according to the Translation they follow there is first a speech directed to the Church concerning Christ then an Apostrophe to Christ and then thirdly a returne unto the Church againe Secondly if that were graunted which he vrgeth touching the supposed Apostrophe it would not proue that there is no probabilitie in our Interpretation For this consequence will neuer be made good in the Schooles Christ is prophesied of in the words immediatly going before in these words God speaketh vnto him by way of Apostrophe therefore they cannot be vnderstood of deliuerance out of Babylonicall captivitie seeing it is certaine that Christ deliuered the Israelites out of all the miseries out of which they escaped But saith Bellarmine if wee admit this Interpretation in what bloud of the couenant may wee vnderstand the Iewes to haue beene deliuered out of Babylonicall captivitie Surely this question is soone answered For their deliuerance out of the hands of their enemies and all other benefites were bestowed on them by vertue of the couenant betweene God and them which was to be established in the bloud of Christ in figure whereof all holy things among the Iewes were sprinkled with bloud as the Booke of the Covenant the Altar the Sanctuary and People Wherefore seeing this place maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour touching Limbus let vs come to the last place brought for proofe thereof which is that of S. Peter concerning Christs going in spirit and preaching to the spirits in prison see whether from thence it may be proued any better S. Augustine vnderstandeth the words of the Apostle as I noted before of Christs preaching in the dayes of Noe in his eternall Spirit of Deity not of preaching in Hell in his humane Soule after death but this interpretation of S. Augustine first Bellarmine rejecteth as contrarie to the Fathers secondly endeauoureth to improue it by weakening the reasons brought to confirme it and by opposing certaine reasons against it The first of the Fathers that he alledgeth is Clemens Alexandrinus who indeede vnderstandeth the words of S. Peter not as S. Augustine doth but of Christ preaching in Hell after his death in his humane Soule but not conceiuing to what purpose preaching should serue in Hell if there were not intended a conversion sauing of some there he runneth into a most grosse dangerous error cōdemned rejected as well by Bellarm. his companions as by vs so that his authority as contrary to Augustines interpretation needed not to haue beene alledged nor would not haue beene if Bellarmine had meant sincerely For Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth as hee well knoweth that so many Infidels as beleeued in Christ and listened to the wordes of his preaching when hee came into Hell were deliuered thence and made partakers of euerlasting saluation against which errour himselfe being Iudge Saint Augustine not without good cause disputeth in his Epistle to Euodius The second auncient Writer that hee produceth for proofe of Christs preaching in Hell after his death is Athanasius who indeed doth expound the wordes of Peter of Christs going in Soule to preach in Hell after his death but no way expresseth in what sort to whom to what purpose or with what successe he preached Epiphanius whom he produceth in the third place doth not so interprete the words of Peter himselfe but onely vpon another occasion citeth the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus wherein hee doth so interprete them So that the authority of Epiphanius might haue beene spared Ruffinus in his explication of the Creede interpreteth the words of Peter as Athanasius doth Cyrill in the place cited by Bellarmine speaketh of Christs preaching to the spirits in Hell but saith nothing in particular of this place of Peter S. Ambrose doth not speake of this place but that other of preaching the Gospell to the dead So that there are no moe Ancient writers cited by Bellarmine that doe precisely interprete this place of Peter of Christs preaching in Hell in his humane soule after death but onely Clemens Athanasius Ruffinus and Oecumenius On the other side we haue S. Augustine Beda the authors of the Ordinarie and Interlincall Glosses Lyra Hugo Cardinalis and other interpreting the words as wee doe so that our Aduersaries haue no great aduantage in respect of the number of Interpreters and yet if they had it would not helpe them for confirmation of their supposed Limbus seing some of the Fathers cited by him as namely Clemens Alexandrinus speake directly of preaching in the lowest Hell for the conuersion of Infidels which they dislike as much as wee Wherefore let vs proceede to examine the reasons that are brought either of the one side or the other to confirme their seuerall interpretations