hand to the true Relation thereof long agoe sent you Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solumodo abscondi Truth neuer blusheth but when she is hid She feareth nothing but not to bee brought to her tryall Hee who knoweth his coyne is pure gold will neuer refuse to offer it to the Goldsmiths Test because he can loose nothing by it but shal haue allowance for it Besides your friends boasting at the Conference your owne promise in the Conference deepely ingageth you to assoyle the arguments then vrged against your halfe Communion whereunto at the present you returned not so much as half an answer pleading for your selfe the short scantling of time which gaue you not space to wield yonr Catholike buckler Scitum est enim culpam conijcere intempus cum vltra addere si maximèvelis non possis The Romane Oratour told you it is a handsome put-off to lay the blame vpon the time when an aduocate hath neuer a word more to say for his Clyent But veritas temporis filia Truth is Times Daughter she will iustifie her Mother If in so long a tract of time as hath run since our meeting in Noble-street you had fully and punctually satisfied those arguments then left vntouched you had salued your cause and credit and made it appeare you were not wanting to time but time then to you But now sith you haue broken so often day after day and moneth after moneth and by this time yeere after yeere being fo oft challenged of your promise yea vpbraided also by S. P. L. and the Lord T. and others and in fine your resolution is to giue no resolution of those doubts I will be bold to tell you that time will now no more beare your blame but you and your cause must beare it off with head and shoulders You cannot now goe backe Lis contestata est praelium condictum The field is pitched the weapons are chosen The question agreed vpon is the Communion in one kind the proofes must bee Scripture and the perpetuall custome of the Church If by both your Romish practise be conuinced to be sacrilege in the highest degree then write hereafter your braggs in redinke and let your lines blush for shame and do you your selfe ingeniously confesse concerning sacrilege as Papinian did concerning fatricide that it is as difficult and dangerous a matter to defend the murder of a brother as to commit it But on the contrarie if by the euidence of Scripture and coustant practise of the Catholike Christian Church you can iustifie your Romish dry communions you shal not only gaine your pretended Catholicke cause but me also your Proselyte D. F. THE PARTICVLAR CONTENTS OF THE SEVERALL Chapters of this Booke Chap. 1. THe state of the question concerning the Communion in both kinds is set downe out of the Harmony of Protestant Confessions on the one sida and out of the Canons of the Councels of Constance Basil and Trent on the otherside Chap. 2. The first Argument for the Tenent of the Reformed Churches drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of the Sacrament confirmed by the testimony of Pope Iulius the first Chap. 3. The second Argument for the Communion in both kinds drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament confirmed by Vasquez the Iesuite Chap 4. The third argument drawne from the Analogie of the signe to the thing signified confirmed by Gratian the Canonist Chap. 5. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banket or supper confirmed by Aquinas and Vasquez Chap. 6. The fift argument drawne from the expresse precept of drinking at the Lords Table confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Innocen the 3. Chap. 7. The sixt argument drawne à Pari confirmed by Bonauenture the Schoole Diuine and others Chap. 8. The seuenth argument drawne from the condition and propriety of a Will or Legacie confirmed by Iansonius c. Chap. 9. The eight argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament confirmed by Iac. Rehing being then a Iesuite Chap. 10. The ninth argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians confirmed by Becanus the Iesuite Chap. 11. The tenth argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Christian Catholicke Church in all Ages Sect. 1. