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.
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
floure 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
the 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
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.
Having 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.
Now as in the days of Gregory the third this matter was set afoot by Damascene in the East: so about a hundred years after, in the Papacy of Gregory the fourth, the same began to be propounded in the West, by means of one Amalarius, who was Bishop, not (as he is commonly taken to be) of Triers, but of Metz first, and afterwards of Lyons. This man writing doubtfully of this point; otherwhiles followeth the doctrine of S. Augustine, dthat Sacraments were oftentimes called by the names of the things themselves, and so the Sacrament of Christs body was secundùm quendam modum, after a certain manner the body of Christ: otherwhiles maketh it a part of his ebelief, that the simple nature of the bread and wine mixed, is turned into a reasonable nature, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. But what should become of this body, after the eating thereof, was a matter that went beyond his little wit: and therefore, said he, fwhen the body of Christ is taken with a good intention, it is not for me to dispute, whether it be invisibly taken up into heaven, or kept in our body until the day of our burial, or exhaled into the air, or whether it go out of the body with the blood, (at the opening of a vein) or be sent out by the mouth; our Lord saying, that every thing which entereth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is sent forth into the draught. For this, and another like foolerie de gtriformi & tripartito corpore Christi, of the three parts or kinds of Christs body (which ⟨p. 74⟩seem to be those ineptiae de tripartito Christi corpore, that Paschasius in the end of his Epistle entreateth Frudegardus not to follow:) he was censured in a hSynod held at Carisiacum: wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France, that ithe bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ; which being a meat of the mind, and not of the belly, is not corrupted, but remaineth unto everlasting life.
Now as in the daies of Gregory the third this matter was set afoot by Damascen in the East: so about a hundred yeares after, in the Papacie of Gregory the fourth, the same began to be propounded in the West, by meanes of one Amalarius, who was Bishop, not (as hee is commonly taken to be) of Triers, but of Mets first, and afterwards of Lyons. This man writing doubtfully of this point; otherwhiles followeth the doctrine of S. Augustine, dthat Sacraments were oftentimes called by the names of the things themselves, and so the Sacrament of Christs bodie was secundùm quendam modum, after a certaine maner the bodie of Christ: otherwhiles maketh it a part of his ebeleefe, that the simple nature of the bread and wine mixed, is turned into a reasonable nature, to wit, of the body and blood of Christ. But what should become of this bodie, after the eating therof, was a matter that went beyond his little witt: and therefore, said he, fwhen the bodie of Christ is taken with a good intention, it is not for me to dispute, whether it be invisibly taken up into heaven, or kept in our body untill the day of our buriall, or exhaled into the ayre, or whether it go out of the body with the blood, (at the opening of a veyne) or be sent out by the mouth; our Lord saying, that every thing which entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly, and is sent forth into the draught. For this, and another like foolerie de gtriformi & tripartito corpore Christi, of the three parts or kindes of Christs body (which ⟨p. 74⟩seeme to be those ineptiae de tripartito Christi corpore, that Paschasius in the end of his Epistle intreateth Frudegardus not to follow:) he was censured in a hSynod held at Carisiacum: wherein it was declared by the Bishops of France, that ithe bread and wine are spiritually made the body of Christ; which being a meat of the mind, and not of the belly, is not corrupted, but remayneth unto everlasting life.
fIta veró sumptum corpus Domini bonâ intentione, non est mihi disputandū utrùm invisibiliter assumatur in coelum, aut reservetur in corpore nostro usque in diem sepulturae, aut exhaletur in auras, aut exeat de corpore cū sanguine, aut per os emittatur; dicente Domino, Omne quod intrat in os in ventrem vadit & in secessum emittitur. Idem, in epistolâ ad Guitardum, MS. in Biblioth. Colleg. S. Benedict. Cantabrig. cod. 55.Ita veró sumptum corpus Domini bonâ intentione, non est mihi disputandū utrùm invisibiliter assumatur in coelum, aut reservetur in corpore nostro usque in diem sepulturae, aut exhaletur in auras, aut exeat de corpore cū sanguine, aut per os emittatur; dicente Domino, Omne quod intrat in os in ventrem vadit & in secessum emittitur. Idem, in epistolâ ad Guitardum, MS. in Biblioth. Colleg. S. Benedict. Cantabrig. cod. 55.
