The progenie of Catholicks and Protestants Whereby on the one side is proued the lineal descent of Catholicks, for the Roman faith and religion, from the holie fathers of the primitiue Church ... and on the other, the neuer-being of Protestants or their nouel sect during al the foresayd time, otherwise then in confessed and condemned hereticks. ...

It is Confessed by Protestants, that the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued and taught the Real Presence of Christs true Bodie and Bloud in the Eucharist: As also our further Catholick Doctrines of Transubstantiation, Adora∣tion, Reseruation, and the like. CHAPTER VIII.

IT is the(1) 1.1 certaine and general Decree of the Catholick Church, that in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, after the Consecration of bread and wine, our Lord IESVS CHRIST God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contayned vnder the formes of those sensible creatures. And that the whole Substance of bread is conuerted into the Substance of Christs Bodie, and the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Bloud; which Conuersion is fitly called Transubstantiation. Protestants herein being much diuided amongst themselues: The(2) 1.2 Lutherans teach the Real Presence no lesse plainly then Catholicks; only with this difference, that they think withal the bread and wine to remayne after Consecration with the Bodie and Bloud; which alteration is called Consubstantiation.(3) 1.3 Zuinglians are of opinion, that Eucharist is only a signe, figure or remembrance of Christs Bodie, no wayes truly contayning the same. Caluinists(4) 1.4 seem in shew more liberal, admitting the Bodie of Christ to be truly and really in the Sacra∣ment, and that the Sacrament is not only a Signe or figure, or that thereby is only giuen to vs the fruits & merits of Christs Bodie, but euen the Bodie itself, yet with this qualification, that the same is not receiued by the bodilie mouth of the Cōmunicant, but only by his Faith: Neither that the bread & wine cease to be, or are conuerted into the Bodie and Bloud of Christ, but that, when the bread and wine are receaued with the bodily mouth, at the same time the bodie & bloud of Christ are receaued spiritually, mystically, and by Faith.

Now in one thing herein I wil accord with D. Morton, that(5) 1.5 This question of Transubstantiation being of so great consequence, that if it be defensible, Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie; but it may be confuted, the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatrie: That therfore we (both) think it our bounden dutie to consult more exactly with the Senat of Antiquitie, which I wil now only performe from the free grants & confessions of D. Morton's owne Brethren.

And so to begin with S. Gregorie, D. Humfrey(6) 1.6 speaking of him and S. Augustin demandeth, what Gregorie and Augustin brought into the (English) Church? To which himself answereth, that They brought (with manie other Catholick poynts by him there recited) Transubstantiation.

To arise to S. Chrysostome, the Centurists(7) 1.7 confesse, that he seemeth to teach Transubstantiation. And Musculus(8) 1.8 reciteth and reproueth a Saying of S. Chrysostom's for the Real presence. The Centurists(9) 1.9 likewise affirme that Eusebius Emissenus did speak vnprofitably of Transubstantiation. And10) 1.10 many Protestant Writers do greatly reproue the Bookes of Sacraments (truly) ascri∣bed to S. Ambrose, for affirming the opinion of Christs bodilie Presence in the Sacra∣ment. Insomuch that the Centurists(11) 1.11 charge S. Ambrose for not writing wel of Transubstantiation, and Application for the dead. In this respect also Peter Martyr(12) 1.12 professeth to dislike the iudgement of S. Cyril: And(13) 1.13 further annexeth, I wil not so easily subscribe to Cyril, who affirmeth such a Communion, as thereby euen the Substance of the Flesh and Bloud of Christ, first is ioyned to the blessing (for so he calleth the holie bread) &c. Insomuch as in his second Alphabetical Table, at the word Heresie, is set downe, Heresie of Cyril touching our Communion with Christ. And in his Epistle to Caluin he further reproueth for this Doc∣trine, Cyril, and some other Fathers. Caluin(14) 1.14 speaking of the Real Pre∣sence writeth thus: Although I see the ancient Fathers, and especially Hilarie and Cyril to haue gone further then was fitting &c. They in their ignorance catched, fly to a miserable refuge &c. But lest these new (fusores) forgers should vrge their authority, it shal be sufficient for me not to subscribe &c. So likewise(15) 1.15 Melancthon alled∣geth a Saying of S. Cyril, as affirming the Real and corporal presence; And the like doth Bucer(16) 1.16 both of S. Hilarie and S. Cyril.

