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.

That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution; Is GIVEN, Is BROKEN, Is SHED. SECT. II.

[ 30]

THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. [Which Is broken, Is given, Is shed] in the Present Tense; and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Blood; wherein, according to the Greeke, there is a vary∣ing of the Case: whereupon your Disputers, as if they had cryed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other: some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text, by two Arguments, one in respect of the Case, and another in regard of the Time. [ 40]

Of the Grammer point, concerning the Case.

This is the new Testament in my Blood:•• Now what of this? a 1.1 It is not said (saith your Cardinall) This is the Blood shed for you, but, This is the Cup shed for you: Therefore is hereby meant. The Blood, which was in the Chalice, because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes. But how gather you this? Because in the

b 1.2 Greeke (saith M.c 1.3 Brerely) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This Cup shed for you, varieth the Case from the word [Sanguine] and the Genus from the word [Testamentum,] and agreeth evidently with Calix: so that the Cup being said to be shed, proveth the Blood spoken of to bee shed ve∣rily in the Cup: which drives Beza unto a strange Answer, saying that this is a Soloe cophanes, or Incongruity of speech. So he; which Objection he learned peradventure of thed 1.4 Rhemists, who are vehement in pressing the same: their Conclusion is, This proveth the Sacri∣fice of Christ's blood in the Chalice; as also your Iesuite2 1.5 Gordon hath [ 10] done. In which one Collection they labour upon many igno∣rances. 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scrip∣ture, by Incongruity of speech; which (as onee 1.6 Protestant hath proved) is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators, Demosthenes for the Greeke, and Tully for the Latine; and by the two Parents of Poets, among the Greeks Homer, and by Virgil among the Latines.

2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes, which is but a Seeming Incongruity, like a Seeming Limping, who themselves confessef 1.7 Ingenuously, [ 20] that in their Vulgar Latine Translation (which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall) there are meere Solecismes, and Barbarismes, and other faults, which wee may call, in point of Grammar, downe right halting. 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered in a Barbarous speech, or that this could be denied by them, who defend Solecismes, and Barbarismes, which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures, saying thatg 1.8 Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations, that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latine Text, [as unbent, & unbentur] and the like. 4. As if there were not the [ 30] like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antece∣dents in case, whereof you have received fromh 1.9 D. Fulke divers * 1.10 Examples. 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable, which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i 1.11 Ioseph Scaliger, by a figure Antiptôsis; and Beza (saith hee) doth truly expound it. Besides it is explained anciently byk 1.12 Basil a per∣fect Greek Father: referring the Participle [Shed] unto the word Blood, and not unto the Chalice; which marteth your Market quite. And that this is an undeniable Truth, will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time: for if by Given, Broken, [ 40] and Shed, is meant the time future, then these words Shed for you, for remission of sinnes, flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup, but on the Crosse.

{fleur-de-lys} Lastly, if wee shall answer, that the Cup, indeed, is ta∣ken for the Liquor in the Cup, which is called Christs Blood, per Metonymiain, that is, Figuratively, the signo for the name of the thing Signified (whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book) you shall never be able to make any Reply. One word more. Seeing that it is the universall

Confession of all your Doctors, yea, even of the Objectors themselves, that* 1.13 Christs blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist, how then can it stand with common modesty, to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word [Shed? {fleur-de-lys}] Let us proceed there∣fore to that point, that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes, to assoile this doubt.

Of the Time signified by the Participles Given, Broken, Shed.

[ 10]

These words being of the Present time, Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking, Giving Christs Body, and shedding his Bloud, is in the Supper, and not on the Crosse: So yourl 1.14 Cardinall: most invincibly say yourm 1.15 Rhemists, and M^r Breerly, as dancing merrily after their Pipes;n 1.16 This point (saith hee) is clearly determined by the Evangelists themselves, in their owne originall writings, Broken, Gi∣ven, Shed. Ando 1.17 The Evasions, which our Adversaries seeke, whereby to avoid this, are enforced, racked and miserable shifts. And againe, for corroboration-sake.p 1.18 The word Broken also, spoken in regard of the outward formes, which are in time of Sacrificing, is more forci∣ble, [ 20] because not meant of the Crosse: for when they saw hee was dead, fulfilling the Prophecie [A Bone of him shall not be broken] they brake not his legges, Ioh. 19. 33. {fleur-de-lys} And will you see your Iesuite Gordon, frisking and keeping the same measure; urging the present-Tense of the word, Broken, Given, Shed; calling this the Chiefe reason, and most evident for proofe of a Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Masse? and censuring Protestants for saying that in the same words the Present Tense is put for the Future; and that Broken doth signifie the Renting of Christs flesh with whips and nailes: which he termeth a seeking of refuge in Tropes [ 30] and Figures, as that which cannot bee proved by any Scrip∣ture. So he, with these others, most ostentatively, as you have heard {fleur-de-lys}. Alas! what huge Anakims and Giants have we to deale withall! no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident, Forcible, and Invincible; yet may we not despaire of due Resistance, especially, being supported by your owne Brethren, as well the sonnes of Anak, as were the other: be∣sides, some better aid, both from Fathers and Scriptures, for proofe that these words Broken, Given, Shed, spoken in the Pre∣sent time doe signifie the Future time of Christs body being [ 40] Broken, and Bloudshed; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse.

