indeed simply as it is flesh without any other respect for so it is not given neither would it profit us but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing that this eating of Christ's body is spiritual and that by it the souls of the Faithful and not their stomachs are fed by the operation of the Holy Ghost For this none can deny but they who being strangers to the Spirit and the divine vertue can savour only carnal things and to whom what is Spiritual and Sacramental is the same as if a meer nothing 7. As to the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament we that are Protestant and Reformed according to the ancient Catholick Church do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries but after the example of the primitive and purest Church of Christ we leave it to the power and wisdom of our Lord yielding a full and unfeined assent to his words Had the Romish maintainers of Transubstantiation done the same they would not have determined and decreed and then imposed as an Article of faith absolutely necessary to Salvation a manner of presence newly by them invented under pain of the most direful Curse and there would have been in the Church less wrangling and more peace and unity than now is CHAP. II. 1 2 and 3 c. The unanimous consent of all Protestants with the Church of England in maintaining a real that is true but not a carnal presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament proved by publick Confessions and the best of Authorities 1. SO then none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ's body and bloud in the Sacrament and there appears no reason why any man should suspect their common Confession of either fraud or error as though in this particular they had in the least departed from the Catholick faith 2. For it is easie to produce the consent of Reformed Churches and Authors whereby it will clearly appear to them that are not wilfully blind that they all zealously maintain and profess this truth without forsaking in any wise the true Catholick Faith in this matter 3. I begin with the Church of England wherein they that are in holy Orders are bound by a Law and Canon Never to teach any thing to the people to be by them believed in matters of Religion but what agrees with the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and what the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Prelates have gathered and inferred out of it Vnder pain of Excommunication if they transgress troubling the people with contrary Doctrine It teacheth therefore that in the Blessed Sacrament the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the worthy Receivers the consecrated and broken bread is the communication of the body of Christ and likewise the consecrated Cup the communication of his bloud But that the wicked and they that approach unworthily the Sacrament of so sacred a thing eat and drink their own damnation in that they become guilty of the body and bloud of Christ And the same Church in a solemn Prayer before the consecration prays thus Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear SonJesus Christ and to drink his bloud that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed through his most precious bloud and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us The Priest also blessing or consecrating the Bread and Wine saith thus Hear us O merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud Who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me Likewise after Supper he took the Cup and when he had given thinks he gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my bloud of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me The same when he gives the Sacrament to the people kneeling giving the bread saith The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life Likewise when he gives the Cup he saith The bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life Afterwards when the Communion is done follows a thanksgiving Almighty and ever living God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ With the Hymn Glory be to God on high c. Also in the publick Authorized Catechism of our Church appointed to be learned of all it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the Sacrament that it is the body and bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper And in the Apology for this Church writ by that worthy and Reverend Prelate Jewel Bishop of Salisbury it is expresly affirmed That to the faithful is truly given in the Sacrament the body and bloud of our Lord the life-giving flesh of the Son of God which quickens our souls the bread that came from heaven the food of immortality grace and truth and life And that it is the Communion of the body and bloud of Christ that we may abide in him and he in us and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and bloud of Christ is the food of our souls as bread and wine is of our bodies 4. A while before the writing of this Apology came forth the Dialectick of the famous Dr. Poinet Bishop of Winchester concerning the truth nature and substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the blessed Sacrament writ on purpose to explain and manifest the Faith and Doctrine of the Church of England in that point In the first place it shews that the holy Eucharist is not only the figure but also contains in it self the truth nature and substance of the body of our blessed Saviour and that those words nature and substance ought not to be rejected because the Fathers used them in speaking of that Mystery Secondly He inquires whether those expressions truth nature and substance were used in this Mystery by the Ancients in their common acceptation or in a sense more particular
sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Caesarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms but both he and Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivisie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisteth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so
famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus though he repented afterwards as they themselves are forced to confess Fain would they if they could get out at this door when they cannot deny that he affirmed that the Elements remain in their natural substance as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adversaries to yield that Theodoret is of our side For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition set forth by Stephan Nicolinus the Popes Printer in the year 1547 it is plainly set down That in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound but that he was to be excused because the Church of Rome had made no decree about it 22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius who whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth was of the same age and opinion as he and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two natures in Christ in this manner Doubtless the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which we receive is a very divine thing whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine by substance and nature And indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action By this therefore we see manifestly enough that we must believe that to be in Christ which we believe to be in his Sacrament that as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost it becomes a divine substance and yet remains in the propriety of its nature so this great Mystery the Incarnation of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true Christ consisting of two natures which yet properly remain unchanged It doth plainly appear out of these words that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substantial for first the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ that still they continue to be by nature Bread and Wine Secondly The Bread and Wine retain their natural properties as also the two natures in Christ Lastly The Elements are said to become a divine substance because while we receive them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature by the Body and Bloud of Christ which are given to us These things being so their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians And as for their thread-bare objection to this That by the substance of Bread and wine the true substance it self is not to be understood but only the nature and essence of the accidents it is a very strange and very poor shift There is a great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of Cardinal Contarenus who yielding to the evidence of truth answered nothing to this plain Testimony of Gelasius 23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria who said That the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament are received only by a pure faith as we read in that Epistle against Nestorius which six hundred Fathers approved and confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon I omit to mention the other Fathers of this Age though many things in their Writings be as contrary to Transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any I have hitherto cited 24. I come now to the Sixth Century about the middle whereof Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch wrote a Book which was read and commended by Photius concerning sacred Constitutions and Ceremonies against the Eutychians therein that he might prove the Hypostatical Union that in Christ there is no confusion of natures but that each retains its own substance and properties he brings the comparison of the Sacramental Union and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into another in the Sacrament No man saith he that hath any reason will say that the nature of the palpable and impalpable and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same For so the Body of Christ which is received by the faithful remains in its own substance and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace and so Baptism though it becomes wholly