But to arise yet to more ancient times, the Protestant(17) 1.17 Vrsinus affir∣meth that, In Cyprian are manie Sayings which seem to affirme Transubstantiation, D. Beard sayth: Wheras the Papists reply,(18) 1.18 that they teach no more then Cy∣prian did Thirteen hundred yeares since, who sayd that Christ did beare himself in his owne hands at the last Supper, I answer (sayth he) that Cyprian in that place, and the rest of the Fathers els-where, did often vse hyperbolical speaches to extol the digni∣tie of the Sacrament. So voyd is D. Beard of better answer to so cleer words of S. Cyprian in proof of Transubstantiation. And wheras S. Cyprian himself testifyeth that, That bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples, not in shew but in nature changed, by the omnipotencie of the Word, is made flesh, the(19) 1.19 Centurists say herof, Cyprian in his sermon de Caena Domini, thinketh that in the supper there is the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And the same also do they(20) 1.20 affirme of Tertulian and Origen. Yea it is reported and acknowledged by manie Pro∣testant writers, that in those verie times of Tertulian, Cyprian, and Origen, Christians were accused that they killed Infants, and eate mens flesh, which ca∣lumnie vndoubtedly thence arised (sayth Osiander) in that Christians beleeued and conf••ssed, that in the sacred Supper of our Lord the Bodie of Christ was eaten, and his Bloud drunk.

Moreouer S. Ignatius, who by the confession of M Whiteguift(22) 1.21 was S. Iohn's Scholler, and liued in Christ's time, sayd of Hereticks of his time (accor∣dingly as is acknowledged by sundrie Protestants)(23) 1.22 They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which flesh suffred for our sinnes.(24) 1.23 Adamus Franci••ci confesseth accordingly, that Transubstantiation entred early into the Church. And Antonie de Adamo(25) 1.24 freely confesseth that, He hath not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the Real and Bodilie being of Christ in

the Sacrament did begin. Melancthon (for his supposed worth in learning tear∣med by Lauatherus,(26) 1.25 the Phoenix of his Age) writeth hereof saying:(27) 1.26 There is no care that hath more troubled my mind, then this of the Eucharist: And not only myself haue weighed what might be said on either side,(21) 1.27 but I haue also sought out the iudgement of the old writers touching the same. And when I haue layd al togeather, I find no good Reason that may satisfy a Conscience departing from the Propriety of Christs words, THIS IS MY BODY. Bucer(28) 1.28 speaking also of the Fathers in general confesseth, that their words & sayings are with vs Catholicks, and so euidently, that he therfore pur∣posely to auoyd their termes, as being (sayth he) Seruiceable to Antichrist, and ouer much varying from the Scriptures. But(29) 1.29 Let no man think it strange (sayth a French Protestant) that the Successours of the Apostles haue from time to time corrupted the true vse of this holie Sacrament of the Eucharist &c. And(30) 1.30 How was it possible that the first Bishops of Rome should draw the Princes, Senatours and Romans vnto the Ghospel during (the first) Three hundred or Foure hundred yeares after Christ, seing they did not labour, but to corrupt the vse of the holie Sa∣craments, and to restore the Iudaical Cere••onies, and the Idolatries of the Heathen? So displeasing to Protestants was the doctrine & practise of the verie imme∣diat Successours of the Apostles concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Now from this beleef of the Real presence of Christs Bodie and Bloud in the Sacrament, proceeded first a most special care and warines least anie particle therof should fall vpon the ground. S. Cyril of Hierusalem (Catech. 5.) speaking hereof thus premonisheth: Take heed lest anie thing of it fal from thee &c. A Saying so plaine, that D. Fulk(30) 1.31 in lieu of better answear, tearmeth it a meer Superstitious precept. And wheras S. Austin (l. 50. homil. hom. 26.) wri∣teth thus of the reuerend respect of those times in this behalf: With what so∣licitude doe we obserue, when the Bodie is administred vnto vs, that nothing therof fal vpon the earth? And Tertulian (l. de corona militis) we take it heauily that anie of our Chalice or Bread do fal vpon the ground. And Origen (hom. 3. in Exod) you that are accustomed to be present at the diuine mysteries, doe know that when you receaue the Bodie of our Lord, you doe with al warines and reuerence take heed that no litle therof fal downe &c. These so learned and ancient Fathers are for these Sayings reproued by M. Parker(32) 1.32 and others▪ And Oecolampadius speaking33) 1.33 of Reseruation of the Sacrament, therupon inferreth that, Hence was the Religion of the ancient Fathers, who took it heauily the Eucharist to fal vpon the earth.

