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 Romish Objections, against our former Tenet, taken from Miraculous Penetrations, are feeble and vaine. SECT. VII.

[ 20] IT is ordinarily in the mouthes of every one of you to object the Miraculous entrance of Christ into the house, the doores being shut; his coming out of the grave, when it was covered with a sto••e (as some thinke;) his Birth from his mother, her wombe being shut; besides the miraculous passing of a Camell through the eye of a needle, spoken of by Christ; all Miraculous indeed, as wee, with many holy* 1.1 Fathers, do willingly Confesse. What therefore? Therefore (say you) the Body of Christ did passe through the sub∣stantiall dimensions of the Body of the Doores, Stone, and wombe; and [ 30] consequently confuteth all this, which hath beene spoken of the Organicall proportions of a Body, in respect of Space, or Place. So you. Wee grant unto you as much as these Fathers speake, in noting each of these to have beene the Acts, and workes of Omnipotencie, but yet without any penetration of Dimensions at all, or yet Alteration of the just proportion of Christs Body. Which penetration of Dimensions seemed to youre 1.2 Durand as incredible, as unto us; and is3 1.3 Impossible.

The principal Testimony, which is insisted upon, concerning the [ 40] passing of Christ through the Doores, is the saying of Chrysostom, viz.f 1.4 Christs Body was thinne, or small, changed from [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, it's thicknesse, impalpable unto mortall mans hand, but only by Divine permission and dispensation. So hee. And this is al∣leged for proofe of a Possibility of his now Corporall Presence in the Sacrament, voyd of Palpabilitie: never considering the Or∣dinary and confessed Hyperboles, wherewith Chrysostome em∣bellisheth his Sermons; insomuch that wee may oppose Chry∣sostome against Chrysostome, even in the point in question: who

else-where speaking of this Sacrament, saith that Christ herein * 1.5 Giveth his Body both to be felt and seene; wheras every Priests hands and eyes can testifie the contrary.

{fleur-de-lys} Would ye understand the judgement of4 1.6 Chrysostome indeed? then leaving his Amphibologies, consult with him in his plaine and direct Assertions, where hee doubteth not to say, that If Christ at his Resurrection had offered his Dis∣ciples only an Image of his Body, to the deceiving of their eyes, it had beene a Delusion. Next that, Howsoever the sight of his Disciples might have beene deceived, yet their touch could not [ 10] erre, in discerning a true Body. And is it not then a marvel∣lous Infatuation in your Professors, who whilest they Tast, See, and Touch Bread in the Sacrament, beleeve contrary to their senses, that they are meere Accidents? Thirdly, in Conclusion, hee saith that his Passing thorow the Doore was not in his Humane Substance alone, but by his Divine virtue. What can this meane, but that the Penetration made was not by extenuation of his Body, but by the Omnipotent power, constraining the place to make a passage to his Bodi∣ly Substance? {fleur-de-lys} [ 20]

For what? that Christ his Body, in passing through the Doore, should not alwayes have beene palpable in it selfe? The Fa∣thers of the Generall Councell at Ephesus would have protested against this, whose Resolution is, thatg 1.7 The Body which Christ united to his God head is palpable: but you will aske then, how could it passe through either Stones, or Doores, without pe∣netration of Dimensions, or els by an extreame tenuity of the Body it selfe? Wee answer, that the Divine power constrained the Stone and Doores to yeeld a passage, the Thicknesse of his Body continuing the same. Wee have Hierome for the first part [ 30] teaching,h 1.8 The Creature (saith hee) yeelded to the Creator? and ancient Iustine, for the second, most aptly, and exactly, i 1.9 As Christ did tread the Water, not by changing his Body into Spirit, but by his Divine power: So hee passed thorow both Doores and Sepulchre being shut, by his Divine power, above nature, in his unaltered Body. Hee proceedeth, shewing how; even as was his walking, by his Divine power working upon the water, without any Alteration of his Body, more than was of the Body of Peter, who was enabled by the same power to tread the water. [ 40]

