An answer to a challenge madeAn ansvver to a challenge made
An answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit in Ireland Wherein the judgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truly delivered, and the novelty of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By James Usher Bishop of Meath.An ansvver to a challenge made by a Iesuite in Ireland Wherein the iudgement of antiquity in the points questioned is truely delivered, and the noveltie of the now romish doctrine plainly discovered. By Iames Vssher Bishop of Meath.
James Ussher 1581–1656Dublin: printed by the Society of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624Dublin: printed by the Societie of Stationers and Eliot's Court Press, 1624
[24], 527, [9] p. · 153k words · STC 24542 · ESTC S118933
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The first of these, is by both sides yielded unto: so likewise is the third. For this is impossible, saith the Gloss dupon Gratian, that bread should be the body of Christ. And it cannot be, saith Cardinal eBellarmine, that that proposition should be true, the former part whereof designeth Bread, the latter the Body of Christ: forasmuch ⟨p. 56⟩as Bread and the Lords Body be things most adverse. And therefore he confidently affirmeth, fthat if the words, This is my body, did make this sense, This bread is my body: this sentence must either be taken tropically, that bread may be the body of Christ significatively; or else it is plainly absurd & impossible for it cannot be, saith he, that bread should be the body of Christ. Doctor gKellison also in like manner doeth freely acknowledge, that If Christ had said, This bread is my body; we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically. So that the whole matter of difference resteth now upon the second point: whether our Saviour, when he said This is my body, meant any thing to be his Body, but that Bread which was before him. A matter which easily might be determined, in any indifferent mans judgement, by the words immediately going before. He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. (Luk. 22.19.) For what did he demonstrate here, and said was his Body, but that which he gave unto his Disciples? What did he give unto them, but what he brake? What brake he, but what he took? and doth not the Text expressly say, that he took bread? Was it not therefore of the Bread, he said; This is my Body? And could Bread possibly be otherwise understood to have been his Body, but as a Sacrament, and (as he himself with the same breath declared his own meaning) a memorial thereof?
The first of these, is by both sides yeelded unto: so likewise is the third. For this is impossible, saith the Glosse
that if the words, This is my body, did make this sense, This bread is my body: this sentence must either be taken tropically, that bread may be the body of Christ significatively; or else it is plainly absurd & impossible for it cannot be, saith he, that bread should be the body of Christ. Doctor
Kellison also in like maner doeth freely acknowledge, that If Christ had said, This bread is my body; wee must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically. So that the whole matter of difference resteth now upon the second point: whether our Saviour, when hee said This is my body, meant anie thing to be his Bodie, but that Bread which was before him. A matter which easily might be determined, in anie indifferent mans judgement, by the words immedia•ly going before. Hee tooke bread, and gave thankes, and brake, and gave it unto them, saying: This is my bodie which is given for you; this do in remembrance of mee. (Luk. 22.19.) For what did hee demonstrate here, and said was his Body, but that which he gave unto his Disciples? What did hee give unto them, but what he brake? What brake hee, but what he tooke? and doth not the Text expressely say, that he tooke bread? Was it not therefore of the Bread, he said; This is my Body? And could Bread possibly bee otherwise understood to have beene his Bodie, but as a Sacrament, and (as hee himselfe with the same breath declared his owne meaning) a memoriall thereof?
dHoc tamen est impossibile, quòd panis sit corpus Christi. De consecrat. dist. 2. cap 55. Panis est in altari. Gloss.
eNon igitur potest fieri, ut vera sit propositio, in quâ sub•ectum supponit pro pane, praedicatum autem pro corpore Christi. Panis enim & corpus Domini res diversissimae sunt. Bellarmin. de Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 19.
fIbidē scripsi• Lut•erus, verba Evangelistae, Hoc est corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, H•• panis est corpus meum: quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicé, ut panis sit corpus Christi significativé; aut est plané absurda & impossibilis. nec enim fieri potest ut panis sit corpus Christi. Id. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap 1.Ibidē scripsi• Lut•erus, verba Evangelistae, Hoc est corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, H•• panis est corpus meum: quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicé, ut panis sit corpus Christi significativé; aut est plané absurda & impossibilis. nec enim fieri potest ut panis sit corpus Christi. Id. lib. 1. de Eucharist. cap 1.
gMatth. Kellison, Survey of the new Religion, lib. 8. chap. 7. sect 7.
If these words be not of themselves clear enough, but have need of further exposition: can we look for a better, then that which S. Paul giveth of them, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the communion ⟨p. 57⟩of the body of Christ? Did not S. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said; This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so; doth not Kellison confess, and right reason evince, that he must have been understood figuratively? considering that it is simply impossible, that Bread should really be the Body of Christ. If it be said, that S. Paul by Bread, doth not here understand that which is properly Bread, but that which lately was bread (but now is become the body of Christ:) we must remember, that S. Paul doth not only say The bread, but The bread which we break. which breaking, being an accident properly belonging to the bread it self, and not to the body of Christ (which being in glory, cannot be subject to any more breaking) doth evidently show, that the Apostle by Bread understandeth Bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well deny this, unless they will deny themselves, and confess that they did but dream all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the body of Christ, is made by virtue of the sacramental words alone, which have not their effect until they have all been fully uttered. For the Pronoun THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to something wch was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their own grounds, the body of Christ cometh not in, until the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word, be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signify, but this bread only?
If these words be not of themselves cleare enough, but have need of further exposition: can we looke for a better, then that which S. Paul giveth of them, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion ⟨p. 57⟩of the bodie of Christ? Did not S. Paul therefore so understand Christ, as if he had said; This bread is my body? And if Christ had said so; doth not Kellison confesse, and right reason evince, that hee must have beene understood figuratively? considering that it is simply impossible, that Bread should really be the Bodie of Christ. If it be said, that S. Paul by Bread, doth not here understand that which is properly Bread, but that which lately was bread (but now is become the bodie of Christ:) we must remember, that S. Paul doth not onely say The bread, but The bread which vvee breake. which breaking, being an accident properly belonging to the bread it selfe, and not to the bodie of Christ (which being in glorie, cannot be subject to anie more breaking) doth evidently shew, that the Apostle by Bread understandeth Bread indeed. Neither can the Romanists well denie this, unlesse they wil denie themselves, and confesse that they did but dreame all this while they have imagined that the change of the bread into the bodie of Christ, is made by vertue of the sacramentall words alone, which have not their effect untill they have all beene fully uttered. For the Pronoune THIS, which is the first of these words, doth point to somthing wch was then present. But no substance was then present but bread: seeing by their owne grounds, the bodie of Christ commeth not in, untill the last word of that sentence, yea and the last syllable of that word, be completely pronounced. What other substance therefore can they make this to signifie, but this bread only?