Secondly, from the same beleef of the Real presence proceeded a spe∣cial Reuerence, worship, and adoration therof by the ancient Fathers. In∣somuch that Chemnitius(34) 1.34 alledgeth the seueral Sayings of Austin, Am∣brose, and Nazianzene, al of them affirming in his opinion, The Adoration of the Sacrament. And wheras Nazianzene orat. 11. telleth, how his diseased Sister Gorgonia, prostrated herself befor•• the Aulter, and calling vpon him who is worshipped on it; O miracle (sayth he) she departed presently receauing health; D. Fulk(35) 1.35 merely trifleth in his answear hereto, being inforced to say, that The Eucharist vpon the Aulter was not adored by her, although it was had in great reuerence, and peraduenture not without Superstition: But Hospinian(36) 1.36 plainly tearmeth Gorgonia's fact, wicked and Superstitious. S. Ambrose in orat. praepar.

ad Missam,(31) 1.37 is so plaine in this poynt, that the Centurists(37) 1.38 do therfore affir∣me of those prayers of S. Ambrose, that They contayne the Adoration of the Bread in the Sacrament: And the same is acknowledged by M. Parkins(38) 1.39 & Crispinus. And yet are those prayers acknowledged and alledged for the writings of S Ambrose(39) 1.40 by D. Bilson. Lastly, the general custome of the Primitiue Church in this poynt is acknowledged40) 1.41 by Mar∣bachius in these words: As concerning the most ancient custome, which the Church vsed in shewing to the People the Eucharist to be adored in the Masse &c.

Thirdly, In regard of this Adoration, Consecration being made, the Eucharist was Eleuated, that the people might see and adore it, accordingly as is now vsed in the Roman Church. Insomuch that the Protestant Pelargus(41) 1.42 relateth that, Basile maketh mention in his book of the Holie-Ghost or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or shewing, but this was no other then the Papists Eleuation, vsed in the times of Basil &c. And Altkircharus(42) 1.43 reciting these words of S. Basile de Spiritu Sancto c. 27. who hath left in writing the words of Inuocation when the bread of the Eucharist and Cup of benediction is shewed, affirmeth the answerable performance therof to be In Eleuatione, in the Eleuation: yea he alledgeth(43) 1.44 both S. Basile & S. Chrysostome as mentioning and affirming the holie Eleuation.

Fourthly, from the same root of Real presence, proceeded that ancient custome in the holie Fathers of receiuing the Eucharist fasting, according to that of S. Austin ep. 118. c. 6. It pleased the Holie-Ghost, and was vniuersally obserued, that our Lords Bodie should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates, and that for this reason sayth he, In honorem tanti Sacramenti: In ho∣nour of so great a Sacrament.(44) 1.45 Hospinian hauing alledged this verie Saying, affirmeth therof, that Austine insinuateth not obscurely this fast to haue been an Apostolical Tradition. And wheras Tertulian l. 2. ad Vxor. affirmeth that, the Eucharist is to be receaued before al meate, the same is confessed in him by the(45) 1.46 Centurists.

Fiftly, in those ancient times in due Reuerence to this most holie Sa∣crament, the Laytie before Receiuing forbore for some time the companie of their wiues. A Doctrine so manifest in S. Hierome, that D. Fulk(46) 1.47 in this case acknowledgeth Hieroms admonition giuen to marryed persons to abstayne from companie with their wiues &c. which he there tearmeth, vnworthie, and Popish Diuinitie. And yet Hospinian(47) 1.48 confesseth in general that, In the Primitiue Church the Eucharist was receiued chastly; And this particularly he de∣monstrateth in sundrie ancient Fathers: for which verie poynt also Zepperus(48) 1.49 reprehendeth the Elibertine Councel, Tertulian & Hierome: and S. Hieroms sundrie Sayings to the same effect are confessed and reprehended by the(49) 1.50 Centurists; & Chemnitius(50) 1.51 for the same reproueth Origen. But Hos inian(51) 1.52 reprehendeth and alledgeth herein Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, Vrbanus, the 2. Councel of Arles, the Councels of Neocesarea & Carthage.

