The triple cord or a treatise proving the truth of the Roman religion, by sacred scriptures taken in the literall sense expounded by ancient fathers. interpreted by Protestant writers. With a discouery of sundry subtile sleights vsed by Protestants, for euading the force of strongest arguments, taken from cleerest texts of the foresaid scriptures.

Whether in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, vn∣der the formes of Bread and wine, there be truly, and really, and not only in signe, figure, or representation, contayned the very Body and Bloud of Christ our Sa∣uiour, which was borne of the B. Virgin Mary, and af∣terwards crucifyed. SECT. I.

Catholike Doctrine.

WHEREAS Protestants pretend to belieue two Sacraments, Baptisme & the Lords Supper; in the precedent Chapter I haue shewed how little es∣teeme they haue of Baptisme, as thin∣king it not necessary to remission of sinnes or saluation, and that it may be omitted, or taken away: I intend in this to shew thei•• lyke, and farre greater contempt of the most diuine and heauenly Sacrament of the Eucharist, making it in substance to be no∣thing

else but bread and wine, and only in figure, signe, and representation the Body and Bloud of Christ. But in Condemnation of this Heresy, the Catholike Church(1) teacheth, and doth openly and simply professe, that in the sacred holy Sa∣crament of the Eucharist, after the Consecration of Bread and wyne, Our Lord Iesus-Christ, true God and Man, is truly, really, and sub∣stantially vnder the forme of these sensile things contayned: for neyther are these things repugnant amongst thēselues, that our Sauiour himselfe may alwayes sit at the right hand of his Father in heauen, according to the naturall manner of being, and that notwithstanding, his substance may be present with vs, in many other places Sacramentally, in that manner of being, which although we can scarcely expresse with wordes, yet by our thoughts illuminated by fayth, we may apprehend it possible to God, and constantly we ought to belieue it: for so all our Elders, so many as were in the true Church of Christ, who haue dispu∣ted of this holy Sacrament, haue most openly professed, that our Redee∣mer hath instituted this most admirable Sacrament in his last Sup∣per, when after the Benediction of Bread and Wyne, he witnessed in euident and plaine wordes, that he did giue them his owne very Body and Bloud: which wordes rehearsed by the holy Euangelistes, and af∣terwardes repeated by S. Paul, seeing they beare that proper and most plaine signification, according to which they were vnderstood of the Fa∣thers, it is verily a most haynous wickednes, that those words should be wrested by certaine contentious and naughty men, to faigned and Ima∣ginary tropes, wherby the truth of the flesh and Bloud of Christ is de∣nied, against the vniuersall sense of the Church, which as a Pillar and foundation of truth, hath detested these false fictions, as Sathanicall, deuised by wicked men, acknowledging euer with a gratefull and myndfull hart, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

And therefore,(2) If any shall deny, that the Body and the Bloud, togeather with the soule and Diuinity of our Lord Iesus Christ, and therfore whole Christ, to be really and substantially contayned in the Sacrament of the most holy Euchariste, but shall say, that he is only in it, as in a signe, or figure, or virtually, Anathema.(3) And, If any shall affirme in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substan∣ce of bread and wine to remayne togeather with the Body and Bloud of our Lord Iesus-Christ: and shall deny that admirable and singular Conuersion of the whole substance of Bread into the Body, and whole