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from Christs assention to 100. yeeres Sect. 2. Testimonies in the second Age from 100. to 200. Sect. 3. Testimonies in the third age from 200. to 300. Sect. 4. Testimonies in the fourth Age from 300. to 400. Sect. 5. Testimonies in the fifth Age from 400. to 500. Sect. 6. Testimonies in the sixth Age from 500. to 600. Sect. 7. Testimonies in the seuenth Age from 600. to 700. Sect. 8. Testimonies in the eighth Age from 700. to 800. Sect. 9. Testimonies in the ninth Age from 800. to 900. Sect. 10. Testimonies in the tenth Age from 900. to 1000. Sect. 11. Testimonies in the eleuenth Age from 1000. to 1100. Sect. 12. Testimonies in the tewelfth Age from 1100. to 1200. Sect. 13. Testimonies in the thirteenth Age from 1200. to 1300. Sect. 14. Testimonies in the fourteenth Age from 1300. to 1400. Sect. 15. Testimonies in the fifteenth Age from 1400. to 1500. Sect. 16. Testimonies in the sixteenth Age from 1500. to 1600. Sect. vltima The confirmation of this argument by the confession of Papists of eminent learning and worth Thom. Aquin. Dionysius Carthousianus Ioh. Eccius Cassander Soto Ioh. Arborius Ruardus Tapperus Alsonsus a Castro Slotanus Salmeron Gregorie de Valentia and Suarez Chap. 12. Papists obiections for their halfe communion from Scripture answered and retorted Chap. 13. Papists obiections from Councels answered and retorted Chap. 14. Papists obiections from sundry pretended rites and customes of the Church answered and retorted Chap. 15. Papists obiections from reason answered and retorted Chap. 16. The Contradictions of Papists in this question noted and the whole truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes The Contens of the Conference Of the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment Of ordination by Presbyters or Priests in case of necessitie Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino Of differences amongst Papists in matter of faith Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Marie Of the authoritie of Generall Councels aboue the Pope ècont Of prayer for the dead Of the authoritie of originall Scripture Of the Communion in both kinds Of the Popes Supremacy Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament Of the perfection of Scripture AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader IT falleth out often with Students in controuersies as with people in the market who taking money with them at their going from home and espying in the fayre some Merchandize they like when they haue driuen the Price and are drawing out their purse they find it either pickt or the strings cut In like maner these Students meeting with some pregnāt testimonies alleaged out of the ancient Fathers or later Writers in Apologies for
beleeued not to bee without blood and dead but liuing and quickning whence it is that Saint Agustine saith that neither the flesh with out the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly taken Also Gelatius writeth to Maioricus and Iohn Bishops in this manner We vnderstand that some taking a portion of Christs body abstaine from the Cup of his sacred blood to whom our commandement is that either they partake the sacrament intirely and receiue both or be kept from both Anno 1136. Hugo de Sancto Victore yeeldeth a like reason of the full and intire communicating in both kinds Therefore saith hee the sacrament is taken in both kinds that thereby a double effect might bee signified For it hath force as Saint Ambrose saith to preserue both body and soule In the same termes hath Halensis Sum. Theol. par 3. num 29. art 4. Anno 1140. Peter Lumbard Mag. sentent propoundeth this question Why is the sacrament receiued vnder a double forme or kind sith whole Christ is in either kind He answereth That thereby it might be signified that Christ tooke the whole nature of man that he might redeeme the whole Anno. 1150. Petrus Cluniacensis Epist. lib. 1. Though hee fight against the truth one way and woundeth the Albigenses yet he fighteth for it another way and giueth a deeper wound to the Trent Fathers and all that content themselues with an halfe communion That men might not onely learne by words saith he but haue a sensible feeling by deeds that they cannot liue vnlesse they bee ioyned and vnited to Christ after the manner of carnall food and life they receiue the body of Christ and drinke the blood of Christ. And a little after to signifie that for this cause he would giue his flesh to all to eat it and his blood to all to drinke it he draweth a similitude from Manna that fell in the wildernesse In this yeere of our Lord also Vincentius relates of one Tundanus a profane person in his former life that being suddenly strucken from heauen hee called for the body of our Lord which when hee had taken and drunke the wine he began to praise God in these words O Lord thy mercie is greater then mine iniquitie In this same Age Antoninus writes in his Chronicles that the Normans the morning before they fought with the Danes receiued the Communion of Christs body and blood Anno 1170. Gratian rehearseth many ancient Canons and Constitutions for communicating in both kinds which because they haue been handled before I here let passe The Papists answer The onely answer which I find to our allegations out of the Fathers in this Age is Cardinall Bellarmines who indeuoureth to put a glosse vpon Saint Bernards words on this wise Vnder the forme of bread