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.

CHALLENGE.

Displaying furthermore the Stollidity of this your onely Ro∣mish Defence, concerning an Vnbloody Representa∣tive [ 30] Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Crosse; from another Romish Principle, and from the Absurdity of the Defence it selfe.

ALl Christians, be they Protestants, or Romanists, whensoever they allow of the name of Sacrifice, whether in a large and common, or in a strict and proper Sense, they evermore professe it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse. But how it is Representative, is become the maine hinge of the whole Controversie. Protestants hold and teach this to [ 40] consist onely in the Analogie betweene the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, and the use thereof in the Eu∣charist; and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse. But you Romish maintaine a Representation of Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse by Analogie with his Body and Blood, as it is in this Sacrament. The Analogie of Representation, held by

Protestants, is such as your owne Doctors will grant to be true in every part and point.

First, for the End of the Celebration of the Eucharist, it is confessed, that4 1.1 The end thereof is to represent the Sa∣crifice on the Crosse. Secondly, Nor will any of you deny, but the formes of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. Nor (thirdly) will you gaine-say, that the Separation of Bread from the Wine, in the Eucharist, doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on [ 10] the Crosse. Which are the three Summarie Points of Repre∣sentation, held by Vs, contrarie to your professed Represen∣tation made (as you have said) by Christ's Body and Blood, in the Eucharist, of the same his Body and Blood separated on the Crosse, as it were in a Stage-play. {fleur-de-lys}

You therefore (except you will be Players, and not Dispu∣ters) must tell us, where ever it was seene or heard of a King, as Conquerour, or yet of any other, of what condition soever, acting himselfe, and that Visibly, Perfectly, and Truly (as you have said) yea or else any way semblably Representing him∣selfe, [ 20] when as yet the same King, or party, was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible? If You can, then shew where this was Acted, whether it were not in Vtopia? And who was the Actor, if not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? and of what Disposition the Spectators were, whether not like the Man of Argos, who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone, void of all Actors, yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varie∣ties of Actions; occasioning him to laugh, and applaud at that which hee saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phan∣tasticall Braine?

[ 30] Now have you nothing else to Answer, but (which you have already said) that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible, by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine. Whereas it had beene much better you had answered, indeed, nothing at all, rather than not onely to contradict that, which was said by your Fathers of Trent, (decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe; and more expresse∣ly by your* 1.2 Rhemists, In and by the same Body in the Eucharist:) but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adver∣saries, and Scorne of any man of common Sense; as if you [ 40] would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes, which hee hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer, lest any man might see it.

{fleur-de-lys} Besides, this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of Concomitancie is not unknowne unto you, which is, that not∣withstanding whatsoever Consecration of Bread severally from the Wine, yet the Body and Blood of Christ are con∣tinually in the Eucharist, as Veseparably united together; his

Blood being in the veines of the same Body, as verily as it was before his Passion. Hence wee argue, that this Inse∣paration of Christ's Blood from his Body, which you be∣lieve to be in this Sacrament, can no more possibly repre∣sent the Separation and Shedding of Christ's Blood from his Body (which all Christians believe to have beene in his Sa∣crifice on the Crosse) than Crookednesse can resemble Straightnesse; or Light, Darknesse. Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Repre∣sentative of his Body and Blood on the Crosse, notwithstan∣ding [ 10] that (as hath beene confessed) this Representation be the end of the Celebration of the Eucharist. {fleur-de-lys}

Notes

• 4 1.1

  Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 220. Vt finis Sacrificij ve∣teris legis erat reprae∣sentare Sacrificium Crucis, ut futurum: sic finis est Sacrificij Eucharistiae reprae∣sentare Sacrificium Crucis, up praeteritum.
• * 1.2

  See above at (••)