substance of wine into the Bloud, the formes of Bread and wine onely remayning, which conuersion the Catholike Church doth most fitly call Transubstantiation, Anathema.(4) If any shall affirme, that Conse∣cration being made, there is not the Body and Bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist, but onely in the vse, whilest it is receyued, but not before or after: And that in the Hostes or particles consecrated, which are reserued, or remayne after Communion, not to remayne the true Body of our Lord, Anathema. And,(5) If any shall affirme, that in the holy Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, Christ the only begotten sonne of God, is not to be adored with the worship of Latria (or diuine) euen externall &c. Anathema(6) Or that Christ exhibited in the Eucharist, is only eaten spiritually, & not also Sacramentally and really, let him be accursed.(7) If any shal deny, that all and euery Christian of eyther sexe, when they shall come to the yeares of Discretion, to be bound yearely, at least at Easter to cōmunicate, according to the Precept of our holy Mother the Church, A∣nathema.(8) And if any shall say. Only fayth to be preparation suffi∣cient to receiue the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, Anathema. And least so great a Sacrament should be receiued vnworthily, and so to death, and condemnation, the holy Synod doth ordayne and declare, that Sacramentall Confession is necessary to be first vsed by them if they haue meanes of a Ghostly Father, whome the Conscience of Mortall sinnes doth burden, although they thinke themselues neuer so contrite. So cleerly and particularly is our Catholike Doctrine decla∣red, and Decreed by this sacred Synod.

In the first and most famous Councell of Nice, it is thus determined,(9) Let vs not be a litle attent to the Bread & Cup pro∣posed on the diuine Table, but eleuating our mindes by faith, let vs vnderstand that Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world, to be placed vpon that sacred Table, to be sacrificed by Priestes vnbloudily, and that we receyuing his precious Body and Bloud, to be∣lieue these to be the signes of our Resurrection. This Canon is ack∣nowledged for true, by the Prot. writers,(10) Grinaeus, Oecolampadius, & D. Bilson.

In the second Councell of Nice, it is sayd(11) of Christ our Sauiour, that hauing taken Bread giuing thankes, he brake, and gaue to his Disciples, and said, Take yee, and eat yee. This is my body &c. And he said not, take yee, and eare yee the image of my

Body &c. Our Lord, or his Apostles, or Fathers, haue in no place called an Image (or figure) the vnbloudy Sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest, but the very Body it selfe, and the Bloud it selfe &c. Before they are sanctifyed they are called types, but after Sanctification, they are called, are, and belieued, properly the Body and Bloud of Christ.

In the Councell of Laterane it is defined that,(12) There is one vniuersall Church of the faythfull, out of which none at all is sa∣ued: In which Christ Iesus is both the Priest, and the Sacrifice, whose Body and Bloud in the Sacrament of the Aultar, are truly contayned vnder the formes of Bread and wine; the Bread by diuine power tran∣substantiated into the Body, and the wine into the Bloud, that for the perfecting the Mystery of Vnity, we might receiue of his, what he hath receyued of ours. No man can make this Sacrament, but a Priest, who is duly ordered according to the keyes of the Church, which Christ Iesus granted to the Apostles, and to their Successours. And the like is taught by the other General Councels of(13) Constance, and(14) Florence.

Answerably to these holy Councells, all(15) Catholi∣kes now belieue, that in this blessed Sacrament, the Body and Bloud of Christ are not only figuratiuely, spiritually, or by fayth, but truly and really, the Substance of Bread & wine being wholly changed or transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of our Lord, which he tooke from the euer B. Virgin Mary, and which was afterwards offered vpon the Crosse.

Pointes Disputable.

All teaching, that the Accidents of Bread and Wine re∣mayne without subiect: yet concerning the manner,(16) Some thinke, that nothing of new is added vnto them, but that God only doth preserue them without subiect.(17) O∣thers, that God giueth them a certayne substantiall manner of being, by vertue whereof they subsist by themselues.

Some(18) thinke, that the forme consisteth in all those wordes (enim excepted) which according to the rite of the Latin Church, are pronounced at Consecration. But(19) others more truly teach, that the wordes Noui, and Eterni, and

the rest that follow, are not of the Essence of the forme.

Some(20) teach that, Transubstantiation is made by Production; Others by adduction; Others by Conserua∣tion: but none of these are determined by any Councell.

Protestant Vntruthes.