gId. de Ecclesiastic. offic. lib. 3. cap. 35.
hFlorus in Actis Synod. Carisiac. MS. apud N. Ranchinum, in Senatu Tolosan• Regium Consiliarium. Vid. Phil. Morn. de Miss. lib. 4. cap. 8.
iPanis & vinū efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi. &c. Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris: nec corrumpitur, sed permanet, in vitam aeternam. Ibid.Panis & vinū efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi. &c. Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris: nec corrumpitur, sed permanet, in vitam aeternam. Ibid.
These dotages of Amalarius, did not only give occasion to that question propounded by Heribaldus to Rabanus, whereof we have spoken kheretofore; but also to that other of far greater consequence: Whether that which was externally delivered & received in the sacrament, were the very same body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, & suffered upon the Cr•sse, & rose again from the Grave. Paschasius Radbertus (a Deacon of those times, but somewhat of a better and more modest temper then the Greek Deacon showed himself to be of) held that it was the ve•ie same; and to that purpose wrote his book to Placidus, of the Body & Blood of our Lord: wherein (saith a Jesuit) lhe was the first that did so explicate the true sense of the Catholic Church, (his own Roman he meaneth) that he opened the way to those many others, who wrote afterwards of the same argument. Rabanus on the other side, in a writing directed to Abbot Egilo, maintained the contrary doctrine: as hath before been noted. Then one Frudegardus, reading the third book of S. Augustin de doctrinâ Christianâ, and finding there, that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ was a figurative manner of speech, began somewhat to doubt of the truth of that which formerly he had read in that foresaid Treatise of Paschasius: which moved Paschasius to ⟨p. 75⟩write again of the same argument, as of a question wherein he confesseth mmany were then doubtful. But neither by his first nor by his second writing was he able to take these doubts out of mens minds: and therefore Carolus Calvus the Emperor, being desirous to compose these differences, and to have unity settled among his subjects, required Ratrannus (a learned man of that time, who lived in the Monastery of Corbey, whereof Paschasius was Abbot) to deliver his judgement touching these points. nWhether the body and blood of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth of the faithful, be celebrated in a mystery or in the truth; and whether it be the same body, which was born of Mary, which did suffer, was dead and buried, & which rising again and ascending into heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father? Whereunto he returneth this answer: that othe bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ figuratively; that pfor the substance of the creatures, that which they were before consecration, the same are they also afterward;
These dotages of Amalarius, did not only give occasion to that question propounded by Heribaldus to Rabanus, wherof we have spoken kheretofore; but also to that other of far greater consequence: Whether that which was externally delivered & received in the sacrament, were the verie same body which was borne of the Virgin Mary, & suffered upon the Cr•sse, & rose again from the Grave. Paschasius Radbertus (a Deacon of those times, but somewhat of a better and more modest temper then the Greek Deacon shewed himselfe to be of) held that it was the ve•ie same; and to that purpose wrote his book to Placidus, of the Body & Blood of our Lord: wherein (saith a Iesuite) lhe was the first that did so explicate the true sense of the Càtholick Church, (his owne Romane he meaneth) that he opened the way to those manie others, who wrote afterwards of the same argument. Rabanus on the other side, in a writing directed to Abbot Egilo, maintayned the contrarie doctrine: as hath before beene noted. Then one Frudegardus, reading the third book of S. Augustin de doctrinâ Christianâ, and finding there, that the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ was a figurative maner of speech, began somewhat to doubt of the truth of that which formerly he had read in that foresaid Treatise of Paschasius: which moved Paschasius to ⟨p. 75⟩write againe of the same argument, as of a question wherein he confesseth mmany were then doubtfull. But neither by his first nor by his second writing was hee able to take these doubts out of mens mindes: and therefore Carolus Calvus the Emperour, being desirous to compose these differences, and to have unitie setled among his subjects, required Ratrannus (a learned man of that time, who lived in the Monasterie of Corbey, whereof Paschasius was Abbat) to deliver his judgement touching these points. nWhether the body and blood of Christ which in the Church is received by the mouth of the faithfull, be celebrated in a mysterie or in the truth; and whether it be the same body, which was born of Mary, which did suffer, was dead and buried, & which rising againe and ascending into heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father? Whereunto he returneth this answer: that o
kSupr. pag. 16.