of these words and let vs see how Bellarmine weakneth the reasons brought by S. Augustine and improueth his interpretation by reasons brought against it The first reason whereby S. Augustine confirmeth his interpretation is for that mortification in the flesh and viuification in the Spirit mentioned by the Apostle cannot be vnderstood of the body Soule of Christ as they that follow the other interpretation doe vnderstand them seeing Christ neuer dying in soule could not be said to be quickned in it Besides that the very phrase of the Scripture opposing flesh and Spirit in Christ doth euer import the infirmity of his humane nature and the power of his Deitie and in other men that part that is renued by the sanctification of the Spirit and that which is not yet so renued Against the former part of this reason of S. Augustine Bellarmine opposeth himselfe saying that it is not good seeing a thing may be sayd to be quickned that was neuer dead if it be preserued from dying kept aliue But he should know that onely those thinges may be said to be quickned in that they were preserued from dying which otherwise if they had not beene so preserued might haue beene killed or dyed of themselues Which cannot be verified of the Soule of Christ that could neither die of it selfe nor be killed by any other and therefore the Soule of Christ cannot be said to bee quickned in this sense The place in the seauenth of the Acts brought by Bellarmine to proue that those things may bee said to bee quickned that were neuer dead besides that it is nothing to the purpose is strangely wrested For S. Stephen in that place speaketh nothing of viuification or quickning in that sense we now speake of it but of multiplying increasing saying that After the death of Ioseph there rose vp another King in Egypt that knew not Ioseph who euill intreated our Fathers and made them cast out their infants and new borne children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is that they should not increase multiplie and therefore Bellarmine should not in reason so haue pressed the Latine word of viuification vsed by the Vulgar translatour seeing the
did see in the greater Church of Sangalli a chalice guilded with gold that weighed threescore and tenne markes of siluer provided no doubt for the publique communion of the people formerly vsed Beatus Rhenanus saith that Conradus Pellicanus a man of wonderfull sanctity and learning did finde in the first constitution of the Carthusians that they are forbidden to possesse any vessels of price besides a siluer chalice and a pipe with which the lay people might sucke out the bloud of our Lord. Besides the booke written more then foure hundred yeares since concerning the treasures of the Church of Mentz amongst chalices of gold of a greate weight hauing handles and golden Crosses c reckoneth also syluer pipes six in number if I be not deceiued deputed to this vse of sucking out the bloud of our Lord which I suppose sayth hee the Archbishop was wont to vse Ordo Romanus sheweth that when the Bishop of Rome doth celebrate the Archdeacon giueth him to drinke of the holy chalice and afterwards powreth a little out of the same into a greater chalice or cuppe which the acoluth doth hold that the people may be confirmed or receiue the sacrament of the Lords bloud out of the sacred vessell For the wine that was not consecrated being mingled with the blood of Christ is altogether sanctified The Bishops therefore come in order to receiue of the hande of the Pope and aftar them all the Priestes come vp that they may communicate at the alter and while the Archdeacon communicateth the chiefe Bishop that is present holdeth the challice for as Bishops attend the Pope in the Church of Rome so priestes should attend and assist Bishops in other Churches The Archdeacon after hee hath communicated receiueth the chalice back againe from the Bishop and confirmeth all those with the Lords blood to whom the Pope hath giuen the communion of the body of our Lord. This seruice being performed by the altar hauing receiued by the Subdeacon the pipe with which the people are to be confirmed the Archdeacon deliuereth the chalice to be carried to the acoluth to be layed vp by him in the vestery Then doth the pope goe downe to giue the communion to the Princes of the people and their wiues and as the Archdeacon doth confirme those to whom the Pope giueth the Communion of the Lords body so do the other Deacons confirme them to whom after the Pope hath ministred to those of the better sort the other Bishops and Priestes do giue the Communion and as soone as the pope beginneth to minister the Communion to the Clergie and people the schoole of singers beginneth to sing the antheme appointed for the Communion and after that when the Pope thinketh