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.

[ 20] That the Romish Objection is, in it selfe, most Slanderous against the Historicall Truth taught by the Ancient Fathers; and Confessed by the Romish Doctors themselves. SECT. II.

VVHat? That the Catholike Doctrine of Ancient [ 30] times, concerning our Eating of Christ's Body in this Sacrament, should have beene the Cause; yea, or yet the Occasion to the Heathen and Iewes, of imputing to the Christians a Capernaiticall Eating of Man's flesh? This is the first Argument, which your Objectors, from Historicall Rela∣tions, use for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, out of this Ancient Father Iustine Martyr; In Confutation whereof wee produce (see the Margin) the Testimonies of these Ancient Fathers2 1.1 Augustine, 3 1.2 Irenaeus,4 1.3 Tertullian,5 1.4 Epiphanius, and6 1.5 Ori∣gen; [ 40] together with the Confessions of your owne Romish

Authors,7 1.6 Maldonat,8 1.7 Baronius, and ⁹ Lorinus, men of chiefest note in your Church; witnessing concerning that lowd and lewd Slander cast upon Catholike Christi∣ans, by both Iewes and Gentiles, that it was occasioned by Hereticall, and Fanaticall Christians, in the Primitive Age of the Church; such as were the Montanists, the Cataphryges and Gnosticks, who did indeed and Really eate Humane flesh. So they.

But most especially is this Romish Figment confuted by the Storie it selfe, which by the Relation of the foresaid [ 10] Fathers, Confessions of the former Romanists, and Tenor of the Histories themselves, was, The Eating of a Child or Infant; which maketh the falshood of your Objections to seeme, in a maner palpable unto us; because Christ being crucified by both Jewes and Gentiles, when hee was above thirty yeares of Age, and the whole Church of Christ pro∣fessing as much, it was not possible that the Eating of an In∣fant onely, should produce an opinion of Eating a Man of growth; much lesse could it be credible, that they imputed the Eating thereof in the Eucharist, if (as your French 10 1.8 Bi∣shop [ 20] teacheth) This their Eating the flesh of a Child, was not practised in the Feast of the Lord's Supper, but at their Love-Feasts, called Agapae. So hee. And consequently so sandie and boggie is this foundation of your maine Objection, for proofe of the Corporall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Notes

• 2 1.1

  Aug. Haeres. 26. Cataphryges Sa∣cramenta perhiben∣tur funes••a habere. Nam de infanti an∣niculi sanguine, quem de toto ejus corpore minutis punctionum vulneribus extorquent, quasi Eucharistiam suam conficere perhibentur, miscentes eum fari••ae, panemquê inde facientes; qui p••er si mortuus fuerit, ha∣bent illum pro Martyre; sin vivus pro Magno Sace••dote.
• 3 1.2

  Irenaeus. lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum, (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & avertunt aures a praeconio veritatis.
• 4 1.3

  Ter∣••ull. ad uxorem. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes. [Agapae verò non nisi Vespere.] Tertul. Apolog. 16. Alij Asini caput, & per ludibrium Christiani appellabantur Asinarij, &c.
• 5 1.4

  Epiphan. Haeres. 26. Foelum jam natum detractum pistillo ••undunt, & omnes contusi pueri participes facti esu peracto, &c.
• 6 1.5

  Origen. testatur opera Iudaeorum has calum••ias adversus Christian••s di••••igatus. lib. 1. contra Celsum. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• 7 1.6

  Ma••donat. lib. 7. de Sacramentis. Tom. de Eucharislia. §. Sexta Questio—Montanistae, Peputi∣ani (ut Author est August. lib. de Hae∣res. c. 27. & Epiph. in Haeres. 49.) In∣fantem conspersum farinâ solebant com∣pungere, & sangui∣nem ab illa expres∣sum miscere farinâ & ex eo panem con∣ficere ad Eucharisti∣am. Vnde credo na∣tam fuisse illam no∣tam, quam Gentiles inurebant Christia∣nis, quod infantes occiderent.
• 8 1.7

  Baronius An∣no 120. num. 22. us{que} ad numerum 36. Quae Gnostici agebant in occulto, palam facta cōvertebant in Chri∣stianos: nam Epi∣phanius Haeres. 26. Foetum jam natum detractum pistillo tundunt, & omnes contusi pueri partici∣pes facti, esu peracto &c. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. Gentes videntes quae sunt illorum (Haereticorum) omnes nos blasphemant, & aver∣••unt aures a praeconio veritatis. Origenes testatur opera Iudaeorum has calumnias adversus Christianos divul∣gatas. lib. 1. con. Celsum.—Caecilius Ethnicus apud Minutium Felicem obijcit in Octavium. Baronius locis supra notatis. Sic jam de initiandis tyronibus, fabula tam detestanda, quam nota est &c. Lorinus Ies. in Sap. cap. 12. v. 5. Striges & Magi nostri puerorum sanguinem lambunt & carnem devorant. Euchitae & Gnostici [ 30] olim hoc factitârunt, ea etiam ab Ethnicis in Catholicos derivata calumnia est, ut Apologiarum pro Christia∣nis meminerunt Scriptores.
• 10 1.8

  Gabriel Episcop. Albispin. lib. 1. Observat. 18: Eucharistia non nisi mane sumebatur. Te••t. ad uxor. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante cibum gustes. Agapae non nisi vespere. Item quae de Convivio, quod Gentiles infamabant, habent Patres, cum ea omnia de Agapis, non de Euchati∣stia accipienda sunt, ut in Apologet. Tert••l. cap. 7. 8. 9. & in fine, quod non animadvertentes pleri{que} perpe∣ram de Eucharistia explicarunt. Similiter apud Minutium de inhumanis cibus, de infante farte contecto, quod coeunt solenni die, & quae hisce objectionibus respondet, Minutius, de Agapis intelligere necesse est, eo apud Euseb. Imper. Iustin. Gretzerus. Ies. de cruce, lib. 1. cap. 51. Ethnici aliqui mentiebantur Christianos A sinum pro Deo colete.