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. VII. [ 30]

The third Romish Contradiction, against the words of Christ [MY BODIE,] is by making a Body Finite, to be a Body not finite. SECT. I.

IF (as you have said) the Body of Christ is, or may be at one time in so many places, then may it bee in moe, and consequently every-where at one in∣stant. This Consequence your ancient Schoole∣men [ 40] taught, and your Iesuitea 1.1 Valentia doth seeme to avow, saying, What hindereth that a Body may be [Vbi{que}] every-where at once, not by it's naturall power, but by the Omnipotencie of God? So hee. This wee say is to make a Finite Infinite, and your old Schoole-Doctors are

hereunto witnesses, who have judged itb 1.2 Hereticall, to say, That the Body of Christ can be in divers places at once; because then he may be in infinite. So they. And heare you what your Cardinall Bellarmine hath publikely taught? To say (c 1.3 saith he) that the Body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, is to as∣cribe an Immensity and infinitenesse unto it, (namely, that) which is proper unto God. So he, and so also your other Doctors, to whom the Evidence of Truth commandeth us to assent.

For what greater Heresie can there be against that Article of our Faith, concerning the Deity, and Godhead of Christ, begotten, [ 10] not made, than to beleeve that there can be a made God? for so doubtlesse do they (whosoever they be) that thinke a Finite Bo∣dy may be made Infinite.

CHALLENGE.

[ 20] YOu understand the Argument, viz. To beleeve that Chirst his Body may be every where, is a flat Heresie: but to affirme that the same Body is in many places at once, doth consequently inferre that it may be every where (as hath beene directly profes∣sed.) Ergo your Doctrine of attributing to the Body of Christ an Existence, in many places at once, is by the confessed generall grounds of Christianity plainly Hereticall. And from this our Conclusion your Aquinas will in no-wise dissent, who him∣selfe concludethd 1.4 That the Angell is not in divers places at once, because an Angel is a Finite Creature, and therefore of a Fi∣nite [ 30] power and operation; it being Proper to God to be in many pla∣ces at once. So hee.

That, by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, the Being in divers places at once inferreth an Infinitenesse Proper unto God: which without Heresie cannot be ascribed to any humane Body; Proved from the maner of Existence of the Holy Ghost. [ 40] SECT. II.

STill you maintaine the Reall and Corporall Presence of Christ his Body in so many place as there are consecrated Hoasts at one time in the whole World, be they ten thousand times ten Millions of Millions, or how many soever: which, say wee, is to make the Finite Body of Christ Infinite. For

Aquinas (as youre 1.5 Iesuite witnesseth) held it Hereticall, to af∣firme One body to be every-where, because this is a Divine proper∣ty, by which the Fathers did sufficiently prove the God-head of the Holy Ghost, (namely) Augustine, Fulgentius, Ambrose, and Basil. So he.

But how did the Fathers prove this, thinke you? it were good, that where your owne Authors be silent, wee heard some of themselves speake.f 1.6 Fulgentius his reason is, Because the Spirit of God dwelleth wholly in all the faithfull, separated in divers places.g 1.7 Basil thus: The Angell, that was with Cornelius, was [ 10] not at the same time with Philip, nor was hee then in Heaven, when he was with Zachary at the Altar. But the Holy Ghost was together with the Prophet Daniel in Babylon, with Ieremy in the Dungeon, and with Ezechiel in Chobar.h 1.8 Ambrose thus: Be∣cause the Apostles could not all be every where, Christ severed them, giving them all the Holy Ghost, which was inseparable in them: none therefore can doubt but it is a Divine Essence. S.i 1.9 Augustine confuteth an Arian Bishop thus: You that prayse the holy Spirit, in sanctifying his faithfull wheresoever they are, how can you deny him to be God? [ 20]

{fleur-de-lys} Saint Hilary, to evince Christ to be a Divine Spirit, useth this Argument:1 1.10 The Scripture (saith hee) saith, Hee is with his Church unto the end of the World; but not as a Corporall na∣ture, which is, when he is present in one place, to be absent from another. Accordingly, for proofe of the God-head of the same Holy Ghost,2 1.11 Athanasius argueth out of the same Psalme, [Whither shall I goe from thy presence?] Conclu∣ding that The Holy Ghost filleth all things, and is therefore [ 30] infinite in Essence. But how is this Infinitenesse of Being in all places proved? The Reason followeth, in the same place, from the Instances of Being in divers places at once: If I goe into Heaven, Thou art there, If into Hell, Thou art there also. So that still the Argument, for the Godhead, is taken from Being both There, and There {fleur-de-lys}

Didymus of Alexandria (whom Hierome acknowledgeth as his Master, for the understanding of Scripture) thus:k 1.12 The Holy Ghost, if it were a Creature, should have it's Substance cir∣cumscribed; which because it is in many places at once cannot be circumscribed, as all things that are made. Vpon the same ground Cyrill of Alexandria, maketh the same Conclusionl 1.13 The Spi∣rit of God is no Creature (saith hee) because things Created are in one place, but of the Spirit of God it is written, whither shall I goe from thy presence?

