CHALLENGE.
VVHatsoever it is, which you will seeme to professe, never shall you perswade us that you doe indeed believe either of the pretended Formes of Transubstantiation. First, not by Pro∣duction, because (as the same b Cardinall truely argueth) Conversi∣on by Production, is, when the thing that is produced is not yet extant; as when Christ converted water into wine, wine was not Extant before it was Produced out of the substance of water: But the Body of Christ is alwaies Extant; therefore can it not be said to be Produced out of the substance of Bread. So he. Which Productive manner of Tran∣substantiation could not be beleeved by your Iesuites c Vasquez, and d Suarez, by both whom it hath beene confuted. And if the Change be not by Production, then it must follow that it is not by Transubstantiation; which is demonstrable in it selfe, because the next manner, which they insist vpon, cannot possibly serue your turne.
Page 110 This Second manner they name to be by Adduction, which your e Cardinall defineth to be a Bringing of the Substance of that Body of Christ, continuing still in heaven, to be notwithstanding at the same time under the shapes of Bread on the Altar, & therfore called Sub∣stantiall, but the Substance of Bread, ceaseth to haue any Being, when the Body of Christ succeedeth to be under the outward shapes of Bread. So he. And this is of late crept into the opinion of some few, whereby you have created a new faith, flat contrary to the faith of the Councell of Trent, which defined a Change of the whole substance of Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. So that Councell, as you have heard. Now by the Change of Substance into Substance, as when Common Bread eaten is turned into the Substance of Man's flesh, the matter of Bread is made the matter of Flesh. But this your adduction is so far frō bringing in the Substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's Bo∣dy, that it professeth to bring the Body of Christ not so much as un∣to the Bread, but to be under only the Outward Accidents, & formes of Bread. Yet had this Figment some Favourers in your f Schooles.
No Marvell therefore if there arose some out of your owne Church, who did impugne this delusion, calling it (as your g Cardinall himselfe witnesseth of them) a Translocation onely, and not a Transubstantiation; and that truely, if they should not have called it a Trans-accession, or Trans-succession rather. For who will say, if he put on his hand a Glove, made of a Lamb-skin, which Lambe was long since dead (and consequently ceasing to be) that therefore his hand is Transubstantiated into the Body of the Lambe? yet is there in this example a more substantial Change by much, than can be imagined to be by your Adduction of a Body under onely the Formes and Accidents of the matter of Bread, because there is in that a Materiall Touch betweene the Substance of the hand, and the Lamb-skin: but in this other there is onely a Coniunction of the Substance of one Body with the Accidents of another. Which kind of meere Succession of a Substance your Iesuite Suarez will allow to be no more than a h Translocation.
Wee Conclude that seeing Conversion, whether by Producti∣on, or by Adduction, are so plainly proved by your selves to be con∣trary to Truth: therefore it is not possible for you to beleeve a Doctrine so absolutely repugnant to your owne knowledge.
Page 111 Observe by the way that they, who gain-say the Productive, and teach the Adductive, yet doe all deny Locall mutation à Termi∣no ad Terminum: a Paradox which wee leave to your wisdomes to contemplate vpon.
