Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	blood_n	body_n	figure_n	2,133	5	8.7987	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00580	The theater of honour and knight-hood. Or A compendious chronicle and historie of the whole Christian vvorld Containing the originall of all monarchies, kingdomes, and estates, with their emperours, kings, princes, and gouernours; their beginnings, continuance, and successions, to this present time. The first institution of armes, emblazons, kings, heralds, and pursuiuants of armes: with all the ancient and moderne military orders of knight-hood in euery kingdome. Of duelloes or single combates ... Likewise of ioustes, tourneyes, and tournaments, and orders belonging to them. Lastly of funerall pompe, for emperours, kings, princes, and meaner persons, with all the rites and ceremonies fitting for them. VVritten in French, by Andrew Fauine, Parisian: and aduocate in the High Court of Parliament. M.DC.XX.; Le théâtre d'honneur et de chevalerie. English	Favyn, André.; Munday, Anthony, 1553-1633, attributed name.	1623 (1623)	STC 10717; ESTC S121368	185,925	1,158

that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder

the people otherwise one would haue serued This custome the Pope dislikes not for that the Cup was giuen to the Laiety but because in the first institution Christ gaue but one Cup to all his Disciples The same Pope afterward thus resolueth the question touching the leprous Communicants with whom the sound could not with safety drinke in the same Cup As for leapers if they be belieuers let them not be depriued if the participation of our Lords body and blood but by no meanes let them bee at the same Table or participate together with them that are cleane Anno. 780. Alcuinus in his book of diuine duties instanceth in some who were not fit to communicate euery day because they had no purpose to leaue their sinnes To these saith he Saint Austine thus speaketh I like well of your humility that you presume not to approach to the body and blood of Christ but it were better that you would depart from your iniquities and being made cleare by repentance would take the body and blood of Christ. Papists answer Cardinall Bellarmine for want of a better aduentureth vpon this answer that indeede these Fathers say that the blood of Christ is taken by or with the mouth but they say not that it ought to be drunken with the mouth of the body or taken vnder the forme of wine Reply The Hart as often as he is wounded flyes to his old Dictamus and Bellarm. to this distinction to heale himselfe but none of this herbe here groweth there is no ground for it For first the Fathers alleadged speake of the body and blood of Christ as distinct things and therefore not as of one inuolued in the other by the doctrine of Concomitancy to approach vnto to take the body of Christ and his blood or the creature of bread and wine sacramentally changed into Christs body and blood as Beda speaketh is not to take bread onely and wine by I know not what consequence or the body onely in specie and the blood by Concomitancy Secondly could this answer be appliable to other generall sentences of the Fathers yet not to these in which there is expresse mention made of the Chalice of powring out the blood of Christ and taking it as drinke and therfore vnder the forme of wine And who are they that so receiue it The Laietie as wel as the Priests vnlesse none but Priests are faithful Christians or all lepers excommunicate or suspended persons are to bee taken for Priests Beda reacheth the Cup to the faithful indifferently and Gregory to penitents after confession and contrition of what ranck so euer Yea leapers are not excluded simply but secluded that they might not infect the sound by drinking together with them SECT IX The practise of the Church from 800. to 900. Anno 800. CHarles the Great in his booke as the Inscription beareth of Images testifieth that in his time not onely frequently but dayly Christians participated of Christs body and blood He affirmeth that sins are remitted by the holy Ghost or by the blood of Christ which is taken of vs in the Sacrament and was shed for vs for the remission of sinnes That he means by vs the Laiety as well as the Clergy is euidēt First because himself was a Lay man and therefore necessarily in vs includes those of his owne ranke and order Secondly because he speakes of all their communicating who receiue the remission of sinnes by the effusion of Christs blood for them and these I am sure are not the Priests onely Thirdly because in the fourth booke c. 14. hee speaketh expresly of the faithfull in generall whereby the people must needs be vnderstood as well as the Priests His words are the mystery of the body and blood of Christ is dayly receiued by the faithfull in the Sacrament Anno 820. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corbie who was the first that euer wrote of purpose and at large of the truth of Christs body and blood in the sacrament if we may belieue Bellarmine is full and direct against the Church of Rome in the point of their halfe communion O man saith he as often as thou drinkest of this Cup or eatest of this bread thou mayest not thinke that thou drinkest other blood then that which was shed for thee and for all for the remission of our sinnes And againe The blood is well ioyned to the flesh because neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated For the whole man which consists of two substances is redeemed and therefore fed together both with the flesh of Christ and his blood Had he liued in our dayes and professedly wrote against our moderne Papists he could not in more expresse words haue impugned the Romish Glosse vpon the words of our Sauiour viz. drinke yee all of this that is all Priests then he doth cap. 15. He alone it is saith he who breaketh this bread by the hands of his Ministers distributeth it to beleiuers saying take ye ad drinke all of this as well Ministers as the rest of the faithfull this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting Testament Anno 830. Amalarius praefat in liber 3. de Offic. Eccles affirmeth that the benediction of Bishops or Priests without Chaunters Readers or any other is sufficient to blesse the bread and wine wherewith the people might be refreshed to their soules health as it was wont to be done in the first times by the Apostles themselues Quot verba tot fulmina so many words so many thunderbolts to strike downe dead the Popes sacrilegious heresie If the bread and wine were blest for the refection of the people then not of the Priests onely if this refectiō was for the health of their soules who dare deny it them If this was the manner of blessing and administring the Sacrament vsed by the Apostles themselues by what authority at this day doth the Church of Rome alter it Anno 835. Rabanus Maurus Bishop of Mentz teacheth vs that the Lord would haue the Sacrament of his body and blood to bee receiued by the mouth of the faithfull and made their food that by that visible worke the inuisible effect of the Sacrament might bee shewed For as the materiall food outwardly nourisheth the body and maketh it quicke and liuely so the Word of God within nourisheth and strengtheneth the soule Men may haue this temporall life without this meate and drinke but they cannot haue the eternall because this meate signifies the eternall societie or communion of the Head with the members Who soeuer saith he eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood he abides in me and I in him Wherefore of necessity we must take his body and blood that we may abide in him and be made members of his body In these passages this learned Bishop euery way stops the mouth of our aduersaries They

cannot say that he speakes of Priests only for he speakes of all faithfull that either are already or are to bee made members of Christs body Neither can they shift off this passage as they doe some others by granting that the people may but denying that they ought to communicate in both kinds For he presseth very farre the necessitie of thus communicating without which he supposeth neither communion with Christ nor eternall life can be obtained Neither lastly can they euade by their doctrine of concomitancy saying that the people participate of the blood in the body when they receiue the consecrated Hoste For he speaketh distinctly of eating and drinking bread and drinke and sacraments in the plurall number which cannot possibly be vnderstood of participating the bread onely or communicating in one kind after the Popish manner Anno 840. Haymo Bishop of Halberstat relateth the manner of the faithfull to haue been in his time daily to eate the body of Christ and to drinke his blood and paraphrasing vpon these words of the Apostle 1. Cor. cap. 10. The Cup which we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ He saith the Cup is called the Communion because all communicate of it and partake of the blood of the Lord which it containeth in it Surely if the word fidelis or faithfull carryeth not the Layetie yet the word omnes or all must needs the faithfull then and all of them in Haymoes time were as well admitted to the Cup as to the bread Anno 849. Valafridus Strabo speaking of the suspension of scandalous persons from the Communion calleth the Lords Supper Sacraments in the plurall number in regard of the two elements or kinds in which it is administred Those saith he that wander from the members of Christ by the enormity or faeditie of capitall crimes by the iudgement of the Church are suspended from the q Sacraments lest by the vnworthy receiuing them they should be entangled in a greater guilt as Iudas Here by capitall offenders to vnderstand Priests were a capitall offence as if they alone were the greatest offenders in the Church and to haue the rod of Ecclesiasticall censures to bee spent vpon them onely Therefore the Romanists will they nill they to saue themselues from the lash must put the capitall offender vpon the Laiety and consequently confesse that they who for their crimes were at some times suspended from the Sacraments were ordinarily when they were free from such crimes admitted to both the Sacraments as Strabo calleth them that is both the elements the wine as well as the bread For the same Strabo in his twentieth Chapter