the entire nourishment or compleat foode of Christs body and blood is contained Wherefore our Lord saith he commanded that foode to bee often taken but he commandeth not that it should bee taken in both kinds Refutation S. Ierome saith it is the part of a bad Physition omnibus oculi morbis vno collyrio mederi to applie but one eye-salue to all manner of diseases of the eyes Yet such a Physition is Bellarmine he hath but one salue for all diseases and that hath no vertue it in at all in effect To the saluing of all the testimonies of the ancient Fathers opposed against him hee applieth onely this medicamentum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of concomitancie whatsoeuer the Fathers speake of receiuing the body and blood and the entire food of our soules he would make vs beleeue they intend nothing against their halfe Communion For as he accounteth the blood is neuer seuered from the body and the blood is vnder the forme of bread Hee therefore who taketh the bread taketh the body blood of Christ and consequently communicateth intirely But besides that this proposition of his hath beene heretofore refuted I adde first in generall that albeit we should admit that in the iudgement of the Fathers in this Age the blood of Christ were with the body and with the forme of bread yet there is no Cup nor Wine in the bread no drinking in eating no powring out of the wine or blood into the mouthes of the faithfull Of which the writers of this Age speake so expresly that those of our aduersaries who haue not rubbed hard their foreheads neuer so much as offer to make answer to these testimonies but haue held it the wisest course neuer to take notice of them Secondly for Saint Bernard in particular his words haue relation to the Institution of Christ saying The entire foode of the body and blood of Christ was that day first exhibited nay at our Lords last supper there was wine as well as bread And this Vasquez the Iesuite ingeniously confesseth howsoeuer it cut the throat of his fellow Iesuites answer Bernard saith he speakes plainely of the other part of nourishment which is taken by way of drinke vnder the forme of wine What then Doth Vasquez freely giue vs Saint Bernard Not so but deuiseth another euasion to wit that communicating in both kinds for the entire repast of the soule is commanded to the whole Church not to euery particular beleeuer Defumo in flammas Vasq. to auoide the smoke that put out Bellarmine his eyes falls into the fire For that which is inioyned the whole Church is necessarily inioined euery saithfull The words of our Sauior Drinke ye all c. are euidently a command to each particular For so the Apostles vnderstood him and dranke euery one of them of that Cup and not any one or more in the name and behalfe of all the rest Doubtlesse as euery man must liue by himselfe so he must also in his owne person and by himselfe receiue the entire food of life the body and blood of Christ. SECT XIII The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 1200. to 3000. Anno. 1229. ABbas Vrspergensis writing of the besieging of Damiata saith that the souldiers before they scaled the wooden tower made confession of their sins and receiued the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord. The like Antoninus writeth of the Normans in William the Conquerors time and Matthew Paris of the English in King Heralds time and William Rufus Neither was that custome as yet controld in that age nor an hundred yeeres after as in due place shall be shewed Anno 1236. Durandus Mimatensis in expresse tearmes affirmeth that he who receiues the Hoste only doth not receiue the whole sacrament sacramentally For although the blood of Christ bee in the consecrated Hoste hee speaketh according to the schooles in these times yet it is not there sacramentally because the bread signifieth the body not the blood the wine signifieth the blood and not the body In regard therefore that the sacrament is not compleat in one kind according to the signe
this point For he professeth that it were more conuenient the Communion were administred vnder both kinds then vnder one alone and that the Communion vnder both kinds is more agreeable to the Institution and fulnesse thereof and to the example of Christ and to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church Artiâ—… 15. Eccius though in short and briefe tearmes yet comes home to the question saying Wee confesse it was the vse in the Primitiue Church to administer in both kinds to the Laiety For the generalitie of this custome if antient Records had failed vs wee haue enough in the writings of moderne Papists to conuince the denyers therof Suarez saith somewhat to this point Slotanus presumes further and saith more and Salmeron goes beyond him and saith enough and yet Alphonsus