spiritual yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance that 's water neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace 25. It is not very long since the works of Facundus an African Bishop were Printed at Paris but he lived in the same Century Now what his Doctrine was against Transubstantiation as also of the Church in his time is plainly to be seen by those words of his which I here transcribe The Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ consecrated in the Bread and Wine is said to be his Body and Bloud not that his Body be Bread or his Bloud Wine but because the Bread and Wine are the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud and therefore so called by Christ when he gave them to his Disciples Sirmondus the Jesuit hath writ Annotations on Facundus but when he came to this place he had nothing to say but that the Bread is no Bread but only the likeness and appearance of Bread An opinion so unlike that of Facundus that it should not have been Fathered upon him by a learned and ingenuous man as Sirmondus would be thought to be For he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient Fathers that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject called by him the appearances of Bread And as for his thinking That some would take the expressions of Facundus to be somewhat uncouth and obscure how unjust and injurious it is to that learned Father may easily be observed by any 26. Isidore Bishop of Hispal about the begining of the Seventh Century wrote thus concerning the Sacrament Because the bread strengthens our body therefore it is called the Body of Christ and because the Wine is made bloud therefore the Bloud of Christ is expressed by it Now these two are visible but yet being sanctified by the Holy Spirit they become the Sacraments of the Lords Body For the Bread which we break is the Body of Christ who said I am the Bread of life and the Wine is his Bloud as it is written I am the true Vine Behold saith he they become a Sacrament not the substance of the Lords Body for the Bread and Wine which feed our Flesh cannot be substantially nor be said to be the Body and Bloud of Christ but Sacramentally they are so as certainly as that they are
the determination of the Church For that the Bread should still remain he confesseth That it is possible That it is not against reason or the authority of the Bible But concerning the conversion of the Bread he says That clearly it cannot be inferred from Scripture nor yet from the determination of the Church as he judgeth Yet because the common opinion was otherwise he yielding to the times was fain to follow though with some reluctancy 30. The Council of Florence which was not long after did not at all treat with the Greeks about Transubstantiation nor the Consecration of the Sacrament but left them undetermined with many other Controversies But that which is called the Armenians instruction and in this cause and almost all Disputes is cited as the Decree of the General Council of Florence by Soto Bellarmine and the Roman Catechism is no Decree of the Council as we have demonstrated somewhere else but a false and forged Decree of Pope Eugenius the Fourth who doth indeed in that Instruction prescribe to the Armenians a form of Doctrine about the Sacrament saying That by vertue of the words of Christ the substance of the Bread is turned into his Body and the substance of the Wine into his Bloud But that he did it with the approbation of the Council as he often says in his Decree is proved to be altogether false as well by the Acts of the Council as by the unanswerable Arguments of C. de Capite Fontium Archbishop of Caesarea in his Book De necessaria Theologiae Scholasticae correctione dedicated to Pope Sixtus the Fifth For how could the Council of Florence approve that Decree which was made more than three months after it was ended It being certain that after the Council was done the Armenians with the Greeks having each of them signed Letters of Union which yet were not approved by all nor long in force after they were subscribed departed out of Florence July 22 whereas the Instruction was not given while November 22. Therefore by the mutual consent of both Parties was nothing here done or decreed about Transubstantiation or the rest of the Articles of the new Roman Faith But Eugenius or whoever was the Forger of the Decree put a cheat upon his Reader Perhaps he had seen the same done by Innocent the Third or Gregory the Ninth in the pretended Decrees of the Council of Lateran which were the Popes only but not the Council's And certainly it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please himself than for any hopes he could have that at his command the Armenians would receive and obey his Instruction sooner than the Greeks For to this day the Armenians believe that the Elements of Bread and Wine retain their nature in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 31. By these any considering person may easily see that Transubstantiation