What Authors on your side may satisfie you? whether your * 1.19 choice Iesuites, Salmeron, Valentia, {fleur-de-lys} Suarez, Vasquez Barradas, and our Country-man Sà; together with3 1.20 Maldonate, [Shed] (saith he) may be properly rendred, Shall be Shed {fleur-de-lys}; or will you

be directed by most voices, whereby it is confessed (namely) thatq 1.21 By Bloud-shed is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse. But what need have we of the severall members, when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us, rendring the word, Shed, in the Future Tense [Fundetur] shall be shed, as refer∣red to the Crosse? What thinke you by this? say M. Breerly. * 1.22 Our Adversaries are in great straits, when they are glad to appeale from the Originall Greeke Text which they call Authenticall, unto the Latine Vulgar Translation, which they call old, rotten, and full of cor∣ruptions. [ 10] This were well objected indeed, if that Protestants should alleage your Vulgar Latine Edition, as a purer Translation, and not as a true Interpretation of the words of the Text; to teach you that it is meant of the Future Time: and that this were urged by them, as a ground of perswasion to themselves, and not rather (as it were by the Law of Armes) an Oppositi∣on, and indeed conviction upon their Adversaries, who by the Decree of your Councell of Trent, are bound* 1.23 Not to reject it up∣on any pretence whatsoever. And to have this your owne Authenti∣call Translation to make against you, is to be in straits indeed, [ 20] because all the Decrees of that Councell, by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to be beleeved under the bond of an Oath.

Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles? Yes, M. Breerly can, by an admirable tricke of wi:r 1.24 Neverthelesse (saith hee) I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter, that as he translateth in the Future Tense, [which shall be shed] so doth hee use the Present Tense in the other words, Given, and Broken, to signifie that it was then given in the Sacrament, and afterwards to be given upon the Crosse, both together. As if you should tell us in plaine English that your Church in her Vulgar Latine Text doth equivocate, teaching [ 30] that It shall be shed, in the Future, doth signifie also the Present Tense, Is shed, that is, It is, shall be, both together. A fit man (for∣sooth) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes. {fleur-de-lys} Your Iesuite Vasquez doubtlesse would have laughed at the ridiculousnesse of this mans defence of the Vulgar Translation,4 1.25 who contrariwise, that he might prove the Vulgar, in using the Present Tense in [Datur, Is given] to understand thereby the Future Tense, [Dabitur, shall be given] doth observe with us, that the same Vulgar Translation useth the Future Tense not onely concer∣ning the Blood, in [Fundetur,] but also concerning the Body, [ 40] in [Tradetur. {fleur-de-lys}] But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signifie the Future? We tell you, because you have in Scriptures, and other Authours, thousands of Examples of the Present tense put for the Future, to signifie the certainty or instan∣cie of that which is spoken: but it was never heard nor read, that the Future Tense was taken for the Present Tense, because there is no Course nor Progresse to the time past. And if, Shed, be taken not in true sense, then shall it be lawfull for every pettie Romish Priest at every Masse-saying to correct your Romish Missall,

authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers, which hath it,s 1.26 Shall be Shed. {fleur-de-lys} If this will not serve, we refer you to your owne other 5 1.27 Iesuites, Vasquez, and Barradas, both contending as abso∣lutely for the sense of the Future Tense, by both reasons and Fathers, and out of them confuting the opinion of Bellarmine by name. Each one of which our Premises might be suffici∣ent to free us out, and to ensnare you in the [Great Straits] which your Brother M. Breerly, pleasantly talks of. {fleur-de-lys}

One word more with M. Breerly, as only desirous to know of him, if he allow of the Tense either Present or Future, whether it [ 10] was straitnesse or loosnesse, that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense,t 1.28 Was shed. But he will expect that wee answer his reason. He urged the word, Broken, that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse, for that His Legs were not there broken, (according as it was prophesied) therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper, when he utte∣red the word Broken. Which is like his other maner of Reasons, blunt, and broken at the point, as it became one not much con∣versant in Scripture: else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie, teaching that the word, Broken, is taken Me∣taphorically [ 20] by the Prophet Esay, Chap. 53. speaking of the cruci∣fying and Agonies of Christ, and saying, He was Broken for our iniquities▪ (namely, as two of youru 1.29 Iesuites acknowledge) By nailes, speare, and whips; and is to bee applied to the Breaking of his sinewes, nerves, and veines, as yourx 1.30 Cardinall confesseth.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, di∣cit, Calix qui fundi∣tur, non hic est sanguis qui funditur: itaque indicant sanguinem fundi, ut erat in Calice.
• b 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.3