Sixtly, wheras according to Protestants Doctrine, the Eucharist is no Sacrament, vnles it be receaued; our contrarie Catholic•• Doctrine and practise of Reseruation is so agreable with the Primitiue Church, that D. Fulk(53) 1.53 confesseth hereof saying: That the Sacrament (of some) was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, is not so great a Controuersie, as whether it ought to be

reserued: And Caluin(54) 1.54 acknowledgeth, The Reseruation of the Sacrament (to be) the example of the ancient Church. Chemnitius(55) 1.55 also testifyeth, that witnesses of this custome of priuate Reformation of the Eucharist, are Tertulian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basile &c. And that, certain of the ancient Fathers greatly commended the same, as Nazianzene, Ambrose &c. And that it was, an ancient Custome spread abroad and long continued: Insomuch as Peter Martyr can not but acknowledge that (by the testimonie of Cyril) the Anthropo∣morphites were specially condemned for their impugning of the Sacraments Reseruation: For wheras S. Cyril ad Calosyrium, sayth, I heare they say, that the mystical blessing, if anie remnants therof do remayne til the next day fol∣lowing, is vnprofitable to sanctification; but they are mad in so saying; for Christ is not made another, neither shal his Bodie be changed, but the vertue of blessing and liuelie Grace doth alwayes remayne in it. Peter Martyr(56) 1.56 mentioning this verie sentence of S. Cyril affirmeth therof, that wheras it is added, that the Remnants of the Eucharist reserued til the day following, doe not cease from Sanctifi∣cation, this I think belongeth to a certaine receaued custome &c. which Custome though it sauour of some Superstition, yet Cyril and others subscribed vnto it; for forthwith, euen from the times of the Apostles, by litle & litle it began to degenerat from that ancient simplicitie of Gods worship.(52) 1.57 Crispinus(57) 1.58 speaking of Con∣stantins time affirmeth that, Such as made anie great voyage by Sea or Land, car∣ryed the Eucharist. D. Field confesseth that,(58) 1.59 In the Primitiue Church the manner of manie was to receaue the Sacrament, and not to be partakers of it pre∣sently, but to carry it home with them, and to receiue it priuatly when they were disposed, as Tertulian & others do report. And that, The manner was to send it by the Deacons to them, that by sicknes or other necessarie impediment were forced to be absent, & to strangers. Yea for this purpose, they did in such places, where they communicated not euerie day, reserue some part of the sanctifyed Elements, to be sent to the Sick, & such as were in danger of death. Yea as then was vsual the Pixe for the reseruing or carrying therof; in so much that(59) 1.60 Marba∣chius confesseth, that S. Basile reserued the Eucharist in a golden Doue. And wheras D. Harding obiecteth for the Pixe, the plaine testimonies of Sym∣machus, Gregorius Romanus, Gregorius Turonensis & Theodorus; the same are acknowledged by M. Iewel(60) 1.61 & D. Fulk.

Lastly, the Roman Church doth so directly follow the Doctrine and practise of the Primitiue Church in this so waightie a matter of the Eucha∣rist, as that she obserueth the external forme or figure therof vsed in the ancient Church. D. Bilson(61) 1.62 acknowledgeth from S. Epiphanius in Anco∣rato, that the Eucharist was round in figure: And M. Carthwright(62) 1.63 con∣fesseth, that it was a round wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander, which Pope liued, as Osiander(63) 1.64 and D. Whiteguift confesse, Anno Christ 111. which is now aboue 500. yeares. Hospinian(64) 1.65 auoucheth that, It can not certainly be knowne, when (Christians) first began either at home or in the Churche•• to prepare of floure or bread, litle & round Hostes & morcels, like peeces of siluer &c. Epiphanius maketh mention of round bread in the Supper &c.