In the institution of the other part of the Sacrament, the words are yet more plain, Matth. 26. vers. 27.28. He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ⟨p. 58⟩Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Testament: or, (as S. Paul and S. Luke relate it) This cup is the new Testament in my blood. That which he bid them all drink of, is that which he said was his blood. But our Saviour could mean nothing but the Wine, when he said, Drink ye all of it: because this sentence was uttered by him before the words of consecration, at which time our Adversaries themselves do confess, that there was nothing in the cup but wine, or wine and water at the most. It was wine therefore which he said was his blood: even the fruit of the Vine, as he himself termeth it. For as in the delivery of the other cup before the institution of the Sacrament, S. Luke (who alone maketh mention of that part of the history) telleth us, that he said unto his Disciples; hI will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the kingdom of God shall come: so doth S Matthew and S. Mark likewise testify, that at the delivery of the Sacramental cup, when he had said, This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins; he also added: iBut I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day that I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Now seeing it is contrary both to sense and saith, that Wine or the fruit of the Vine, should really be the blood of Christ; there being that formal difference in the nature of the things, that there is an utter impossibility that in true propriety of speech the one should be the other: nothing in this world is more plain, than when our Saviour said it was his blood, he could not mean it to be so substantially, but sacramentally.
In the institution of the other part of the Sacrament, the words are yet more plaine, Matth. 26. vers. 27.28. He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ⟨p. 58⟩Drinke yee all of it. For this is my blood of the new Testament: or, (as S. Paul and S. Luke relate it) This cup is the new Testament in my blood. That which hee bidd them all drinke of, is that which hee said was his blood. But our Saviour could meane nothing but the Wine, when he said, Drinke ye all of it: because this sentence was uttered by him before the words of consecration, at which time our Adversaries themselves doe confesse, that there was nothing in the cup but wine, or wine and water at the most. It was wine therefore which he said was his blood: even the fruite of the Vine, as he himselfe termeth it. For as in the deliverie of the other cup before the institution of the Sacrament, S. Luke (who alone maketh mention of that part of the historie) telleth us, that hee said unto his Disciples; hI will not drinke of the fruit of the Vine, untill the kingdome of God shall come: so doth S Matthew and S. Marke likewise testifie, that at the deliverie of the Sacramentall cup, when he had said, This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes; hee also added: iBut I say unto you, I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, untill that day that I drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome. Now seeing it is contrary both to sense and saith, that Wine or the fruite of the Vine, should really be the blood of Christ; there being that formall difference in the nature of the things, that there is an utter impossibilitie that in true proprietie of speech the one should be the other: nothing in this world is more plain, than when our Saviour said it was his blood, he could not meane it to be so substantially, but sacramentally.
And what other interpretation can the Romanists themselves give of those words of the institution in S. ⟨p. 59⟩Paul? kThis cup is the new Testament in my blood. How is the cup, or the thing contained in the cup, the new Testament, otherwise then as a Sacrament of it? Mark how in the like case the Lord himself, at the institution of the first Sacrament of the old Testament, useth the same manner of speech, Genes. 17.10. lThis is my Covenant, or Testament (for the Greek word in both places is the same:) and in the words presently following, thus expoundeth his own meaning. mIt shall be a SIGN of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And generally for all Sacraments, the rule is thus laid down by S. Augustine, in his Epistle to Bonifacius: nIf Sacraments did not some manner of way resemble the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. And for this resemblance they do of oftentimes also bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certain manner the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christs blood is the blood of Christ; so likewise the sacrament of faith, is faith. By the sacrament of faith he understandeth Baptism; of which he afterward allegeth that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with Christ by baptism into death: and then addeth. oHe saith not, We signify his burial; but he plainly saith, We are buried. Therefore the sacrament of so great a thing he would not otherwise call but by the name of the thing it self. And in his Questions upon Leviticus: pThe thing that signifieth ⟨p. 60⟩(saith he) useth to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth. as it is written: The seven ears of corn, are seven years; (for he said not; they signify seven years:) and the seven Kine are seven years: and many such like. Hence was that saying: The Rock was Christ. For he said not, The Rock did signify Christ; but as if it had been that very thing, which doubtless by substance it was not, but by signification. So also the blood, because for a certain vital corpulency which it hath, it signifieth the soul; after the manner of Sacraments it is called the soul. Our argument therefore out of the words of the institution, standeth thus:
If it be true, that Christ called Bread his body, and Wine his blood:
And what other interpretation can the Romanists themselves give of those words of the institution in S. ⟨p. 59⟩Paul? kThis cup is the new Testament in my blood. How is the cup, or the thing contayned in the cup, the new Testament, otherwise then as a Sacrament of it? Marke how in the like case the Lord himselfe, at the institution of the first Sacrament of the old Testament, useth the same maner of speech, Genes. 17.10. lThis is my Covenant, or Testament (for the Greeke word in both places is the same:) and in the words presently following, thus expoundeth his owne meaning. mIt shall be a SIGNE of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And generally for all Sacraments, the rule is thus laid downe by S. Augustine, in his Epistle to Bonifacius: nIf Sacraments did not some maner of vvay resemble the things wherof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments at all. And for this resemblance they doe of oftentimes also beare the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ, is after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ, and the sacrament of Christs blood is the blood of Christ; so likewise the sacrament of faith, is faith. By the sacrament of faith hee understandeth Baptisme; of which he afterward alledgeth that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 6.4. Wee are buried with Christ by baptisme into death: and then addeth. oHe saith not, We signifie his buriall; but hee plainly saith, Wee are buried. Therefore the sacrament of so great a thing hee would not otherwise call but by the name of the thing it selfe. And in his Questions upon Leviticus: pThe thing that signifieth ⟨p. 60⟩(saith he) useth to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth. as it is written: The seven eares of corne, are seven yeares; (for hee said not; they signifie seven yeares:) and the seven Kine are seven yeares: and many such like. Hence was that saying: The Rocke was Christ. For he said not, The Rock did signifie Christ; but as if it had beene that very thing, which doubtlesse by substance it was not, but by signification. So also the blood, because for a certaine vitall corpulencie which it hath, it signifieth the soule; after the maner of Sacraments it is called the soule. Our argument therefore out of the words of the institution, standeth thus:
If it be true, that Christ called Bread his bodie, and Wine his blood:
m[Greek or Hebrew] (vel, [Greek or Hebrew]. Gen. 17.11〈non-Latin alphabet〉 (vel, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Gen. 17.11
nSi enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omninò Sacramenta non essent Ex hâc autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentū sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita-sacramentū fidei fides est. Aug. epist. 23.Si enim Sacramēta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omninò Sacramēta non essent Ex hâc autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentū sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita-sacramentū fidei fides est. Aug. epist. 23.
oNon ait, Sepulturā significamus: sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus. Sacramentū ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdē rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Id ibid.Non ait, Sepulturā significamus: sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus. Sacramentū ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdē rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Id ibid.
pSolet autē res quae significat, ejus rei nomine quā significat nuncupari. sicut scriptum est: Septē spicae, septē anni sunt (non enim dixit; Septem annos significant) &, septem boes, septem anni sunt: & multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictū est: Petra erat Christus Non enim dixit, Petra significat Christū; sed tanquā hoc esset, quod utique per substantiā non hoc erat, sed per significationē. Sic & sanguis, quoniā propter vitalē quandā corpulentiā animā significat, in sacramentis anima dictus est Aug. in Levit. quaest 57.
then must it be true also, that the things which be honoured with those names, cannot be really his body & blood, but figuratively and sacramentally.
