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.

CHAP. II.

The Question is to be examined by these grounds; viz.

• I Scripture.
• [ 20] 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 Sense of Christ his words, [ 30] [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 ofa 1.1 Trent. that Transubstantia∣tion is collected from the sole, true, and proper Signification of these words [This is my Body.] So you.

[ 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 1.2 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 1.3 Is not al∣together improbable; and whereunto your Bishopd 1.4 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 1.5 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 1.6 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* 1.7 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* 1.8 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.

The Noveltie of Transubstantiation examined, as well for the Name, as for the Nature thereof. SECT. II. [ 20] 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, Transub∣stantiation (as you grant)f 1.9 was not used of any Ancient Fathers; and that your Romish Change had not it's Christendome, or name among Christians to be called Transubstantiation (as your Cardinallg 1.10 Alan witnesseth) before the Councell of Laterane, which was 1•• 15. yeares after Christ; nor can you produce One Father Greeke or Latine, for a Thousand yeares, attributing [ 30] any word equivalent, in strict Sense, unto the same word Tran∣substantiation, untill the yeare 900 (which is beyond the Com∣passe of due Antiquitie.) At what time you finde, note, and urge Theophylact, who saith of the Bread, that It is Trans-elementated into the Body of Christ. Which Phrase, in what Sense hee used it, you might best have learned from himselfe, who in the ve∣ry same place saith that Christ in a manner ish 1.11 Trans-elemen∣tated into the Communicant: which how unchristian a Paradox it were, being taken in strict and proper Sense, we permit to your owne judgements to determine.

[ 40] Neither yet may you, for the countenancing of the Noveltie of this word, object the like use of this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as though it had beene in use before the Arian Controversie began: because the Fathers of the Councell of Nice judged the Objection of the Noveltie of that word Calumnious; for that

the use of it had beene Ancient before their times, as your Car∣dinall i 1.12 Bellarmine himselfe witnesseth.

You furthermore, to prevent our Objection (demanding why the Ancient Fathers never called your fancied Romish Change, Transubstantiation, if they had beene of your Romish Faith, concerning the Substantiall Change of Bread into the Body of Christ) have shaped us this Answer, namely, thatk 1.13 Although they used not the very word, Transubstantiation, yet have they words of the same signification, to wit, Conversion, Transmutation, Transition, Transformation, Trans-elementation, and the like. [ 10] So your Lorichius Reader of Divinitie among you; who by his vast and rash boldnesse might as justly have inferred from the like Phrases of the Apostle, viz, [* 1.14 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are transformed] that every Regenerate Christian is Transubstanti∣ated into Christ: or, from the word [* 1.15 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He is trans∣figured] say that the Divell is Transubstantiated into an Angel of light: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, It is changed] (used by l 1.16 Cyrill) urge that whosoever the Spirit of God doth Sanctifie, is Transubstantiated into another thing: or from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] inm 1.17 Nazianzene, conclude that Every per∣son [ 20] Baptized is Transubstantiated into Christ. {fleur-de-lys}And one of your owne Doctors examining all the Phrases of the Greeke Fathers, and comming to the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which doth properly expresse the sense of the Latine word, Transubstan∣tiatio) hee confesseth that2 1.18 They used it not. And what the Greek Church thinketh thereof, at this day, you may learne from two Patriarchs of Constantinople; the One not admit∣ting, the Other rejecting it; as will bee showne in the second Chapter.

Will you have the World imagine that so many, so excel∣lent, [ 30] and so Ancient Fathers, with all that Divine and Humane Learning wherewith they were so admirably accomplished, could not, in a Thousand yeares space, finde out either the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or the Latine Transubstantiatio, and apply them to this Change, if they had once dreamed of this your Article of Faith? Will you permit us to learne a point of wisedome from your Cardinall?n 1.19 Liberty of devi∣sing new wordes (saith he) is a thing most dangerous; because new words, by little and little, beget new things. So he. Therefore may we justly place this your new word among those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [ 40] which Saint* 1.20 Paul will have Christians by all meanes to avoid; else so new and barbarous a Name must needs ingender a novel, and brutish opinion, such as this Article it selfe will appeare to be; As followeth.

The Noveltie of the Article of Transubstantiation is examined, and showne not to have beene before the Councel of Laterane (namely) not untill 1215. yeares after Christ. SECT. III.

THis Article hath beene decreed (as you have* 1.21 heard) by [ 10] your Church, as a necessary Doctrine of Faith; and there∣fore presumed to be Ancient.

CHALLENGE.