{fleur-de-lys} The Alteration then was not in his Body, but in the o∣ther things, such as were the Doores, thorow which hee passed:5 1.10 The nature of things being overcome by Christs Om∣nipotencie,

hee made his entrance, as saith Cyrill of Alexan∣dria. And why should not the Creature yeeld 〈…〉〈…〉 Crea∣tor, rather than the Creator to the Creature? Will you give you Jesuite Lessius licence to interpose his judgement, who maintaining a Possibility of a maner of Penetration of a Bo∣dy by a Body, yet discussing the maner [How, will tell you that6 1.11 It is done not by the Quality, whether naturall, or Su∣pernaturall in a glorified Body; but by Gods immediate Assist∣ance: and that the Saints themselves (who are sayd to pene∣trate other bodies with their bodies) have no other power than [ 10] that which may be called morall, which is to be willing to passe thorow any body: and God, according to their wils, assiteth to worke the effect. {fleur-de-lys}

Each of which Sayings of the Fathers, professing a Body of Christ palpable, (whether Thinne with Chrysostome, or Thicke with Iustine) doe confute your Tridentine Faith in beleeving a Body of Christ whole in the whole, and whole in every least part of the Hoast, as unpalpable to man, as you have sayd it is invisible to the Angels themselves: which is to bring it to such a Subtil∣ty, as will draw you whether you will or no into a kindred with [ 20] the Eutychian Heretikes, who (as yourk 1.12 Aquinas will have you know) held the Body of Christ to have beene as subtill as the Ayre, and as the winde impalpable; as did also thel 1.13 Eunomians, and were therefore condemned by Pope Gregory surnamed the Great.

Some more difficulty you suppose to be in the maner of Christ his Birth, whereunto when wee answer, that Christ in his Birth opened the Wombe of his Mother, although without violation of her Sacred Vessel, wee are therefore presently branded by yourm 1.14 Disputers with the blacke marke of the Heresie of those wicked Spirits, who taught the Corruption of her Virginitie. [ 30] Which objection nothing but personall malice could make, or Impudency defend, as the Objecters themselves well knew, one of them confessing, that divers Fathers, in interpreting that Scripture, which is by the Evangelist applyed to the Virgin Ma∣ry, and Birth of Christ, viz. Every Male child that openeth the Wombe shall be holy unto the Lord; Luk. 2. did teach thatn 1.15 Christ alone did properly open the Wombe of a Woman, who onely found it shut. Hee reckoneth for this opinion these holyo 1.16 Fathers,

Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, Hie∣rome, Theophylact, Eusebius. So hee. A faire company of fel∣low Heretikes with Protestants, wee trowe: to whom the same Jesuite joyneth divers Doctors of your Romish Church, whom he calleth Docti & Catholici. Thus your owne spirit of Contra∣diction, whereas two words might have quit the Heresie, main∣tained the Miracle, and defended the Integrity of that sancti∣fied Wombe of the Blessed Virgin, (to wit) that the Virginall cell might be said to open it selfe, which was shut in respect of other Women (who necessarily suffer violent rupture by the Birth) [ 10] being preserved from all hurtfull violence, either from within or without; which could not be without a perfect Miracle.

Furthermore hearken to the Answer of some other Doctors of your Church, and you shall find your owne Doctrine to smell ranke of the Heresie of the Marcionites, in the opinion of the fore-cited ancient Fathers; for your fore-nameda 1.17 Jesuite telleth you of some Doctors in your Church (whom hee him∣selfe approveth) who taught that The Fathers, who sayd that Christ did open the Matrix of his Mother, spake it in the heat of Dispute against the Hereticall Marcionites, who denyed that Christ [ 20] had any true Body; because that els the sayd Fathers should seeme to make Christ his Body to be no better than an Incorporeall, and on∣ly imaginary thing. So they. Which proveth, that in the judg∣ment of those Ancient Fathers, all your defence, in this Case, is at least Phantasticall. Let Isiodore Pelusiota his sufferage be ad∣ed to the rest, who in an Epistle calmely, and as it were in coole blood, teacheth thatb 1.18 Christ is the onely he, who by his Birth o∣pened his Mothers Wombe, and left it shut and sealed up againe. And maketh bold to tearme them Vnlearned, that thinke the contrary: who living above a thousand yeeres agoe, is there∣fore [ 30] so much the more competent a witnesse of the Catholike truth.