But the former is true. Therefore also the latter.
The first proposition hath been proved by the undoubted principles of right reason, and the clear confession of the adverse part: the second, by the circumstances of the Text of the Evangelists, by the exposition of S. Paul, and by the received grounds of the Romanists themselves. The conclusion therefore resteth firm: and so we have made it clear, that the words of the Institution do not only not uphold, but directly also overthrow the whole frame of that which the Church of Rome teacheth, touching the corporal presence of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine.
then must it be true also, that the things which bee honoured with those names, cannot be really his bodie & blood, but figuratively and sacramentally.
But the former is true. Therefore also the latter.
The first proposition hath bene proved by the undoubted principles of right reason, and the cleare confession of the adverse part: the second, by the circumstances of the Text of the Evangelists, by the exposition of S. Paul, and by the received grounds of the Romanists themselves. The conclusion therefore resteth firme: and so wee have made it cleare, that the wordes of the Institution do not only not uphold, but directly also overthow the whole frame of that which the Church of Rome teacheth, touching the corporall presence of Christ under the formes of Bread and Wine.
If I should now lay down here all the sentences of the Fathers, which teach that that which Christ called his Body, is Bread in substance, and the Body of the ⟨p. 61⟩Lord in signification and sacramental relation: I should never make an end. Justin Martyr, in his second Apology to Antoninus the Emperor, telleth us, that the bread and the wine, even that qsanctified food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are nourished, is that wch we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Jesus incarnate. Irenaeus in his 4th book against heresies, saith, that our Lord rtaking bread of that condition which is usual among us, confessed it to be his body: & sthe cup likewise containing that creature which is usual among us, his blood. And in his fifth book he addeth: tThat cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his blood which was shed, whereby he increaseth our blood; and that bread which is of the creature, to be his body, whereby he increaseth our bodies. Therefore when the mixed cup and the broken bread doth receive the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, whereby the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist. Our Lord, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, udid bless wine, when he said; Take, drink, This is my blood, the blood of the Vine. Tertullian: xChrist taking bread and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Origen: yThat meat which is sanctified by ⟨p. 62⟩the word of God and by prayer, as touching the material part thereof goeth into the belly, and is voided into the draught: but as touching the prayer which is added, according to the portion of faith it is made profitable; enlightening the mind, and making it to behold that which is profitable. Neither is it the matter of bread, but the word spoken over it, which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body; saith Origen. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, collected for the most part out of the writings of Maximus (who lived in the time of the Emperors Commodus and Severus) Origen, who is made the chief speaker therein, is brought in thus disputing against the Heretics: zIf Christ, as these men say, were without body and blood:
If I should now lay downe here all the sentences of the Fathers, which teach that that which Christ called his Body, is Bread in substance, and the Body of the ⟨p. 61⟩Lord in signification and sacramentall relation: I should never make an end. Iustin Martyr, in his second Apologie to Antoninus the Emperour, telleth us, that the bread and the wine, even that qsanctified food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are nourished, is that wch we are taught to be the flesh and blood of Iesus incarnate. Irenaeus in his 4th book against heresies, saith, that our Lord rtaking bread of that condition which is usuall among us, confessed it to be his body: & sthe cup likewise contayning that creature which is usuall among us, his blood. And in his fift book he addeth: tThat cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his blood which was shedde, wherby he increaseth our blood; and that bread which is of the creature, to be his body, wherby he increaseth our bodies. Therefore when the mixed cup and the broken bread doth receive the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, whereby the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist. Our Lord, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, udid blesse vvine, vvhen hee said; Take, drinke, This is my blood, the blood of the Vine. Tertullian: xChrist taking bread and distributing it to his Disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. Origen: yThat meate which is sanctified by ⟨p. 62⟩the word of God and by prayer, as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly, and is voyded into the draught: but as touching the prayer which is added, according to the portion of faith it is made profitable; enlightning the minde, and making it to behold that which is profitable. Neyther is it the matter of bread, but the word spoken over it, which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eate thereof. And these things I speake of the typicall and symbolicall bodie; saith Origen. In the Dialogues against the Marcionites, collected for the most part out of the writings of Maximus (who lived in the time of the Emperors Commodus and Severus) Origen, who is made the chiefe speaker therein, is brought in thus disputing against the Heretickes:
q[Greek or Hebrew]. Justin. Apolog. 2.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Iustin. Apolog. 2.
rQuomodo autem justé Dominus, si alterius patris existit, hujus conditionis, quae est secundùm nos, accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; & temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit. hen. lib. 4 cap 57.
sCalicem, qui est ex eâ creaturâ quae est secundùm nos, suum sanguinē confessus est. Id lib. 4. cap. 32.Calicem, qui est ex eâ creaturâ quae est secundùm nos, suum sanguinē confessus est. Id lib. 4. cap. 32.
tEum calicem qui est creatura, suum sanguinem qui effusus est, ex quo auget nostrùm sanguinem; & eum panem qui est á creaturâ, suum corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Id. lib. 5. cap 2. edit. Colon an. 1596.
xAcceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Tertull. advers. Marci•n. lib. 4. cap 40.
yIlle cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei, perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in secessum ejicitur: caeterùm juxta precationem quae illi accessit proportione fidei fit utilis, efficiens ut perspicax fiat animus, spectans ad id quod utile est. Nec materia panis, sed super illum dictus sermo est, qui prodest non indigné Domino comedenti illum. Et haec quidem de typico symbolicóque corpore. Origen. in Matth. cap. 15.
z[Greek or Hebrew]; Orig. Dial. 3.〈non-Latin alphabet〉; Orig. Dial. 3.
of what kind of flesh, or of what body, or of what kind of blood did he give the bread and the cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a commemoration of him? S. Cyprian also noteth,a that it was Wine, even the fruit of the Vine, which the Lord said was his blood: and that bflour alone, or water alone, cannot be the body of our Lord, unless both be united and coupled together, and kneaded into the lump of one bread. And again; that cthe Lord calleth bread his body, which is made up by the uniting of many corns: and wine his blood, which is pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and gathered into one liquor. Which I find also word for word in a manner, transcribed in the Commentaries upon the Gospels, attributed unto dTheophilus Bishop of Antioch. Whereby ⟨p. 63⟩it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived, then as if Christ had plainly said; This bread is my body, and, This wine is my blood: which is the main thing that we strive for with our Adversaries; and for which the words themselves are plain enough. the substance whereof we find thus laid down in the Harmony of the Gospels, gathered, as some say, by Tatianus, as others, by Ammonius, within the second or the third age after Christ. eHaving taken the bread, then afterward the cup of wine, and testified it to be his body and blood, he commanded them to eat and drink thereof; forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future passion and death.