The ancient Iew s also did most plainly foretel the Real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice therof; for wheras Duraeus

vrgeth from Galatinus, the Hebrewes most plaine and plentiful Sayings i•• behalf therof, D. Whitaker answering thereto, neither confesseth, nor yet denyeth, but only shufleth them off, saying:(65) 1.66 In this matter we do not desire thy Peter Galatin, neither do we need those testimonies of the Hebrewes: so not denying, but rather supposing the truth of the forsayd testimo∣nies euidently foreshewing and affirming the Real presence and Sacrifice of Christs blessed Bodie in the Sacrament. And thus we see the Fathers and Doctours of the Primitiue Church to haue symbolized with vs Ca∣tholicks in the doctrine of the Eucharist, teaching expresly: First, Transub∣stantiation itself: Secondly, and prescribing a most diligent care that no part therof do fal vpon the ground: Thirdly, yea and adoring it with special reue∣rence: Fourthly, and in that regard vsing Eleuation therof at Masse time, as we stil continue: Fiftly, for which case they receaue fasting; Sixtly, the Marryed Laytie also forbearing the Companie of their wiues for some tyme before Receiuing. Seauenthly, Besides they not only kept and reserued the same for the sick, and other such necessi∣ties; But also vsed the verie forme & figure of a round wafer-Cake obserued at this day. Now the Fathers produced and reproued by Protestant Wri∣ters for the forsayd poynts are, S. Gregorie, Chrysostom, Eusebius Emisse∣nus, Cyril, Ambrose, Hilarie, Austine, Nazianzene, Basile, Hierom, Siricius, Innocentius, Calixtus, Vrbanus, Symmachus, Gregorius Turonensis, Epiphanius, Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Ignatius, & the Fathers in general. The Protestants citing and confessing the foresayd Fathers are, the Centurists, Musculus, Oecolampadius, Vadian, Anthonie de Adamo, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Me∣lancthon, Bucer, Osiander, Vrsinus, Hamelmanus, Adamus Francisci, H••∣spinian, Bucanus, Chemnitius, Chytreus, Crispinus, Marbachius, Pelargus, Altkircherus, Zepperus, Humfrey, Whitaker, Fulk, Parker, Parkins, Carth∣wright, Willet, Iewel, Field, and Beard. And now I appeale to al indiffe∣rent Readers, whether Protestants themselues haue not sufficiently con∣fessed, that, by the Sentence or Doome of the Senate of Antiquitie, D. Morton and his Brethren are chargeable with Heresie, as also the Roma∣nists acquitted of Idolatrie.

Notes

• (1) 1.1

  Conc. Trid s ss 1•• c. 1. & 4.
• (2) 1.2

  Luth. l. de Captiuit. Babyl. c. de Euchar. Chemn. l. duabus Christi naturis.
• (3) 1.3

  Zuingl. l De vera & falsa Relig.
• (4) 1.4

  Cvlu. l. de Coena Domini. Beza de Caena Do∣mini.
• (5) 1.5

  Prot. Appeal. l. 2. p. 105.
• (6) 1.6

  Iesuit. parr. 2. rat. 5 p. 627.
• (7) 1.7

  Cent. 5. col. 517.
• (8) 1.8

  Loc. com. p 336.
• (9) 1.9

  Cent. 4. c 10 col. 985 295.
• 10) 1.10

  Antony de Adamo in his Ana∣tomy of the Masse. f. 222 And see Cent 4. c. 4. col. 295. Oecolamp. lib. Epist. p. 756. Vadiā. de Euchar. Aphor. l. 5. p. 150 & 151
• (11) 1.11

  Cent 4. c. 4. col 295
• (12) 1.12

  In de fens. obiect. Gardin p 4. p. 124.
• (13) 1.13

  In his Epistles an∣nexed to his Common Places. ep. to Beza p. 106. & p. 98
• (14) 1.14

  Lib. Ep. & Resp. ep. 208 p. 392.
• (15) 1.15

  In A∣polog. Conf. August. fol. 128.
• (16) 1.16

  In his scripta Angl. p 616. 617
• (17) 1.17

  Com∣mon••factio cuiusdam Th ologi de S Caena &c. p. 211. & 2••8
• (18) 1.18

  Rect••a. from Romish Re igion. p. 245.
• (19) 1.19

  Cent 3. col. 247.
• (20) 1.20

  Cent. 3. col. 58. 260.
• (22) 1.21

  In his Def against Carthwright p. 408.
• (23) 1.22

  Hamel∣manus de Tradit Apo. c. 746. Chem. Exā. part. 1. p. 94 Recitationes de Concilio Scripti libri Cōcor. p. 177
• (24) 1.23

