fallitur qui plus aliquid sibi per SacrameÌ„ta conferri putaâ— quaÌ„ quod verbo Dci obla tum vera fide percipiat Caluin 4 Instit c. 14. §. 14 Nihil absurdius est quam Sacramenta â—fferri supra verbum cuius appendices sunt sigilla Idem in Consensu de re Sacram. pag. 755. Vocatur panis sacrae Coenae corpus Christi non quia sit sed quia testatur nobis vere darâ— inâ—cibum Idem in Matt. c. 3. Et in c. 19. Eucharistiam vocat frustulum panis Similiter frustum crustulum placentam laganum vocant VVittakerus Beza Petrus Martyr the opinion which your oracle and your self maintaine to be falâ—â— for for much is imported by those words D.S. would impose a false opinion vpon vs what opinion that we hold there is in the words a meere figurâ— this opinion you say is false and for to maintaine this false opinio you are come abroade a polemick in print Antyciraâ— some will say and vnhappilie enough melior sorbere meracas In the other part of your wordes by me cited in this § wherein you would seeme to put downe your owne tenet for which your Doctor disputed you shew your self ignorant in the cause The controuersie was not about the spirituall effectes which do follow vpon the receauing of this blessed Sacrament but about the thing receaued into the mouth Whether this thing were indeed our Sauiours bodie according to the veritie and substance as his wordes in proprietie of speech import This in forme of
a word shall be in speach a signe of it Apologist Looking on a man saith S. E. we conceaue in our minde his figure colour c you had neede put in c. representing all in one image we subordinate as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word man Now I perceaue you dreame that the sensible obiectes come into the vnderstāding which makes you tell vs of an extended coloured thing Censure If S. E. can dreame so well it seemes that his dreames are better then your watchings and that he can discourse of Philosophie in his sleepe better then you can do whē you prepare your papers for the print That which first of all moues our vnderstanding whilst it is heere in our bodie is a sensible thing sending into it a species in manner aboue specified Were all such remoued out of the world and that a man by no sence at all euer perceaued any thing his tabula picturae aptata that he brought with him into the world would be in the end as naked as it was in the beginning of his life When he hath once gotten the species of some things he can finde out some others as by the effect he finds a cause by Creatures God Rom. 1. Inuisibi ia ipsius D i a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta a cōspiciuntur sempiterna quoque eius virtus diuinitas but first his vnderstanding must be moued by something that offers it self vnto the sence whose nature it abstractes from the materiall or indiuiduall conditions and so directlie conceaues it S. Thom. 1. p. q. 84. a. 6. being able also by reflection at least to cōceaue singulars which the sence perceaues directlie The parcell which you cite out of S. E. is so maimed that it hath lost all sence but I will presentlie restore it Apologist Heare what your owne wordes say this word man signifies a man is a thing not in his pure essence and quidditie as they speake in schooles but an extended coloured figured thing c. Is not this a prittie brat of your owne conception and laid at the Schooles like a bastard to see who will father it either blush your self or giue me leaue to laugh I thought before that all that this name homo doth import were animal rationale sure I am the definition doth answer perfectlie to the definitum is exactlie true without respect had to colour or figure Censure The whirlewind in your braines hath so confounded the species of things that all is now troubled which comes from you whether you relate or dispute wherefore I must looke vpon S. E. his booke thence transcribe his wordes which you cauill at Next vnto those by me before cited he said thus Looking on a man we cōceaue in our mind his figure 〈…〉 51. colour c. representing all in one Image to which Image we subordinate as a signe of it and of it's obiect also this word a man Where he saith you see that this word man is imposed to signifie that sensible thing whose Image we had conceaued in our mind and to such things men vse to giue names Aske your neighbour what a calf or ā oxe or a bull signifies and he will tell you of a sensible figured thing the same substance may be successiuelie all excepte there be oxen with you that neuer were calues and aske a scholler he will still tell you there is difference betwixt an oxe and a calf they be not synonyma you are not a child you think yet are a man what is become of your other substance that indiuiduall substance which longe agoe you had or is it still the same But either S. E. must blush or he must giue you leaue to laugh What needs the disiunctiue M. Waferer he may blush and you laugh too neither neede you his leaue to laugh where and when you will Though much laughing in others be no good cognizance it agrees with you so well that it were inciuilitie to denie you the vse of it your priuiledge and naturall propertie for you are Mirth And he may blush and so may Alban-Hall and Oxford and your Mother all may blush and haue cause to blush in you the first in an aduersarie the second in a pupill the third in a graduate and the fourth in a sonne But whilst you laugh do not distracte me too for I am studying hard and seriouslie vpon a Question which your discouse hath occasioned in my mind and my poore inuention hath searched all the species and formes in her litle closet to find a solution for it and none will serue vnlesse peraduenture one which she hath put aside I can not well propose it in common but I will softlie tell it you Sir this it is Whether your mother were a man S. E. Doctor was not deceaued Forma dat nomē esse the reason of doubt which occurres out of your discourse and not to doe her any wrong I haue indeede no other reason to moue such a doubt though sometimes her sonne doth argue without reason is because if the definition of a man all that the word or name doth signifie do agree to her the name also doth and may be verified on her now the definition of a man Animal rationale which you would haue your Reader to beleeue is all that the word signifies doth agree to her for I suppose your mother was some reasonable creature whence it followes vnles you will diuorce the definition and definitum that the name which doth signifie that definition and that onlie if you saie true without respecte had to colour or figure or any other accidens doth agree to your mother VVaf. pag. 41. and consequentlie this is true that your mother is a man A man I say that is the word in Question that was the word of S. E. in his example and if it be graunted once that it signifies more then the substance or quidditie more then animal rationale as it must do if it signifies not your mother aswell as you then his discourse is currant and your exception both vnlearned and impertinent he did not instance in the latine word homo he meant to giue the Readers who do not all vnderstand latine an example of that he had said in our owne language which hath names also you might haue knowne too that some latine wordes signifie more then some other English or latin do that be taken some times for the same homo signifies more then vir May it please your learned Mastership to consider with your self how this argument may be satisfied but let none els know The forme I laide aside was the species of an hermaphrodite I suppose you will make no further speach of it Lapidi dictum puto Apologist You S. E. adde that without colour and quantitie the name is not perfectlie answerable to the intellectuall image as if the vnderstanding did conceaue man as coloured