of what kinde of flesh, or of what body, or of what kinde of blood did hee give the bread and the cup to be Images of, when he commanded his Disciples by them to make a commemoration of him? S. Cyprian also noteth,a that it was Wine, even the fruit of the Vine, which the Lord said was his blood: and that bfloure alone, or water alone, cannot bee the bodie of our Lord, unlesse both be united and coupled together, and kneaded into the lumpe of one bread. And againe; that cthe Lord calleth bread his body, which is made up by the uniting of many cornes: and wine his blood, which is pressed out of many clusters of grapes, and gathered into one liquor. Which I finde also word for word in a maner, transcribed in the Commentaries upon the Gospels, attributed unto dTheophilus Bishop of Antioch. Wherby ⟨p. 63⟩it appeareth, that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived, then as if Christ had plainly said; This bread is my body, and, This wine is my blood: which is the maine thing that wee strive for with our Adversaries; and for which the words themselves are plaine enough. the substance whereof we finde thus laid downe in the Harmonie of the Gospels, gathered, as some say, by Tatianus, as others, by Ammonius, within the second or the third age after Christ. eHaving taken the bread, then afterward the cup of wine, and testified it to be his body and blood, hee commanded them to eate and drinke thereof; forasmuch as it was the memoriall of his future passion and death.
aQuâ in part invenimus calicem mixtū suisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum suisse, quod sanguinem sun̄ dixit. Cypr. epist. ••. sect. 6,Quâ in parte invenimus calicem mixtū suisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum suisse, quod sanguinem sun̄ dixit. Cypr. epist. ••. sect. 6,
bNec corpus Domini potest esse fa•ina sola, aut aqua sola; nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit & copulatū, & panis unius compage solidatum. Id. ibid. sect. 10.Nec corpus Domini potest esse fa•ina sola, aut aqua sola; nisi utrumque adunatum fuerit & copulatū, & panis unius compage solidatum. Id. ibid. sect. 10.
cNam quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum; populum nostrum, quem portabat, indicat adunatū: & quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat, de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat, commixtion adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Id. epist. 76. sect. 4.Nam quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum; populum nostrum, quem portabat, indicat adunatū: & quando sanguinem suum vinum appellat, de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrū significat, cōmixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Id. epist. 76. sect. 4.
eMox acceptopane, deinde vini calice, corpus esse suum ac sanguinem testatus, manducare illos jussit & bibere; quòd ea sit futurae calamitatis suae mortisque memoria. Ammon. harmon. Evang. tom. 3. Biblioth. Patr. pag. 28.
To the Fathers of the first three hundred years, we will now adjoin the testimonies of those that flourished in the ages following. The first whereof shall be Eusebius: who saith that our Saviour fdelivered to his Disciples the symbols of his divine dispensation, commanding them to make the Image of his own body; and gappointing them to use Bread for the symbol of his Body. and that we still hcelebrate upon the Lords table, the memory of his sacrifice, by the symbols of his body and blood, according to the ordinances of the New Testament. Acacius, who succeeded him in his Bishopric, saith that ithe bread and wine sanctifieth them that feed upon that matter: acknowledging thereby, that the material part of those outward elements do still remain. In the Church, saith kMacarius, is offered bread wine, the type of his flesh and blood: and they which are partakers of the visible ⟨p. 64⟩bread, do spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord. Christ, saith S. lHierome, did not offer water, but wine, for the type of his blood. S. Augustine bringeth in our Saviour thus speaking of this matter. mYou shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed that will crucify me. I have commended a certain Sacrament unto you: that being spiritually understood vvill quicken you. The same Father in another place writeth, that nChrist admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he commended and delivered unto his Disciples the figure of his body and blood: but (as he elsewhere oaddeth) they did eat that bread which was the Lord himself; he the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Lastly: the Lord (saith phe) did not doubt to say, This is my body; when he gave the sign of his body.
To the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares, we will now adjoyne the testimonies of those that flourished in the ages following. The first whereof shall be Eusebius: who saith that our Saviour fdelivered to his Disciples the symboles of his divine dispensation, commanding them to make the Image of his owne body; and gappointing them to use Bread for the symbole of his Body. and that we still hcelebrate upon the Lords table, the memory of his sacrifice, by the symboles of his body and blood, according to the ordinances of the New Testament. Acacius, who succeeded him in his Bishopricke, saith that ithe bread and wine sanctifieth them that feed upon that matter: acknowledging thereby, that the materiall part of those outward elements do still remaine. In the Church, saith kMacarius, is offered bread wine, the type of his flesh and blood: and they which are partakers of the visible ⟨p. 64⟩bread, doe spiritually eate the flesh of the Lord. Christ, saith S. lHierome, did not offer water, but wine, for the type of his blood. S. Augustine bringeth in our Saviour thus speaking of this matter. mYou shall not eate this bodie which you see, nor drinke that blood which they shall shed that will crucifie mee. I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you: that being spiritually understood vvill quicken you. The same Father in another place writeth, that nChrist admitted Iudas to that banquet, wherein he commended and delivered unto his Disciples the figure of his body and blood: but (as he elsewhere oaddeth) they did eate that bread which was the Lord himselfe; hee the bread of the Lord against the Lord. Lastly: the Lord (saith phe) did not doubt to say, This is my body; when he gave the signe of his body.
f[Greek or Hebrew]. Euseb. lib. 8. Demonstrat. Evangel. in fine cap. 1.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Euseb. lib. 8. Demonstrat. Evangel. in fine cap. 1.
g[Greek or Hebrew]. Id. ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Id. ibid.
iPanis vinumque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat. Acac. in Gen. 2. Graec. caten. in Pentateuch Zephyro interp.Panis vinumque ex hâc materiâ vescentes sanctificat. Acac. in Gen. 2. Graec. caten. in Pentate•ch Zephyro interp.
lIn typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. Hieronym. lib. 2. advers. Jovinian.In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. Hieronym. lib. 2. advers. Iovinian.
mNon hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem susu•i sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum vivisicabit vos. Augustin. in Psalm. 98.