{fleur-de-lys} Yet that you may know this Father not to be alone, in this Doctrine, peruse the7 1.19

As for the Entrance of the* 1.20 Camell, which is said by Christ, to passe through the eye of a needle; the subtlty of your Objecti∣on is not so needle-sharpe, but that it may be easily blunted: for Christ spake by way of comparison, and implyed as well an Impossibility, as a Possibility. Thus; as it is simply Impossible for a Camell (be it Rope, or be it Beast) to passe through the eye of a Needle, retaining the same Dimension and Property: so is it Impossible for a Rich man, so long as hee hath on him a great Bunch or grossenesse of confidence in his riches, and worldly [ 10] affections, to enter into the Kingdome of God. Although o∣therwise, as it is possible for God, by his miraculous power so to contract the Camell, that it may passe through the Needles eye; so is it as possible to him, by his Omnipotent power of Grace to abate the swelling bunch of worldly Confidence in the heart of the Rich-man, that hee, being truly mortified, may repose his whole trust in God himselfe, and at length enter into the King∣dome of Heaven.

{fleur-de-lys} This you might have learned from Saint Hierome, who saith that in this Similitude8 1.21 Impossibilitie is compared with [ 20] Impossibilitie, because as a Camell cannot passe through the Needles eye, no more can richmen enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. So he, speaking of the Rich-man, in Sensu Compositio, so living and dying, as making Mammon their God; and not using them unto works of Piety and Charity; for so the same holy Father expresseth himselfe,9 1.22 As the Camels Beasts to whom the rich are resembled) could passe through the straight gate of Hierusalem, as soone as they were disburthened of their loads; So Rich men, casting off the load of their sins, may en∣ter [ 30] in at the straight gate that leadeth unto life.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Chrysost. Na∣zian••••. Aug. Ambros.
• e 1.2

  Durand Disp. 14, qu•• 6. [Whom you therefore reject.] Tes••e Su••rez. Tom. 2. Disp. 48. quaest. 54. Art. 4. §. 5.
• 3 1.3

  Impossibil••m etiam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hac putat esse opinionem probibilem Teste Lo∣••ino 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Act. 5. 19.
• f 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. ••7. in Ioh. 21. [but according to the Latine Edition, Hom. 86. super Ioh. 20. This testimony was objected against P. Mar•••• in the Disp. at Oxo••. fol. 60.]
• * 1.5

  Booke 3. cap. ••. Sect. 6.
• 4 1.6

  Chrysost. de Resurrect. Hom. 9. Non est meum ludi∣ficare meos phantal∣mate, &c. See this Te∣stimony above Book. 3. Chap. 3. §. 9.
• g 1.7

  Conc. Ephes. Tom. 5. Cap. 1. Ana∣them. 3. Non alien••u esse ab illo corpus, quod sibi univit, quod ubique palpabile, & aspectabile existit.
• h 1.8

  Hier. Crea∣tura cessit Creatori.
• i 1.9

  Iustin Martyr quaest. ad Orthodox Quest. 117. pag 363. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• 5 1.10

  Cyri••. Alexandr. in Iohan. lib. 12. cap. 53. Clausis foribus Dominius omnipotentiâ, suâ, superatâ naturâ rerum, intravit.
• 6 1.11

  〈…〉〈…〉. Ex quibus pa∣tet, juxta hanc sen∣•••••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 penetr 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ponere in ip∣••s beatis, nisi poten∣tam quindam mo∣r••••••, quae in eo consisti••, quod Deus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ipsis volen∣tibus, assistere ad hunc effectum. Lib. 7. cap 9.
• k 1.12

  Aquinas par. 3. quaest: 54. art. 2. Re∣spondeo. Vide cor∣pus Christi non ha∣buisse partes corpo••••s naturales, pertinet id errorem Eutychij qui dicebat corpus nostrū in illa resurrectio∣nis gloria impalpabi∣le, & ventis. ••eque subtilius: et quòd Dominus post confirmata corda Discipalorum palpantrum, omne illud, quod in eo palpari potuit, in aliquam subtilitatem redegit, ut Greg. exponit, Mor••••. lib. 14••. ••ap. 31.
• l 1.13