THe first Imposition of this Article, as of Faith, your Car∣dinall o 1.22 Bellarmine noteth to have beene in the dayes of Pope Gregory the Seventh. 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 [ 20] esteemed the Master of the Romish Schoole) when he had labou∣red to give Resolution to all doubts, especially in this very Que∣stion (whether the Conversion were substantiall, or not) confesseth plainely, saying;p 1.23 Definire non sufficio: I am not able to De∣termine. So he. Anno. 1140.

Hitherto therefore this Article was but in Conception onely, which caused your learned and Subtile School-man Scotus to de∣scend lower, to finde out the Birth thereof,q 1.24 Affirming that the Article of Transubstantiation was no Doctrine of Faith before the Councel of Laterane, under Pope Innocent the Third, viz. An∣no [ 30] 1215 whom therefore your Cardinall doth taxe for want of reading. But either were your Iesuite Coster, and Cardinall Perron as ignorant of Ancient Learning, as Scotus, or else they gave small Credit to that Councel cited by Bellarmine under Gre∣gory the Seventh. For your Iesuite saith, in direct tearmes, that r 1.25 The name of Transubstantiation was used in the Councel of Laterane, for a clearer explication, that Christians might under∣stand the Change of Bread into the Body of Christ. Can you say then that it was universally so understood before? But your Cardinall Perron more peremptorily concludeth, thats 1.26 If it [ 40] had not beene for the Councel of Laterane, it might be now lawfull to impugne it. So he. A plaine acknowledgement, that it was no Doctrine of Faith before that Councel, even as Scotus affir∣med before. But we pursue this Chase yet further, to shew,

That the Article of Transubstantiation was not defined in the Councel of Laterane, under Pope inno∣centius the Third. SECT. IV.

YOur owne learned Romisht 1.27 Priest, a long time Prisoner, did (under the name of Widdrington) produce many Hi∣storians, [ 10] viz. Platina, Nauclerus, Godfridus Monumetensis, Mat∣thew Paris, and others, to testifie as followeth: That many things fell under Consultation in that Councel, but nothing was openly defined, the Pope dying at Perusium. Insomuch that some of these Authours sticke not to say, that This Generall Councel, which see∣med to promise bigge and mighty matters, did end in scorne and mockery, performing nothing at all. Wee might adde, that the supposed Acts of this Councel were not published untill more than two hundred yeares after. No marvell then if some u 1.28 Schoole-men, among whom were Scotus and Biel, held [ 20] Transubstantiation not to have beene very ancient. And another, thatx 1.29 It was but lately determined in the Church. Nay, Ma∣ster Brerely (if his opinion be of any Credit among you) stick∣eth not to say thaty 1.30 Transubstantiation compleat (that is, both for forme, and matter) was not determined untill the last Coun∣cel of Trent; that is to say, not untill the yeare of our Lord, 1560. Do you not see how much licking this ougly Beare 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 be proved, by the full discovering of the paipable Falshood [ 30] thereof. [ 40]

Notes

• a 1.1

  Vt definitur in Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 Can. 4. Ex sola veritate verborum [Hoc est Corpus me∣um] vera, ac propria Transubstantiatio colligitur. Vasquez. les. Disp 176. c. 6 Verba tàm per se clara cogere possint hominem non proter•••• Transubstantitionem admittere. Bell. lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. §. Secundò.
• b 1.2

  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 1.3

  See in the former Allegation at (b)
• d 1.4

  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 1.5

  [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 1.6

  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.
• * 1.7

  See the former Booke throughout.
• * 1.8

  See the former Booke throughout.
• f 1.9

  Fateor, neque Antiquos Patres u∣sos esse hoc nomi∣ne Transubstantiati∣onis. Christoph. de Capite fontium, Ar∣chicpis. Caesar. lib. de reali praesen. cap. 5. 9. Artic. 4.
• g 1.10

  Concilium La∣teranense sub Inno∣centio Tertio coa∣ctum, ut Haereticis os obthurarer, Con∣versionem hanc novo & valdè significance verbo dixit Transub∣stantiationem. Alan. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 34. pag. 422. As for that objected place out of Cyrill of Alexandria Epist ad Caelosyrium [Convertens ea in veritatem Carnis:] It is answered by Vasquez the Iesuite; non habetur illa E∣pistola inter opera Cyrilli. Vasquez. in 3. Thom. Tom. 3. num. 24.
• h 1.11

  Theoph. in Ioh. 6. De Christo per sidem manducato: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]
• i 1.12

  Calumniam hanc Patres Antique aptissimè cōtutârunt, at{que} ostenderunt non inventum fuisse hoc nomen [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Concilio Nicaeno, sed fuisse antè in usu Patrum; at illud jam vocabulum usurpari, quo sui Majores usi fuissent. Bellarm. quo supra. c. 3.
• k 1.13

