CHAP. II.
The Question is to be examined by these ground; viz.I. Scripture. II. Antiquity. III. Divine Reason.
IN all which wee shall make bold to borrow your owne Assertions, and Confessions, for the Confirmation of Truth.
The Romish Depravation of the Sence of Christ his words, [This is my Body:] for proofe of Tran∣substantiation.
SECT. I.
YOu pretend (and that with no small Confidence) as a Truth avouched by the Councell of a Trent, that Transubstantiation is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you.
CHALLENGE.
VVHerein you shew your selves to be men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to be undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you your-selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you b grant that (be∣sides Cardinall Cajetane, and some other Ancient Schoolemen) Scotus, Page 105 and Cameracensis, men most Learned and Acute, held that There is no one place of Scripture so expresse, which (without the Declaration of the Church) can evidently compell any man to admit of Transub∣stantiation. So they. Which your Cardinall, and our greatest Adversary, saith c Is not altogether improbable; and whereunto your Bishop d Roffensis giveth his consent. Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proofe of your Transubstantia∣tion, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as to e Change the Verbe Substantive [Est] into a Verbe Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Transit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or, It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sence, which your Iesuite Suarez cannot allow, because (as hee truly saith) It is a Corrupting of the Text. Albeit indeed this word Transubstantiation importeth no more than the Fieri, seu Transire, of Making, or Passing of one Substance into another. So that still you see Transubstantiation cannot be extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.
Wee might, in the third place, adde hereunto that the true Sence of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fa∣thers, and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene already plentifully * proved, as an Infallible Truth. So groundlesse is this chiefe Article of your Romish Faith, whereof more will be said in the sixt Section following. But yet, by the way, wee take leave to prevent your Obiection. You have told us that * the words of Christ are Operative, and worke that which they signifie; so that upon the pronuntiation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christs Body; which wee shall be∣lieve, assoone as you shall be able to prove, that upon the pronun∣tiation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood,] Luc. 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christ's Blood, or else into his Blood it selfe.
The Novelty of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof.
SECT. II.
The Title, and Name of Transubstantiation proved to be of a latter date.
YOu have imposed the very Title of Transubstantiation upon the Faith of Christians; albeit the word Transubstantiation (as you grant) f was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that Page 106 your Romish Change had not it's Christendome, or name a∣mong Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Car∣dinall g Alan witnesseth) before the Councell of Laterane, which was 1215. yeares after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine, for a Thousand yeares, attributing any word equivalent, in strict Sence; unto the same word Transubstantia∣tion, untill the yeare 1100. (which is beyond the Compasse of due Antiquitie) At what time you finde, note, and •rge Theo∣phylact; who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sence hee vsed it, you might best have learned from himselfe, who in the very same place saith that Christ in a manner is h Trans-elementated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradoxe it were, being taken in strict and proper Sence, we permit to your owne iudge∣ments to determine.
Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word, obiect the like use of this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began, because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice iudged the Obiection of the Novelty of that word Calumnious; for that the use of it had beene Antient before their times, as your Cardinall i Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth.
You furthermore to prevent our Obiection (demanding why the Antient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had beene of your Romish Faith, con∣cerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) haue shaped us this Answere, namely, that k Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Trans∣formation, Trans-elementation, and the like. So your Lorichius, Reader of Divinitie among you; who by his vast and rash bold∣nes might as iustly have inferred from the like Phrases of the A∣postle, viz. [* 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are transformed] that every Regene∣rate Christian is Transubstantiated into Christ: or, from the word [* 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He is transfigured] say that the Diuell is Transub∣stantiated into an Angell of light: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is changed] (used by l Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in m Nazianzene, conclude that Every Per∣son Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ.
Will you have the world imagine that so many, so excellent, and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Lear∣ning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not in a Thousand yeares space, finde out either the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Latine Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Page 107 Change, if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome in your Cardi∣nal? n Liberty of devising new words (saith he) is a thing most dan∣gerous; because new words, by little and little, b•get new things. So hee. Therefore may wee iustly place this your new word among those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which St. * Paul will have Christians by all means to avoid; els so new and barbarous a name must needs ingen∣der a novell, and brutish opinion, such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be; As followeth.
The Novelty of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and shewen not to have beene before the Councell of Laterane (namely) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ.
SECT. III.
THis Aricle hath beene decreed (as you haue * heard) by your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and therefore presumed to be Ancient.
CHALLENGE.
THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Cardi∣nall o Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the VIIth. viz. 1073. yeares after Christ. But surely at that time this could be but a private opinion of some few, for Peter Lombard (living 67. yeares after this Pope, and esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole) when he had laboured to give Re∣solution to all doubts, especially in this very Question (whe∣ther the Conversion were substantiall, or not) confesseth plainely saying: p Definire non sufficio: I am not able to Determine. So he. Anno 1140.
Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely, which caused your learned and subtile Schoole-man Scotus to de∣scend lower, to find out the Birth thereof, q Affirming that the Arti∣cle of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Coun∣cell of Laterane, under Pope Innocent III. viz. Anno 1215. whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of Reading. But ei∣ther were your Iesuite Coster, and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Antient Learning, as Scotus, or els they gave small Credit to that Councell cited by Bellarmine under Gregory the VIIth. For your Iesuite saith, in direct tearmes, that r The name of Transubstantiati∣on was used in the Councell of Laterane, for clearer declaration, that Page 108 Christians might understand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so vnderstood before? But your Cardinall Perr•n more peremptorily con∣cludeth that s If it had not beene for the Councell of Laterane, it might be now lawfull to impugne it. So hee. A plaine acknow∣ledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Coun∣cell, even as Scotus affirmed before, But we pursue this Chase yet further, to shew,
That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councell of Laternae, vnder Pope In∣nocentius the III.
SECT. IV.
YOur owne learned Romish t Priest, a long time Prisoner, did under the name of Widdrington produce many Historians viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Matth. Paris, and others to testifie as followeth. That many things fell under Consul∣tation in that Councell, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Per•sium. Insomuch that some of these Authors sticke not to say that This Generall Councell, which seemed to promise bigg and mighty matters, did end in scorne and mockery, performing nothing at all. Wee might adde that the supposed Acts of this Councell were not published vntill more than two hundred yeares after. No marvell then if some u Schoole-men, among whom were Sco∣tus and Biel, held Transubstantiation not to have beene very antient. And another, that x It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, M. Breerly (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) stick∣eth not to say that y Transubstantiation compleat (that is, both for forme, and matter) was not determined vntill the last Councell of Trent; that is to say, not untill the yeare of our Lord 1560. Doe you not see how much licking this ougly Beare and Beast had, before it came to be formed? and yet it will appeare to be but a Monstrum horrendum, take it at the best; as it is now to to be proved, by the full discouering of the palpable Falshood thereof.