exceedes him and saith more then enough Suarez The Christian people were wâ—…t frequently to communicate vnder both kinds Frequently they might communicate yet but in few places There Slotanus addes We doe not deny that the custome of communicating in both kinds was obserued in very many Churches and continued so not onely in the time of persecution and martyrdome but also in the peaceable daies of the Church This custome might be in very many Churches yet not generall therefore Salmeron addes further We doe ingeniously and openly confesse that it was a generall custome to giue the Communion to the Laiety in both kinds as the manner is at this day among the Greekes and was in antient time among the Corinthians and in Africa Generall the custome might be yet not vniuersall without exception and in all places Therefore to put the matter out of all question Alphonsus a Castro addes yet further We beleeue it is not against Christs Institution to giue the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds For we learne out of the writings of many Saints that in old time this was the practise for many ages amongst all Catholikes For the continuance of this custome which was the last point what more pregnant testimonies can we desire then these following of Cassander Soto and Gregory de Valentia Cassander and Tapperus witnesseth for one thousand yeeres in these words Touching the administration of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist it is euident enough that the Easterne Church euen vnto this day or that the Westerne or Romane Church for one thousand yeeres after Christ and more in the solemne and ordinary distribution of the Sacrament deliuered both the kinds of bread and wine to all the members of Christs Church which is manifest by innumerable testimonies of antient Writers both Greeke and Latine Tapperus calleth it a custome of longest continuance Soto witnesseth thus for twelue hundred yeeres and more not onely amongst the heretikes but also among the Catholikes the manner of giuing the Communion to the Layetie in both kinds for a long time was of force in somuch as it was not vtterly abolished in the dayes of Aquinas Now Aquinas by Bellarmines exact calculation was borne in the yeere of our Lord 1224. and died in the yeere 1274. Betweene the birth of Aquinas and the Councell of Constance there passed 90. yeeres which time Greg. de Valentia after a sort giues vs ouer and aboue We doe not deny saith he that both kinds were antiently administred to the people as appeares out of S. Paul Cyprian Athanasius Hierome and others And truly when the contrary custome of communicating vnder one kind onely began in some Churches it appeares not but it began not to bee a generall custome in the Latine Church much before the Councell of Constance Nor then neither For Tapperus saith that in some Churches they vsed both kinds euen vnto the Councell of Constance Who seeth not in the frequency and pregnancy of these testimonies out of the mouth of our aduersaries the obseruation of Budaeus to be verified that such is the force of truth that she breakes out of mens mouthes against their wills and stealing amongst lyes is perceiued by the hearers when the speakers think they haue her safe enough in their owne power CHAP. XII The Papists Arguments drawne from Scripture answered and retorted SECT 11. THe first argument vrged by our aduersaries for their halfe Communion is drawn from the types and figures of the old Testament I will propound it in Bellarmines owne words that they may not cauill as they vse to doe that wee marre their arguments in relating them Thus Bellarmine disputeth against vs Most of the figures of the Eucharist in the old Testament signifie eating vnder one kind it is not therefore probable that Christ would command the eating of both kinds For that which is figured ought to answer the figure The first figure was of the Tree of life in the midst of Paradise which Paschasius in his booke of the body of our Lord chap. 7. teacheth to haue been a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist but it was manifest there was no drinke ioyned to that Tree The second figure was of the Paschall Lambe Exodus the 12. The third figure Manna Exodus 26. The fourth was shew-bread Exodus 25. The fifth the sacrifices in which the flesh was eaten but the blood was not drunke To this Argument we say First that these figures were types of Christ himselfe and not necessarily or properly of the Sacrament of the new Testament For types are shadowes representing the substance and the body not properly other types Christ interpreteth Manna to be himselfe Ioh. 6. I am the true bread that came downe from heauen S. Paul calleth Christ our Paschall Lambe and saith The Rocke that followed them was Christ. And S. Iohn Apoc. 2. by