fit Glory be to the Father c. Here wee see a cloud of witnesses testifying for the Communion in both kinds wherevpon â— Cassander feareth not to pronounce that hee verily thinketh it cannot be shewed that the sacrament of the Eucharist was any otherwise ministred in any part of the Catholike Church to the faithfull people in the holy assembly from the Lords table for a thousand yeares and more but vnder both the sacramentall signes of bread and wine Neither can this saying of Cassander be refuted by that in the second of the Acts where the faithfull are sayd to haue continued in the breaking of bread and prayer Nor by that wee reade in antiquity of the Lay communion which Caietan childishly vrgeth For sundry worthy diuines in the Roman Church haue sufficiently shewed the weakenesse of these sillie allegations Let vs see therefore how the Communion in one kind came into the Church It appeareth by Leo the first that the Manichees as they denied Christ to haue beene borne in the truth of our flesh so they denied him to haue truely dyed and risen againe and therefore they vsed to fast vppon that day that is to vs the day of saluation and ioy And whereas to hide their infidelity and heresie they came sometimes to the Churches of Catholikes and were present at the celebration of the sacred mysteries they did so temper the matter that with vnworthy mouthes they receiued the Lords body but declined to drinke the blood of our redemption Leo carefully endeauoured to make this thing knowne to all that by these signes they might bee discried that their sacrilegious dissembling might bee found out and that being discouered they might by sacerdotall auctoritie be cast out of the society of the Saints By this of Leo it appeareth that the Manichees out of an hereticall conceipt began to communicate in one kinde and that all were wont to communicate in both kindes that hereby the Manichees might be discouered and knowne from other right beleeuers in that they would communicate but in one kinde alone Which thing also Andradius doth rightly note In the time of Gelasius there were certain found that out of some superstitious conceipt would not communicate in both kindes Wee haue found saith Gelasius that certaine hauing receiued a portion of the sacred Body onely abstaine from the cup of the most holy bloud Which men because they are saide to be holden with I know not what superstition either let them receiue the whole Sacrament or let them be put and kept frrom the whole seeing there can be no division of one and the same mysterie without grievous sacriledge Thirdly whereas in case of necessity as when children or such as were sicke and weake were to receiue the communion the auncient did sometimes dippe the mysticall bread into the consecrated wine and so gaue it vnto them as it appeareth by the history of Serapion by that which Cyprian and Prosper report and by that which the Councell of Turon prescribeth that the Eucharist which is reserued for the voyage provision of such as are ready to depart hence shall be dipped into the blood of the Lord that so the Priest may truely say The body and blood of our Lord be beneficiall vnto thee vnto eternall life Some beganne to bring in this manner of dipping into the ordinary communion vnder pretence of carefull avoyding the danger of shedding the blood of Christ and greater reuerence towards the same For certaine Monkes brought the same custome into their Monasteries ingenuously confessing that herein they did contrary to the custome of other Churches But that they were forced so to doe by the rudenesse of their novices who they feared would runne into some grosse neglect if they should receiue the blood of Christ apart Neither did this custome stay here but it made an entrance into other Churches abroad also for Ivo Carnotensis about the yeare 1100 hath these wordes Let them not communicate in the bread dipped but according to the decree of the Councell of Toledo let them communicate in the bodie apart and in the blood apart those onely excepted to whom it is not prescribed but permitted to communicate in the bread dipped out of
