The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

[ 40] CHALLENGE.

WHerein you shew your selves to bee men of great Faith, or rather Credulity, but of little Conscience; teaching that to bee undoubtedly True, whereof notwithstanding you

your selves render many Causes of Doubting. For first you b 1.1 grant that (besides Cardinall Caejetane, and some other An∣cient Schoolemen) Scotus 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 Transubstantiation. So they. Which your Cardinall, and our greatest Adversary, faithc 1.2 Is not al∣together improbable; and whereunto your Bishopd 1.3 Roffensis giveth his consent.

Secondly, (which is also confessed) some other Doctors of [ 10] your Church, because they could not find so full Evidence, for proofe of your Transubstantiation, out of the words of Christ, were driven to so hard shifts, as toe 1.4 Change the Verbe Sub∣stantive [Est] into a Verbe Passive, or Transitive, Fit, or Tran∣sit; that is, in stead of [Is] to say, It's Made, or It passeth into the Body of Christ. A Sense, which your Iesuite Suarez can∣not 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 [ 20] cannot bee extracted out of the Text, without violence to the words of Christ.

{fleur-de-lys}The like violence is used by your IesuitI 1.5 Gordon, who, to make Christs Speech to be Practicall, for working a Transub∣stātiation, doth inforce the words [This is my Body] and, [Eat yee this] and, [Drinke yee this] being all spoken in the Pre∣sent tense, to signifie the future. Which, although it were true, all Grammarians know to be the figure Enallage. From these Premisses it is most apparent, that the Romish Doctors cast themselves necessarily upon the hornes of this Dilēma, thus: [ 30] Either have these words of Christ [This is my Body] a Sense Practicall, to signifie that which they worke, and then is the Sense Tropicall, (as you have now heard them, against your Romish Literall Sense, to betoken an operative power and effect of working Bread into the Body of Christ:) or else they are not Practicall; and then they cannot implie your Tran∣substantiation at all.

Wee might, in the third place, adde hereunto that the true Sense of the words of Christ is Figurative, as by Scriptures, Fathers, and by your owne confessed Grounds hath beene al∣ready [ 40] plentifully* 1.6 proved, as an insallible Truth. So ground∣lesse

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 Objection. You have told us that* 1.7 the words of Christ are Operative, and worke that which they signifie; so that upon the pronunciation of the words [This is my Body,] it must infallibly follow, that Bread is changed into Christs Body; which wee shall beleeve, assoone as you shall bee able to prove, that upon the pronuntiation of the other words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood,] Luke [ 10] 22. 20. the Cup is changed into the Testament of Christs Blood, or else into his Blood it selfe.

Notes

• b 1.1

  Scotus, quem Cameracensis sequ∣tur,—Dicunt non extare locū in Scrip∣turis tàm expressum, ut fine declaratione Ecclesiae evidentes cogat Transubstan∣tiationem admittere. Atque hoc non est omninò improbabi∣le, quià an ità sit du∣bitari potest, cum ho∣mines acutissimi, & doctissimi, qualis in∣primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. Bellar. quo supra. Ca∣jetanus, & aliqui vetustiores audiendi non sunt, qui dicunt, panem definere esse, non tàm ex Evange∣lio, quàm ex Eccle∣siae authoritate con∣stare. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34 pag. 419.
• c 1.2

  See in the former Allegation at (b)
• d 1.3

  Corpus Chri∣sti fieri per consecra∣tionem, non proba∣tur nudis Evangelij verbis, sine pia inter∣pretatione Ecclesiae. Roffens. Episc. con. Capt. Bab. cap. 9. pag. 99.
• e 1.4

  [Hoc est] pro Transit, Bonaventu∣ra decet. Idem ferè habet Oceam, & Hol cott, insinuat etiam Waldensis—Volunt Propositionem illam non esse, substantivè, sed Transitive inter∣pretandam, sc. ut sit sensus. [Hoc est Cor∣pus] id est, Transit in Corpus.—Sed hoc corrumpit signi∣ficationē verbi [Est] quod, si permittitur, nulla est vis in hu∣jus modi verbis ad probandam realem praesentiam, nec substantiam Panis hic non manere. Et ità potuit Haereticus exponere [Hoc est] id est, Repraesentat Corpus. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. qu 78. Disp 58. Sect. 7. Art. 1. pag. 754.
• I 1.5

  Iac. Gordon Scotus Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap 3. n. 15. Propositiones practicae proferuntur per verba praesentis tem∣poris, non futuri, ut certi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de effectuve borum. Haec verba [Hoc est corpus meum] practica sunt, efficiunt quod significant: [Mandu•••••• ex hoc, Bibite ex hoc] ubique demonstrat corpus Christi futurum, vel sanguinem ejus futorum. Similis statuitur verbis Consecrationis, alioqui ista communio esset merè specu∣lativa, non practica.
• * 1.6

  See the former Booke throughout.
• * 1.7

  See the former Booke throughout.