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. III.

Of the Capernaiticall Heresie, concerning the Bo∣dily Vnion with Christ by Eat∣ing, What it was.

1. That the Errour of the Capernaites, Iohn 6. was an Opinion of the Corporall Eating of the Flesh of Christ. [ 10] SECT I.

MAster Brerely, the Author of the Booke of the Liturgie of the Masse (lately published, and largely applauded by all of your profession) doth bestow a wholea 1.1 Section in explicating the Errour of the Capernaites, so that it must whol∣ly reflect (forsooth!) upon the Protestants. It is not needfull wee should deny, that in this Chapter of Saint [ 20] Iohn, Christ doth speake of the Eucharist, which if wee did, wee might be assisted by your owne Bishopb 1.2 Iansenius toge∣ther with divers* 1.3 others, whom your Jesuitec 1.4 Maldonate confesseth to have beene Learned, Godly, and Catholike; yet fretteth not a little at them, for so resolutely affirming that In this Chapter of Saint Iohn, there was no speech of the Eucharist, because by this their opposition hee was hindred (as thec 1.5) Jesuite himselfe saith) That hee could not so sharpely and vehemently in∣veigh against Protestants. Let it then be supposed as spoken with a relation to a Sacramentall Eating with the mouth, as some [ 30] of the Fathers thought; but yet onely Sacramentally, and not Properly, as by them will be found true.

Wee returne to the Discourse of your Romish Priest,* 1.6 Christ having spoken (saith hee) of Eating his Flesh, and the Capernàites answering [How can hee give us his Flesh to eate?] They under∣stood eating with the mouth, yet were (a speciall observation) ne∣ver reproved of Christ for mistaking the meaning of his words, a strong reason that they understood them rightly; but for not be∣leeving them: and Christ often repeating the eating of his Flesh, and drinking of his Blood, and requiring them to beleeve, and [ 40] when hee saith [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth] it is not spoken to exclude the Reall Presence, or to qualifie his former sayings, but to admonish them not to judge things by carnall reason, and yet more evidently in the words following [There are some of you that beleeve not] Hee sayd not (saith Saint Augustine) there be some among you that understand not: so plain∣ly did hee hereby instruct them not how to understand, but how to

beleeve; for had hee, for their better understanding, intended hereby to have qualified, or corrected his former sayings, as to be meant Eating Spiritually by Faith, hee would have explained him∣selfe in plaine termes, and so have satisfied the Iewes. Vpon which premises I do conclude, that because our Saviour did reprove his Scrupulous hearers not for want of understanding, but for want of beleefe, it doth from thence, and from other premises abun∣dantly follow that his fore-sayd promise was not obscure, and Figu∣rative, but plaine and literall for our receiving of him without our [ 10] bodily mouthes.

Thus farre your celebrious Priest, namely so, as in almost all other his Collections, not understanding the Truth of the mat∣ter. His Inferences stand thus. First, Christ reprehended the Capernaites, for not Beleeving his words concerning Eating his Flesh: but not for not understanding them. Therefore it fol∣loweth that they understood his words, of Eating his Flesh, right well. Secondly, They understood his Speech: There∣fore Christ, in saying, The Flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, did not thereby qualifie his former speech, to [ 20] instruct their understanding: Thirdly, They needed no instru∣ction of their understanding; Therefore Christs words of Eating his Flesh, were not Figurative. Fourthly, these his words were not Figurative: Therefore his words of Eating his Flesh, teach a Corporall Presence thereof in the Sacrament.

Each of these Consequences are delivered as ignorantly; as confidently. For common learning teacheth, that there is a double consideration of Truth, in every True speech; the one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉that it is True; the second is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉what is the Truth, or true sense thereof? To the apprehending of the first is requi∣red [ 30] Beliefe, whereupon Aristotle gave that Rule to every Schollar, that intendeth to learne the principles of any Art (to wit) Oportet discentem credere: A Schollar is bound to beleeve. The other point, touching the Truth, or true sense, what it is, is the Object of mans understanding; so that there is a great dif∣ference betweene both these in the case of a Reprehension. As for example; the Master teaching the definition of Logick, say∣ing; It is an Art of Disputing rightly, may justly reprove his Schollar for his not beleeving it, because his not beleeving is wilfull: so can hee not for his not understanding it, for that hee [ 40] therefore learneth, because hee doth not understand; except it be, that being taught hee either through carelesse negli∣gence, or else affected ignorance will not understand.

