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.

A Confirmation of the same Iudgement of the Fathers, acknow∣ledging in expresse termes, Bread to remaine, after Con∣secration, in Substance the same. The First Father is THEODORET. SECT. XII. [ 20]

THeodoret maketh a Dialogue, or Conference betweene two Parties, being in Controversie about the humane and bodily nature of Christ; the one is named Eranistes, upon whom is imposed the person of an Heretike, for Defence of the Sect of the Eutychians, who (falsly) held, That the Body of Christ, af∣ter his Ascension, being glorified, was swallowed up of his Deitie, and continued no more the same humane and Bodily Essence, as be∣fore his Resurrection it had beene. The other Party and Dis∣puter is named Orthodoxus, signifying the Defender of the Truth of the Catholike Doctrine; which Person Theodoret himselfe [ 30] did sustaine, in behalfe of the Catholike Church. In this Dis∣pute the Heretike is brought in, for Defence of his Heresie, ar∣guing thus; Even as Signes in the Eucharist, after the words of Invocation (or Consecration) are not the same, but are changed in∣to the Body of Christ: even so, after his Ascension, was his Body changed into a Divine [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] meaning, Substance of a Divine Essence. Which both your Romanistes and Protestants confesse to have beene the Doctrine of these Heretikes.

This was that Heretike his Objection. The Orthodoxe, or Catholike (which was Theodoret himselfe) cometh to answer, [ 40] promising to catch the heretike, as he saith, in his owne Snare, by retorting his Argument of Similitude against him, thus: a 1.1 Nay, But as the mysticall Signes in the Eucharist, after San∣ctification,

depart not from their former nature, but continue in their former Figure, Forme and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Substance. So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth in its former Figure, Forme, Circumscription, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or Substance which it had before. You may perceive that the Assertion, set downe in the name of a Grand Heretike, is absolutely your Romish Profession for Transubstantiation at this day, (to wit) Bread is changed after Consecration into the Substance of Christ's Body; and that also the Assertion of Theodoret, in the person of the [ 10] Catholike Professor, being flat contradictory, is as absolutely the Doctrine of Protestants, defending that Bread after Conse∣cration remaineth in Substance the same. Wherefore if ever, it now concerneth your Disputers to Free your Romish Article from Heresie: which divers have undertaken to do by their Answeres, but alas! so absurdly, that any reasonable man must needs laugh at their Answer; and so falsly, as which any man of conscience must as necessarily detest.

The Principall Answer is that, which yourb 1.2 Cardinall giveth, that Theodoret, in saying that Bread remaineth the same [ 20] in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; By [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] meant not Substance, pro∣perly understood, but the Essence of Accidents. So he. {fleur-de-lys}Or as your23 1.3 Iesuite saith, Thesubstance of the Signes, which are Accidents. An answer (by your leave) No oriously, Ri∣diculously, and Heretically False.

First, Notoriously false, because the Argument of Theodo∣ret, being taken from a Similitude, and every Similitude con∣sisting of two Propositions, the first called Protasis, and the o∣ther Apodosis, it is necessary by the Rule of Logike; (as you know) that the words and termes, betokening the same Simili∣tude, [ 30] be used in the same signification in both Propositions. But in the Apodosis of Theodoret, which is this: So the Body of Christ, after the Resurrection, remaineth the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was meant properly Substance, because this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the maine point in Question betweene Theodoret and the Heretike, viz. whether the Substance of Christ's Body continued the same, which it had beene in time before his Resurrection; (the Heretike denying it, and Theodoret proving it to be absolutely still the same in Substance:) and not whether the same onely in Quantities, and Accidents; for those the A∣postle [ 40] teacheth to be alterable,* 1.4 Corruption putting on Incorrup∣tion, Mortality Imortality, and shame Glory. Therefore in the Protasis, and first Proposition of that comparison of Theodoret, (which was this, As the Bread remaineth the same in Figure, Forme, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] can have no other signification than Substance, properly taken.

Secondly, Ridiculously false, because in reckoning Figure and Forme, which are knowne to bee Accidents, and ad∣ding

[〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] this necessarily is opposed to the former Two, as Substance to Accidents. Nor was there (we suppose) ever any so unlearned, who did adde the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to Formes, and Fi∣gures, but hee therby meant to distinguish it as a Substance from its Accidents.

Thirdly, Heretically false; for what was the Heresie of the Eutychians? tell us; They (sayc 1.5 you) held that Christ (namely after his Resurrection) had not an humane nature, but onely Di∣vine. Which word, Humane Nature, doth principally imply the Substantiall nature of Man; and therefore in his compari∣son, [ 10] made for the illustration of that Heresie concerning Bread, after Consecration, in Figure, Forme, and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had the same signification of Substance, as your Master Brerely afterwards is compelled to confesse: who, to the end he may disgrace Theodoret, rudely and wildly taketh upon him to justifie the Heretikes speech to be Catholike, for proofe of Transubstantiation.