  M. Breerly Liturg. tract. ••. c. 3. subd. 2.
• d 1.4

  Rhemists Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20.
• 2 1.5

  Gordonus Scotus Ies. l. 1. Controvers. 3. c. 12. nu. 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] est nominativi casus necessariò referendū ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non da∣tivi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut pertineatad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.6

  Rodolph. Goclenius Professor Marpurg Pro∣blem. Gram. lib ••. De∣mosthenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere an∣tem, quod est perite loqui, non habet defi∣nitam aliquam regid∣nem, cujus terminis septa teneatur. Vo•• [Septa] non congruit cum •••• Bene dicete, sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato, Virgil, Homer, pag. 232, 233, 261, 262.
• f 1.7

  Sixtus Senensis Bi∣blioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri, etiam Soloe∣cismos, & Barbaris∣mos, hyperbata, &c.
• g 1.8

  Rhemists Preface before the New Testa∣ment.
• h 1.9

  D. Fulke against Greg. Martin.
• * 1.10

  Apoc. l. 4 & 8. 9. & 3. 12, &c.
• i 1.11

  Ioseph. Sciligeri No∣ta in novum Testamen∣tum. Luc. 22. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Mera est An∣tiptósis, pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza re∣ctè exponit, & ait du∣plicem esse Metony∣miam.
• k 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. Reg. Moral. 21.
• * 1.13

  See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words.
• l 1.14

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de ••••iss. cap. 12. Datur, Frangitur, Funditur, in Praesenti tempore, docet apertissimè non fusum esse in Cruce sanguinem, sed in Coena.
• m 1.15

  Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20.
• n 1.16

  M. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319.
• o 1.17

  Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319.
• p 1.18

  Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317.
• * 1.19

  See above Book. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and the rest in our Additionals to this Section.
• 3 1.20

  Also Maldonate de Sacram. Euch. Sect. Primi generis Argumentorum, Institutio Sacramenti. pag. 230. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Fusum, at propriè verti poterit, Fundendum. {fleur-de-lys}
• q 1.21

  Iansenius referring it to the Cup, yet saith: [Qui effunditur] com∣muniter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cru∣ce, & rect••. Concord 131▪
• * 1.22

  Liturg. Tract. ••. §. 3. subd. 1.
• * 1.23

  See hereafter Book. ••.
• r 1.24

  Li••urg. in the place above cited.
• 4 1.25

  Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Disp. 199. Cap. 1. Art. 3. In Vul∣gata noster Interpres semper utitur verbo Futuri, cum de effu∣sione sanguinis est ser∣mo.—Et quoties de corpore loquitur, uti∣tur praesenti [Datur] tamen in Paulo utitur verbo Futuri, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [Quod pro Vobis ••••••∣detur.] Nempè quòd putaret Praesens pro Futuro sumi. Sà Ies. Annot. in Mat. ••6. [Ef∣fundetur in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.]
• s 1.26

  Missale Rom. Ca∣li•• Sanguinis—qui effundetur.
• 5 1.27

  Vasqu. Ies. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. Cap. 2. [Ef∣fundetur] Effusionem in Cruce significat—Adde quod dicitur [In remissionem peccato∣rum] quod idem est atque in redemptio∣nem: Redemptio au∣tem non est nisi in cruento sacrificio Cru∣cis.—Optimè confirmatur testimo∣nio Chrysost. in 1 Cor. 11 [Effundetur] ostendit passionem.—Et Cap. 3. Frangi dicitur in Cruce, quia clavis confixus est. Refortur reverand Calicem, Re∣lativum Qui: Verùm quia effusio non pro∣priè convenit Calici, Ideir••ò estratione san∣guinis, qui effundetur in Cruce, Barradas Ies. Tom. 4. in Evang. lib. 3. cap. 5. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Adjoyning a second opi∣ni••n in confuting this. De effusione in Eucha∣ristia interpretantur Iansenius, Bellarminus, Maldonasus. Verum (Ob. Sol.) Cali•• effunditur: Continens pro contento sanguine, qui ef∣fundebatur in cruce. Ob. Pro multis, dicit, & pro vobis. Sol. Omnes multi sunt, ut Ent••ymius, & Theophylactus ex Mat. 10.
• t 1.28

  Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd. •• p. 145.
• u 1.29

  Sa••••••ron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangituri. •• Clavis, Lanc••â, Flagellis ••aniandum est. Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord c. 4. è Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. Quod frangitur, hoc est, quod Cla∣vis frangitur.
• x 1.30

  Bellarm. V••cunque possit fractio, &c. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad quartum. [ 30]