stirreth vp himselfe and all good Christians to the continuall participating of the body and blood of Christ without which we cannot liue so far forth as some greater blots or blemishes in body or mind do not withhold or hinder from it Anno. 868. In a Councell held at Wormes vnder Lewis the second we find a Canon to this purpose If any man shall marry a widow which had a daughter by her former husband and shall after lye with this her daughter let that marriage by all meanes be dissolued and let that man vndergoe the pennance of the Church so that for three yeeres he be suspended from the body of Iesus Christ and his blood He who vpon a special reason is debard from the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and that for a certain time must needs be supposed before that time to haue beene admitted to communicate in both kinds and after his penance of three yeeres done cannot be denied againe admittance to the Lords Table I desire then to know what incestuous crime all the Laiety vnder the Papacy haue committed that for these two hundred yeeres euer since the Councell of Constance they haue suspended them from the Sacrament of Christs blood Anno. 869. Regino discribeth the manner of Pope Adrians deliuering the Communion to King Lotharius and his followers in both kindes then which we cannot desire a nobler president or fairer euidence of the custome of the Church in that Age Thus then Regino The Pope inuites the king to the Lords Table taking the body and blood of our Lord in his hands the King takes the body and blood of our Lord at the hands of the Pope Then the Bishop turning himselfe to the followers of the King deliuers the Communion to each of them in these words If thou hast not shewed thy selfe a fauourer or an abbetter of King Lothar in the obiected crime of adulterie neither hast giuen thy consent thereunto neither hast communicated with Waldrand and other persons excommunicated by the Apostolick See let the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ be healthfull to thee vnto eternall life Anno 875. Bertramus or as some write his name Ratramus in his booke of the body and blood of Christ dedicated to Carolus Caluus writeth thus you demand whether the body of Christ and his blood which in the Church are receiued by or with the mouth of the faithfull be his body and blood mystically or in truth And a little after he resolueth thus If yee looke inwardly it is not the liquor of wine but the blood of Christ which is tasted by the minds of the faithfull when it is drunke and acknowledged when it is seene and liked when it is smelt vnto This Bertram speaks so plainely through this whole booke for the entire Communion and against the Popish carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament that the Romish Inquisitors were in a quandary what to doe with this Author whither quite to prohibite the reading of him or to deuise some colourable excuse and euasion for such passages in him as hold no good quarter with their Trent Faith Papists answer to the testimonies of the writers alleadged in this former Age. Before most of these testimonies our aduersaries draw Timanthes his courtain and answer them with silence Onely to Paschasius and Haymo Cardinall Bellarmine pretends to giue an answer either because for shame hee could do no lesse being so often vpraided with them or because like a new Alcumist he hoped out of the iron that wounded him to draw an oyle to cure the wound of his cause To the testimonie out of Paschasius his answer like Cerberus consists of three heads First he saith that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Secondly he saith that Paschasius doth not expound the words of our Lord as they are in Matthew but as they seeme to be spoken of Christ when the sacrament is administred in the Church His reason is In the institution of the Sacrament there were no other Ministers present distinguished from other beleeuers and therfore Christs words as they were vttered then no way admitteth Paschasius explication Drinke ye all of this as well Ministers as other beleeuers Thirdly hee saith that the words of Paschasius make much

the Truth and laying them vp in their memory or treasurie of writen notes when they are to draw them out and make vse of them against an aduersarie turning to the Authors themselues out of which those testimonies are quoted they find either the whole booke or chapter cut away or at least that passage they most spake for rased out by a tricke of the Romish Inquisitors Leger de maine That thou mightest not be so serued or haue any tricke put vpon thee in the perusall of this booke I haue here in a Tablet set before thee all the Authors of note with the Editions which I follow where thou shalt vndoubtedly find the parcell of truth thou seekest for and not the emptie shells onely wherewith thou mayst be abused in other Editions castrated by the Romanists A TABLE OF THE AVTHORS CITED IN THIS BOOKE WITH THE Editions of their Works and the time when they are accounted to haue flourished The first figure noteth the Age the second the Names of the Authors the third the Edition A. An. Dom. 920. ABbas Prumiensis vide Regino 1215. Abbas Vrspergensis Basil. 