eating of the Tree of life in the Paradise of God vnderstandeth not the sacramentall eating which cannot be in heauen where there are no sacred elements but the spirituall feeding on the flesh of the Sonne of God Secondly if we admit that the types and figures of the old Law were representations of the Sacrament of the new we answer then that the types and figures of the old Testament must be equally compared with the Sacrament of the new part of them must be referred to the part of these For example the Shew-bread and Manna and the flesh of the Lambe and the Tree of life prefigured one part or kind in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to wit the Bread and the Riuers of Paradise and the Waters that Flowed from the Rocke and the Drinke-offerings and the striking the blood of the Lambe vpon the doore-postes represented the mysticall effusion and drinking of Christs blood in the Sacrament There was no drinking of the Tree of life but there was drinking of the Riuers of Paradise there was no drinking of Manna or of the Shew-bread but there was drinking of the Waters that issued out of the Rocke at Horeb. And S. Paul testifieth of the Hebrewes 1. Cor. 10. vers
Sacrament To coyne new Fathers is a vsuall practise and therefore of no transcending merit but to coyne new Canons of generall Councels and to forge records of such antiquitie as is the true Councell of Ephesus can be no lesse then a worke of superarrogation To the allegation out of the Councell of Constance we answer first that it was no generall Councell The Easterne Church of as large or larger extent then the Westerne sent no Patriarch or Bishop thither Secondly this Councell is impeached by the Romane Church it selfe Bellarmine de concil cap. 7. k speaking of this Councell of Constance saith this Councel so much as concerneth the first sessions is disallowed and repealed in the Councels of Florence and Lateran Albertus Pighius is yet hotter against this Councell saying that it decreed against the order of nature against manifest Scriptures against the authoritie of all antiquitie and against the Catholicke faith of the Church What credit is then to be giuen to this erroneous and perfidious Councell Which both adulterated the Christian faith by heretical decisions and brake their morrall faith by bloody crueltie exercised against Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prague to whom safe conduct to the Councell and backe againe was promised If the Romanists themselues reiect this Councell in point of the Popes Supremacie why may not we in point of the Sacrament Lastly out of this very Councell wee may draw an inuincible argument against the halfe Communion The institution of Christ and practise of the Primitiue Church ought to sway more with euery good Christian then any constitution of a late Councell neuer generally approued of by the Church of God But the Communion in both kinds hath the institution of Christ and the practise of the Primitiue Church for it as is confessed by the Fathers in this Councell Therefore euery good Christian ought to communicate in both kinds the prohibition of the Councell of Constance to the contrary notwithstanding To the allegation out of the Councell of Basil our answer is the stronger by how much the authoritie of this Councell is weaker or rather of no validitie at all First there lyeth against it the same exception which we tooke before against the Councell of Constance that none of the Bishops of the Easterne Churches were present at it and in this regard it cannot bee held for an Occomenicall or generall Councell Secondly while the Fathers of this Councell sate at Basil the Pope fearing least some thing might be done to his preiudice called an other Councell at Ferrara and ◠in this regard the Councell of Basil cannot be esteemed a generall or totall Councell no not so much as of the Westerne or Romane Church Thirdly the Acts of this Councell are repeated in the Councell of Florence and Lateran Pighius writes as bitterly against it as against the Councell of Constance and Cardinall Bellarmine writing of it saith There is nothing of this Councell ratified and allowed but certaine orders about benefices the Councell it selfe is reiected and condemned in the Councell of Lateran Sess. 11. No maruell then if Protestants account the decrees of this Synode no better then drosse when by the Roman test it selfe they are proued to bee no good mettell Wherefore as the Romane Oratour makes a Dilemma touching Brutus and Antonie being in Armes one against the other if Brutus bee a preseruer of his country Antonie is an enemie if Antony be a Consul Brutus is an enemie so may we say of those two Councels of Basil and Lateran if the Councell of Basil bee Catholick Lateran is hereticall if Lateran be Catholick the