Luther(21) affirmeth, that S. Thomas was Authour of that opinion which all Catholikes teach, to wit, that in the Sacrament of the Aultar, there is not the substance of Bread and Wine, but only accidents. But to omit more Ancient testimonies, this Doctrine was defyned in the Councell of(22) Lateran, before S. Thomas was borne.

Caluin(23) teacheth, that Pope Alexander was the first that vsed vnleauened bread: but is cleere that(24) Christ vsed it before vpon the first day of the Azimes.

Luther(25) and others auouch, that Transubstantiation was first inuented by the Councell of Laterane. But to o∣mit all other proofes; the Centuristes affirme, that S. Chry∣sostome(26) seemeth to teach Transubstantiation: and that, Euse∣bius Emissenus(27) did speake vnprofitably of Transubstantiation: & that S. Ambrose(28) did not write well of Transubstantiation. Vr∣sinus confesseth, that,(29) In Cyprian are many sayings which seeme to affirme Transubstantiation. And Adamus Francisci, will not deny, but that(30) Transubstantiation entred early into the Church.

Peter Martyr and Chemnitius report, that the Greci∣ans do reiect Transubstantiation: but this is proued cleerely false, by the(31) Censure of the Grecians, giuen vpon the Confession of Augusta.

Chemnitius accuseth Andradius to teach, that Transub∣stantiation is one of those points which cannot be proued from Scriptures: but he corrupteth him, his words are these:(32) Although Transubstantiation could not be proued by manifest Scriptures, as you thinke &c. But Chemnitius to serue his own purpose, can easily change a Conditionall speach into an absolute.

Protestant Doctrine.

The English Prot. Church decreeth, that,(33) Tran∣substantiation, or the change of the substance of Bread and wine in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proued by holy writ: but it is repugnant to the plaine words of Scripture, ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacra∣ment, & hath giuen occasion to many Superstitions. The body of Christ is giuen, taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heauenly and spi∣rituall manner. And the meane whereby the Body of Christ is receaued and eaten in the supper, is fayth. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was not by Christs ordinance reserued, carryed about, lifted vp, or worshipped.

Zwinglius teacheth that,(34) Bread is only a figure where∣by that Body is signifyed, whereof we ought to be myndfull.(35) The drinke was indeed nothing else then wyne. Cartwright,(36) The Eu∣charist is only a signe. Perkins(37) Bread is called the body, when as it is only a signe, or seale of the Body.

All know that Luther and his followers do belieue the Reall Presence, but their Error was, that with the Body and the Bloud, there was also Bread and Wine in the Sacra∣ment.

Caluin condemneth in this both Luther and Zwin∣glius, and inuenteth another way of his owne, which I shall examine and confute, in the next Section at large.

Protestants agree with Ancient Hereticks.

The first Heretickes (as S. Austin(38) termeth them) that impugned the Reall Presence, were the Capharnaites, saying,(39) How can this man giue vs his flesh to eate? But they were re∣proued by Christ himselfe in these wordes(40) Amen, Amen I say vnto you, vnles you eate the flesh &c. And wheras not only the Capharnaites, but some of Christ his Disciples doubted al∣so herof, as appeareth by these wordes,(42) Many therfore of his Disciples bearing it said, This saying is hard, and who can heare it? These also are reprehended by Christ(43) for murmuring and Incredulity. Now, that Iudas was one of these Disci∣ples