{fleur-de-lys} Let us fall to Reasoning. The Enthymem•• of the Fathers [ 10] being this; The Holy Chost is in divers places at once, Therefore is hee God: The Major Proposition, you know, by the Rule of Art must needs be this: Whatsoever is in divers places at once, is God. So then the Syllogisme or forme of Argumenta∣tion must necessarily stand thus:

Ma. Whatsoever is in divers places at once, is God.

Mi. But the Holy-Ghost to in divers places at once:

(The Conclusion necessarily following is this,)

Con. Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

[ 20] So these holy Fathers, every one Catholike without ex∣ception, pleading for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost. By whose Iudgements wee are taught that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth Infallibly inferre a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and that therefore the Contrary Profes∣sion of a Being of a Creature, in divers places, or spaces at once, is Hereticall; because the aforesayd Fathers Disputed against the Heretikes (named by3 1.14 Epiphanus the Arioma∣nitae) who, as Pneumatomachi, madly oppugned the God∣head of the Holy Ghost.

Now lest when wee seeke to pleade our owne Cause, Wee [ 30] might seeme to desert them, whom you call Lutheranes, We held it a part of Brother-hood to take with us an excellent∣ly learned Doctor of Wittenberg, Iohn Gerhard: who pro∣ducing Bellarmines Objection against them, to proove them them to be Heretikes, in the opinion of the Presence of Christs Body, thus: If you give Divine Attributes to Christ's Body as Essentially, then are you Eutychians: and if you give them accidntally, then are you Nestorians. The same Gorhard argueth thus:4 1.15 Wee (saith hee) give not Divine Attri∣butes to the Body of Christ either Essentially, or Accidentally, [ 40] but Personally. So hee, which hath in it a true and Ortho∣dox Sense. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

AGaine, another Syllogisme from these Premises will set all straight. To ascribe to a Body an Omni-presency, and power of Being every-where, is Hereticall. But to say that a Bo∣die is in divers places at once, doth consequently inferre a power of Being in every place (as it doth, in demonstrating the Holy Ghost to be a Divine Spirit.) Therefore to attribute to a Body a Being in divers places at once, is a Doctrine Hereticall, and im∣plyeth [ 10] a Contradiction, by affirming that a Finite thing either is, or possibly may be Infinite. Adde but hereunto the for∣mer * 1.16 Testimonies of Fathers, who have distinguished the hu∣mane nature of Christ from his God-head, and their denying of all Possibilities of Existence of Angels in two places at once; and your Consciences must needes tell you, that it was Impossible for the Fathers to have believed your Romish Article of a Corpo∣rall Presence in every Hoast Consecrated at one time, on divers Altars, in your severall Churches. What shall wee then fur∣her say concerning the Being of a Body in divers places at [ 20] once? surely (that which hath beene plentifully proved alrea∣dy) that such an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or without Place, is egregiously 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and absurd as well in Divine, as naturall Philosophy, because (as this whole Discourse sheweth they have verified that saying of Aristoile; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of Truth, against an egregious Infatuati∣on of the Iesuite Lessius, in framing an whole Army consisting of but one man. [ 30] SECT. III.

AMong other multitudes of Absurdities, take unto you the Assertion of your Iesuite Lessius, (wherein not∣withstanding hee is not alone) which wee propound unto you, not for your Instruction, but for your Recreation. 5 1.17 The Existence of a thing (saith he) hindereth not, but the same thing may be produced once, twice, thrice, an hundred, or a thousand times, so that an whole Army and Host may con∣sist of one man. Do you heare your Jesuit telling you of an [ 40] Army of a Thousand, or (and if you will) a thousand thou∣sands of one man? which Army, if you shall range into cer∣taine Quarters, you shall have in one, a Squardon of five thousand of a Horseman; in another, Five thousand of a Pike-man; in a third Five thousand of a Musketier; in a Fourth, Five thousand of a Pyoner: Insomuch that upon such a multiplicity of Productions of this one man, the said one

man should be sayd to be furnished with all the different thousands of Armour and weapons, of Pikes, Muskets, Pick∣axes, or Shovells, as might belong to so many thousands of men.