1569. 1590. Aegidius de Coninck Antwerp 1615. 995. Aelfricus Arch. Episcop Cantuariens Lond. 1580. 1241. Albertus magnus Basil. 1507. 1530. Albertus Pighius Colon. 1598. 780. Alcuinus Lutetiae 1618. 1240. Alexander de Hales Venetijs 1575. 1543. Alfonsus à Castro Antw. 1556. 1135. Algerus Scholasticus In bib pat tom 12. Col. 1618. 370. Ambros. Mediolanens Frob. Basil. 1555. 830. Amalarius Fortunatus Bib. pat tom 9. Col. 1618. 1600. Andrews Episc. Winton Lond. 1610. 1080. Anselmus Cantuariens Col. 1533. 340. Athanas. Alexandrinus Ex officina Comelin 1601. 410. August Hipponens Episc. Paris 1586. B. 1180. BAlsamon annot in Concil Lutet 1620. 1600. Baronius Card. Col. 1621. 370. Basilius Mag. Paris 1618. 1610. Becanus Mogunt 1610. 720. Beda Presbyter Basil. 1563. 1580. Bellarminus Card. Ingolstad ex offici Sartorij 1590. 1130. Bernard Clareual Basil. 1566. 1014. Berno Abbas Augrinsis Bib. pat tom 11. Col. 1618. 875. Bertram Presbyt Lond. 1623. 1580. Bilson Lond. 1586. 1260. Bonauentura Mogunt 1609. C. 1520. CAietanus Card. Antwerp 1612. 1530. Caluinus Geneuae 1595. 1564. Cassander Lugduni 1608. 80●… Carolus Magnus Edit 1549. 92. Clemens Roman Antwerp 1578. 190. Clemens Alexand. Lugdu Batauorū 161●… 400. Chrysost. Gr. Etonae 1613. 1530. Cochlaeus Mogunt 1596. 1430. Concil Basilien Editio Binij Col. Agrip. 1618. 314. C. Ancyranum Editio Binnij Col. Agrip. 1618. 675. C. Bracharens 3. 691 Caesar-Augustanum 398. Carthaginens 813. Cabilonense 2. 450. Chalcedonens 1414. Constantiense 524. I●…erdense 588. Matiscon 2. 325. Nicenum primum 829. Parisiense 589. Tolet. 2. 599. Tolet. 3. 633. Tolet. 4. 675. Tolet. 11. 1563. Trident. 868. Wormatiens 1530. Confess August Gene. apud Petr. S. Andr. 1591. 1562. Anglica 1579. Belgica 1559. Gallica 1536. Heluetica 1551. Saxonica 1580. Cornel. Iansen Lugd. 1606. 1450. Cusanus Card. Basil. 1565. 250. Cyprianus Edit Pamel Ant. 1589. 400. Cyrill Alex. Antw. 1618. 365. Cyrill Hierosol Bib. pat tom 4. Col. 1616. D. 1600. DAniel Chamierus Gen. 1626. 1580. Didacus Nugnus Venetijs 1592. 1580. Didacus de Tapia Salmant 1589. 70. Dionysius Areopagit Ludg. 1570. 1480. Dionys. Carthus Paris 1539. 1563. Dom. Soto Lugd. 1569. 1564. Dudith Quinq eccles Lond. edit cum concil Trid. 1620. 1236. Durand Lugd. 1595. E 1520. Eckius Ingolstad 1535. 1580. Edmund Camp Edit cum Whitak respon Gen. 1610. 1530. Erasmus Antw. 1540. 1532. Estius Duaci 1616. 453. Eucherius Lugdun Bibl. Patr. tom 5. Col. 1618. 420. Euseb. Emise Bib. pat tom 5. Col. 1618. 328. Eusebius Cesariensis Colon. Allobrogum 1612. 1080. Euthynius Pans 1560. F 1600. FErdinand Quir. de Sal. Complut 1618. 1600. Field Lond. 1606. 1618. Fisher Ies. Lond. 1624. 1570. Fox martyr log Lond. 1580. 1002. Fulbert Carnotens Bib. pat to Col. 11. 1618. 1590. Fulk Lond. 1617. G 1530. GEorg Cassand Paris 1616. 1541. Gerard Lorich auctoris impensis edit 1536. 130. Gratian. Paris 1507. 600. Greg. mag Papa Froben bas 1564. 726. Greg 2. Papa Tom. Concil Bin. Col. 1618. 731. Greg. 3. Tom. Concil 3. Bin. Col. 1618. 580. Greg. Turonens bib pat tom 6. Col. 1618. 1590. Greg. Valent. Lutetiae 1614. 1060. Guitmund Bib. pat tom 11. Col. 1618. H. 1591. HArmonia Confessionum Geneu apud Pet. S. Andr. 1591. 1564. Harding Impress cum Iuello Lond. 1611. 840. Haymo Halbarstad Argent 1519. 1590. Hesselius Louan 8. 1564. 390. Hieronymus Stridon Antw. 1579. 1090. Hildebert Cenomanens Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. 355. Hilarius Pictauiens Paris 1605. 1554. Hosius Stanis Col. 1584. 1262. Hugo Card. Bas. 1600. 1136. Hugo de Sanct. Vict. Mogunt 1617. 1054. Humbert de Sylua Card. Bib. pat tom 11. Col. 1618. I. 1410. IAcobellus Misno Citat à Dd. de Tap. Salmant 1589. 100. Ignatius Graecolat Geneuae 1623. 1580. Illyricus vide M. 1216. Innocent 3. Pontifex Louan 1566. 1540. Ioh. Benedict Paris 1552. 1530. Ioh. Arboreus Paris 1540. 1530. Ioh. Caluin vid. C. 1411. Ioh. Gerson Paris 1514. 1414. Ioh. Hus. Noremberg 1584. 1596. Ioh. Maldonat Mogunt 1602. 1560. Ioh. Iuellus Lond. 1611. 1604. Ioh. Munster in Wecleg Francofurt 1621. 180. Irenaeus Lugd. Epis. Col. Agrip. 1596. 630. Isodorus Hispal Paris 1601. 150. Iustin Martyr Graecolat Lutetiae 1615. Iustinian Ies. Lugd. 1612. L. 1580. LAurent Humf. Lond. 1582. 1061. Lanfranc de Euch. Bib. Pat. tom 11. Col. 1618. 450. Leo Mag. Bib. pat tom 5. Col. 1618. 1600. Lorinus Iesuit Col. Agrip. 1617. 1570. Lucas Brugens Antw. 1612. 1520. Lutherus Basil. 1540. 1320. Lyranus Venetijs 1604. M. 370. MAcarius Egypt Bib. pat tom 4. Col. 1618. 80. Martialis Lemou Lug. 1572. 1540. Marcus Flac. Illyric Ex offici Iacob Stoer 1608. M. T. Cicero Colon. Allobr 1616. 1520. Mart. Luther vide L. 1565. Mart. Chemnis Francof ad Moen 1574. 1077. Micrologus Bib. pat tom 11. Col. 1618. 1600. Morton Lond. 1606. 1610. Mockettus Lond. 1617. N. 375. NAzianzenus Gr. Lat. Lutet 1609. Nugnus vid. D. O. 1110. ODo Cameracens Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. 1080. Occumenius Gr. Veronae 1532. 230. Origenes Adamant Basil. 1570. 1530. Orthuinus Gratius Dauen 1535. P. 820. PAscasius Rudbertus Bib. pat tom 9. Col. Agrip. 1618. 1150. Petrus Cluniacens Bib. pat tom 12. part 2. Col. 1618. 1320. Petrus de Palude Paris 1530. 1140. Petrus Lombard Sub praelo Ascensiano 1535. 1610. Pet. Molinaeus Lond. 1620. 1590. Pet. Su●… Polanus Author Hist. Conc. Trid. August Trinob 1620. 100. Plinius Maior Franco ad Maenum 1599. 1530. Philippus Melancthon Wittebergae 1623. Q. 90. QVintilianus Lugd. 1560. Quinque Eccles. vide Dudith R. 835. RAbanus Maurus Lutet 1534. 620. Rehing Iacob Tubingae 1621. 869. Regino Abb. Prumiens Argent 1609. 560. Rhemigius Rhemens Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. 1280. Ricard de Med. vil Brixiae 1591. 1360. Ricard Armacanus 1600. Riuetus Andr. Saumur 1616. 910. Rodulphus Flauiacens Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. 1530. Ruardus Tapperus Louan 1555. 1119. Rupertus Abbas Tuitie Col. 1528. S.

faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and

said to the same Drinke yee all of this to whom before he said Take eate this is my body Fifthly and lastly if it were sufficient reason to redeliuer the Cup in these times to the Laietie who haue been deseruedly depriued of it namely to arme them against eminent persecution why should not the faithfull people of God especially those who neuer incurred the censure of Excommunication or suspension be much rather admitted to drinke of the Cup to arme them against as great or greater conflicts of temptations The sinnew of Saint Cyprians reason is in the word militaturis Those that are to fight the Lords battels are to be strengthened thereunto by taking the Cup of Saluation or drinking the Lords Blood But I assume all Christians in all ages were are and shall be militantes or militaturi such as haue fought doe fight or shall against their ghostly and bodily enemies therefore according to Saint Cyprians military discipline they are to be strengthened and armed thereunto by participating of the Lords Cup. The answere of Bellarmine to the second testimony of Saint Cyprians 63. Epistle commeth not home to the marke by many bowes for albeit the maine scope of that Epistle be to prooue the necessitie of administring the Sacrament in Wine against the corrupt custome of the Aquarij certaine heretikes that administred it in meere water yet on the by he discouereth the practise of the Church in his time to Communicate in both kinds and in the words alleaged be expresly faith that the Cup was ministred or deliuered to the people which is all we produce this passage for SECT IIII. Testimonies of the practise of the Church from 300. to 400. Anno. 314. IN the councel held at Ancyra Deacons that had sacificed vnto Idols are forbidden to exercise any sacred function and in particular nec panem nec calicem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to offer or deliuer bread or the Chalice The Chalice then by their Deacons was deliuered to whom but to the people for Priests administer to Deacons but Deacons neuer to Priests Anno. 316. In the Councell held at Neo-Caeserea can 13. country Priests are forbidden in the presence of a Bishop or the Priest of the citie to deliuer the sanctified bread or Cup to any Here we see the Cup as well as the bread was deliuered at the communion the words are nec panem nec calicem porrigere Anno 325. In the acts of the Councell of Nice set out by Gelasius Cyzicenus we haue a most expresse testimonie of the beleife and practise of the Church in that flowrishing age Let vs vnderstand by faith that in that holy Supper the Lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world is offered without blood by the Priests and that wee taking his pretious body and blood doe verily beleeue that they are symboles or pleadges of our resurrection Anno. 337. Iulius the first as we read in Gratian de conse dist 2. condemneth the practise of such who gaue the people a bit of bread dipped in wine for the whole Communion alleaging against this corrupt custome the practise of our Sauiour who when he commended his body and blood to the Apostles he commended the bread and the Cup apart This ancient Pope concludes from our Sauiours practise that the people ought to receiue the holy elements of bread and wine a part consequently that it is not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped Now if it be not sufficient to giue them the bread dipped in the wine Iulius would haue held it much lesse sufficient to giue them drie bread If our Sauior as he rightly conceiueth enioyned that all ought to partake of the elements apart certainly hee enioyned that the people should receiue both and not bread onely or wine onely by concomitancie Anno 340. Athanasius in his second Apology maketh it plainer that the vndeniable custome in his age was for the people to receiue the Cup. This saith he is the vse of this Cup and no other in this Cup you lawfully or of right drinke before or to the Laity This you haue receiued for an Ecclesiastical Cannon it belongs to you alone to drink the blood of Christ before the Laietie Anno 355. Hilarius Pictauiensis de trinitate lib. 8. writeth thus There is no place left of doubting cōcerning the truth of Christs flesh and blood for both by our Lords owne profession and our faith it is truly flesh and truly blood and these being taken and drunke doe