Councell of Basil is hereticall Lastly be this Councell of Basil of what authoritie it may be the Romanists loose more by it then they gaine For though the halfe Communion were after a sort established in this Councell yet the Bohemians petition for the intire Communion was yeelded vnto and signed in this Councell whence we thus argue against them If the Papists arguments drawne from danger of irreuerence inconueniences examples or testimonies of antiquity and pretended consequences of Scripture were necessary and concludent the Councell of Basil could not lawfully grant to the Bohemians and Morauians the vse of the Cup but the Councell of Basil might lawfully and did yeeld to the Bohemians and the Morauians the vse of the cup Therfore the reasons of the Romanists drawn to the contrary from the heads aboue mentioned are not necessarie or concludent CHAP. XIIII The Arguments of Papists drawne from ancient pretended rites of the Church answered and retorted THere is no more certaine signe of a bad cause then extorted testimonies and wyer-drawne arguments such as our aduersaries for want of better insist vpō in this question For the truth neuer wanteth voluntarie witnesses to depose for her nor arguments that offer themselues in her defence as the Poets faine that stones came of their owne accord to the building of Thebes Such are those proofes which the texts of scpriture without any forcing and the free deposition of all ages before alleaged haue furnished vs withall On the contrarie our aduersaries straine antient rites and customes weakely proued and peruersely applied to excuse their sacrilege They tell vs of reseruing the Sacrament for a long space of carrying it home to mens houses giuing it to infants and impotent persons on their death-bed to Priests put out of their ranck for misdemeanour and lastly of a Communion of such things as were before consecrated All which obseruations are as headlesse arrowes shot at randome Falces petebamus we demand sithes and they answer vs with mattocks Our question is of the publike and generall practise of the Church their answer is of priuate customes our question is of the lawfull vse of the Lords Supper their answer is of abuses and corruptions our question is of the depriuing the Laietie of the Cup their answer is of Priests our question is of fit and worthie receiuers qualified to communicate in both kinds their answer is of children excommunicate persons or men lying on their death-beds This might suffice to wash away their varnish of antiquitie Yet lest they should accuse vs as Fimbria did sometimes Scecuola quòd non totum telum corporereceperimus that wee receiued not the ful thrust into our body I wil bring in their great Cardinal laying amaine at vs in this wise SECT I. From the reseruation of the Sacrament thus he disputeth against vs That the Sacrament was accustomed antiently to be reserued we haue proued by the testimonies of Fathers Councels Now that it was reserued in one kind onely and consequently that the communicants receiued in one kind onely it is manifest because sometimes they reserued it for a very long time Sophronius in his spirituall meddow relates of the keeping of it for a whole yeere but wine especially in a small quantitie could not be kept so long because within that time it would be corrupted The answer First
he spake or to what this This is to be referred I referre my selfe to your owne conscience whether these words I will drinke no more of this fruit immediately following these Hic calix This cup or Hic est sanguis noui testamenti This is the blood of the new testament can haue relation to any other words then those or to any other Cup then which is here consecrated Not onely all the circumstances of the Text are against your interpretation but also all the Fathers generally controwle it who vnderstand these words I will not drinke of this fruit of the Vine of the Sacrament and not of the Cup of the old Law And he quoted Clemens in Pedag. l. 2. c. 2. That it was wine which was blessed Christ shewed saying I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the Vine Cypr lib. 2. Epist. 