nAdhibuit ad convivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit. Id. in
So the Author of the Homily upon the 22. Psalm, (among the works of Chrysostom:) qThis table he hath prepared for his servants and hand-maids in their sight: that he might every day, for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, show unto us in a sacrament bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek. And S. Chrysostom himself, in his Epistle written to Caesarius, against the heresy of Apolinarius: rAs before the bread be sanctified, we call it bread; but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by ⟨p. 65⟩the means of the Priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is reputed worthy the name of the Lords body, although the nature of the bread remain still in it; and it is not called two bodies, but one body of Gods son: so likewise here, the divine nature residing in the body of Christ, these two make one son, and one person. In the self same manner also do Theodoret, Gelasius, and Ephraemius proceed against the Eutychian heretics. Theodoret for his part, layeth down these grounds. That our Saviour sin the delivery of the mysteries called bread his body, and that which was mixed (in the cup) his blood. That the changed the names; and gave to the body the name of the symbol or sign, and to the symbol the name of the body. That he uhonoured the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood; not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature. And that xthis most holy food, is a symbol & type of those things whose names it beareth, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. Gelasius writeth thus: yThe sacraments which we receive, of the body and blood of Christ, are a divine thing, by means whereof we are made partakers of the divine nature: and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be. And indeed the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It appeareth therefore evidently enough unto us, that we are to hold the same opinion of the Lord Christ himself, ⟨p. 66⟩which we profess, celebrate, and are, in his Image. that as (those Sacraments) by the operation of the holy Spirit, pass into this, that is, into the divine substance, and yet remain in the propriety of their own nature: so that principal mystery it self, whose force and virtue they truly represent, should be conceived to be. namely, to consist of two natures, divine and humane;
So the Author of the Homily upon the 22. Psalme, (among the workes of Chrysostome:) qThis table hee hath prepared for his servants and hand-maydes in their sight: that he might every day, for a similitude of the body and blood of Christ, shew unto us in a sacrament bread and wine after the order of Melchisedec. And S. Chrysostome himselfe, in his Epistle written to Caesarius, against the heresie of Apolinarius: rAs before the bread be sanctified, we call it bread; but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by ⟨p. 65⟩the meanes of the Priest, it is delivered from the name of bread, and is reputed worthy the name of the Lords body, although the nature of the bread remain still in it; and it is not called two bodies, but one body of Gods sonne: so likewise here, the divine nature residing in the body of Christ, these two make one sonne, and one person. In the selfe same maner also doe Theodoret, Gelasius, and Ephraemius proceed against the Eutychian heretickes. Theodoret for his part, layeth downe these grounds. That our Saviour sin the deliverie of the mysteries called bread his body, and that which was mixt (in the cupp) his blood. That thee changed the names; and gave to the body the name of the symbol or signe, and to the symbol the name of the body. That hee uhonoured the visible symboles with the name of his bodie and blood; not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature. And that xthis most holy food, is a symbol & type of those things whose names it beareth, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. Gelasius writeth thus: yThe sacraments which we receive, of the body and blood of Christ, are a divine thing, by meanes whereof wee are made partakers of the divine nature: and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine doth not cease to be. And indeed the image and the similitude of the bodie and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It appeareth therefore evidently enough unto us, that wee are to hold the same opinion of the Lord Christ himselfe, ⟨p. 66⟩
qIstam mensam praeparavit servis & ancillis in conspectu corum, ut quotidie in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec, nobis ostenderet in sacramento In Psal 22 Chrysost. tom. 1
rSicut enim antequàm sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: divinâ autem illum sanctificante gratiâ, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellation, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit: & non duo corpora, sed unum Filii corpus praedicatur sic & hîc divinâ i•undante corporis naturâ (vel potiùs, divinâ naturâ in corpore insidente: Graecé enim [Greek or Hebrew] hîc legitur▪ in MS. Bibliothecae Florentinae exemplary, unde ist••ranstulit Perus Martyr) unum filium, unam personam, •traque haec fecerunt. Chrysost. ad Caesarium monachum.Sicut enim antequàm sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: divinâ autem illum sanctificante gratiâ, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit: & non duo corpora, sed unum Filii corpus praedicatur sic & hîc divinâ i•undante corporis naturâ (vel potiùs, divinâ naturâ in corpore insidente: Graecé enim 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 hîc legitur▪ in MS. Bibliothecae Florentinae exemplari, unde ist••ranstulit Perus Martyr) unum filium, unam personam, •traque haec fecerunt. Chrysost. ad Caesarium monachum.
s[Greek or Hebrew]. Theod. dialog. 1. [Greek or Hebrew], fol. 8. edit. Rom. an. 1547.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Theod. dialog. 1. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, fol. 8. edit. Rom. ann. 1547.
the one not abolishing the truth of the other. Lastly, Ephraemius the Patriarch of Antioch, having spoken of the distinction of these two natures in Christ, and said, that zno man having understanding, could say, that there was the same nature of that which could be handled, and of that which could not be handled, of that which was visible, and of that which was invisible; addeth. And even thus, the body of Christ which is received by the faithful, (the Sacrament he meaneth) doth neither depart from his sensible substance, and yet remaineth undivided from intelligible grace. and Baptism, being wholly made spiritual, and remaining one, doth both retain the property of his sensible substance, (of water, I mean) and yet looseth not that which it is made.
the one not abolishing the truth of the other. Lastly, Ephraemius the Patriarch of Antioch, having spoken of the distinction of these two natures in Christ, and said, that zno man having understanding, could say, that there was the same nature of that which could be handled, and of that which could not be handled, of that which was visible, and of that which was invisible; addeth. And even thus, the body of Christ which is received by the faithfull, (the Sacrament he meaneth) doth neither depart from his sensible substance, and yet remayneth undivided from intelligible grace. and Baptisme, being wholly made spirituall, and remayning one, doth both retaine the propertie of his sensible substance, (of water, I meane) and yet looseth not that which it is made.
z[Greek or Hebrew] (Schottus the Jesuit translateth this, & sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur: which is a strange interpretation, if you mark it) [Greek or Hebrew]. Ephraemius de sacris Antioch•ae legib. lib. 1. in Pho•ij Bibliothecâ, cod. 219.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 (Schottus the Iesuite translateth this, & sensibilis essentiae non cognoscitur: which is a strange interpretation, if you marke it) 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ephraemius de sacris Antioch•ae legib. lib. 1. in Pho•ij Bibliothecâ, cod. 219.
Thus have we produced evidences of all sorts, for confirmation of the doctrine by us professed touching the blessed Sacrament: which cannot but give sufficient satisfaction to all that with any indifferency will take the matter into their consideration. But the men with whom we have to deal, are so far fallen out with the truth; that neither sense nor reason, neither authority of Scriptures or of Fathers, can persuade them to be friends again with it: unless we show unto them, in what Popes days the contrary falsehood was first devised. If nothing else will give them content: ⟨p. 67⟩we must put them in mind, that about the time wherein Soter was Bishop of Rome, there lived a cozening companion, called Marcus; whose qualities are thus set out by an ancient Christian, awho was famous in those days, though now his name be unknown unto us.
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew].
[Greek or Hebrew]
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew].