This agreeth with the Current of Scripture Iohn 6. verse 38. Christ being the Oracle of Truth, which descended from Hea∣ven to reveale the will of his Father, might justly exact Beliefe, that whatsoever hee spake to the sonnes of men was most true: as it is written, The will of God is, that whosoever beleeveth in

mee, &c. verse 40. viz. That they must Eate his Flesh. But his hearers could not understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉What was the true sense of these words, which caused them to say, This is an hard saying. There∣fore (like Schollars of preposterous wits) would they not be∣leeve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, namely That they were True: hence it was that Christ reproved them for not beleeving onely verse 64. and not for not understanding. Because it was as lawfull for Christs Dis∣ciples to be ignorant of his darke sayings and Parables (which were therefore so spoken, that his Schollars might more ear∣nestly labour to know them) as it was after lawfull for them to [ 10] seeke of their Master, (whose precept is to* 1.7 Seeke, and pro∣mise to Find) how to understand them. As it is written;* 1.8 His Disciples sayd unto him, Declare unto us the Parable of the Seed: and Christ answered them, Hee that soweth, &c.

That admirable Doctor of Gods Church Saint Augustine will shew himselfe herein an understanding Schollar of Christ (see his Testimony) requiring of all the Disciples of Christ, in the first place, Beliefe of Christs-words, that they are True, before they did understand what was the Truth thereof: con∣firming his Rule by that Scripture; Except you believe you shall not understand. O, but) the Capernaites (saith Master Brerely) [ 20] did understand Christs words right well. And Saintd 1.9 Augu∣stine contrary to Master Brerely, expressely answereth, They did not understand the Truth of Christ his Speech, but apprehended it foolishly and literally; nor was there ever any Father, or Author, no not in your owne Romish Church (wee thinke) before one Master Brerely, that thought otherwise. Wee are willing your Bishop Iansenius may moderate this Difference. (See the1 1.10 Margin.)

His second Assertion, touching that speech of Christ, [The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickneth,] That it was [ 30] not spoken by Christ to Qualifie his former termes of Eating his flesh, is very like also to be his owne, being flatly contrary to the same Father, whom hee avouched; for Saint Augu∣stine saith that Christ, by these words, taught the Capernaites to understand his other words of Eating Spiritually; a Truth which Master Brerely's owne great Master, Cardinallf 1.11 Bel∣larmine, hath published, alleging for proofe thereof the Te∣stimonies of other Fathers, saying; Chrysostome, Theophylact, Euthemius, and also Origen so expoundeth it. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} Who notwithstanding should not have balked Tertullian, where [ 40] speaking of these Carnall Hearers, hee saith, that2 1.12 They

thought that speech of Christ to be hard and intollerable, as if Christ had determined to deliver his flesh to be (Marke) truly Eaten: therefore Christ added, saying The flesh profiteth no∣thing,] But for giving of Life, is required the Spirit, [The words which I speake are Spirit, and Life.] What can be more plaine to prove that the Truly proper Eating must needs sig∣nify an Eating Carnall, and Capernaiticall. {fleur-de-lys}

Master Brerely his third Inference is; Therefore the words, speaking of Eating his flesh, are not Figurative; which indeed [ 10] is the maine Controversie, for never any but an Infidell de∣nyed the speech of Christ to be true; nor yet did ever any, but an Orthodoxe, understand the Truth of the speech, what it was, that's to say, whether the Truth be according to a Literall sense, (as Master Brerely would have it) or else in a Figurative; which hath beene our defence and proofe throughout the Second Booke, from all kind of Evidences of Truth.

Here therefore wee are onely to deale with Master Brerely, and with his pretended witnesse Saint Augustine, to whom hee [ 20] would seeme to adhere. Notwithstanding (that wee may be∣leeve Master Brerely himselfe)h 1.13 If wee should attend to the properiety of Speech, Christs Blood is not properly drunke. So hee; albeit Christ his speech was as expresly for drinking his Blood, as for Eating his Body. And hee (wee suppose) will confesse, that every speech, which is Vnproper, is Figurative. As for Saint Augustine, hee standeth as a sworne witnesse against the proper and literall sense of Eating Christs Flesh, calling it* 1.14 Fla∣gitious. Besides, rather than wee should want witnesses, to averre this Truth, Divers Jesuites will be ready (in the* 1.15 following [ 30] Chapter) to tell Master Brerely flatly, that if hee say the words, Eating Christs Flesh, are properly spoken, he speaketh False.

II. Proving the Objected Saint Augustine to Contradict the Romish Doctrine of Corporall Presence, as Pro∣testantly as can be. SECT. II.

MAster Brerely his Conclusion, taken from Christs speech of Eating, is to inferre a Corporall presence of Christ in [ 40] the Sacrament. {fleur-de-lys} But Saint Augustine upon these words of Christ, Iohn 6.3 1.16 [When you shall see the Sonne of man as∣cending into Heaven where hee was first] saith that Christ by those words, Assoyleth the doubt, which troubled and scanda∣lized

the Capernaites, who thought that Christ should give them his Flesh to eate; by saying, that he was to ascend into heaven, doubtlesse with his perfect Body; and that therefore they were not to thinke that his Body was to be given unto them, in the ma∣ner which they conceived, by eating it by Bits and Morsels. {fleur-de-lys} Wherein you may plainly discerne the Argument of Saint Au∣gustine to be, that Christ by his Bodily Ascension would shew to the world, that hee being Bodily absent from the Earth, his Flesh could not be here Eaten by Bodily Tearing asunder. Thus hee against the Capernaites, which must as necessarily Confute the Romanists Corporall Eating his Flesh, whether it [ 10] be by Chewing, or Swallowing; whether Visibly, or Invisibly it mattereth not; because it being the same Body that ascended, were it Visibly, or Invisibly, it is equally absent from Earth.