  Marg. Theol. p. 256
• (25) 1.24

  In his Anat. of the masse. p. 236
• (26) 1.25

  Hist. Sacr. f. 47.
• (27) 1.26

  lib. 3. Ep Zuingl. & Oecolāp f. 132.
• (21) 1.27

  Osiand. Cent. 3. l. 1. c. 3. p. 6. The Cent. cent. 2. c. 3. col. 26. 30. &c. 7. col. 123. And Cent. 3 c 3. col 10. Vad. Aphor. a•• Euchar. l. 6. fol. 198.
• (28) 1.28

  Scripta Eruditorum aliquot viro∣rū de Caena Domini. p. 37. And see Hospinian part. 1 p. 292. Buca∣nus loc. com. p. 714.
• (29) 1.29

  Six godlie Treat trans. into Engl. p 48.
• (30) 1.30

  Ib. p. 66
• (30) 1.31

  Ib. p. 66
• (32) 1.32

  Against Symb. part. 1. p. 148. Vadians Aphoris. de Euch f 230.
• 33) 1.33

  Lib. Ep. Oecolampa∣dij & Zuing. p. 690.
• (34) 1.34

  Exam. part. 2 p. 92. And see Chytreus de Bap. & Eu∣char p. 472.
• (35) 1.35

  In Resp ad Sta∣pleton de Success••one Eccl. p. 230.
• (36) 1.36

  Hist. Sacr. part. 1. p. 470.
• (31) 1.37

  In his Reioynder to Bristow, & answere to Sanders. p. 687.
• (37) 1.38

  Cent. 4. col. 437.
• (38) 1.39

  In his Probl p. 21. Crispi. of the Church p. 87
• (39) 1.40

  In his true Differ. par. 4. p 622.
• 40) 1.41

  Assert. Theol part. sec. 47.
• (41) 1.42

  Schola fidei. Art. 10. fol 1. 5.
• (42) 1.43

  De Mystico & In••ruento Saerifi••io p. 79. 348.
• (43) 1.44

  Ibid. p. 105.
• (44) 1.45

  Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l 2 p 48. Sepperus de Sa••r p. 804.
• (45) 1.46

  Cent 3 col 132.
• (46) 1.47

  Against Heskins, Sanders &c. p. 458.
• (47) 1.48

  Hist. Sacr. part. 1. l. 2. p. 46. see Osiād. Cent. 4 p. 180.
• (48) 1.49

  De Sa∣cram p. 805
• (49) 1.50

  Cent. 4 c. 7. col 487. Chemnit. Exam part. 3. p. 61.
• (50) 1.51

  Exam. part. 3 p. 50. 58.
• (51) 1.52

  Hist. Sacr part. 1. l. 2. p. 132.
• (53) 1.53

  Against Heskins &c. p 77.
• (54) 1.54

  Instit. l. 4. c. 17. sec. 39.
• (55) 1.55

  Exam. part. 2. p. 102.
• (56) 1.56

  Contrae Gardiner. de Euchar. obiect. 213. col 838.
• (52) 1.57

  Willee in his Synop. p. 460.
• (57) 1.58

  Of the Estate of the Church. p. 87.
• (58) 1.59

  Of the Church. l. 3. c. 34. p. 149.
• (59) 1.60

  Assert. Theol. part. 2 sec. 47.
• (60) 1.61

  In his Reply Art. 9 p. 420. Fulk against Staplet. p. 150, 151.
• (61) 1.62

  In his true Differ. p. 4. p. 566.
• (62) 1.63

  In Whytguift. Def. p. 593 And see Proet. de Sa∣cram p 287. & 281.
• (63) 1.64

  Cent. 2. p▪ 10. Whit∣gift. in his Def. p. 594.
• (64) 1.65

  Hist. Sacram. l. 4. p. 370.
• (65) 1.66

  Cont. Dur. l. 9. p. ••18.