lGenuinū Ecclesiae Catholicae sensum ita primus explicuit, ut viam caeteris aperuerit, qui de eodē argumento multi postea scripsere. Jac. Sirmond. in vitâ Radberti.Genuinū Ecclesiae Catholicae sensum ita primus explicuit, ut viam caeteris aperuerit, qui de eodē argumento multi postea scripsere. Iac. Sirmond. in vitâ Radberti.
mQuaeris enim de re ex quâ multi dubitant and again. Quamvis multi ex hoc dubitent, quomodo ille integer manet, & hoc corpus Christi & sanguis •sse possit. Paschas. epist. ad Frudegard.Quaeris enim de re ex quâ multi dubitant and againe. Quamvis multi ex hoc dubitent, quomodo ille integer manet, & hoc corpus Christi & sanguis •sse possit. Paschas. epist. ad Frudegard.
nQuod in Ecclesiâ ore fidelium sumitur corpus & sanguis Christi, quaerit vestrae magnitudinis excellentia, in mysterio fiat, an in veritate, &c. & utrùm ipsum corpus sit, quod de Mariâ natum est, & passum, mortuum & sepultum, quodque resurgens & coelos ascendens, ad dextram Patris consideat? Ratrann. sive Bertram. in lib. de corp. & sangu. Dom. edit. Colon. an. 1551. pag. 180.Quod in Ecclesiâ ore fidelium sumitur corpus & sanguis Christi, quaerit vestrae magnitudinis excellentia, in mysterio fiat, an in veritate, &c. & utrùm ipsum corpus sit, quod de Mariâ natum est, & passum, mortuum & sepultum, quodque resurgens & coelos ascendens, ad dextram Patris consideat? Ratrann. sive Bertram. in lib. de corp. & sangu. Dom. edit. Colon. ann. 1551. pag. 180.
oPanis ille vinumque, figuraté Christi corpus & sanguis existit. Ibid. pag. 183.
pNam secundùm creaturarum substantiam quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc & posteà consistunt. Ib. pag. 105.
that qthey are called the Lords body and the Lords blood, because they take the name of that thing, of which they are a sacrament; & that rthere is a great difference betwixt the mystery of the blood and body of Christ, which is taken now by the faithful in the Church, and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose again, which sitteth at the right hand of the Father. All which he ⟨p. 76⟩proveth at large, both sby testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and by the sayings of the ancient Fathers. Whereupon Turrian the Jesuit is driven for pure need, to shift off the matter with this silly interrogation. tTo cite Bertram (so Ratrannus is more usually named) what is it else, but to say, that the heresy of Calvin is not new? As if these things were alleged by us for any other end, then to show, that this way which they call heresy is not new, but hath been trodden in long since, by such as in their times were accounted good and Catholic teachers in the Church. That since they have been esteemed otherwise, is an argument of the alteration of the times, and of the conversion of the state of things: which is the matter that now we are inquiring of, and which our Adversaries (in an evil hour to them) do so earnestly press us to discover.