worke this effect that Christ is in vs and wee in Christ Saint Hilarie spake of all Christians and saith that they receiue the flesh of Christ hauriunt that is take a draught of his blood which cannot bee without partaking the Cup. For although the doctrine of concomitancie were admitted whereby our aduersaries suppose that the people take the blood of Christ in the body yet certainely there they cannot haurire sanguinem take a draught of blood or drinke it because it is not there in a liquid forme or so that it may be sucked or drunke Anno 365. Cyril Catechesi Mystagogicâ 4. Vnder the forme of bread Christs body is giuen vnto thee that taking the body and blood of Christ thou maist be of one body and blood with him And a little after After thou hast participated of the body of Christ draw neere also to the cup of his blood Anno. 366. Macarius Egyptius hom 27. By offering bread and wine in the Church he gaue vs a patterne to take his body and blood Anno 370. S. Basil in his 289. epistle to Patricia exhorts her frequently to participate the Sacrament of Christs body and blood saying It is good and profitable euery day to participate the holy body and blood of Christ. And in his moralls chap. 22. hee propoundeth this question what is the proper dutie of a Christian and he answereth immediately to haue no spot or wrincle in his Conscience to be holy and vnblameable and so to eate the body and drinke the blood of Christ. Our aduersaries doe well to conceale this testimonie of Saint Basil because it is so direct and full to the point that it admits not any collourable answer He saith that it is the proper dutie of a Christian and therefore not of a Priest onely not to eate Christs body onely and receiue his blood by concomitancie but expresly to drinke it and this hee teacheth to be as necessarie a duty of all Christians as to clense themselues from sinne and to be holy and vndefiled Anno. 372. Gregory Nazianzen surnamed the Diuine S. Basils bosome friend in his 42. oration inuites all to drinke the blood of Christ who look for life by him without any doubting or shamefast feare Eat his body and drinke his blood if thou desirest life and in his second oration he testifieth that his sister Gorgonia after she had Communicated laid vp some part of the

sacrament was giuen to the sicke vsually in both kinds may bee gathered from the words of Instin Martyr aboue alleaged in his second Apologie who saith that the holy mysteries which had beene before consecrated in the Church were sent to those that were absent amongst which number were necessarily the sicke And from the charge which Dionysius of Alexandria gaue to his Priests that if any that were ready to die desired to bee partakers of the holy mysteries they should obtaine there desire especially if it could be proued that before in the time of their health they had been humbly sutors for them Lastly by the words of Beda who speaking of a sick Boy saith thou mayst stay till the Masse be done that then thou mayst receiue the viaticum of the Lords body and blood SECT V. The fifth headlesse arrow is an Inference from a phrase of the antients Communio laica or the Laick Communion distinguished from the Communion of the Cleargie And thus they draw it at vs. The fifth Rite or custome of the Church is the vse of the Communion called the Lay Communion which was a kinde of censure inflicted vpon Cleargie men for some great offence by which they were depriued of their Clericall Communion of this Lay communion we haue often mention made in the decrees of antient Popes and Councels For by Felix 3. in his first Epist. and second chapter and Syricius 1. epist. 11. cap. and the Councell of Eliberis Can. 76. and of Sardica cap. 10. and of Agatha cap. 2. 5. and 50. this punishment could be no other then when other Cleargie men communicated in both kindes these dilinquents were kept from the cup and were enforced to content themselues with one kind The answer Wee acknowledge that there is often mention made in the Ancients of the Lay Communion For Cyprian speakes of it in his 52. epistle and Eusebius in his sixth booke of Ecclesiasticall storie Inocentius the first in his 22. epistle The Canons of the Apostles Can. 15. Basil to Amphilochius and diuers others quoted by Chamierus in his ninth booke de Caena Dom. chap. 2. But wee denie that this Laick Communion was the Papists halfe Communion The meaning of the antient in their decrees touching the permitting of Cleargymen to participate of the Laick Communion or communicate as Laicks was this that in regard that these Priests had sometime or other scandalized their calling they should be degraded neuer admitted to consecrate or administer the Sacrament but receiue it only at the hands of the Priests meere Lay men not in the Quire or Chancell as Priests vsed to doe but without the Quier in the body of the Church among the common people This argument therefore of the Papists is a maine Petitio principij or begging the point in question to wit that the Laick Communion or Communion of Laicks was in one kind onely The contrary whereof hath beene proued before by the testimonies of all Ages This headlesse arrow therefore