due consideration of the feare of spilling and shedding the blood of Christ. But this attempt was disliked and resisted for the authour of the booke intituled Micrologus saith It is not authenticall that certaine doe dippe the body of the Lord and hauing so dipped it giue it to the people thinking thereby to make vp vnto them the whole communion But the Roman order is against this and doth prescribe that vpon Good friday when they consecrate not but vse the bread consecrated the day before they shall take wine that is not consecrated and consecrate it with the Lords player and dipping of the Lords body into it that so the people may receiue the whole Sacrament which prescription were superfluous if it were enough to dippe the body of Christ the day before so to keep it to giue it so dipped to the people to cōmunicate in Pope Iulius in order of Popes the 36th writing to the Bishops of Egypt doth altogether forbid any such dipping commandeth the bread cup to be receiued apart What the credit of this Epistle is which the authour of this book citeth as the Epistle of Pope Iulius I know not neither do I thinke that any such custome of giuing the Sacrament to the people in the Church in such sort was so ancient as to be reprehended by Pope Iulius But it appeareth that such dipping when it began to be vsed in the Church found great opposition therfore this supposed constitution of Iulius is renewed cōfirmed in the 3d councel of Bracar Micrologus addes that blessed Gelasius in order of Popes the 51th writing to certaine Bishoppes commandeth them to excommunicate all those that receiuing the Lords body abstained from the participation of the cuppe pronouncing in the same decree that such diuision of the Sacrament cannot bee without horrible sacriledge By this of Micrologus it is evident that they thought in those times that not onely the communicating in one kind alone out of such erroneous conceipts as those of the Manichees and other like but all communicating in one kind alone is sacrilegious And that they could not endure the dipping of the sacramentall bread whereby yet the people did in a sort partake of both kindes Neither doth Micrologus alone shew the dislike that then was of such dipping but the like wee may finde in the writings of sundry worthy men Hildebertus Cenomanensis Hoec ideo tibi frater exaravi vt excitatus evigiles vt videas quoniam traditioni sacramentorum altaris quae in vestro celebris est monasterio nec Evangelica traditio consonat nec decreta concordant In eo enim consuetudinis est eucharistiam nulli nisi intinctam dare quod nec ex dominica institutione nec ex sanctionibus authenticis reperitur assumptum si Mathaeum si Marcum si Lucam consulas seorsim panem traditum invenies seorsim vinum c nam intinctum panem aliis praebuisse Christum non legimus excepto tantummodo illo discipulo quem intincta buccella proditorem ostenderit non quod huius sacramenti institutionem fignaret sic Papa Iulius ait c. That is Brother I haue therefore written these things vnto thee that being stirred by me thou mightest bee awakened to see that the manner of deliuering of the sacrament of the altar which is growne into vse in your monasterie is neither consonant to the evangelicall tradition nor agreeing with the decrees For in your monasterie it is become a custome to giue the mysticall bread to none but dipped which will never be found to haue taken beginning from the Lords institution or authenticall constitutions For if thou consult Mathew or Marke or Luke thou shalt finde that the bread was deliuered apart and the wine apart c. for wee reade not that Christ gaue dipped bread to any other but onely to that disciple whom by the dipped soppe he meant to shew to be the traitour and not that he would haue the sacrament so ministred and so Pope Iulius sayth c. From the custome of dipping the mysticall bread into the blood giving it so dipped vnto the people for feare of shedding the blood of Christ if it should haue beene ministred apart some proceeded farther and began to teach the people that seeing the body blood of Christ cannot be separated in that they partake of the one they partake of the other also and that therefore it is sufficient to receiue in one kinde alone But herein they gaue no satisfaction either to themselues or others For though it be true sayth Durandus that they are not separated and that he that receiueth the one receiueth the other also yet neither part of the sacrament is superfluous but both are to bee receiued For whereas wine breedeth blood wherein the soule life is seated according to that in Leviticus The soule of all flesh is in the blood of it and whereas in the offerings that were of old the flesh of those beasts that were sacrificed was offered for the body and the blood of them for the soule if wee should receiue Christs body and together with it the blood vnder the forme of bread signifying and exhibiting the flesh of Christ and not vnder the forme of wine signifying exhibiting vnto vs the blood of Christ wee might bee thought to neglect the saluation and good of our soules And els-where hee saith that hee that receiueth onely the consecrated bread receiueth not the whole entire Sacrament For howsoeuer it be true that the blood of Christ is in the host or consecrated bread yet is it not there sacramentally seeing bread doth not signifie the blood but the body of Christ neither the wine the body but the blood of Christ. And