is a meer novelty not warranted either by Scripture or Antiquity invented about the middle of the Twelfth Century out of some misunderstood Sayings of some of the Fathers confirmed by no Ecclesiastick or Papal Decree before the year 1215. afterwards received only here and there in the Roman Church debated in the Schools by many disputes linble to many very bad consequences rejected for there was never those wanting that opposed it by many great and pious men until it was maintained in the Sacrilegious Council of Constance and at last in the year 1551. confirmed in the Council of Trent by a few Latine Bishops Slaves to the Roman See imposed upon all under pain of an Anathema to be feared by none and so spread too too far by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the Pope So that we have no reason to embrace it untill it shall be demonstrated that except the substance of the Bread be changed into the very Body of Christ his words cannot possibly be true nor his Body present Which will never be done A Table of the places of Scripture cited in this Book Exod XII 11 21. Chap. I. Art 4 Eccl. VII 29. Chap. VII 24 St. Mat. XXVI 26. Chap. I. 1 St. Luk. XXII 19. Ibid.  St. Job III. 3. Chap. VI. 7 St. Job III. 29. Chap. VII 19 St. Job VI. 55. Chap. I. 5 Rom. XII 3. Chap. VI. 7 1 Cor. IV. 15. Ibid.  1 Cor. X. 16. Chap. I. ◠1 Cor. X. 3 4 Ibid.  Gal. VI. 5. Chap. VII 7 Eph. IV. 22. Ibid.  1 Pet. I. 3. Ibid.  Jude v. 3. In the Preface  A Table of the Ancient Fathers Century I. CLemens Romanus Chap. VI. Art 1 St. Ignatius Ibid. 10 Century II. Theoph. Antioch Chap. VI. 1 Justinus Martyr Chap. V. 7  VI. 11 Athenagoras Tatianus Chap. VI. 1 Irenaeus Chap. V. 8  VI. 5 7 Century III. Tertullian Chap. V. 9  VI. 7 Origenes Chap V. 10  VI. 5 7 Cyprian Chap. V. 11  VI. 7 8 12 Clem. Alexand. Chap. VI. 1 7 Minutius Felix Ibid.  Arnobius Chap. V. 35 Century IV. Euseb Caesar Chap. VI. 1 Athanasius Chap. V. 13 Cyril Hieros Ibid. 14  VI. 5 7 Juvencus Macarius Hilarius Optatus Euseb Emiss Greg. Naz. Cyril Alex. Epiphanius Hieronimus Theoph. Alex. Gaudentius Chap. VI. 1 6 7 6 St. Basil Chap. V. 15  VI. 7 Greg Nyss Chap. V. 16  VI. 7 Ambrosius Chap. V. 17  VI. 6 7 13 Chrysost Chap. V. Art 18  VI. 6 7 8 Century V. St. Austin Chap. V. 19 Prosper III. Chap. V. 20 Leo IV.   Theodoret. Chap. V. 21  VI. 10 Gelasius Chap. V. 22 Sedulius Gennadius Chap. VI. 1 Faustus Reg. Ibid. 7 Century VI. Ephrem Chap. V. 24 Facundus Ibid. 25 Fulgentius Chap. VI. 1 Victor Antioch Primasius Procop. Gaz. Chap. VI. 1 Century VII Isidorus Hispal Chap. V. 26 Hesychius Chap. VI. 1 2 Maximus Ibid. 1 Century VIII Vener Beda Chap. V. 27 Carol. Magnus Ibid. 28 Damascenus Chap. VI. 1 Century IX Paschasius Chap. V. 29 Amalarius 30 Rabanus Maurus 31 Joh. Erigena 32 Wal. Strabo 33 Bertramus 34 Niceph. Patria Hincmarus Chap. VI. Art 1 Century X. Herigerus Chap. V. 36 Fulbertus Chap. VI. 1 Century XI Idem Fulbertus Chap. VII 3 Berengarius Ibid. 4 5 6 c. Hildebertus Chap. VII 4 Theophylact Oecumenius Chap. VI. 7 Century XII Bernardus Chap. VII 13  III. 2 Rupertus Chap. VII 14 A Table of the Schoolmen Century XIII LOmbardus Chap. VII Art 15 Alex. Alensis Ibid. 24  VI. 2 Albertus Magnus Ibid. 26 Tho. Aquinas 2 Rich. de Mediavilla Chap. VII 10 Century XIV Scotus Durandus Occamus Chap. V. 2 Baconus Chap. VII 27 Holcotus 26 Th. Argent 27 Brulifer 24 Century XV. Card. Camer Chap. V. Art 3  VII 29 Gabriel Biel Ibid  Century XVI Cajetan Ibid.  Dom. Soto Chap VII 24 A Table of the Councils NIcene I. Chap. V Art 12 Calced Ibid. 23 Ancyran Neocaesarien Laodiceum Carthagin Aurelian
reason that they are inseparable one from the other meer nonsense for as long as the accidents of the Bread i. e. the shaâ—â— and taste and colour c. remain in their proper being so long is the Body of Christ inseparably joyned with them wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly or are cast out by vomiting the Body of Christ it self must of necessity go along with them and for this cause pious souls I repeat their own words do frequently eat again with great reverence the parts of the Host cast out by vomiting Others answer also That a beast eats not the Body of Christ Sacramentally but accidentally as a man that should eat a Consecrated Host not knowing that it was consecrated 3. They inquire about musty and rotten Hosts and because the Body of Christ is incorruptible and not subject to putrefaction therefore they answer That the Hosts are never so and that though they appear as if they were yet in reallity they are not as Christ appeared as a Gardener though he was no Gardener 4. They demand concerning indigested Hosts which passing through the belly are cast into the draught or concerning those that are cast into the worst of sinks or into the dirt Whether such Hosts cease to be the Body of Christ And answer That whether they be cast into the Sink or the Privy as long as the appearances remain the Body of Christ is inseparable from tâ—â—â— And for the contrary opinion they say that it is not tenable and that it is not