Where first he chargeth him to have been an Idolmake• ; then he objecteth unto him his skill in Astrology and Magic, by means whereof, and by the assistance of Satan, he laboured with a show of miracles, to win credit unto his false doctrines, amongst his seduced disciples: and lastly he concludeth that his father the Devil had employed him as a forerunner of his antithean craft, or his antichristian deceivableness of unrighteousness, if you will have it in the Apostles language. For he was indeed the Devils forerunner, both for the bidolatries and sorceries which afterward were brought into the East, and for those cRomish fornications and enchantments wherewith the whole West was corrupted, by that man of sin, dwhose coming was foretold to be after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders. And that we may keep our selves within the compass ⟨p. 68⟩of that particular, which now we have in hand: we find in Irenaeus, that this Arch-heretic made special use of his juggling feats, to breed a persuasion in the minds of those whom he had perverted; that in the cup of his pretended Eucharist, he really delivered them blood to drink. For efeigning himself to consecrate the cups filled with wine, and extending the words of Invocation to a great length, he made them to appear of a purple and red colour:
Thus have wee produced evidences of all sorts, for confirmation of the doctrine by us professed touching the blessed Sacrament: which cannot but give sufficient satisfaction to all that with anie indifferencie will take the matter into their consideration. But the men with whom wee have to deale, are so farre fallen out with the truth; that neither sense nor reason, neither authoritie of Scriptures or of Fathers, can perswade them to be friends againe with it: unlesse we shew unto them, in what Popes dayes the contrarie falshood was first devised. If nothing else will give them content: ⟨p. 67⟩we must put them in minde, that about the time wherein Soter was Bishop of Rome, there lived a cousening companion, called Marcus; whose qualities are thus set out by an ancient Christian, awho was famous in those dayes, though now his name be unknowne unto us.
〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
〈non-Latin alphabet〉〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
Where first hee chargeth him to have beene an Idolmake• ; then hee objecteth unto him his skill in Astrologie and Magicke, by meanes whereof, and by the assistance of Satan, hee laboured with a shewe of miracles, to winne credite unto his false doctrines, amongst his seduced disciples: and lastly hee concludeth that his father the Divel had imployed him as a forerunner of his antithean craft, or his antichristian deceiveablenesse of unrighteousnesse, if you will have it in the Apostles language. For he was indeed the Divels forerunner, both for the bidolatries and sorceries which afterward were brought into the East, and for those cRomish fornications and inchantments wherewith the whole West was corrupted, by that man of sinne, d
to the end it might be thought, that the Grace which is above all things, did distil the blood thereof into that cup by his Invocation. And even according to this precedent we find it fell our afterwards, that the principal and most powerful means whereby the like gross conceit (of the guttural •ating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ) was at the first fastened upon the multitude, and in process of time more deeply rooted in them, were such delusions and feigned apparitions as these: which yet that great Schoolman himself, Alexander of Hales, confesseth to happen sometimes, either by f•he procurement of man, or by the operation of the devil. Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first letters forward of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point: wherein he telleth us, gthat Christ in the sacrament did show himself oftentimes in a visible shape, either in the form of a Lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood, so that while the host was a breaking or an offering, a Lamb in the Priests hands, and blood in the Chalice should be seen as it ⟨p. 69⟩were flowing from the sacrifice, that what lay hid in a mystery, might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle. And specially in that place he insisteth upon a narration, which he found in gestis Anglorum, (but deserved well to have been put into gesta Romanorum for the goodness of it) of one Ple•gils or Plegilus a Priest; how an Angel showed Christ unto him in the form of a child upon the Altar, whom first he took into his arms and kissed, but eat him up afterwards, when he was returned to his former shape again. Whereof arose that jest which Berengarius was wont to use: hThis was a proper peace of the knave indeed, that whom he had kissed with his mouth, he would devour with his teeth.
to the end it might be thought, that the Grace which is above all things, did distill the blood thereof into that cup by his Invo•ation. And even according to this precedent we finde it fell our afterwards, that the principall and most powerfull meanes whereby the like grosse conceit (of the gutturall •ating and drinking of the bodie and blood of Christ) was at the first fastened upon the multitude, and in processe of time more deeply rooted in them, were such delusions and fained apparitions as these: which yet that great Schooleman himselfe, Alexander of Hales, confesseth to happen sometimes, either by f•he procurement of man, or by the operation of the divell. Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first letters forward of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point: wherein he telleth us, gthat Christ in the sacrament did shew himselfe oftentimes in a visible shape, eyther in the forme of a Lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood, so that while the hoste was a breaking or an offering, a Lamb in the Priests hands, and blood in the Chalice should be seene as it ⟨p. 69⟩were flowing from the sacrifice, that what lay hid in a mysterie, might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle. And specially in that place hee insisteth upon a narration, which he found in gestis Anglorum, (but deserved well to have been put into gesta Romanorum for the goodnesse of it) of one Ple•gils or Plegilus a Priest; how an Angell shewed Christ unto him in the forme of a childe upon the Altar, whom first hee tooke into his armes and kissed, but eate him up afterwards, when he was returned to his former shape again. Whereof arose that jeast which Berengarius was wont to use: hThis was a proper peace of the knave indeed, that whom hee had kissed with his mouth, hee would devoure with his teeth.
gNemo, qui Sanctorum vitas & exempla legerit, potest ignorare, quòd saepè haec mystica corporis & sanguinis sacramenta, aut propter dubios, aut certé propter ardentiùs amantes Christum, visibili spécie in agni formâ, aut in carnis & sanguinis colour monstrata sint: quatenùs de se Christus clementer adhuc non credentibus fidem faceret: ita u• dum oblata frangitur, vel offertur hostia, videretur agnus in manibus & crnor in calice, quasi ex immolatione profluere. ut quod latebat in mysterio, patesceret adhuc dubitantibus in miraculo. Paschas. de corp. & sangu. Dom. cap. 14.Nemo, qui Sanctorum vitas & exempla legerit, potest ignorare, quòd saepè haec mystica corporis & sanguinis sacramenta, aut propter dubios, aut certé propter ardentiùs amantes Christum, visibili spécie in agni formâ, aut in carnis & sanguinis colore monstrata sint: quatenùs de se Christus clementer adhuc non credentibus fidem faceret: ita u• dum oblata frangitur, vel offertur hostia, videretur agnus in manibus & crnor in calice, quasi ex immolatione profluere. ut quod latebat in mysterio, patesceret adhuc dubitantibus in miraculo. Paschas. de corp. & sangu. Dom. cap. 14.
hSpeciosa certé pax nebulonis; ut cui o•is praebuerat basium, dentiū inferret exitiū. Guilielm. Malmesbur. de gestis Reg. Anglor. lib. 3.Speciosa certé pax nebulonis; ut cui o•is praebuerat basium, dentiū inferret exitiū. Guilielm. Malmesbur. de gestis Reg. Anglor. lib. 3.
But there are three other tales of singular note; which though they may justly strive for winning of the Whetstone with any other, yet for their antiquity have gained credit above the rest: being devised, as it seemeth, much about the same time with that other of Plegilus, but having relation unto higher times. The first was had out of the English Legends too, as iJohannes Diaconus reporteth it in the life of Gregory the first: of a Roman Matron, who found a piece of the sacramental bread turned into the fashion of a finger, all bloody, which afterwards, upon the prayers of S. Gregory, was converted to his former shape again. The other two were first coined by the Grecian liars, and from them conveyed unto the Latins, and registered in the book which they called Vitas patrum: which being commonly believed to have been collected by S. kHierome, and accustomed to be read ordinarily in every Monastery; gave occasion of further spread, and made much way for the progress of this mystery of ⟨p. 70⟩iniquity. The former of these is not only related there, lbut also in the Legend of Simeon Metaphrastes, (which is such another author among the Grecians, as Jacobus de Voragine was among the Latins) in the mlife of Arsenius: how that a little child was seen upon the Altar, and an Angel cutting him into small pieces with a knife, and receiving his blood into the Chalice, as long as the Priest was breaking the bread into little parts. The latter, is of a certain Jew, receiving the Sacrament at S. Basils hands, converted visibly into true flesh and blood: which is expressed by Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus, in this Tetrastich.