who did not beliue the Reall Presence, S. Chrisostome(45) gathereth out of these words:(46) But there be certaine of you that belieue not: for Iesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not belieue, and who he was that would betray him: and S. Austin affirmeth,(47) Iudas to haue stayed then with Christ, not to vnderstand and belieue, but to deceiue. Yea S. Austine(48) affirmeth Iudas to haue bene the chiefest suborner and man∣tainer of this heresy, and that this was the first Heresy against Christes doctrine: and he commendeth Peter for his hum∣ble obedience, infirmely belieuing Christes wordes to be true, which he did not yet vnderstand. So that as the Iewes vsed Iudas for their Captaine & chiefe helper in the betray∣ing and apprehending of Christ; so the Sacramentaries vse the same Iudas, as their ringleader and Maister for their ta∣king Christ from the Sacrament, and Aultar. And as Iudas was tempted by the Deuill to betray Christ, for(49) Satan entred into Iudas &c. so also by the Deuill was he made a Sacramentary: for as I haue shewed before, that he was one of those Disciples that did not belieue the Reall Presence, for which he was reproued by Christ, so presently after this Christ sayth of him(50) Haue not I chosen you the 12. and of you one is a Deuill? So that the first Impugner of the Reall Pre∣sence, was the Deuil, after him the Capharnaits & Iudas, frō whom our moderne Prot. are lineally descended: and so I may say of them,(51) You are of your Father the Deuill, and the desires of your Father you will do.

But this their Pedigree is so certaine, that Luther(52) auoucheth Martin Bucer to haue bene taught by a Malig∣nant Spirit to deny the Body and Bloud of Christ to be tru∣ly and really in the Eucharist. Zwinglius confesseth of him∣selfe, that he had,(53) An admonisher black or white, he remem∣breth not; who taught him by Scriptures to make the Eucha∣rist only a figure: but Schlusselburg determineth, that it(54) was the blacke spirit of darknes, from whom the Zwinglians tooke this their Sacramentary opinion. And diuers(55) authors do record of Berengarius, that he being in the Chamber of Bishop Ful∣bertus, formerly his Maister, who was at the point of death,

the Bishop commanded, that he should be cast out of the chamber, because he saw the Deuill vpon his shoulder, bec∣koning with his hand to others to follow him, and therby foresaw(56) that by the Instigation of the Deuill, he would proue a great deprauer of Catholicke doctrine, S. Cyrill(57) of Alexandria gathereth from S. Paul, (38) that some of the Corinthians did not belieue this mystery: for the Apostle against this their Error, with great vehemency of wordes re∣peateth the Institution of Christ: You meeting (sayth he) to∣geather, I heare there are diuisions amongst you, and in part I belieue, for there must be Heresies &c. for seeing (sayth S. Cyrill) some of them did not know the Tradition and force of the Mistery,(58) they made in the Churches, dainty bankets, and pleasing suppers. So that, they had not the Celebration of that mistery, for a thing so sacred as the Body and Bloud of Christ, but almost for a vulgar, or peraduenture mysticall supper, in regard of some signifi∣cation: which Error, with some other Abuses that the Apo∣stle might confute, he repeateth the Institution euen as he had receyued it from our Lord &c. And he inferreth, that they did receiue vnworthily, because they did not discerne the Body of our Lord, as not being so in their opinion. S. Austine writing of this point, affirmeth, that(59) The Apostle sayth, therfore they recei∣ued vnworthily, who did not discerne this from other meate: (venera∣tione singulariter debita) with honour singularly due: for forthwith when he had said, He eateth and drinketh Iudgment to himselfe, he annexed, that he might say, not discerning the Body of our Lord: which sufficiently appeareth in all that place of the first Epistle to the Corin∣thians, if it be diligently marked. Here S. Austine insinuateth (as also S. Cyrill did obserue) that to this belongeth that which the Apostle said in the precedent Chapter; The Bread which we breake is it not the Communication of the Body of Christ? and the Cup of Benediction which we blesse, is it not the Communication of the Bloud of Christ? as though some there were amongst the Corinthians which did deny this, although there were o∣thers that did belieue it.

And though some vnderstand this place not of heresy, or Error in Doctrine, but of Error in Manners, in that some of the Corinthians did bancket in the Church, and did not

admit the poore to the holy Communion: yet in that it is said heerof that, There must be Heresies, which sundry Ancien••(60) Fathers do expound of heresies in Doctrine, I do not see but it must be vnderstood both of heresies in doctrine, & abuses in Manners. The Sacramentaries then haue for their Ancient Patrones, certaine of the Corinthians, but they haue also S. Paul reprouing and condemning them.