{fleur-de-lys} As for the Remainders of that which is eaten of in the Sacrament, the* 1.17 Fathers (as wee have heard) have called them Fragments, and Bits. And that which Iudas received from the hand of Christ, Saint Augustine himselfe calleth 4 1.18 Buccella, a Morsell. If then by the judgement of Saint Augustine, Christ his Bodily Ascension into Heaven, proved that hee was not to be Eaten by Morsels here on Earth; then [ 20] must it thereupon necessarily follow, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, given to Iudas, which Saint Augustine calleth a Morsell, was not the Body and Flesh of Christ. {fleur-de-lys} Wee have no list, after so plaine a discovery of Master Brerely his manifold ignorances, to play upon his Person, but rather do pray that at the sight of his Errors hee may be reduced unto the Truth, now, after his (fondly miscalled) Strong Reasoning to the Contrary.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Mr. Brerely. Lituig. Tract. 2. §. 3.
• b 1.2

  Ionsen. Con∣cord. in Ioh. 6. per to∣tum.
• * 1.3

  There are rec∣••oned by some these Authors, Biel, Cusa∣nus, Cajcian, Tap per, Hesselius, to whom way be added peter Lombard. l. 4. Dist. 8. lit. D,
• c 1.4

  Maldonat. in Ioh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catho∣licos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eu∣charistra non agi contendunt.
• c 1.5

  Maldonat. in Ioh. 6. vers. 53. Scio Doctos, scio Catho∣licos, scio religiosos & prohos viros: sed impediunt nos quo minus in Haereticos acriter invehamur, qui hoc capite de Eu∣charistra non agi contendunt.
• * 1.6

  Above at (a)
• * 1.7

  Matth. 7. 7.
• * 1.8

  Matth. 13. 36.
• d 1.9

  Aug. in Ioh. 7. Tract. 27. [Sunt qui∣dam in vobis, qui non credunt.] Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non intelligunt sed causam dixit quare non intelli∣gunt, nempè quia non credunt—ut Propheta, nisi credi∣deritis, non intellige∣tis. Aliquanto supe∣rius. Illi putarunt il∣lum erogatu••um cor∣pus suum—Ille autem dixit, se ascensurum in coelum—Certe tunc intelligetis, quia eo modo, quo putatis, non erogat corpus—[Caro non prodest quicquam.] Sicut illi intellexerunt car∣nem, spiritualiter in∣tellectum vivificat. And Master Brerely out of Augustine in Psal. 98. [Nisi quis manducavetit.] Dix∣erunt, durus hic ser∣mo; accep••unt illud stultè carnaliter illud cogitaverunt.
• 1 1.10

  Iansenius Con∣cord. cap 59. upon the very words of Saint Augustine. [Non dixit, sunt quidam in vobis qui non in∣telligunt, sed causam dicit quare non intelligunt.] Advertenda differentia inter credentes & non credentes: non credentes ob verba non intellecta offendebantur, credentes verò verba non intellecta humiliter susceperunt, & admirabantur.
• f 1.11

  Sed verus & literalis sensus eorum verborum est, carnalis intelligentia nihil prodest, ut exponunt Chrysost. Theophyl. Euthem. nec non Origines. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 14.
• 2 1.12

  Tert. de Resurr. Quia durum & intoler abilem sermonem ejus exis••imarunt, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, subjunxit: [Caro nihil prodest] sed ad vivisicandum exequitur quod velit intelligi, spiritum [verba quae locutus sum, sunt spiritus & vita.]
• h 1.13

  Mr. Brerely Liturg Booke 4. §. ••. at Fourthly.
• * 1.14

  See after∣wards, Chap 6. § 3. in the Challenge.
• * 1.15

  See afterward c. 5. Sect. 2.
• 3 1.16

  Aug Tract. 27 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ioh. [Si ergo videri∣tis filium hominis as∣cendentem ubi erat prius] quid est ••oc•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sol vit quod illos moverat? hinc aperuit unde fuerant Scandalizati? Hinc planè, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in••lliger••nt Illi enim pu••abant cum erogaturum corpus suum, Ille autem dixit se ascensurum in coelum, utiquè integ•••••• Cum 〈…〉〈…〉 hominis ascendentem ubi erat p••ius, cer••è vel tunc videbitis, qui non eo modo, quo pu••atatis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corp••s suum: certò vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.17

  See above Booke 3. c. 3. §. 11.
• 4 1.18

  Aug. Tract. 26. in Iob. 6. Nonne Buccella Dominica venenum fuit Iudae? & tamen accepit; sed non quia male, sed quia male malus.