Bels trial examined that is a refutation of his late treatise, intituled. The triall of the nevve religion By B.C. student in diuinitie. VVherein his many & grosse vntruthes, with diuers contradictions are discouered: together with an examination of the principal partes of that vaine pamphlet: and the antiquitie & veritie of sundry Catholike articles, which he calleth rotten ragges of the newe religion, are defended against the newe ragmaster of rascal. In the preface likewise, a short viewe of one Thomas Rogers vntruthes is sett downe, taken out of his booke called. The faith doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realme of England, &c. with a short memorandum for T.V. otherwise called Th. Vdal.

THE XLI. VNTRVTH.

TRansubstantiation (quoth he) is not only repugnant to all philosophy, but also so absurd in Christian speculation, that it was vnknown to the Church of God, and to all approued Councels, Fathers, and histories, for the space of one thousand, and two hundred yeares: it was first hatched by Pope Innocentius, the third of that name, in the late Councell of Laterane, which was houl∣den one thousand two hundred and fiften yeares after Christ. A world of vntruths be here packed together, did tyme serue to range at large: to be as brief as I may, I say first that the mystery of Transubstantiation is no more repugnante to philosophy, nor absurde in Christian speculation, then the mystery of the ineffable Trinity, and other articles of Christian fayth: and I make no doubt, but had Bell liued in the tyme of Constan∣tius the Emperor, the same argument should haue gone in behalf of Arrianisme, for with as much probability, might he haue vrged the same: If he take it not in good part to haue his reputation so touched, to omitte his changeable disposition,

let him giue some reason why this maketh more against Transubstantiation, then against the con∣substantialitie of the sonne of God.

That Transubstantiation was first hatched by Innocentius, in the yeare one thowsand two hundred and fiftene, he bouldly affirmeth, but how truly re∣mayneth nowe to be examined. For either he meaneth only the name, or the thing imported by the nametyf the first we easyly graunt it, as he must also that the name consubstantiall was not heard of till the Nicene Councell: for newe names may be inuēted by the Church, the better & more plainely to explicate an auncient mystery of fayth, as Vincen∣tius * 1.1 Lirinensis that auncient father learnedly tea∣cheth: wherefore if he hath no other quarrell against Transubstantiation, but the bare name, it is very rediculous and foolishe: for if the doctrine it self be found in the fathers and scriptures, a poore spight it is to cauill at the name, and with like grace may he descant vpon the words Consubstan∣tiall, Trinity, Incarnation, Deipara, or Mother of God, &c. which if he like not to do, then let him neither do it here, or els giue some good reason of his so diuers a disposition.

But if by Transubstantiation, he meaneth the very pointe of doctrine it self, that is the chaun∣ginge of the substance of bread, into the body of Christ by the wordes of consecration, then is it a most intolerable vntruth, that Transubstantia∣tion was first hatched by many pregnant profes being alleageable to the cōtrary. To begin: in the tyme of Leo the ninth, about the yeare of Christ one thousand and fifty, in a Romane Councell,

Berengarius was condemned: whose heresy as th•• Magdeburgians suppose, came then to light, vpon th•• intercepting of his letters. written to Lanfranc•• concerning his opinion of the sacrament. Berengari•• * 1.2 Andegauensis, &c. Berengarius (say they) deacon of Anio•• perceiued that it was not truly taught, that after the speaki•• the words of the supper, the supper, the substance of the elemen•• did quite vanishe and were transmutated or chaunged, in•• the very body and bloud of Christ. Behould transubstan•• tiation by the confession of our mortall enem ye•• was taught in the Church, much more then a•• hundred years, before the tyme which he assignet for the first beginning thereof: The same Berengari•• abiuring not long after his heresy in the Counce•• of Rome, vnder Nicholas the second, and yet not lon••∣ge after returninge to his former vomitte, and pu••∣blishing a booke in defence thereof, (such a worth) * 1.3 pillar, and constant father, haue the Sacramentarie•• for their heresie) Lanfrancus, as the same Magdebur∣bians reporte, opposed himself against it setting forth that booke against Berengarius, which is ye•• extant. Primum autem But first of all (say they) he goet•• about with many words, to defend the doctrine of Transub••∣stantiation which which Berengarius did find fault with, to wit•• that after consecration, the bread was essentially conuerted in∣to the body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud. Transub∣stantiation then was not first hatched at the ty∣me he speaketh of, when as it was oppugned and defended, many a faire yeare before, that is about the year of Christ, one thousand and three score, as Bels deere brothers confesse.