that qthey are called the Lords bodie and the Lords blood, because they take the name of that thing, of which they are a sacrament; & that rthere is a great difference betwixt the mysterie of the blood and body of Christ, which is taken now by the faithfull in the Church, and that which was borne of the Virgin Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose again, which sitteth at the right hand of the Father. All which hee ⟨p. 76⟩proveth at large, both sby testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and by the sayings of the ancient Fathers. Wherupon Turrian the Iesuite is driven for pure need, to shift off the matter with this silly interrogation. tTo cite Bertram (so Ratrannus is more usually named) what is it else, but to say, that the heresie of Calvin is not new? As if these things were alledged by us for anie other end, then to shew, that this way which they call heresie is not new, but hath been troden in long since, by such as in their times were accounted good and Catholick teachers in the Church. That since they have been esteemed otherwise, is an argument of the alteration of the times, and of the conversion of the state of things: which is the matter that now we are inquiring of, and which our Adversaries (in an evill houre to them) doe so earnestly presse us to discover.
qDominicum corpus & sanguis Dominicus appellantur; quoniam ejus sumunt appellationem, cujus existunt sacramentum. Ibid. pag. 200.
rVidemus itaque multâ differentiâ separari mysterium sanguinis & corporis Christi, quod nunc á fide•ibus sumitur in Ecclesiâ, & illud quod natū est de Mariâ virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod coelos ascendit, quod ad dextram Patris sedet. Ibid. pag. 222.Videmus itaque multâ differentiâ separari mysterium sanguinis & corporis Christi, quod nunc á fide•ibus sumitur in Ecclesiâ, & illud quod natū est de Mariâ virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod coelos ascendit, quod ad dextram Patris sedet. Ibid. pag. 222.
sAnimadvertat (clarissime Princeps) sapientia vestra, quòd positis sanctarū Scripturarum testimoniis, & sanctorum Patrū dictis evidentissimé monstratum est; quòd panis qui corpus Christi, & calix qui sanguis Christi appellatur, figura sit, quia mysterium: & quòd non parva differentia sit inter corpus quod per mysterium existit, & corpus quod passum est, & sepultum, & resurrexit. Ibid. pag. 228.Animadvertat (clarissime Princeps) sapientia vestra, quòd positis sanctarū Scripturarum testimoniis, & sanctorum Patrū dictis evidentissimé monstratum est; quòd panis qui corpus Christi, & calix qui sanguis Christi appellatur, figura sit, quia mysterium: & quòd non parva differentia sit inter corpus quod per mysterium existit, & corpus quod passum est, & sepultum, & resurrexit. Ibid. pag. 228.
tCaeterùm, Bertramum ci•are, quid aliud est, quàm dicere, haeresim Calvini non esse novam? Fr. Turrian. de Eucharist. contra Volanum, lib. 1. cap. 22.
The Emperor Charles, unto whom this answer of Ratrannus was directed, had then in his Court a famous country-man of ours, called Johannes Scotus: who wrote a book of the same argument, and to the same effect that the other had done. This man for his extraordinary learning, was in England (where he lived in great account with King Alfred) surnamed John the wise: and had very lately a room in the uMartyrology of the Church of Rome, though now he be ejected thence. We find him indeed censured by the Church of Lyons and others in that time, for certain opinions which he delivered touching Gods foreknowledge and predestination before the beginning of the world, Mans freewill and the concurrence thereof with Grace in this present world, and the manner of the punishment of reprobate Men & Angels in the world to come: but we find not any where, that his book of the Sacrament ⟨p. 77⟩was condemned, before the days of x Lanfranc; who was the first that leavened that Church of England afterward with this corrupt doctrine of the carnal presence. Till then, this question of the real presence continued still in debate: and it was as free for any man to follow the doctrine of Ratrannus or Johannes Scotus therein, as that of Paschasius Radbertus, which since the time of Satan's loosing, obtained the upper hand. Men have often searched, and do yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corn; and through fires heat baked, may be turned to Christs body; or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned, through one blessing, to the Lords blood: saith yAelfric Abbot of Malmesbury, in his Saxon Homily, written about 650. years ago. His resolution is not only the same with that of Ratrannus, but also in many places directly translated out of him: as may appear by these passages following, compared with his Latin laid down in the margin.