in the former place hee addeth out of Innocentius tertius that though the blood of Christ be receiued with the body vnder the forme of bread and the body with the blood vnder the forme of wine yet neither can wee drinke the blood of Christ vnder the forme of bread which wee eat nor eat the body of Christ vnder the forme of wine which wee drinke And sundry of the Schoolemen agree with him in this poynt resoluing that though Christ bee whole and entire in either part of the sacrament yet both parts are necessary First because the exhibiting of the body blood of Christ distinctly representeth his passion in which his blood was separated from his body And secondly because in this sorte Christs body is more fitly and significantly exhibited vnto vs in the nature of food and his blood of drinke If this sacrament bee worthily receiued vnder both kinds sayth Alexander of Hales there is a greater efficacy and working of grace causing an vnity betweene the mysticall body Christ the head then when it is receiued in one kinde onely And therefore he sayth though the receiuing vnder one kinde bee sufficient yet that which is vnder both is of more
remission of sinnes which Christ onely merited for vs by his bloudy sacrifice on the Crosse but by such her commemoratiue and mysticall sacrifice of faith in which shee representeth and setteth before the eyes of God the Father the true body and bloud of his onely begotten Sonne shee applyeth to her selfe that great donatiue of remission of sinnes which Christ obtained it being so that euery one that beleeueth in him receiueth remission of sinnes by his Name as it is in the 10th of the Acts. In the booke proposed by Charles the 5th written by certaine learned and godly men much commended to him by men worthie to bee credited as opening a way for the composing of the controversies in Religion we shall finde the same explication of this point touching the sacrifice that I haue already deliuered out of the former authors the words are these Omnis ecclesia missam in quâ—… verum corpus verus sanguis Christi conficitur sacrificium esse consentit sed incruentum spirituale in eâ enim modò religiosé piè agatur Deo quatuor spiritualiter offeruntur Initio enim Christus qui seipsum patri in mortali corpore cruentam sufficientem beneplacentem pro totius mundi peccatis hostiam cruci affixus obtulit idem ille in missâ totius ecclesiae nomine repraesentativo sacrificio eidem deo patri immolatur quod certè fit cùm ecclesia illum eiusque verum corpus sanguinem Deo patri pro totius mundi peccatis piâ prece sistit nam etsi oblatio illa in cruce semel facta transiit non reiterabilis victima tamen ipsa immolata perpetuá virtute consistit vt non minus hodiè in conspectu patris oblatio illa in iis qui eum Deo religiosa fide repraesentant sit efficax quà m eo die quo de sacro latere sanguis aqua exivit In quam sententiam patres corpus sanguinem Christi in altari praesentia nunc pretium pro peccatis totius mundi nunc pretium redemptionis nostrae nunc victimam salutarem appellare consueverunt Et Chrysostomus testatur nos eandem hostiam quae semel oblata est in sancta sanctorum semper offerre at que unum esse utrobique sacrificium unum Christum hic plenum existentem illic plenum sic tamen ut quod nos agimus sacrificium exemplar sit illius in commemorationem eius quod factum est semel Nec ab re Deus enim in hoc donavit nobis Christum Iesum Filium suum ut de nostris viribus diffisi â—…deque nostris peccatis nobis probè conscii illum tanquam unicam potissimam victimam pro nostris peccatis satisfactoriam Deo patri repraesentemus ipse enim natus est ipse datus est nobis ut quicunque in eum credimus non pereamus sed pacem cum Deo reconciliati per sanguinem eius habeamus Secundò Ecclesia in hoc missae sacrificio seipsam quoque quatenus Christi corpus mysticum est per Christum Deo offerre non dubitat Tertiò In missâ sacrificium laudis offertur Postremo Ecclesia dona quaedam tam panis quà m vini ex quibus partim corpus sanâ—…uis Christi conficiebantur offerebat partim eleemosynae fiebant iustum est quod populus in hoc sacrificio se non tantum verbis deo consecret sed symbolo aliquo externo testetur quod se totum dedicet Deo Nam is mos in Ecclesiis penè abolitus est cum olim omnibus diebus dominicis panis vinum res aliae ab omnibus tum viris tum mulieribus ad altare offerebantur quemadmodum decreta quae Fabiano tribuuntur testantnr that is The whole Church doth consent that the masse in which the bread and wine are consecrated to become the true body and bloud of Christ is a sacrifice but vnbloudy and spirituall for in it if it be Godly and religiously celebrated foure things are spiritually offered vnto God For first Christ himselfe who being fastened to the crosse offered himselfe to his Father in his mortall body