An other brother of his, one Perkins, though•• caste in a more precise moulde, acknowledgeth

Transubstantiation, about fower hundred years before the time he mentioneth, for speaking of the auncient fathers thus he writeth. Et tenēdum eos, &c. * 1.4 And it is to be houlden, that they knewe not Transubstantiatiō at least for eight hundred yeares. False it is, that Trāsub∣stantiation was not taught before, as shall straight waies be iustified against Perkins, but in the meane tyme the good reader hath to note how he giueth thely to Bell, affirming Transubstantiation to ha∣ue bene about some fower hundred yeares before the time, in which by Bels calculation it was first hatched.

The former Magdeburgians note S. Chrisostom and * 1.5 Theodoretus for teaching Transubstantiation. Chryso∣stomus Transubstantiationem, &c. Chrysostom (say they) seemeth to confirme Transubstantiation, for he writeth thus in his sermon of the Eucharist, doest thou see bread? doest thou see wine! do they passe like other meates into the draught? God forbidde, doe not thinke so, for euen as waxe putte into the fire is made like vnto it, no substance therof remayneth, nothing aboundeth: euen so thinke here the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body: and to this same effect they report straight after, certayne words out of Theodoretus.

The same authors note how that S. Ambrose in his preparatiue praiers before the masse, maketh mention of Transubstantiation, and application for the liuinge and the dead. True it is, that they stile him only by the name of the author of the first praier preparatiue to Masse, amongest S. Ambroses workes, ci∣ting nothing els for prooffe, but the censure of Eras∣mus, as though the phantasticall and partiall affe∣ction of a moderne mutable man, were an infalli∣ble

rule, to measure the fathers monuments. Perki•• also very pertly censureth it for none of S. Ambros•• his workes, but yet giueth a reason, and that a pret∣ty one: ibi adoratio sacramēti There (quoth he) is adora∣tion of the sacrament. Let such reasons as these runn•• for sounde, they are none of the fathers worke•• because they are against vs and our doctri∣ne, and it will not be any difficulty at all to an∣swear quickly, whatsoeuer is produced out of an∣tiquity, yea or out of sacred scripture it self. Did strong reason more preuaile, then preconceipted fansy, they would rather inferre thus: adoration of the sacrament is allowed by S. Amhrose, ergo it is no false, superstitious or idolatrous doctrine.

Furthermore the same Lutheran historiogra∣phers reprehende Eusebius Emissenus, (who died in * 1.6 the time of Constantine, as the same men report out of S. Hierom) about Transubstantiation. De caena Do∣mini &c. Concerning the supper of our Lord (say they) he spake nothing commodiously of Transubstantiation, vpon the words of Christ, vnlesse ye eat the fleshe of the sonne of man, &c. Behould a priest for euer according to the order of Melchisedech, hath by his vnspeakable power, turned bread and wine, into the substance of his body and bloud. Diuers other notable authorities might haue been allead∣ged, but I made choise of these as being so playne, that the mortall enemyes of Transubstantiation, can not deny, but that they make cleerly for that point: and beside, there is no better boxing of Bell, then with the holy fistes of his croked bre∣thren.

Lastly, what man of any insight, not furiously transported with the passion of noucltie, can per∣suade

himself, satisfy his conscience, or once imagi∣••e if the Reall presence and Transubstantiation, ••ad not been taught by Christ and his Apostles, ••hat it could euer haue come into the Church, and anished the former opinion, especially that being mystery so far surpassing the reach of reason, and ••he other so fittinge common conceipt, and easy to ••nderstande. Could (I say) a doctrine so newe and ••ifficult possesse the world, and exterminate for∣mer fayth, coming from the Apostles, and so easy to ••pprehend, without infinite garboiles and contra∣dictiōs: or is it possible if any such thing had bene, that it could haue escaped the pennes of all wri∣ters, none euer either of loue to truth, or hatred to falshood, complayning of that great ruyne of veri∣••ie, and straunge ouerflowe of superstition. The Protestāts here can say nothing, to giue true & real satisfaction, to any sincerely desirous of saluation. On the contrary, we can tell them, that when the doctrine of the Real presence and Transubstantia∣tion began to be impugned, how it was straight re∣sisted by learned men, and diuers Councels, as be∣fore was touched intreatinge of Berengarius, which is an argument, that our religion is auncient and Apostolicall, and his a filthy ragge of hereticall nouelty.

And thus haue I abundantly proued, that Tran∣substantiation began not vnder Innocentius in the yeare one thousand two hundred and fiue, as Bell affirmeth: but is far more auncient, being taught by the old doctors of Christs Church: yea that it co∣meth from our Sauiour himself, and his blessed Apostles.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In suo Comm••∣nitori••.
• * 1.2

  Contur. 9. col. 454. 455.
• * 1.3

  B••renga∣rius fa∣ther of the Sa∣cramen∣taries, a periured person. Cent. 9. col. 459.
• * 1.4

  Rroblem. verbo Realis presentia.
• * 1.5

  Centur. 5. 5. col. 517.
• * 1.6

  Contur. 4. col. 975.