The Emperour Charles, unto whom this answer of Ratrannus was directed, had then in his Court a famous countrey-man of ours, called Iohannes Scotus: who wrote a booke of the same argument, and to the same effect that the other had done. This man for his extraordinarie learning, was in England (where hee lived in great account with King Alfred) surnamed Iohn the wise: and had verie lately a roome in the uMartyrologe of the Church of Rome, though now he be ejected thence. Wee finde him indeed censured by the Church of Lyons and others in that time, for certaine opinions which he delivered touching Gods foreknowledge and predestination before the beginning of the world, Mans freewill and the concurrence thereof with Grace in this present world, and the maner of the punishment of reprobate Men & Angels in the world to come: but we finde not anie where, that his book of the Sacrament ⟨p. 77⟩was condemned, before the dayes of x Lanfranc; who was the first that leavened that Church of England afterward with this corrupt doctrine of the carnall presence. Till then, this question of the reall presence continued still in debate: and it was as free for anie man to follow the doctrine of Ratrannus or Iohannes Scotus therein, as that of Paschasius Radbertus, which since the time of Satans loosing, obtayned the upper hand. Men have often searched, and doe yet often search, how bread that is gathered of corne; and through fires heate baked, may be turned to Christs bodie; or how wine that is pressed out of manie grapes is turned, through one blessing, to the Lords blood: saith yAelfrick Abbat of Malmesburie, in his Saxon Homily, written about 650. yeares agoe. His resolution is not onely the same with that of Ratrannus, but also in manie places directly translated out of him: as may appeare by these passages following, compared with his Latin layd downe in the margent.
uMartyrolog. Rom. IV. ID. Novemb. edit. An•uerp. an. 15•6.Martyrolog. Rom. IV. ID. Novemb. edit. An•uerp. ann. 15•6.
yHomilia Paschalis, Anglo-Saxonicé impressa Londini, per Jo. Daium: & MS. in publicâ Cantabrigiensis Academiae Bibliothecâ.Homilia Paschalis, Anglo-Saxonicé impressa Londini, per Io. Daium: & MS. in publicâ Cantabrigiensis Academiae Bibliothecâ.
zThe bread and the wine which by the Priests ministry is hallowed, show one thing without to mens senses, and another thing they call within to believing minds. Without they be seen bread & wine both in figure and in taste: and they be truly after their hallowing Christs body and his blood by spiritual mystery. aSo the holy font water ⟨p. 78⟩that is called the well-spring of life, is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might cometh to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing; and it may after wash the body and soul from all sin, by spiritual virtue. Behold now we see two things in this one creature: in true nature that water is corruptible moisture, and in spiritual mystery hath healing virtue. So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily sense, then see we that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we acknowledge therein spiritual virtue, then understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortality to them that eat it with belief. bMuch is betwixt the body Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. cThe body truly that Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinews, in humane limbs, with a reasonable soul living: and his spiritual body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, without lim, without soul; and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but spiritually. Whatsoever is in that housel, which giveth substance of life, that is spiritual virtue, and invisible doing. dCertainly Christs body which suffered death and rose from death, shall never dye henceforth, but is eternal and unpassible. That housel is temporal, not eternal, corruptible & dealed into sundry parts, chewed between teeth and sent into the belly. ⟨p. 79⟩eThis mystery is a pledge and a figure: Christs body is truth it self. This pledge we do keep mystically, until that we be come to the truth it self; and then is this pledge ended. Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering, and said: This is my body & my blood. fYet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible virtue, the bread to his own body, and that wine to his blood:
zThe bread and the wine which by the Priests ministery is hallowed, shew one thing without to mens senses, and another thing they call within to beleeving mindes. Without they be seene bread & wine both in figure and in taste: and they be truely after their hallowing Christs body and his blood by spirituall mysterie. aSo the holy font water ⟨p. 78⟩that is called the well-spring of life, is like in shape to other waters, and is subject to corruption: but the holy Ghosts might commeth to the corruptible water through the Priests blessing; and it may after wash the body and soule from all sinne, by spirituall vertue. Behold now we see two things in this one creature: in true nature that water is corruptible moisture, and in spirituall mysterie hath healing vertue. So also if we behold that holy housel after bodily sense, then see wee that it is a creature corruptible and mutable. If we acknowledge therein spirituall vertue, then understand we that life is therein, and that it giveth immortalitie to them that eate it with beleefe. bMuch is betwixt the bodie Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to housel. cThe body truely that Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Mary, with blood and with bone, with skin and with sinewes, in humane limbs, with a reasonable soule living: and his spirituall body, which we call the housel, is gathered of many cornes, without blood and bone, without lim, without soule; and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily, but spiri•ually. Whatsoever is in that housel, which giveth substance of life, that is spirituall vertue, and invisible doing. dCertainly Christs body which suffered death and rose from death, shall never dye henceforth, but is eternall and unpassible. That housel is temporall, not eternall, corruptible & dealed into sundry parts, chewed betweene teeth and sent into the belly. ⟨p. 79⟩eThis mysterie is a pledge and a figure: Christs bodie is truth it selfe. This pledge wee doe keepe mystically, untill that we be come to the truth it selfe; and then is this pledge ended. Christ hallowed bread and wine to housel before his suffering, and said: This is my body & my blood.
zIlle panis qui per Sacerdotis ministeriū Christi corpus efficitur, aliud exteriùs humanis sensibus ostendit, & aliud interiùs fidelium mentibus clamat. Exteriùs quidē panis, quod antè fuerat, forma praetenditur, colour ostenditur, sapor accipitur: ast interiùs Christi corpus ostenditur. Ratrann. sive Bertram. de corp. & sangu. Dom. pag. 182.Ille panis qui per Sacerdotis ministeriū Christi corpus efficitur, aliud exteriùs humanis sensibus ostendit, & aliud interiùs fidelium mentibus clamat. Exteriùs quidē panis, quod antè fuerat, forma praetenditur, color ostenditur, sapor accipitur: ast interiùs Christi corpus ostenditur. Ratrann. sive Bertram. de corp. & sangu. Dom. pag. 182.
aConsideremus fontem sacri baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur. &c. In eo si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subjectum, nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere. Sed accessit sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecrationem virtus; & efficax facta est non solùm corpora verumetiam animas diluere, & spirituals sordes spiritually potentiâ dimovere. Eccè in uno eodemque elemento, duo videmus inesse sibi resistentia. &c. Igitur in proprietate humour corruptibilis, in mysterio veró virtus sanabilis. Sic itaque Christi corpus & sanguis superficie tenus considerata, creatura est, mutabilitati corruptelaeque subjecta: si mysterii veró perpendis virtutem, vita est, participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem Ibid. pag. 187 188.Consideremus fontem sacri baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur. &c. In eo si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subjectum, nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere. Sed accessit sancti Spiritus per Sacerdotis consecrationem virtus; & efficax facta est non solùm corpora verumetiam animas diluere, & spirituales sordes spirituali potentiâ dimovere. Eccè in uno eodemque elemento, duo videmus inesse sibi resistentia. &c. Igitur in proprietate humor corruptibilis, in mysterio veró virtus sanabilis. Sic itaque Christi corpus & sanguis superficie tenus considerata, creatura est, mutabilitati corruptelaeque subjecta: si mysterii veró perpendis virtutem, vita est, participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem Ibid. pag. 187 188.
bMultâ differentiâ separantur, corpus in quo passus est Christus, et hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi qu•tidiè à fid•libus celebratur •bid. pag. 212. & 22•.