3. alleaging the words of Saint Matthew I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine addeth where doe we find that the cup which Christ offered was mingled that it was wine which he called his blood Chrys. Hom. 83. in Mat. When our Lord deliuered this mysterie he deliuered wine of the fruit of the Vine saith he which certainely produceth wine and not water August de Eccl. Dogm cap. 75. Concilium Worm ca. 2. Wine was in the mystery of our redemption when he said I will drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine If you haue not yet weight enough I will adde one Author that in the skales of your iudgment beareth downe all these Pope Innocentius lib. 4. de Myst. Missae cap. 27. It is manifest that he consecrated wine in the Cup by those words he added I will not drinke from henceforth of the fruit of the Vine What answer you quoth M. Featly to so many Fathers a Councell and your Pope I answer quoth D. Smith that their opinion is probable And though M. Featly pressed him in the words of Campian Do you admit of the Fathers or reiect them if you admit of them you are ouercome if you refuse them you are no body He answered onely as before that their opinion was probable but he preferred his owne before it and yet triumphed as if he had gotten the day saying Are these your demonstrations Are these sufficient causes why you should separate your selues from our Church and from your Brethren the Lutherans And it was replied Are these your best answers and defences Is your great brag of the Fathers and of the Councels come to this that when they are alleaged against you you either discredit them as you did Tertullian or make miserable excuses for them as Bellarmine doth for Saint Augustine Austin did not well weigh this place or cashere a whole troope of them Pope and all yet with ciuill and respectiue termes saying their opinion is probable follow it who so will yet you will not quit your owne for it And heere because it grew late they brake off for the present At the breaking vp of the Conference a Priest who was said to be D. Smiths Chamberfellow was heard to say Profectò haec fuit vera digladiatio non Sorbonica velificatio that is This was a true fight not a Sorbonicall flourishing In this Relation we haue omitted of set purpose all D. Smiths by-discourses together with his proofes of the maine because they were against the third Law And M. Featly at this time tooke no notice of them in particular but promised in generall to answer them all when it came to his course to answer Now he was bound by the Law onely to oppose and D. Smith onely to giue his answers which are here truly set downe most of them out of his owne writing as wee depose who were present at this Disputation I must willingly subscribe to the truth of that which D. Smith did so voluntarily present to our eyes and eares And for the rest which is M. Featlies none of the aduerse party can take any iust exception against it I. P. I professe that all things in this Narration deliuered and quoted out of D. Smiths Autographie are true out of my examination And of the rest I remember the most or all neither can I suspect any part B. I. FINIS Errata Pag. 5. marg reade quidem for qâ—…id p. 6. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 p. 11. marg r. contrâ—…dictionis p. 13. marg r. Christus ibid. l. 22. r. mâ—…re prâ—… not p. 17. 2. r. proposition p. 27. 19. r. Iansâ—… p. 43. 13. r. oâ—… prâ—… as p. 54. 24 marg r. pâ—…er for potâ—… 56. 14. r. immineâ—…t p. 70. marg r. sanguine p. 96. 23 r. this p. 84. 4. r. faâ—…antur p. 84. 28. adde it p. 101. 22. dele former 108. vlt r. conâ—…rteth p. 112. 8. r. 〈◊〉 p. 117. 1. r. fidem p. 126. marg r. licâ—… ib. pâ—…st for potus 132. marg r. 〈◊〉 p. 137. 12. r. Plaine p. 13â—… 8. r. 1561. p. 145. vlt. r. therefore p. 149. 22. r Sacraments p. 202. 22. r. â—…imed p. 206. 2. r. sound p. 209. 27. 1. fâ—…ft p. 225. 25. r. mâ—…gled p. 228. 21. r. â—…ight p. 249. 19. r. sound p. 255. 11. r. take what time you will p. 2â—…8 marg r. Bernardâ—… p. 263. 13. r. your p. 129. 10. r. but for and p 274. 23. r. 〈◊〉 ib. 30. r. answers p. 278. marg r. Ecclesiâ—…â—…m p. 279. vlt dele Isa. p. 288. 〈◊〉 r. Transubstantiation 291. 2. r. bring p. 294. marg r. â—…x figuratâ—… p 29â—… 23. 〈◊〉 then for this p. 299. 14. r. ampliâ—…ion p. 301. marg r. for 〈◊〉 a a Catal. Test. ver lib. 19. pag. 1912. olim fuerunt lignei calices aurei sacerdotes nunc contra sunt aurei calices lignei sacerdotes b b Plaut in Auâ—…i Sireperco Fides mulsi congialâ—…m pleâ—…am tibi faciam fideliam id adeo tibi faciam sed ego mihi bibam vid. Eras Aâ—…g Delphis sacrisicans ipse comedit carnes Missale Rom. in Can. Miss Concil Constan. sâ—…ss 13. Thoâ—…gh Christ did in sâ—…tute in both â—…ds and the 〈◊〉 â—…ch did so â—…minister c. Plin. nat hist. l. 8. c. 25. Terribilis haec contra fugaces bellua fugax contra insequentes Muret Orat. Barbari cedentibus instant instantibus cedeunt Rom. 12. 13. Not to thinke of your selfe more highly then you ought to think but to be wise vnto sobriety Macc. l. 1. c. 1. v. 9. After his death they all put Crownes vpon themselues and so did their sonnes after them Asud Iâ—…u Saty. 4. Ipse capi voluit quid apertius et tamen illi Surgebant cristae In suâ—…reption of the Cup from the Laiety a a Plin. 〈◊〉 8. c. 18. Cameli implentur cum bibendi occasio est in praeteritum in futurum obturbatâ proculcatione priùs aquâ aliter potu non gaudent Apoc. 18. v. 12. b b Lib. 4. De sacra Euch. c. 20. c c Hom. de