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.

CHALLENGE.

IS not now this your Churches Rejecting of her former Pra∣ctice a Confession that she hath a long time erred in Trans∣gressing of the Institution of Christ? How then shall your Trent-Fathers free your fore-father Pope Innocent, and your former Romane Church from this taxation? This they labour to do, but (alas their miserie!) by collusion and cunning: for the same Synod ofm 1.1 Trent resolveth the point thus; The holy [ 30] Synod (say they) teacheth, that Children, being void of the use of Reason, are not necessarily bound to the Sacramentall receiving of the Eucharist. This wee call a Collusion; for by the same Rea∣son, wherewith they argue that Children are not nessarily bound to receive the Eucharist, because they want reason, they should have concluded, that Therefore the Church is and was necessa∣rily bound not to administer the Eucharist to Infants, even because they wanted Reason. Which the Councell, doubtlesse, knew, but was desirous thus to cover her owne shame, touching her for∣mer superstitious practice of Giving this Sacrament unto Infants. [ 40] In excuse whereof, your Councell of Trent adjoyneth, that the Church of Rome, in those dayes, was not condemnable; but why? Because (saith your* 1.2 Councell) Truly and without Controversie wee ought to believe, that they did not give the Eucharist unto Infants, as thinking it necessarie to Salvation. Which Answere your owne Doctors will prove to be a bold, and a notorious untruth, be∣cause

(as your Iesuiten 1.3 sheweth) They then beleeved that Infants baptised could not be saved, except they should participate of the Eucharist; taking their Argument from that Scripture of Iohn. 6. [Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne, &c.] and therefore held they it necessarie to the salvation of Infants.

That this was the beleefe of Pope Innocent, and of the Church of Rome under him, your Parisian Doctoro 1.4 Espencaeus also pro∣veth at large, out of the expresse writings of Pope Innocent. Yea, and your greatly approved Binius, in his Volumes of the Councels, dedicated to Pope Paul the fift,p 1.5 explaineth the [ 10] same so exactly (See the Marginall Citation) that it will per∣mit no evasion. And so much the rather, because that which the Tridentine Fathers allege, for cause of Alteration, doth confirme this unto us: It is undecent (say they) to give the Eucharist unto Infants. This may perswade us that Innocent held it necessary, els would he not have practized, and patroni∣zed a thing so utterly Vndecent. {fleur-de-lys} Besides one of your14 1.6 Ie∣suites spareth not to make a double cause of the Alteration of that Custome; one, to avoid the Vndecencie and Prophanation of the Sacrament (meaning, by the casting it up againe:) and [ 20] secondly, because of the Heresie of those, who thought the Reociving of this Sacrament necessarie for the Salvation of In∣fants. Calling this opinion an Heresie.{fleur-de-lys}

Wee dispute therefore. If the Church of Rome, in the dayes of [ 30] [ 40]

Pope Innocent the first, held it a Doctrine of faith, in the behalfe of Infants, that they ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist; the same Church of Rome, in her Councell of Trent (whose Decrees, by the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, are all held to be be∣leeved upon necessitie of Salvation) did decree contrarily that the participation of the Eucharist is not Necessary, no nor yet decent for Infants. Say now, did the Church of Rome not erre in the dayes of Pope Innocent? then is shee now in an errour. Or doth shee not now erre herein? then did she formerly erre, and consequently [ 10] may erre hereafter, not onely in determining a matter to be Ne∣cessary to Salvation, which in it self is Superfluous and Vndecent, but also in opinion Hereticall. Thus of the contrary custome of the Church of Rome, in elder times.

The now contrary Opinion, concerning the Romane Masse, at this day.

Even at this day also your Iesuite will have us to understand the meaning of your Church to be, thatr 1.7 Infants are capable of [ 20] the Sacrament of the Eucharist. {fleur-de-lys} And not thus onely, but as un∣reasonably altogether, you hold that14 1.8 Mad-men, when they are destitute of reason and discretion, may notwithstanding be made Partakers of the same blessed Sacrament. Which is pro∣per to those, who (as the Apostle teacheth) are to Examine themselves, to Remember thereby the death of Christ, and (Sacra∣mentally) to Discerne the Lords Body. {fleur-de-lys}

Notes

• m 1.1

  Sancta Synò∣dus docet, Parvulos, usu rationis carentes, nullâ obligari neces∣sitate ad Sacramenta∣lem Eucharistiae com∣munionem—Ne∣que ideò tamen dam∣nanda est Antiquitas, si cum morem ali∣quando in quibus∣dam locis servârunt, quia certè eos nullâ salutis necessitate fe∣cisse, sine controver∣sia credendum est. Conc. Trident. Sess. 2. ca. 4.
• * 1.2

