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 the former Romish Tridentine Article is new, and contrary to the nature of an Organicall and Humane Body, in the Iudgement of Romish Doctors of later times. SECT. IV.

ALbertus, Scotus, Aegidius are recounted amongst your lear∣ned, [ 40] and ancient Schoolemen, who (as youra 1.1 Jesuite testi∣fieth) Though it impossible, that a Body, that hath Extension of parts, should be contained in an indivisible point. The same opi∣nion is ascribed by your Jesuites (as ancient) untob 1.2 Durand

andc 1.3 Occham. Now what greater injury can there be, than, after that it was lawfull for a thousand and foure hundred yeares since the Ascension of Christ, for any Christian to pro∣fesse (with your ancient Schoolemen) an Impossibility, that The Body of Christ is whole in every the least part of the Hoast; to im∣pose upon mens consciences, as an Article of Faith, so found and so palpable a figment? That which seemed to the above-named Durand, Occham, and other1 1.4 Nominals such an Opinion, whence (as they thought) it must needs follow, that the Eyes must be where the Nose is, the hand confouded with the legs: [ 10] which (as your Cardinal Alan truly said) were to make of the Bo∣dy of Christ a confused Chaos, and altogether* 1.5 monstrous. {fleur-de-lys} And it may be that divers of you are of the minde of that Doctor of the Seraphicall order, who teacheth you to2 1.6 Deny that the Body of Christ is in any indivisible part of the Hoast. {fleur-de-lys}

Notes

• a 1.1

  Totum Chri∣sti corpus in partibus indivisibilibus specie∣rum panis esse, nega∣•••••• Albertus, Scotus, Aegidius—quia videtur impossible, in se corpus exten∣sum, & magnae mo∣lis cum tota organizatione & figura in puncto collocari Suarez. quo supra. pag. 683.
• b 1.2

  Opinio antiqua, quae fuit Durandi, dixit corpus Christi in Eucharistia non habere quantitatem. Fundamentum hujus opinionis fuit, quod essentia quantitatis est habere partes extra partes distinctas inter se, sieri autem non possit, ut si cor∣pus Christi habeat partes distinctas, in Euch. sit totum in qualibet parte. Teste Maldonat. Ies. Tom. 1. de Euch cap. 8. Arg pag. 180. & Bellar. lib. 3. de Euch. cap. 5.
• c 1.3

  Occham, & alij dixerunt quidam esse magnitudinem cor∣poris Christi in Eucharistia: sed ita, ut nulla sit figura, nec distinctio partium. Sic Occham. Bellar. ibid §. ••t.
• 1 1.4

  Suarez Ies. in 3. Thom. disp. 48. Sect. 1. De Distantis partium Nominales concedunt in corpore Christi, existentem in Eucharistia, pe∣dem non distare ma∣gis à capite, quam collum. Ità Occham. & Ailliaco.
• * 1.5

  See above in this Chapter, Sect. 2.
• 2 1.6

  Corpus Christi non est nisi sub specie Panis, & partibus ejus: ipsum esse sub quolibet indivisibili ipsius Hostiae per se, negandum est. Magister de media villa, S••raph. Ord. in 4. Sent. Tom. 4.