The Saturnians did not belieue the Diuine Word to haue taken vnto him mans body, but only a certaine figure or Image therof; wherupon they thought consequently, that in the Eucharist there was only a figure of a mans body; S. Ignatius sayth of them,(61) They do not admit Eucharistes and Oblations, because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sinnes. These words are acknowledged and cyted for the words of Saint Ignatius, by(62) Chemnitius, Hamelmanus, Simon Pau∣li, and other Protestants.

To omit many others, for the same Errour was con∣demned Berengarius by the Councell of Vercelles, vnder Leo the nynth. And after by the Councell of Tours, vnder Victor the secōd: where being present, he promised by Oath neuer to defend that Heresy agayne. But afterwards falling into a relapse, a generall Councell was assembled at Rome, by Nicolas the second, in which he was agayne(63) con∣demned, and himselfe, in the presence of the Pope and the whole Councell, burned his owne Bookes, and renewed his Oath, and(64) forme of faith which he had formerly made. But for all this he relapsed agayne, and thereupon was cal∣led to a(65) Councell assembled at Rome vnder Gregory the 7. where he was agayne condemned: and there, it is said, he seriously repented, & afterwards dyed well and piously.

The Antropomorphites denyed the Eucharists reseruation, but they were condemned by S.(66) Cyrill, as is also con∣fessed and disliked by Pet.(67) Martyr and other Protestāts. From these condemned Heretickes our Moderne Sectaries haue learned to deny the Reall Presence of Christes Body and Bloud in the Blessed Sacrament of the Aultar.

Protestants Errours.

Beza broacheth this strange Doctrine,(68) Where bread or wine are eyther not vsed, or not great plenty thereof at som∣tymes, must no supper of the Lord be celebated? Yea it wilbe duly cel••brated, if that which eyther by common vse, or, by reason of the tyme, supplyeth the place of Bread and Wine, be vsed insteed of Bread and wine. So that a Pye-crust, and a bowle of Beere or milke, wilbe matter sufficient for a Protestant Commu∣nion. And in further proofe of this his Errour, he produceth(69) at large the same Doctrine of Caluin, and other Prote∣stants.

Luther speaking of the Preparation to be made before receyuing, sayth,(70) The best disposition is none but that where∣with thou art worst disposed: and on the contrary, then thou art worst disposed, when thou art best disposed. And heerupon he persua∣deth not to repent before Communion, but after. And(71) thinketh that man most fit for Communion, who is fallen into fowlest crimes. I will ((72) saith he) speake rashly and free∣ly, There are not any neerer to God in this lyfe, nor more gratefull & louing sonnes, then these haters and blasphemers of God. Yea he iud∣geth that(73) only those may receyue worthily, who haue sor∣rowfull, afflicted, troubled, confounded, and erroneous Consciences. And in the same place he contradicteth himselfe, for he af∣firmeth that, only sayth is the peace of Conscience, only Infidelity the trouble of Conscience. And yet he exhorteth Christians to come to receiue with vndoubted fayth. But if they only receyue worthily who haue troubled Consciences, & only Infide∣lity is the trouble of the Conscience, then they only receaue worthily who want fayth, for those that haue fayth, haue peace, not trouble of Conscience, and therefore according to him, it is vnlawfull to exhort Communicants to come with fayth. He(74) further teacheth, that none ought to be admitted to Communion, but those who acknowledge they come, because they are troubled with the Conscience of mortall sinne, whereby he excommunicateth the B. Vir∣gin, and all the Apostles after their receiuing of the holy

Ghost, for doubtles they could not say, that they were trou∣bled with the Conscience of mortall sinne.