safe for any to hold it because the Pope hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of Excommunication Therefore the Modern Schoolmen add That if any should hold the contrary after the Popes determination he should be condemned by the Church of Rome that is Nay they hold it to be a Point of Faith which none may doubt of because the contrary Doctrine hath been condemned by Pope Gregory the Eleventh 5. They ask concerning the accidents whether the Body of Christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject This is against Logick Or whether Worms be gendred or Mice nourished of accidents And this against Physick 6. Whether the Body of Christ can at the very same time move both upwards and downwards one Priest lifting up the Host and another setting it down And I know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and non-plust them and all their School and brought them to such straights and extremities that they know not what to resolve nor what shifts to make And truly it had been very happy for Religion if as the Ancients never touched or mentioned Transubstantiation so latter times had never so much as heard of its name For God made his Sacrament upright as he did Man but about it they have sought out many inventions 25. Likewise this Transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impious Wretches to abuse and profane most unworthily what they thought to be the Body of Christ For instances may be brought of some wicked Priests who for filthy lucre have sold some Consecrated Hosts to Jews and Sorcerers who have stabb'd and burnt them and used them for Witchcraft and Inchantments Nay we read that St. Lewis himself very ill advised in that gave once to the Turks and Saracens a consecrated Host as a pledge of his Promise and an assurance of Peace Now can any one who counts these things abominable perswade himself that our Blessed Saviour would have appointed that his most holy Body should be present in his Church in such a manner as that it should come into the hands of his greatest Enemies and the worst of Infidels and be eaten by Dogs and Rats and be vomited up burnt cast into Sinks and used for Magical Poysons and Witchcraft I mention these with horror and trembling and therefore abstain from raking any more in this dunghill 26. No wonder therefore if this new Doctrine of Innocent the Third being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses few men could be perswaded in the fourteenth Century that the Body of Christ is really or by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Altar as it is recorded by our Country-man Robert Holkot who lived about the middle of that Century As also Thomas Aquinas reports of some in his time who believed that after Consecration not only the accidents of the Bread but its substantial form remained And Albertus Magnus himself who was Thomas his his Tutor and writ not long after Innocent the Third speaks of Transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only Nay that it was absolutely rejected and opposed by many is generally known for the Anathema of Trent had not yet backt the Lateran Decree 27. As for the rest of the Schoolmen especially the modern who are as it were sworn to Pope Innocent's determination they use to express their belief in this matter with great words but neither pious nor solid in this manner The common opinion is to be embraced not because reason requires it but because it is determined by the Bishop of Rome Item That ought to be of greatest weight that we must hold with the holy Church of Rome about the Sacraments now it holds that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud as it is clearly said Extra De fide summa Trinitate Cap. firmiter Again I prove that of necessity the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ for we must hold that declaration of faith which the Pope declares must be held Thus among the Papists if it be the pleasure of an imperious Pope as was Innocent the Third Doctrines of Faith shall now and then increase in bulk and number though they be such as are most contrary to holy Scripture though they were never heard of in the Primitive Church and though from them such consequences necessarily follow as are most injurious to Christ and his holy Religion For after Innocent the Third the Roman Faith was thus much increased by the determination of Pope Gregory the Eleventh that if it so happens the Body of Christ in the Consecrated Host may descend into a Rats belly or into a Privy or any such foul place 28. In the fifteenth Century the Council of Constance which by a Sacrilegious attempt took away the Sacramental Cup from the People and from the Priests when they do not officiate did wrongfully condemn Wiclif who was already dead because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread and Wine remain without a substance Which two Assertions are most true 29. Cardinal Cameracencis who lived about the time of the Council of Constance doth not seem to own the Decree of Pope Innocent as