  Ets: veteres Ec∣clasiae Doctores non sint usi voce Tran substantrationis, ta∣men usi sunt vocibus icē significantibus, ut Conversionis, Trās∣mutationis, Transi tionis, Transforma∣tionis, Transelemen∣tationis, & si••••libus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fort••••it. j••d Tract. de Euchari, §. Nota pro solouo∣ne A••gumentorum. sol. 117.
• * 1.14

  2. Cor. 3. 18.
• * 1.15

  2. Cor. 1. 14.
• l 1.16

  Quiaquid Spi∣ritus Sanctus tetige∣rit, & Sanctificat 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cyril. Hieros. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• m 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Na∣zianz. Orat. 40 pag. 943. Edit. Paris.
• 2 1.18

  Quanvis Grae∣ci Petres eo nomine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non utun∣tur, sunt tamen Au∣thores aborum no 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quibus eam, quoac hert possit, ap〈◊〉〈◊〉 & exprimunt, ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Petrus Aread de concord O∣rient. & Occident. Eccl. lib. 3 c. 2 Tract. de Euch.
• n 1.19

  Periculosa est vocum novarum Li∣bertas in Ecclesia, cum paulatim ex vo∣cibus novis novae etiam res oriantor, cùm cui{que} licet in tel us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nomina singere. Bell. lib. de Sacram. in Genere. cap 7. §. Ex quibus.
• * 1.20

  1. Tim. c. 20.
• * 1.21

  See above Ch. 1. §. 2.
• o 1.22

  Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.
• p 1.23

  Si quaeratur, qua∣lis sit Conversio (viz. Pants in Encharistia) an formalis, an sub∣stantialis, an alteri∣us generis; definite non sufficio. Quibus∣dum videtur esse sub∣stantialis, dicentibus substantiam converti in substantiam. Lom∣bard. Sent. lib. 4 Di∣stinct 11 lit. (a.)
• q 1.24

  Scotus dicit an∣te Concilium Late∣ranense non fuisse dogma fidei Tran∣substantiationem. Id ille dixit, quia non legerat Conc. Rom. sub Gregorib. 7. nec consensum Patrum, quem nos produxi∣mus. Bellarm. lib 3. de Eucharist. cap. 23. §. Vnum tamen.
• r 1.25

  Ante trecentos Annos in Concilio Lateranensi, ad ifri∣us rei tam admirabi∣lis clariorem expli∣carionem, usurpatem fuit nomen Transub∣stantiationis: ut in∣telligant Christiani substantiam Panis in substantiam corporis Christi converti. Coster. Ies. Enchir. cap 8. §. De Transubstanti∣tione.
• s 1.26

  Si nihil planè ad Doctrinam Ecclesiasticam spectans in Concilio Lateranensi ex communi Pa∣trum assensu decretum esset, sequeretur posse ut falsum impugnari Articulum de Transubstantiatione. Cardie. Per. en sa Harangue an tiers Estat pag. 33. [As witnesseth our P. Presloa, alias Widdington Discuss, Concib. Latcran. part. 1. §. 1. pag. 12.]
• t 1.27

  Venêre multa in Consultationem, nec decerni quicquam ta∣men aptè potuit, eò quòd Pontifex (quo profectus est tollen∣dae Discordiae gratiâ) mortuus est Petusij. Platina in vita inno∣centij. Decerni nihil apertè potuit: edita sunt quaedam, &c. Nauclerus An. 1215. [meaning after the Councell.] Ad festum Sanctae Andreae pro∣tractum, nihil dig∣num memoriâ actū, nisi quod Orienta∣lis Ecclesia, &c. God. fridus Monumeter sis, & Math. paris. Hi∣stor minor. Conci∣lium illud Generale, quod primâ fronte grandia prae se tulit, in risum, & scomma desijt, in quo Papa omnes accedentes lu∣disicatus est: illi e∣nim, cum nihil in eo Concilio geri cerne∣rent, redeundi veni∣am petierunt. Thus farre out of Widdrington alias Preston, in his Booke above cited.
• u 1.28

  Scholastici quidam hanc Doctrinam de Transubstantiatione non valdè Antiquam esse dixerunt: inter quos Scorus, & Gabriel Biel. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 30. §. 1.
• x 1.29

  In Synaxi serò definivit Ecclesia Transubstantiationem: diù satis erat Credere sivè sub pane, sive sub quocunque modo adesse verum Corpus Christi. Eras. in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 373.
• y 1.30

  Mr. Brerely in his Liturgie Tract. 2. §. 11. pag. 158.