Concerning Gods Omnipotency, a Protestant writeth thus,(75) Caluin in sundry places sharply refuteth the fiction of Gods absolute power, which the Sophisters do publish in their Schooles. And yet others of his Brethten teach, that so potent is Fayth, that(76) it can make things future, absent, and most remote, to be pre∣sent. Whereupon Andreas inferreth very well, that,(77) they attribute more power to fayth, then to Christ.

Some Prot. thinke the reall Presence to be impossible: for Beza writeth, that, God(78) cannot make that the Body of Christ at one, and the same tyme essentially be present in many places. Sadeel sayth,(79) We haue shewed, that the Body of Christ cannot indeed be present in many places at the same tyme, and that the Om∣nipotency of God cānot do this. The like is taught by sundry Prot.(80) concerning Christ his Body penetrating the doores, the stone of the Sepulcher &c. and his body not occupying place.

Zwinglius professeth his damnable Infidelity concer∣ning the B. Sacrament, in these words:(81) Although God with all his Blessed Angells should descend from heauen, and should sweare, in the supper of the Lord the Body and Bloud of Christ to be giuen to all that receiue it; yet I neyther could, nor would belieue it, vnles with my eyes and hands I should see and feele Christ present. So that according to this accursed Hereticke, we must in this Sacred Mystery, rather belieue our eyes, and hands (being but fallible senses) then the Oathes of God, and all his blessed Angels, being of Infallible verity: what argument then can be expected to be so powerfull, as to withdraw an hereticke from his obstinate blindnes?

Notes

• (1)

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 2.
• (2)

  Can. 1.
• (3)

  Can. 2.
• (4)

  Can. 4.
• (5)

  Can. 6.
• (6)

  Can. 8.
• (7)

  Can. 9.
• (8)

  Can. 11.
• (9)

  Conc. Nicen. 1. l. 3. Decret. de di∣uina Mensa.
• (10)

  Apud Iac. An∣draeam. in Confut. Disp. Grinaei. de coena Do∣mini. p. 88. Oecolamp. l. Epist. Oecol. & Zwingl. p. 663. 667. Bils. true dif∣fer. part. 4. pag. 553.
• (11)

  Act. 6. Tom. 3. eius∣dem fine.
• (12)

  Conc. Lateran. 4. Oecum. sub. Innoc. 3. Cap. 1.
• (13)

  Sess. 13.
• (14)

  Decret. Eugen. P P.
• (15)

  Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 2. &c. & l. 3. c. 18. &c. Rhem. Test. in Mat. 26.26. & in Luc. 22.19.
• (16)

  Scotus in 4. Dist. 22. q. 1.
• (17)

  Caieta∣nus.
• (18)

  Paludan. 4. Dist 18. q. 3. Capreol. ea∣dem Dist q. 1. Concil. ••. Pet. à Soto in In∣stit. Sacerd. lect. 2. de Eu∣char.
• (19)

  Alex. Halen. 4 p. q. 33. mem. 4. art. 3. Bo∣nau. in 4, Dist. Art. 1. q 2. Alanus de Euchar. c. 19.
• (20)

  See Bellar. de Eu∣char l. 3. cap. 28. and D. Morton in his Masse of Christ. l. 3 c. 3. Sect 1.
• (21)

  L. de Captiuit. Ba∣byl. c. 1. quod est de Euchar.
• (22)

  C. 1.
• (23)

  Instit. l. 4. c 17. §. 43.
• (24)

  Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22.
• (25)

  L. de Captiuit. Babyl. c. 1. Pet. Mart. l. 1. cont. Gar∣din. obiect. 228. Calu. In∣stit. l. 4. c. 17. § 15.
• (26)

  Cent. 5. Col. 517.
• (27)

  Cent. 4. c. 10. Col. 985. 295.
• (28)

  Cent. 4. c. 4 col. 295.
• (29)

  Commo∣nefactio cuius∣dam Theol. de S. Coena &c. p. 211. 218.
• (30)

  Margari∣ta Theol. pa. 256.
• (31)

