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 there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ, which the Romish Church can justly pretend for de∣fence of her Proper Sacrifice; proved by your owne Confessions. SECT. V.

THere are sixe Acts, which your Proctors, who plead for a proper Sacrifice, do pretend for proofe thereof, as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ, and are as readily and roundly confuted by their owne fellowes, as they were by o∣thers frequently and diligently sought out, or vehemently ob∣jected: which the Marginals will manifest unto you, in every particular, to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice. 1. Not a 1.1 Elevation, because it was not instituted by Christ. 2. Not theb 1.2 Breaking of Bread, because (you say) it is not necessary. 3. Not Consecration, although it be held, byc 1.3 your Cardinall Alan, The only essentiall Act; yet (as* 1.4 Some thinke) It is not of the Essence of a Sacrifice. And why should not they so judge? (say wee,) for many things are Sacrata, that is, Consecrated, which are not Sacrificata, that is, Sacrifised. Else what will you [ 10] say of Water in Baptisme, yea of your Holy-water sprinckle? of your Pots, Bells, Vestments? which being held by you as Sacred, are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals. Be∣sides, if Consecration made the Sacrifice, then Bread and Wine being only consecrated, they alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse, against your former Assertions. 4.d 1.5 Not Oblation, whether before, ore 1.6 after Consecration. 5.f 1.7 Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice. 6. Yea and (although yourg 1.8 Cardinall preferred this before all others)h 1.9 Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it. Which your Iesuite Salmeron, [ 30] Cardinalli 1.10 Alan, together with your Iesuitk 1.11 Suarez, who is

accompanied with his fellow-Iesuite Conincks, and seven other of your Schoole-men do gaine-say; because this is Rather pro∣per to a Sacrament, than to a Sacrifice. And for that also (if it were essentiall) the People might be held Sacrficers as well as Priests.

{fleur-de-lys} If you shall give your Iesuite6 1.12 Vasquez but leave to [ 30] crowd into this Presse of Opinators, hee will shoulder them all out; not only those, who stand for Fraction, Oblation, or Consumption, or any thing else, excepting the Sole Act of Con∣secration: [ 10] but hee will also exempt the Explications of all Others, hee himselfe standing wholly for his owne opinion of Sole Consecration: who ordereth the different sorts of Expositors (whom hee calleth Moderne Divines) into foure Rankes, proving all their Expositions to be Absurd. The first so Absurd, as to make that the Sacrifice, which is not now Sacrificed, but only about to be Sacrificed. The second so, as if Wood, changed into a Sheepe, should be therefore held a Sacrifice. The fourth so, as if they would make Bread, and not Christ, a Sacrifice. The last so, as if the Cha∣lice [ 20] should be therefore accounted a Sacrifice, because it is Consecrated. And having thus as it were, cashiered all his fellow-Souldiers, that stood in his way hee placeth insteed of all other the whole and sole Act in Consecration, by way of Representation. So they of these Particulars, which are afterward discussed at large. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

COnsider now, wee pray you, that (as you Allk 1.13 confesse) [ 40] The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ. And thatl 1.14 It is not in the power of the Church to or∣daine a Sacrifice. Next, that if any Sacrifice had beene insti∣tued, it must have appeared either by some Word, or Act of Christ, neither of which can be found, or yet any shadow thereof. What then (wee pray you) can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum, who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent, before all their Father-hoods,

m 1.15 That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice? As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ? Vpon this their Exigence whither will they now? To other Scriptures of the new Testament, and then of the old. Out of the new are the two that follow.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Sotus cum alijs hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertine∣te aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrificij existimant. Sed dico, esse tantùm Ceremonialem act∣onem, ab Ecclesia in∣stitutam, nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia. Sua∣rez Ies. tom. 3. disp 75. §. 3. Per hanc pri∣mam actionem ne∣gandum est Christum sacrificare. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam perti∣nent. Alan. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alij.
• b 1.2

  Non consistit in fractione, quia non est haec neces∣saria. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. pag. 222, 223.
• c 1.3

  Pro sola Con∣secratione facit om∣nis nostra superior Explicatio Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. And Lessius. Ies. Opus••. var. l. 12. c. 13. Consistit Sacrificium in Con∣secratione—& juxta hunc modum pera∣gitur hoc Sacrificium, non gladio materia. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sed gladio verbi.
• * 1.4

  Quorundam opi∣nio est, non esse de essentia hujus Sacri∣ficij ipsam Consecra∣tionem. Suarez. quosupr. pag. 966. Ioseph. Angles ••lor. Theol. Quaest. 6. Art. 4. Ne{que} Hostiae Consecratio est de ratione Sacrificij, ne{que} sanguinis sumptio: quia in seria sexta majoris Hebd. non sumitur sanguis, sed hostia.
• d 1.5

  Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis, his verbis, [Memento Dom••ne.]—Alij dicunt esse de essentia. Sed dieo, tam certum esse hanc oblationem non esse de essentia, quam il∣lam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem,—I. quia Christus non adhibuit eam in coena. II. Quia non constat Ecclesiam eam semper adhibuisse: nec est de Institutione Christi, sed Ecclesiae. Suarez. Ies. quo sup. p. 964. Non est de essentia, quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in principio eâ usi sunt, nec sit in persona Christi, sed Ministri & Ecclesiae. Bellar. lib. 1 de Missa. cap. ult. §. Quinta Prop.
• e 1.6

  Oblatio praecedens Con∣secrationem non pertinet ad essentiam: nec oblatio quae consequitur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. §. Quar∣ta, & Quinta.
• f 1.7

  Immersio in calice—Hanc tenuit Canus. Sed constat Christum, per illam actionem non sacrificari. Suarez quo sup.
• g 1.8

  Consumptio utrius{que} speciei per o•• Sacerdotis, quatenus est immolatio victimae [ 40] oblatae. Bellar. quo sup.
• h 1.9

  Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad Essentiam, quia Scriptura discernit inter Sa∣crificium & participationem ipsius. 1. Cor. 10 Nonne qui edunt hostia•• participes sunt Al••aris? Salmer. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. p. 233.
• i 1.10

  Non in Consumptione, quia aliud est Immolare, aliud de Immolatis participare, & rati∣onem potiùs habet Sacramenti quàm Sacrificij.—Et frequenter reservatas ad populi communionem, non esse perfectè sacrificatas, vel saltem tum, quando conc••luntur à populo sacrificari. Alan. l. 2. de Euch. c. 17.
• k 1.11

  Sua∣rez. Sumptionem Sacerdotalem non esse de essentia, tenent Thomas, Bonaventura, Major, & ex modernis Alan, Cassalius, Catharinus, Palacius, Turrian, In 3. Thom Disp 75. §. 5. And Suarez himselfe: Sola Consecratio esst sufficiens, ut in qua tota essentia constat. Ibid. {fleur-de-lys} Aegid. Conincks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 83. art. 1. num. 90. Con∣sumptio Hostiae facta non est pars essentialis Sacrificij—quia Sacerdos in Ordinatione nullam talem pote∣statem directam accipit,—quia consumendo nihil Deo offerimus. Num. 92 {fleur-de-lys}
• 6 1.12

  Vasquez Ies. in 3 Th••••. qu•••• 83. 〈…〉〈…〉 Immolandi Opinio prima corum, qui vo∣lu•••• consiste•• in ob∣latione—qui non dicunt eam in Con∣secratione esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉, q••••a haec tan∣•••••• praeparatio ad ••••••••ficium.—At non in oblatione, ••••st Consecrationē;—〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christus non potest affirmari, tum se obtulisse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cap. 2. Opinio secunda, In fractione.—At fractio ante Conse∣crationem non perti∣net ad Sacrificium post: per Christum 〈…〉〈…〉 3. Op••n 3. Con∣tump••ione facta à Sa∣cerdo••e. Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non minus istud consu∣munt, quam Sacer∣dotes. Cap. 4.—Et sequeretur tunc hoc Sacrificium fieri non in Altari, sed in Stomacho Sacerdotis domi, fort••ssis ad mensam. Cap. 5. Op. 4. In sola Consecratione tota Sacrificij estentia est posita—non unius solù sed utriusque spe∣ciei Cap. 6. Sed eorum, qui hanc Opinionem sequuntur, Alij aliter ea explicant Expl. 1. Quatenùs mutatur pa∣nts in caruem—At ita Corpus non esset jam sacrific•• tum, sed sacrificandum—Contra Explic. 2. quasi si 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in ovem converteretur, verè sacrificium esse••. Explic. 3. Ideò, quia Panis mutatio fit in corpus Christi. At contra, sic non tam Christus quam panis Sacrificium erit, Quod est Absurdum. Explic. 4 Quia ex••re profana 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sacra. Contra, sic Calicis Consecratio erit Sácrificium. Tandem in Cap. 7. Eatenus solùm in Consecratione esse posicam estentiam Sacrificij, quatenus Sacrificium Crucis in ea repraesentatur cùm verâ Christi praesentiâ ibi contenti, testimonijs Patrum ostenditur.
• k 1.13

  Tota Essentia Sacrificij pendet ex Institutione Christi. Suarez & Salmeron supra.
• l 1.14

  Non est in po∣testate Ecclesiae in∣stituere Sacrificium. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 28. pag. 2••9. Idem alibi, vide sup. at (h)
• m 1.15

  Quidam Bi∣tontinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. (ut Ca∣nus & alij referunt) tentavit defendere, Christum in nocte Coe••ae non obtulisse Sacrificium. Suarez quo supra Disp. 74. Sect. 2. pag. 949.