  See the Testimony below of the letter (r.)
• n 1.3

  Ecclesia tunc ad∣ducta fuit Euchari∣stiam Infantibus da∣re, argumento sump∣to ex verbis Christi, [Nisi manducaveri∣us carnem filij homi∣nis, et biberitis san∣guinem, non habebi∣tis vitam in vobis.] Maldon. Ios. Disp. de Sacram. Tract. de Euch. §. Nono, p. 200 Etiam credebant In∣fantes tunc baptiza∣tos, nisi Eucharistiam perciperēt, salvos esse non posse, Idem Com. in Ioh. 6. 63. p. 717.
• o 1.4

  Innocent. 1. Rom. Pont. Epist. 93. ad Conc. Milever. con. Pelag. responde∣bat, quòd parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis, etiam sine baptisma∣tis gratia posse do∣nari, perfatuum est: nisi n. manducave∣rint carnem filii ho∣minis, non habebunt vitam in semetipsis: qui autem hanc eis sine regeneratione defendunt, videntur etiam mihi Baptismum cassate velle, cùm praedicant nos habere, quod in eos creditur non nisi Baptismate conferendum. [Whence Espencaeus thus:] Mirum, ejus temporis Pontifices ex Eucharistiae nece∣cessitate Baptismi & ejus praecursoris urgere necessitatem; nisi idem, & ex eodem tùm loco, tùm Innocentii argu∣mento & authoritate, adversus eosdem hostes urgeret August. Epist. 106. cont. Pelag.—Contra Aposto∣licae sedis authoritatem, ubi de hac ipsâ re cùm ageretur, hoc testimonium exhibitum est Evangelicum, ne Par∣vuli non baptizati vitam posse habere credantur. Si autem credunt sedi Apostolicae, vel potiùs ipsi Magistro & Domino Apostolorum, qui dicit, non vitam habituros, nisi manducaverint, & biberint, &c. Espenc. de Adorat. Euch. lib. 2. cap. 12. pag. 58. [Afterwards he bringeth in many other testimonies of Saint Augustine, and Ibid. pag. 59. he proveth that he did not retract his opinion.] Ejus haud dubiè sunt contra Iulianum libri, quo valentiorem habuit Adversarium neminem; in quem etiam scribendo mortuus est, ac proinde sententiam non retractâsse videtur: in quibus Iulianum obruit Majorum praejudicio, ab Innocentio Rom. Pont. exorsus, qui parvulos (ait) definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse. Espenc. Ibid. [And a little after he sheweth the loosenesse of Aquinas his Solutions. Albeit Saint Augustine was not constant in this opinion, but (as may be gathered out of Bedes Collectanies in 1. Cor. 10. Nulli aliquatenùs dubitandum, &c.) that al∣though the Child do not participate, yet by Baptisme hee is made partaker of that which it signifieth.]
• p 1.5

  Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescriptis innocentii Papae ad Conc. Millevet. Epist. 25. Illud vero, &c. Hinc Binius: Hinc constat Innocenti sententia, quae 600. circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia (quamque Augustinus secutus) Eucharistiam Infantibus necessariam fuisse. Conc. Trid. rectè decrevit, eam non solum non necessariam Infan∣tibus, sed nè quidem decere ur eis distribuatur—Quidam viri non vulgariter docti existimârunt Innocenti∣um hunc locum, [Nisi manducaveritis, &c.] in Baptismi sumptione interpretari. Sed decepti sunt, quòd vim argumenti, quo Pontifex utitur, non sunt assecuti. Ille enim ut Pelagium (qui docebat Baptismum Infantibus, Parente fideli prognatis, peccatum originale non contrahentibus, necessarium non esse) convinceret, hâc Ra∣tiocinatione est usus: Quibus necessaria est Eucharistiae sumptio, usdem Baptismi sumptio magis esse necessaria; At infantibus omnibus esse necessariam Eucharistiae sumptionem, probatur per verba Iohannis [Nisi mandu∣caveritis. &c.] Quae expositio praxi Ecclesiae nunc repugnat. [De Augustini sententia lege ipsum Augustinum, Epist. 106. Col. 148. Edit. Basil. 1543.] Haec Binius in Editione sua Colon. Ann. 1618. being omitted in his for∣mer. Printed Volume, Auno 1606.
• 14 1.6

  Iac. Gordon. Scorus lib. Contr. 8. c. 1. Prima abrogationis causa, quia frequens communio Infantium fieri non poterat nisi indecorè, & cùm periculo profanationis tanti Sacra∣menti. Secunda causa, quià orta est Haeresis quorundam, qui existimârunt hanc communionem esse prorsus ad salutem necessariam Infantibus. pag. 111.
• r 1.7

  Non quòd Infantes sunt incapa∣ces hujus Sacramenti, sed quià hoc nunc magis expedit ad de∣centiam, & reveren∣tiam, quae aliquali u∣tilitati parvulorum praeferenda est. Sua∣rez. Tom. 3. Disp. 62. Sect. 3. §. Quocirca.
• 14 1.8

  Non qui∣cunquè usu rationis carentes arcendi sunt à sumptione Eucharistiae, sed hi, qui nunquam habuerunt usum rationis. Aquin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Qu. 80. Art. 9