  Censura Orientalium ad August. confess. c. 10.
• (32)

  Lib. de coena Dom.
• (33)

  Article 28.
• (34)

  Tom. 2. de coena fol. 289.
• (35)

  Ibid. fol. 291.
• (36)

  Apud Martyr. in disp. Oxon. p 134.
• (37)

  Tom. de coena. Col. 858.
• (38)

  In psal. 54.
• (39)

  Io. 6.52.
• (40)

  Io. 6.53.
• (42)

  Io. 6.60.
• (43)

  Io. 6.61.64.
• (45)

  Ho. 46. in Ioan.
• (46)

  Io 6.64.
• (47)

  Tract. 27. in ••oan.
• (48)

  In Enar Ps. ••4. aduer. 22. & ps. 55. aduer. 7.
• (49)

  Luc. 22.3.
• (50)

  Io. 6.70.
• (51)

  Io. 8.44.
• (52)

  In Col∣loquio Wit∣temberg.
• (53)

  L. de sub∣sidio Euchari∣stiae.
• (54)

  Theol. Caluin. l. 2. fol. 76.
• (55)

  Baronius Anno 1208. Nicolaus Serrarius in opusculo de M. Caluin.
• (56)

  Guliel∣mus Malmes∣buriēsis l. 3. de Rebus gestis, Anglorum.
• (57)

  L. 4. Pentab. apud Turria∣num. l. 1. de Can. Apost. c. 11.
• (58)

  1. Cor. 10. & 11.
• (59)

  Ep. 118. c. 3.
• (60)

  Cyprian l. de vnit. Eccl. & l. 3. ad Quirinum. c. 93. August. de Ciuit. Dei. l. 16. c. 2. & l. 1. de Gen. cont. Ma∣nich c. 1. & in Ps. 67.
• (61)

  Ep ad Smyrn ap. Theodoret. Dial. 3. And see Iren. l 5. cap. 2.
• (62)

  Exam. part. 1. p. 94. Hamelman. de Tradit. Apost. Col. 746. Simon Method. ali∣quot. loc. part. 3. fol. 172.
• (63)

  Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Can. Ego Berenga∣rius.
• (64)

  See Thom. Wal∣dens. tom. 2. de Sacram. c. 43.
• (65)

  Guliel. Malmesb. de gestis Angl. l. 3.
• (66)

  Ad Ca∣losyrium.
• (67)

  Cont. Gardin. col. 838. Fulk against Heskins p. 8••. Oecolamp. l. 3. Ep. ••89.
• (68)

  Epist. Theol. 2. Tho. Tilio circa med.
• (69)

  Ep. 25. Tilenus in syntag. c. 61. p. 719. Buca∣nus Instit. Theol. loc. 48. p. 661. Hunnius Disp. 47. p. 282.
• (70)

  In Con∣cione de digna Praeparatione ad Sacram. Euch.
• (71)

  In Con∣cione de Con∣fessione & Euchar.
• (72)

  Tom. 3. in psal. 5 fol. 172.
• (73)

  De Cap∣tiuit. Babyl. c. de Euchar.
• (74)

  In Tra. de Commu∣nione populi.
• (75)

  Resp. ad calum. Ne∣bulonis. p. 730.
• (76)

  Sadeel. de Sacram. man∣duc. p. 300. Whitak. l. 2. Cont. Dur. sect. 8.
• (77)

  Apud Schluss. l. 4. Theol. Calu. art. 9. p. 344.
• (78)

  In Col∣loq. Montisb. p. 27.
• (79)

  Resp. ad Art. 14. abiu∣rat. p. 433. 414.
• (80)

  Tilenus in syntag. p. 75. Beza l. quaest vol. 1. p. 658. Da∣naeus apud Andr. in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 170.
• (81)

  Apud Schlusselb. l. 4 Theol. Caluin art. q. p. 344. And see the like in Resp. ad Billicanum. Tom. 2. fol. 263.