[Greek or Hebrew]
[Greek or Hebrew].
[Greek or Hebrew],
[Greek or Hebrew].
But the chief author of the fable was a cheating fellow, who, nthat he might lye with authority, took upon him the name of Amphilochius, S. Basils companion, and set out a book of his life ofraught with leasings: as Cardinal Baronius himself acknowledgeth. S. Augustine's conclusion therefore may here well take place. pLet these things be taken away, which are either fictions of lying men, or wonders wrought by evil spirits. For either there is no truth in these reports, or if there be any strange things done by heretics, we ought the more to beware of them:
But there are three other tales of singular note; which though they may justly strive for winning of the Whetstone with anie other, yet for their antiquitie have gained credite above the rest: being devised, as it seemeth, much about the same time with that other of Plegilus, but having relation unto higher times. The first was had out of the English Legends too, as iIohannes Diaconus reporteth it in the life of Gregory the first: of a Romane Matron, who found a piece of the sacramentall bread turned into the fashion of a finger, all bloodie, which afterwards, upon the prayers of S. Gregory, was converted to his former shape againe. The other two were first coyned by the Grecian lyars, and from them conveyed unto the Latines, and registred in the booke which they called Vitas patrum: which being commonly beleeved to have beene collected by S. kHierome, and accustomed to be read ordinarily in everie Monasterie; gave occasion of further spred, and made much way for the progresse of this mysterie of ⟨p. 70⟩iniquitie. The former of these is not onely related there, lbut also in the Legend of Simeon Metaphrastes, (which is such another author among the Grecians, as Iacobus de Voragine was among the Latines) in the mlife of Arsenius: how that a little childe was seene upon the Altar, and an Angell cutting him into small piec•s with a knife, and receiving his blood into the Chalice, as long as the Priest was breaking the bread into little parts. The latter, is of a certaine Iew, receiving the Sacrament at S. Basils hands, converted visibly into true flesh and blood: which is expressed by Cyrus Theodorus Prodromus, in this Tetrastich.
〈non-Latin alphabet〉〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
〈non-Latin alphabet〉,
〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
But the chiefe author of the fable was a cheating fellow, who, nthat hee might lye with authoritie, tooke upon him the name of Amphilochius, S. Basils companion, and set out a booke of his life
kSanctus Hieronymus presbyter, ipsas Sanctorum Patrum Vitas Latino edidit sermone. Paschas. Radbert. in epist. ad Frudegard. Consule libros Carolinos, de Imaginib. lib. 4. cap. 11.
lInter sententias Patrum, áe P••agio Roman•e ecclesiae d•acono Latiné versas, libel. •8. cui •i••lus de Providentiâ vel Proevidentiâ: sive, ut in P•o•ij •iblio•hecâ habetur, •od. 98. [Greek or Hebrew].Inter sententias Patrum, áe P••agio Roman•e ecclesiae d•acono Latiné versas, libell. •8. cui •i••lus de Providentiâ vel Proevidentiâ: sive, ut in P•o•ij •iblio•hecâ habetur, •od. 98. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
mTom. 4. Surij, pag 257. edit. Colon an. 1573.
nNomen Amphilochii ad mentiendum accepit. Baron. tom 4. an. 369. sect. 43.
oScatens men daciis, Id. ibid. an. 363. sect. 55.Scatens mē daciis, Id. ibid. an. 363. sect. 55.
because, when the Lord had said, that certain deceivers should come, who by doing of some wonders should seduce (if it were possible) the very elect, he very ⟨p. 71⟩earnestly commended this unto our consideration, and said; Behold, I have told you before. yea and added a further charge also, that if these impostors should say unto us of him, qBehold he is in secret closets, we should not believe it: which whether it be appliable to them who tell us, that Christ is to be found in a Pyx, and think that they have him in safe custody under Locke and Key; I leave to the consideration of others.
because, when the Lord had said, that certaine deceivers should come, who by doing of some wonders should seduce (if it were possible) the very elect, he verie ⟨p. 71⟩earnestly commended this unto our consideration, and said; Behold, I have told you before. yea and added a further charge also, that if these impostors should say unto us of him, qBehold he is in secret closets, wee should not beleeve it: which whether it be appliable to them who tell us, that Christ is to be found in a Pixe, and thinke that they have him in safe custodie under Locke and Key; I leave to the consideration of others.
The thing which now I would have further observed, is only this; that, as that wretched heretic who first went about to persuade m•n by his lying wonders, that he really delivered wine unto them in the cup of the Eucharist, was censured for being [Greek or Hebrew], an Idol-maker· so in after ages, from the Idol-makers and Image-worshippers of the East it was, that this gross opinion of the oral eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament, drew it first breath; rGod having for their idolatry, justly given them up unto a reprobate mind, that they might receive that recompense of their error which was meet. The Popes name in whose days this fell out, was Gregory the second: the mans name who was the principal setter of it abroach, was sJohn Damascene; one that laid the foundation of School-divinity among the Greeks, as Peter Lombard afterwards did among the Latins. On the contrary side, they who opposed the Idolatry of those times, and more especially the CCCXXXVIII. Bishops assembled together at the Council of Constantinople, in the year 754. maintained, that Christ tchose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by, but the Sacrament; which uhe delivered to his ministers for a type and a most effectual commemoration thereof; xcommanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did ⟨p. 72⟩not any way resemble the form of a man, that so no occasion might be given of bringing in Idolatry. which bread they affirmed to be the body of Christ, not [Greek or Hebrew] but [Greek or Hebrew], that is, (as they themselves expound it) ya holy and za true image of his natural flesh.