Wherefore Theodoret, in his Answer, Retorting (as hee him∣selfe saith) the Heretikes Comparison, against him, did, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, likewise understand Substance, else had he not disputed ad Idem; [ 20] but by a shamefull Tergiversation had betraid his Catholike Cause unto that pernitious Heretike. Much like as if one should use this Comparison following. As the Moone-shine in the water (in the opinion of the Vulgar) is truly of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Firmament; so a feigned friend is equal∣ly as loving as is a Faithfull. And another retorting the same, should confute him, saying; Nay, but as the Moon-shine in the water, is not of the same bignesse with the Moone in the Fir∣mament; even so a feigned friend is not equally loving as is a Faithfull. Here the word [Love] being taken for Loyall Affe∣ction [ 30] by the Objectour, if the sense thereof should be perverted by the Answerer and Retorter, to signifie Lust, the Disputers might be held to be little better than those Two in* 1.6 A. Gellius, where such an Objectour is compared to a man milking an Hee-goat, (or if you will, a Bull) and the Answerer to another holding under a Sive. {fleur-de-lys}Observe also that Arius the Heretike, be∣ing required to tell What is Substance (Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) an∣swered, That is Substance, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whereby a thing doth sub∣sist. And23 1.7 Athanasius himselfe approved hereof, saying, Thou hast answered rightly: This could they not have said, [ 40] if that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had not beene universally taken in the Greeke Church, aswell among Orthodoxe, as among Heretikes: for that which giveth a Subsisting to other things (as you your selves will not deny) is to be properly a Substance. {fleur-de-lys}

Here had wee fixed a Period, but that wee againe espied one Master Brerely (a Romish Priest) coming against us with a full careere, who after that he had beene* 1.8 confuted, for urging the

former Objection, notwithstanding, concealing the Answer, he blusheth not to regest the same; albeit, as one conscious to him∣selfe of the futility therof, he leaveth it presently, falling foule upon Theodoret, as though that Father had beene in some di∣stemper, when he so, writ:d 1.9 saying, first, that Theodoret used that his Retortion in his* 1.10 heate of Dispute. Then hee taketh part with the Heretike, saying, It is not likely that an Heretike should have urged against a Catholike sentence for Transubstan∣tiation, as for a point of Faith well knowne, if the same Doctrine [ 10] had beene then either unknowne, or else condemned, as False. So hee, who might aswell have reasoned, in the behalfe of the Sad∣duces, condemned by Christ, saying: It is not likely that they would so expressely have denyed that there a••e any Spirits, in their Dispute against Christ, if that Doctrine had beene then either un∣knowne or condemned as False, by the Church of God, among the Iewes. And yet it is certaine that the Heresie of the Sadduces was judged execrable in that Church.

Now if the Eutychian Heretike finde such Patronage at the hands of your Priest, alas! what will become of the Father [ 20] Theodoret? Hearken, Theodoret being an Orthodoxe Bishop (saith hee) could not have propounded the Heretikes Argument, as groun∣ded upon the Churches received Doctrine of Transubstantiation, had the same beene then unknowne, and reputed False. So he, who if hee had not lost his Logike, would certainly have argued con∣trarily, saying; Theodoret, being an Orthodoxe and Catholike Bishop, would never have set downe an Objection for Transubstan∣tiation, in the name of a ranke Heretike, and after himselfe impug∣ned and confuted the same, except he had knowne it to be flatly re∣pugnant to the Catholike Church in his time. Wherefore if you [ 30] be men of Faith, and not rather of Faction, let the miserable perplexities of your Disputers, discovered both here, and throughout this whole Treatise, move you to renounce them, as men of prostituted Consciences; and their Cause, as forlorne of all Truth.

For a further Evidence, take unto you an Answer of your Ie∣suite Valentia, to this and the like Testimonies of Antiquity: It is not to be held any marvell (saith* 1.11 he) why some Ancients have writ, and thought lesse considerately and truly, before that Tran∣substantiation was handled publikely in the Church, especially they [ 40] not handling the same Question of purpose. So hee; and this hee calleth a Briefe and plaine Answer. And so it is, whereby, in granting that Transubstantiation had not beene so Anciently handled in the Church, he plainly confuteth your now Romane Church, which judgeth it to have beene alwayes an Article of Faith. And affirming that the same Fathers Hand∣led not the point of purpose, it is as plainly confuted by Theodo∣ret, who in this Dispute did not argue against the Heretike

〈◊〉〈◊〉 extemporall speech personally, but deliberately and pun∣••••lly by writing, and therefore of Purpose.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Theod. Dial. 2. c. 24. Non post san∣ctificationem mysti∣ca signa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 post. Sic illud Corpus Christi priorem habet Formam, Figuram, Circumscriptionem, & (de summatim dicam) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: etiamsi post resurrectionem immortale, & immune ab om∣ni corruptione.
• b 1.2

  Non loquitur de substantiâ, quae di∣stinguitur contra Ac∣cidentia, & quam in Categori••â posuit A∣ristoteles; sed de Es∣sentiâ, & naturâ Ac∣cidentium. Bellar. l. 2. de Euch. c. 27. §. Sed me.
• 23 1.3

  Gordon. Ies. lib. Controv. 4. cap. 4. num. 12. De signorum (id est, Accidentium) substantia loquitur.
• * 1.4

  1. Cor. 15. 34.
• c 1.5

  Alphonsua à Ca∣stro, de Haeres. Eurych. Negabant Christum habuisse naturam hu∣manam; tantùm in eo ponentes naturam divinam.
• * 1.6

  Alter hireum mulget: alter cribram supponit.
• 23 1.7

  Athan. Tom. 1. Disput. cont. A••ium, ubi Arius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cui Athan••s••••s, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.8

  Vid Protestants Appeale, Book. 2. ch. 2. §. 10.
• d 1.9

  In his Liturg•••• of the Masse. Tract. 2. §. 2 subd. 3. p. 254.
• * 1.10

  Not so, for he was now not i••••a per∣sonall Dispute, but de∣liberately writing a∣gainst th•• Heresia of the Eutychiant.
• * 1.11

  Valent. Ies. l. 2. de Transub. c. 7. Da∣bimus aliud breve, & simplex, & sine ullo incommodo respon∣sum. Enimverò an∣tequam quaestio ista de Transubstantiati∣one palàm in Eccle∣sia agitaretur, mini∣me mirûm est si unus, aut alter, aut etiam aliqui, minùs consi∣derarè, & rectè hac de re senserint, & scripserint; maximè cum non tractar••nt ex instituto ipsam quaestionem.