a bloudy sufficient and well pleasing sacrifice for the sinnes of the whole world is in the masse offered to the same God his Father in the name of the whole Church by a representatiue oblation which thing truly is then done when the Church piously to intreate mercie for the sins of the whole world presenteth him and his true body and bloud to God the Father for although that oblation that was once made on the crosse be past and cannot be reiterated yet the thing that was then sacrificed and offered abideth hauing a neuer failing vertue and efficacie so that that oblation in them that by a religious faith do represent it vnto God is no lesse effectuall and preuailing to procure them fauour in the sight of God then it was that day that water and blood streamed out of his sacred side And in this sense the fathers are wont sometimes to call the body and blood of Christ present on the altar the price for the sinnes of the whole world somtimes the price of our redemption sometimes the sacrifice that bringeth saluation And Chrysostome witnesseth that we continually and dayly offer the same sacrifice that was once offered and presented into the holiest of all and that both there and here ther is one sacrifice one Christ perfect here and perfect there yet so that that which wee doe is but a representation and done in remembrance of that which was once there done and this not vnfitly for therefore did God giue vs Christ Iesus his sonne that distrusting our owne strength and being guilty to our selues of many sinnes we might represent and set him in the sight of God the Father as the onely and most excellent satisfactorie sacrifice for our sins For he was borne and he was giuen vnto vs that whosoeuer of vs beleeue in him might not perish but might haue peace with God being reconciled by his bloud Secondly the Church in this sacrifice of the masse doubteth not to offer it selfe as the mysticall body of Christ vnto God by Christ. Thirdly in it is offered the sacrifice of praise Lastly the Church was wont to offer certaine gifts of bread and wine out of which some part was consecrated to become the body and bloud of Christ to the faithfull people and the rest was giuen in almes to the poore And truly it is very iust and right that the people in this sacrifice should not consecrate themselues to God in words onely but so as to testifie by some outward symbole that they wholly dedicate themselues to God and therefore it is not well that this custome is almost vtterly abolished whereas aunciently euery Lords day bread and wine and other things were offered on the altar both by men and women as the decrees attributed to Pope Fabian doe testifie After this follow these words in the same place
of the Church by the Ministery whereof they were appointed and not from the words of forme as the other doe Hence also it commeth that they are variable both in their matter and forme The Apostles sayth Alexander of Hales confirmed with the onely imposition of their hands without any certain forme of wordes or outward matter or Element but afterward it was otherwise ordayned both in respect of the one and the other the formes of Baptisme and the Eucharist being appoynted by Christ are kept inviolably without all change but touching the wordes of forme to be vsed in any other of the supposed Sacraments there is no certainty but they are diversly and doubtfully desiuered The reason whereof is because they are of humane devising By this which hath beene sayd it may appeare that the other pretended Sacraments are not of the same nature with Baptisme and the Eucharist as euen Bellarmin himselfe is forced to confesse the sacred or holy things sayth he which the Sacraments of the new Law signifie are threefold the grace of Iustification the Passion of Christ and eternall life as Thomas teacheth touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most evident concerning the other it is not so certaine CHAP. 16. Of the being of one body in many places at the same time THE possibility of the being of one body in many places at the same time was euer denyed by many worthy members of the Church and consequently the locall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whether definitiue or circumscriptiue was likewise reiected as a thing impossible To affirme sayth Aquinas that one body may be locally in this place and yet also in another at the same time implyeth a contradiction and therefore the power of God extendeth not to the effecting of any such thing Scotus confesseth that Egidius Godfredus de font Alanus and Henricus are of the same opinion with Thomas Durandus sayth that which is present in one place definitiuely or circumscriptiuely cannot in any such sort be in many places at the same time Whervpon he pronounceth that the