The thing which now I would have further observed, is onely this; that, as that wretched heretick who first went about to perswade m•n by his lying wonders, that he really delivered wine unto them in the cup of the Eucharist, was censured for being 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, an Idol-maker· so in after ages, from the Idol-makers and Image-worshippers of the East it was, that this grosse opinion of the orall eating and drinking of Christ in the Sacrament, drew it first breath; rGod having for their idolatrie, justly given them up unto a reprobate minde, that they might receive that recompence of their errour which was meete. The Popes name in whose dayes this fell out, was Gregory the second: the mans name who was the principall setter of it abroach, was sIohn Damascen; one that laid the foundation of Schoole-divinitie among the Greeks, as Peter Lombard afterwards did among the Latins. On the contrarie side, they who opposed the Idolatrie of those times, and more especially the CCCXXXVIII. Bishops assembled together at the Councell of Constantinople, in the yeare 754. maintayned, that Christ tchose no other shape or type under heaven to represent his incarnation by, but the Sacrament; which uhe delivered to his ministers for a type and a most effectuall commemoration therof; xcommanding the substance of bread to be offered, which did ⟨p. 72⟩not any way resemble the forme of a man, that so no occasion might be given of bringing in Idolatry. which bread they affirmed to be the bodie of Christ, not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 but 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, that is, (as they themselves expound it) ya holy and za true image of his naturall flesh.
z[Greek or Hebrew] &c. So a little after it is called [Greek or Hebrew], and [Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉 &c. So a little after it is called 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, and 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
These assertions of theirs are to be found in the athird Tome of the sixth Action of the second Council of Nice, assembled not long after for the reestablishing of Images in the Church. where a pratchant deacon, called Epiphanius, to cross that which those former Bishops had delivered, confidently avoucheth that none of the Apostles, nor of the Fathers, did ever call the Sacrament an image of the body of Christ. He confesseth indeed that some of the Fathers (as Eustathius expounding the Proverbs of Solomon, and S. Basil in his Liturgy) do call the bread and wine [Greek or Hebrew], correspondent types or figures, before they were consecrated: bbut after the consecration (saith he) they are called, and are, and believed to be the body and blood of Christ properly. where the Popes own followers, who of late published the Acts of the general Councils at Rome, were so far ashamed of the ignorance of this blind Bayard; that they correct his boldness with this marginal note. cThe holy gifts are oftentimes found to be called antitypes, or figures correspondent, after they be consecrated: as by Gregory Nazianz. in the funeral Oration upon his sister, and in his Apology; by Cyril of Jerusalem in his fifth Cateches. Mystagogic. and by others. And we have already heard, how the author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites, and after him Eusebius and Gelasius, expressly call the Sacrament an image of Christs body: howsoever this peremptory Clerk denieth, that ever any did so. By all which it may easily ⟨p. 73⟩appear, that, not the oppugners, but the defenders of Images, were the men who first went about herein to alter the language used by their fore-fathers.
These assertions of theirs are to bee found in the athird Tome of the sixth Action of the second Councell of Nice, assembled not long after for the reestablishing of Images in the Church. where a pratchant deacon, called Epiphanius, to crosse that which those former Bishops had delivered, confidently avoucheth that none of the Apostles, nor of the Fathers, did ever call the Sacrament an image of the bodie of Christ. Hee confesseth indeed that some of the Fathers (as Eustathius expounding the Proverbs of Salomon, and S. Basil in his Liturgie) doe call the bread and wine 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, correspondent types or figures, before they were consecrated: bbut after the consecration (saith hee) they are called, and are, and beleeved to be the body and blood of Christ properly. where the Popes owne followers, who of late published the Acts of the generall Councells at Rome, were so farre ashamed of the ignorance of this blind Bayard; that they correct his boldnesse with this marginall note. cThe holy gifts are oftentimes found to be called antitypes, or figures correspondent, after they be consecrated: as by Gregory Nazianz. in the funerall Oration upon his sister, and in his Apologie; by Cyrill of Ierusalem in his fifth Cateches. Mystagogic. and by others. And wee have alreadie heard, how the author of the Dialogues against the Marcionites, and after him Eusebius and Gelasius, expressely call the Sacrament an image of Christs bodie: howsoever this peremptorie Clerke denieth, that ever anie did so. By all which it may easily ⟨p. 73⟩appeare, that, not the oppugners, but the defenders of Images, were the men who first went about herein to alter the language used by their fore-fathers.
aConcil. gener. tom. 3. pag. 599.600. edit Rom.
b[Greek or Hebrew]. Ib. pag. 601.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ib. pag. 601.
c[Greek or Hebrew]. Ibid. in margin.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ibid. in margine.
Transcription key
•
an illegible letter
〈…〉
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
▪
•
Solet autē res quae significat, ejus rei nomine quā significat nuncupari. sicut scriptum est: Septē spicae, septē anni sunt▪ (non enim dixit; Septem annos significant) &, septem bo•es, septem anni sunt: & multa hujusmodi. Hinc est quod dictū est: Petra erat Christus Non enim dixit, Petra significat Christū; sed tāquā hoc esset, quod utique per substantiā non hoc erat, sed per significationē. Sic & sanguis, quoniā propter vitalē quandā corpulentiā animā significat, in sacramentis anima dictus est Aug. in Levit. quaest 57.
oIlli manducabant panem Dominum: ille panem Domini contra Dominum. Id. in Evang. Johan. tract. 59.Illi manducabant panem Dominum: ille panem Domini contra Dominum. Id. in Evang. Iohan. tract. 59.
pNon enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum; cùm signum daret corporis sui. August. contr. Adimant. cap. 12.
which we professe, celebrate, and are, in his Image. that as (those Sacraments) by the operation of the holy Spirit, passe into this, that is, into the divine substance, and yet remaine in the propriety of their owne nature: so that principall mysterie it selfe, whose force and vertue they truely represent, should be conceived to be. namely, to consist of two natures, divine and humane;
〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ibid.
u[Greek or Hebrew]. Ib.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ib.
x[Greek or Hebrew]. Ib.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ib.
yCerta sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod, & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; & tamen esse non desinit substantia, vel natura panis & vini. Et certé imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi, in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus, & sumus: ut sicut in hanc, scilicèt in divinam transeant, sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanente tamen in suae proprietate naturae; sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, &c. Gelas. de duab. natur. in Christo, contra Eutychen.
whose comming was foretold to be after the working of Satan, with all power and signes, and lying wonders. And that we may keep our selves within the compasse
⟨p. 68⟩
of that particular, which now wee have in hand: wee finde in Irenaeus, that this Arch-heretick made speciall use of his juggling feates, to breed a perswasion in the mindes of those whom hee had perverted; that in the cup of his pretended Eucharist, he really delivered them blood to drinke. For
fayning himselfe to consecrate the cups filled with wine, and extending the words of Invocation to a great length, he made them to appeare of a purple and redd colour:
Let these things be taken away, which are eyther fictions of lying men, or wonders wrought by evill spirits. For eyther there is no truth in these reports, or if there be any strange things done by hereticks, we ought the more to beware of them:
p
Removean•ur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominū, vel portenta fallacium spirituū. Aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si haereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt, magis cavere debemus: quòd cùm dixisset Dominus quosdā futuros esse fallaces, qui nonnulla signa faciendo etiam electos si fieri posset fallerent; adjecit vehementer commendans, & ait, Ecce praedixi vobis. August. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 16.Removean•ur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominū, vel portenta fallacium spirituū. Aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur, aut si haereticorum aliqua mira facta sunt, magis cavere debemus: quòd cùm dixisset Dominus quosdā futuros esse fallaces, qui nonnulla signa faciendo etiam electos si fieri posset fallerent; adjecit vehementer commendans, & ait, Ecce praedixi vobis. August. de unitat. Eccles. cap. 16.