as he before did in the wilderness, before that he was borne to men, when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his own blood. gMoses and Aaron, and many other of that people which pleased God, did eat that heavenly bread, and they died not the everlasting death, though they dyed the common. They saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corruptible: and they spiritually understood by that visible thing, and spiritually received it.
as he before did in the wildernesse, before that he was borne to men, when he turned that heavenly meate to his flesh, and the flowing water from that stone to his owne blood. gMoses and Aaron, and manie other of that people which pleased God, did eate that heavenly bread, and they died not the everlasting death, though they dyed the common. They saw that the heavenly meate was visible and corruptible: and they spiritually understood by that visible thing, and spiritually received it.
gManducavit & Moses manna, manducavit & Aaron, manducavit & Phinees, manducaverunt ibi multi qui Deo placuerunt; & mortui non sunt. Quare? Quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur. Ibid. pag. 217. ex August. in Evang. Johan. tractat. 26.Manducavit & Moses manna, manducavit & Aaron, manducavit & Phinees, manducaverunt ibi multi qui Deo placuerunt; & mortui non sunt. Quare? Quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur. Ibid. pag. 217. ex August. in Evang. Iohan. tractat. 26.
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.
the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ figuratively; that
Yet he had not then suffered: but so notwithstanding hee turned through invisible vertue, the bread to his owne body, and that wine to his blood:
c
Illa namque caro quae c•ucifixa est, de Virginis carne facta est, ossibus & nervis compacta, & humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. At veró caro spiritualis, quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundùm speciem quam gerit exteriùs, frumenti granis manu artificis consistit, nullis nervis ossibusque compacta, nullâ membrorum varietate distincta, nullâ rationally substantiâ vegetata, nullos proprios potens motus exercere. Quicquid enim in eâ vitae praebet substantiam, spiritualis est potentiae, & invisibilis efficientiae, divinaeque vi•tutis. Ibid. pag. 214.Illa namque caro quae c•ucifixa est, de Virginis carne facta est, ossibus & nervis compacta, & humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam & congruentes motus. At veró caro spiritualis, quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundùm speciem quam gerit exteriùs, frumenti granis manu artificis consistit, nullis nervis ossibusque compacta, nullâ membrorum varietate distincta, nullâ rationali substantiâ vegetata, nullos proprios potens motus exercere. Quicquid enim in eâ vitae praebet substantiam, spiritualis est potentiae, & invisibilis efficientiae, divinaeque vi•tutis. Ibid. pag. 214.
dCorpus Christi quod mortuum est & resurrexit, & immortale factum, jam non moritur, & mors illi ultrà non dominabitur, aeternum est, nec jam passibile. Hoc autem quod in Ecclesiâ celebratur, temporale est, non aeternum; corruptibile est, non incorruptum, &c. dispartitur ad sumendum, & dentibus commolitum, in corpus trajicitur. Ibid. pag. 216.217.
eEt hoc corpus, pignus est & species: illud veró ipsa veritas. Hoc enim geritur, donec ad illud perveniatur: ubi veró ad illud perventum fuerit, hoc removebitur. Ib. pag. 222.
fVidemus nondū passum esse Christum, &c. Sicut ergo paulò antequàm pateretur, panis substantiam & vini creaturam converter potuit in propriū corpus quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinē qui pòst fundendus extabat: sic etiā in deserto manna & aquam de petrâ in suam carnē & sanguinem converter praevaluit &c. Ibid. pag. 193.Videmus nondū passum esse Christum, &c. Sicut ergo paulò antequàm pateretur, panis substantiam & vini creaturam convertere potuit in propriū corpus quod passurum erat, & in suum sanguinē qui pòst fundendus extabat: sic etiā in deserto manna & aquam de petrâ in suam carnē & sanguinem convertere praevaluit &c. Ibid. pag. 193.