body of Christ is no otherwise in the Sacrament but by reason of a certaine habitudinary vnion betweene it and the sacramentall elements whence it was wont to be sayd that Christs body is personaliter in verbo localiter in coelo sacramentaliter in Eucharistia Personally in the eternall word locally in heauen sacramentally in the Eucharist The first that taught otherwise and brought in the locall presence was Scotus whom Occam followed though he deny not but the former opinion had great fauourers CHAP 17. Of Transubstantiation THe conuersion of the bread and wine into Christs body and blood all of us sayth Caietane do teach in words but in deede many deny it thinking nothing lesse These are diuersly diuided one from another for some by the Conuersion that is in the sacrament vnderstand nothing but Indentity of place that is that the bread is therefore sayd to be made the body of Christ because where the bread is the body of Christ becomes present also others vnderstand by the word Conuersion nothing else but the order of succession that is that the body succeedeth and is vnder the vailes of those accidents vnder which the bread which they thinke to be annihilated was before This opinion in substance Scotus followeth though in the maner of his speech he seemeth to decline it Some admit both the word and thing but yet not wholy but only in part as Durandus Bonauentura sayth that some seeing the accidents to remaine both in their being and operation thinke the matter of the sacramentall element still remaineth Other the forme but that the more Catholike or generall opinion is that the whole substance of the elements is turned into Christs body and blood We see he maketh the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be but an opinion Occam sayth there are three opinions of Transubstantiation of which the first supposeth a couersion of the sacramentall elements the second an annihilation the third affirmeth the bread to be in such sort transubstantiated into the body of Christ that it is no way changed in substance or substantially cōuerted into Christs body or doth cease to bee but onely that the body of Christ in euery part of it becomes present in euery part of the bread This opinion he sayth the Master of sentences mentioneth not much disliking it yet is it not commonly holden Cameracensis sayth that the more common opinion is that the substance of bread doth not remaine but wholly ceaseth and that though this opinion be not euidently deduced from the scriptures nor concluded out of any determination of the vniuersall Church for ought he can see yet he is resolued to follow it Waldensis sayth hee found in a certaine old booke of decrees that in the yeare 1049. there was a meeting of Archbishops Bishoppes and other religious persons in a Synode and that when they were come together they beganne to speake of the body and bloud of Christ some saying one thing some another but that before the third day of meeting they that denyed the substantiall conuersion of the sacramentall elements were silent But in the same booke he reporteth out of Christopolitanus Zacharias his booke intituled Quatuor vnum that there were some perhaps many but hardly to be discerned and noted that thought still as Berengarius did whom they then condemned and yet condemned him with the rest in this respect onely disliking him for that refusing the forme of wordes the Church vsed with the nakednesse of his maner of speaking hee gaue offence not following the vse of the Scriptures which every where call things that are signes by the names of things signifyed especially in the matter of Sacraments the more liuely to expresse their vertue and efficacie these men ceased not to charge others secretly that they knew not the nature of figuratiue speaches therefore not without grosse errour killing the soule tooke signes for the things whereof they are signes scorning not a little the folly of them that say the appearing accidents of bread and wine after the conuersion doe hang in the ayre or that the senses are deceiued In the same place he sayth that Guitmundus reporteth some other that were not of the faction of Berengarius but with great vehementie contrary and opposite vnto him to haue beene of opinion that the bread and wine in part are changed and in part remaine these supposed so much onely to bee changed as is to serue for the communicating of the worthy receiuers others thought the whole to be changed but that when vnworthy men come to communicate the body and blood of Christ cease to bee present and the substances of bread and wine returne and are there present to be receiued by them But that it may yet more clearely appeare that the opinion of Transubstantiation neuer passed currantly in the Church let vs adde another testimony