of our aduersaries may be thus headed and shot back vpon them by Retortion If the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients were in both kinds then nothing can be gathered from it against but for the entire Communion But the Laick Communion spoken of by the Antients was in both kinds Therefore nothing can be gathered from it against but for the entire Communion That the Laick Communion was not without the Cup Saint Cyprian who first named it clearely sheweth in those words in calice sanctificando plebi ministrando in sanctifying the Cup and ministring it to the people Nay which is very remarkeable Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very argument to verifie the obseruation of Saint Austine that euident truth striketh into the eyes of such as are shut against it acknowlegeth as much The onely forme of bread saith he was giuen to their hands but they dranke out of the Cup who would in the Church but it was not lawfull for Lay-men to touch the Cup or carrie home with them Drinke they might and did as many as desired Thus Bellarmine conuinced by the light of story confesseth that the Laietie dranke of the holy Cup as doth also his fellow Cardinall Baronius saying The faithfull of old in the time of the sacrifice in the Church receiued the most blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kinds vnder the forme of bread and wine The sixth headlesse arrow is a collection from an antient rite of communicating in such things as before had beene consecrated And thus they draw it at vs SECT VI. The sixth rite or Custome of the antient Church is the communion of the presanctified formes of bread and wine This Communion was in vse in the Greeke Church all the Lent long except the Lords day and the Saturday this custome was also in the Latine Church and remaines vnto this time on the sixt day of the holy Weeke For on that day there is no consecration and the Priest himselfe communicates in one kind Of this custome among the Greekes there is mention made in the Councell of Laodicea Can. 49. and the Councel in Trullo Can. 52. Of the like custome amongst the Latines Inocent 1. makes mention in his 1. epist. cap. 4. and the Booke of Sacaments made by Saint Gregory in the seruice for the preparation to the Passeouer Rabanus in his 2. booke of the Instruction of Clerkes And Micrologus in his booke of Ecclesiasticall obseruations cap. 19. The answer This argument hath two parts the first is taken from the custome of the Greeke Church the latter from a custome of the Romane To dispatch first the latter because it is of smal moment we say that there is no ground for this custome we dislike it no lesse then the halfe Communion it selfe For why should not the Sacrament be consecrated vpon good Friday as well as any other day Or what an argument is this the Priest communicateth in one kind alone on good Friday therefore the people ought to be depriued of the Cup all the yeere long And why I pray you doth the Priest receiue the Sacrament on Good-Friday in bread onely more then any other day And why doe they communicate in such bread only as was consecrated the day before Why might they not consecrate it on that day As some Gramarians excuse all Homers fables of the Gods by turning them into Allegories and Mythologicall expositions So Harding diuision 22. arti 2. salueth this superstitious custome by telling vs that it was not without signification of a singular mysterie This mysterie is reuealed vnto vs by Pope Innocentius Aquinas and Hugo Cardinalis Innocentius saith that it is because the Apostles ran their way that day and hid themselues Aq●…inas saith they consecrate not on Good-Friday because if any had consecrated that day whilst Christ lay dead the body had beene without blood and the blood without the body And others say if the Sacrament

speaketh of a fourefold presence of Christ first Diuine according to which he is present in all places The second Spirituall according to which hee is said after a speciall manner to dwell in the faithfull The third Sacramentall according to which he is vnited to the Sacrament both mystically and effectually For the Sacrament doth not onely represent him and his death to the eye of our body but also truly present and offer him and all the benefits of his Passion to our soules It doth not onely signifie but also by vertue of Christs promise truly and effectually exhibit Grace The fourth is carnall and corporall of which those words are meant The Word was madeflesh and dwelt among vs. Secondly In like manner the word Reall is diuersly taken 1. Sometime as it is opposed to that which is fayned and imaginary Secondly as it is opposed to that which is meerely figuratiue and barely representatiue Thirdly as it is opposed to that which is spirituall and immateriall in which sense Reall Materiall and Corporall are co-incident We beleeue that Christ is present in the Sacrament and that Really in the two former significations of Reall and the three first acceptions of Presence we deny it in the last of both In summe Christ is there many wayes Really not Corporally that is not according to the substance of his naturall body shrouded