Although this Idle and dreamish Fiction deserve no other answer then laughter, yet seeing that Doctors of his Profes∣sion, and Jesuites also of his owne society are at hand, wee may not deny them Accesse; Bellarmine, Suarez, and Vasquez, these three Jesuites have* 1.18 concluded, that Production cannot [ 10] be but of a thing, that hath no Being before; but Christ (say they) had a Being, before any Priest could make his Con∣secration. So they. How then could this Iesuite soberly feigne to himselfe a thousand Productions of a man, that could have but one Production an being at all. Againe, you have neard, from your Doctors, two other Conclusions, One, That if wee consider the Bodily presence of Christ, as hee is out of the Sacrament visible,* 1.19 It is not possible for him (say they) to be in moe then one place at once. And so Lessius his great Champion must have no Being at all. The second, [ 20] that if wee understand Christs Bodily Presence, as it is in the Sacrament,* 1.20 It is Invisible (say they) and cannot exercise any faculty of Sense or Motion. And then must Lessius his imagi∣nary man of Armes be such a Captaine, as can neither see any enemy, nor yet be seene of any: or if seeing, yet, as a man bound hand and foot, hath no power to pursue his Foe, or if hee should make an encounter, yet is hee not able to strike one stroake, Who will not now say that your Jesuite had no other harnesse upon himselfe than pertinacie in this Impug∣nation [ 30] and resistance of Truth. {fleur-de-lys}

Notes

• a 1.1

  Quasi non possit creatura esse u∣bique hoc (inquam) non obstat, nam om∣nipotentiam illi in∣tellexerunt prorsus naturalem: quia si non alienâ virtute, sed suapte naturâ res existat ubique praesens, haec reverà nulli creaturae convenit. At nos altero modo non nisi per absolutam Dei potentiam ubiquitatem creaturae arbitramur. Valent. Ies. lib. 1. de vera Christi praesent. in Euch. cap. 12. §. Quae sanè. pag. 241.
• b 1.2

  Veterum The∣ologorum apud D. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ratio 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est si idem corpus ••ssit esse in ••••••••bus locis simul, potest in ••luribus, atque 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ubique.—Et qua ••um eodem Thoma dicunt, Haereticum esse affir••••••••e, corpus Christi esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in duobus locis simul, quia ubiqu•• esse, est p••oprium Deo. Peste Su••rez tom 3. qu 7••. Artic. 1. disput. 48. Sect. 4.
• c 1.3

  Dicere corpus Christi esse, vel esse posse in insinitis locis ••••nul, immensitatem divinam requirit. Bellarmin. lib. 3 de Christo cap. 8.
• d 1.4

  Aquinas 1, qu. 52. art. 2. Deus e••t ••lentia in••init••, ide••o non solu•• in p••uribus locis est, sed unique. Angelus, quia est virtutis. sinnae; non se extendit nisi ••d unum determina∣tum—unde sequitur quòd non si••ubique, ne{que} in pluribus lo∣cis, sed in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 loco rantum.
• e 1.5

  Vnum corpus esse ubique affirmare est Haereticum. Tho∣mas. Quia Catholic•• ex hac proprietate essendi ubi{que} dicunt antiquos Patres suffi∣cienter probasse Spi∣ritus Sancti Divini∣tatem, ut patet ex Augustino, Fulgent. Ambros. Basil. Teste Suarez ies. Tem 3. Disp. 48. § 4. Rat. 1.
• f 1.6

  Fulgent. ad Tra. simud. lib. 2. pag. 325. Spiritus Sancti in no∣bis habitatio non lo∣calis est, inhabitat enim Tunitas in su••s fidelibus, sicut tota in cunctis: nec per separatos homines, & separata loca par∣ticulariter separatur
• g 1.7

  Basu. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 22. sub finem Reliquae vir∣tutes omnes in lo∣co circumscriptae esse credūtur nam Ange lus, qui••astabat Cor∣nelio, non erat in e∣odem loco, quo cùm ast••••t Philippo: ne∣que qui locutus est Zacha••iae ab Altari per idem tempus eti∣am in Coelo suam implebat stationem. At Spiritus (Sanctus) simul & in Abaccuc operatus, & in Dan∣cle in Babylonia cre∣ditus, & in Cata••cta cum Ieremia, & cum Ezechiele in Cho∣bar; Spiritus enim Domini replevit orbem terrarum, [Quo ibo ••a Spiritu tuo?] Et Propheta; Quoniam ego, inquit, vobiscum sum, & Spiritus meus stat in medio vestri
• h 1.8

  Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, lib. 1. cap. 7. Cum igitur omnis creatura certis naturae suae circumscripta limitibus, siquidem & illa invisibilia opera, quae non queunt locis & finibus comprehendi, substantiae tamen suae proprietate clauduntur, quomodo quis audeat creaturam Sp. Sanctum ap∣pellare, qui non habet circumscriptam & determinatam naturam? Ideò cum Dominus servos suos Apostolos destinare voluit, ut agnosceremus aliam esse naturam, aliud gratiam spiritualem, alios aliòo destinabat, quia simul omnes esse ubique non poterant•• dedit autem Spiritum Sanctum, qui licet separatis Apostolis inseparabilis •• [ 40] gratiae munus insunderet: quis igitur dubitat, quin divinum sit quod insunditur, simul pluribus, nec vi∣detur? corporeum autem quod videtur à singulis, & tenetur.
• i 1.9

  August. contra Maxim. Arian. Epist. lib. 3. cap. 21. Cum sic laudetis Spiritum Sanctum, ut in sanctificandis fidelibus ubique praesentem esse dica∣tis, tamen negare audeatis esse Deum? [The Vbique, spoken of the Faithfull, hath the sense of Vbicunque, because the number of the Faithfull is but finite, and their places distinct, here and there, and not absolutely every where.]
• 1 1.10

  Hilarius in Ps. 124. in illo verba Christi, [Ecce ego vobiscum sum, us{que} ad consummationem seculi.] Spiritus namque adest omnia penetrans & continens. Non enim secundùm nos corporalis est, ut cùm alicubi ad∣sit, absit aliunde.
• 2 1.11

  Athana••. de ••••umana Christi natura. Planè eadem a Davide de Sp. Sancto tradita sunt, Psal. 138. [Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo?] quibus verbis nos edoctos voluit, Sp. Sanctum esse qui omnia replet: & à facie tua quo defugiam? S••alcende••o in coelum, tu illi•• praestoes: si descendero in infernum, tu ibi ades.
• k 1.12

  Didymus Alex. lib. 1. de Spirit. Sanct. Hieronym. interprete. (••xtatin Bibliotheca: S. Patrum. Tom. 6. pag. 679.) Ipse Spi∣ritus Sanctus, si unus ellect de creaturis, sal∣tem circumscriptam haberet substantiam—Spiritus au∣tem Sanctus cùm in pluribus sit, non ha∣bet substantiam cir∣cumscriptam sicut u∣niversa quae facta 〈◊〉〈◊〉. [And ••ee pro∣veth 〈…〉〈…〉 pluribus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Prnphetis & Apostolis &c.]
• l 1.13

  Cyril. Alex. de Spiritu Sancto (quod non est Creatura.) Cum in loco & cir∣cum scriptione intelli∣gant quae facta sunt, Spiritus autem sancti non sit, de quo psal∣lit David, Quo ibo a Spiritu tuo?
• 3 1.14

  Epiphan. Hae∣res. 69. Contra Ar••∣omanita, qui dicunt Spiritum Sanctum esse creaturam crea∣turae.
• 4 1.15

  Ioh. Gerhard. Confes. Cathol. lib. 1. part. 2 cap. 19. pag. 887. In hunc mo∣dum bellar. lib. 3. de Christo, cap 1. con∣tra nos tale producit Argumentum. Eutherani docent carnem Christi habere Attributa Divinitatis: ex quo sequitur eos vel esse Eutychi••nos, vel Nectorianos▪ vel Monstrum ex utraque Haeresi. Si enim dixerint ea esse communicata essen∣tialiter, erint Eutychiani; si Accidentaliter, erint Nestoriani, Respondet Gerhardus—Nec Essentiaiiter, nec Accidentol••••er ea communicata dicimus, sed Personaliter.
• * 1.16

  See above, Chap. 5. & 6.
• 5 1.17

  Lessius Ies. O∣pusc. de perfect. divin. lib. 12. cap. 16 nu. 199. Existentia rei non impedit quo minus secundò, tertiò, quar∣tò centies, millies, eadem res produci possit—Vnde sequi∣tur ex uno homine effici posse integrum exercitum. [And this multiplication by pro∣duction is desended by Iohannes Lot••us the ••esuit in his Epi∣stle to Conradus Ver∣stius; Secundò, tertiò, quartò & Iohann••m product posse, &c.
• * 1.18

  See Booke 3. Cap. 3. §. 1.
• * 1.19

  See above cap. 3. §. 3.
• * 1.20

  See belew cap. 9. §. 2.