  Pratent. E••ench. [ 40] Haeret. Tit. Eunomiani—Diceb in corpus nostrum post Resurrectionem impa••••••bile esse & invisible; imò aëre & vento subtilius: de qua heraesi Gregorius Eutychium convincit.
• m 1.14

  Bellar. lib de notis Eccles. cap. 9. Sander. de visib Monarch. lib. 7. pag. 321. Ma••don. Ies. Com. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Luc. 2. 23.
• n 1.15

  Docuerunt—solum Christum aperuisse vulvam. Mald. in Luc. 2.
• o 1.16

  Origen. in hunc locum Hom. 14. Tert. de carne Christi. Ambr & Greg. Nyssen. in Testimonijs ex vet. Testamento collectis. Epiph••n. Haeies. 78. Hier lib. 2. cont. pelag. Theophylact. &. Euseb. [That which hee addeth of their pius sensus is frivolous, even as his Impuration to Pro∣testants, saying that they deny that Mary the Mother of our Lord was a Virgin in her birth, is standerous:] and Ianseni•••• Conco. cap. 13.—Alij Patres hanc legem aperiundi vulvam ad solum Christum properiè pertinu••••e asserunt. Theophyl. & Ambr. Non enim virilis coitus virginalis secreta reseravit. Similia habet Origenes Hom. 14▪ In Luc. Aed Beat•••• Rhenanus in Tert. de carne Christi (before that he fell into the hand of Inquisitors, and their Index Expurgat.) durst say; Tert. contra Recentiorum placita dixit; Mariam patefacti coporis lege peperiss.
• a 1.17

  Apud Maldon. Ies. in Luc. •• Id Pa∣trea dixisse ardore abreptos disputatio∣nis contra Marcioni∣tas, ne Christum cor∣poreum phantasma facere viderntur, si dixissent matris u∣terum non aperuisse.
• b 1.18

  Ibid. Pelusiot. lib. 1. Epist. 23. Ape∣••i••e vulvam (Luc. 2.) non dicitur de quo∣vis primogenito 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 7 1.19

  The Fathers in their places above cited. Origen. Non sic quisquam aperuit vulvam matris abs{que} coitu. Ambros. in eum locum. Non virilis coitus vulvae secreta reser••vit—hic so∣lus ape••u••t sibi vul∣vam Hieron. Solus Christus clausas por∣tas vulvae virginitatis aperuit, quae tamen clausae vigiter permanserunt. Theoph. ineum locum. In Christum so∣lum hoc propri•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉—is enim virginis vulvam aperuit, cum reliquis mattribus vir aperuit. Tert. Dei filius—quis prop••tè vulvam matris suae aperuit, quam qui clausam patefecit. ••bio. Tert. Virgo quantum à viro, non quantum à partu Leo ad Flaviam cap. 4. pag. 36. Quiâ inviolata virginitas concupiscentiam nescivit. Aug. de Symbolo. cap. 5. Quae virum nesciens sibi portat.—Erasmus Annot. in Luc. 2. Certe Ambrosius ab Ori∣ginis sencentia non abhorruit, Ianscinius Concord in Luc. 2. Christum matris vulvam propriè adaperuisse, est sententia Theophylacti in hunc locum, Ambrosij, & Originis.
• * 1.20

  Matt. 19. 24
• 8 1.21

  Hieron. ad∣vers. pelag. lib. 2. Vndè difficultas dif∣ficultati, imo impos∣sibile impossibili comparatur, quià nec Camelus potest in∣trare per foramen a∣cus, nec divites in Regnum Dei.
• 9 1.22

  Hieron. in Matth. 19. v. 24. Sed si legamus Esaram, quomodo Cameli Madiam & Epha ve∣niant Hierusalem cum donis at{que} mu∣••••••bus: & qui p••ius curvi erant, & vitiorum pravitate distot••i, ingrediantur port••s Hierusalem: videbimus quomodo ••sti Cam••li, quibus Divites comparantur; cum dep•••••••••• grave in Sarcia•••••• peccatorum, & totius corporis privitatem intrare possint per a••gustam portam.