vnder the accidents of bread and wine which he thus prooued That doctrin which hath no foundation in the Word of God and is repugnant to the doctrine of the true ancient Church and ouerthroweth the principles of right reason implying palpable absurdities and apparent contradictions is to be reiected as erroneous and hereticall But the Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament is such Ergo it is to be disclaimed D. Smith here denyed the minor Which Mast. Featly vndertooke to proue according to all the parts but the time permitted to prosecute onely the proofe of the first which was That the Papists haue no ground in Scripture for their Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament And thus he proceeded First if there be any ground in Scripture for this your opinion certainely it is either in the words This is my body or in those the 6. of Ioh. 53. Vnlesse you eate my flesh c. vpon which all Papish build their beliefe in this point But neither the one nor the other are any sure ground for it Ergo You haue none D. Smith in this Syllogisme as in the former denyed the assumption Which was thus confirmed If the words of the Institution Hoc est c. and the other Iohn 6. are to be taken figuratiuely and not in the proper sense out of all question they make nothing for the bodily presence or carnall eating of Christ with the mouth But the words aboue alleadged in both places are to bee construed figuratiuely and not properly according to the rigour of the letter which I proue saith he by vncontrollable testimonies of Fathers and euident arguments drawne from the circumstances of those texts And first he alledged a place of Tertullian li. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 40. The bread taken and distributed vnto his disciples he made the same bis body saying this is my body that is a figure of my body adding withal that if D. Smith or any other could being a more pregnant place for the figuratiue exposition out of any Protestant hee would yeeld him the better D. Smith could bring none but made this answer Those words of Tert. are so to be vnderstood that the words a figure of my body are to be referred to the word this which is the subiect of Christs proposition and doe explaine it so that the meaning of Tertullian is This that is a figure of my body is my body or as he afterwards mended it that which was of old a figure of my body is now my body To which M. Featly thus replyed To rehearse this answer is to refute it if it bee lawfull vnto a speech of three words to ad id quod erat vetus to the subiectum and corpus meum to the praedicatum and to referre the words idest figura not to the praedicatum as all men do in the like you may make quidlibet ex quolibet To this D. Smith answered out of Cyprian that Tertullian was a very obscure Writer and had a very ill gift in expressing his minde Whereunto it was reioyned If he bee obscure in other places what is that to this which is most cleere to any that will not shut his eyes discredit not Tertullian whom Cyprian so highly esteemed that hee let no day passe without reading some part of his workes calling for him by the name of his Master Da Magistrum Tertullianum videlicet significans Secondly he replyed that how ill soeuer a gift Tertullian might haue in expressing his owne minde he could not be so dull in conceiuing our Sauiours mind as to make this to bee the meaning of our Sauiours words This is my body that is the bread which was a figure of my body in the old Law is now my body seeing that our Sauiour speaketh neuer a word there nor hath any relation at all to any figure of the old Testament neither in the words going before nor comming after Thirdly admitting this most strange and forced interpretation yet out of this place of Tertullian I inferre necessarily that the words of the Institution be figuratiue For this Proposition The figure or that which was the figure of my body is my body which is your exposition of Tertullian cannot be true but by a figure sith panis and corpus Christi are disparata which cannot properly be one affirmed of the other Let the Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc stand for figura corporis mei as you will haue it and adde thereunto the copula and praedicatum you faine est corpus meum saying figura corporis mei est corpus meum you must needs fly to a figure to make this Proposition true For whether you put the Bread or the accidents to be the onely figures of Christs body all is one sith neither Bread nor the accidents of Bread can bee truly and properly said to be Christs body Here D. Smith was forced to acknowledge a figure in the words of the Institution These are his owne words I acknowledge that in these words this is my body is a figure but not a meere figure or a figure voyde of that truth which is figured by it Thus they grew to an issue Master Featly affirming that hee demanded no more then to haue him grant that there is a figure in these words hoc est corpus meum which Bellarmine and all other Papists disclaime as quite ouerthrowing their opinion of the Reall presence For quoth he as for your distinction of a meere figure and not meere in speech