ePub 版

Sess. Ult. Joan, Scot. iniv. Sentent. Dist. 10.

sub Innoc. 111. Anno 1215.

which in some places both for steadiness and continuance was made of stone, Greek church.

was changed from the former state, and yet remained stone still; and as the Figure.

priest or bishop was changed from that he was before, and yet remained in substance one man still; so, by the judgment of this ancient father, the bread and wine are changed into Christ's body and blood, and yet remain bread and wine in nature still.

And forasmuch as M. Harding, to make good and to maintain this his new error, hath here alleged together nine doctors of the Greek church as subscribing and well agreeing thereto; understand thou, good christian reader, for the better information and direction of thy judgment, that the Grecians never consented to the same from the first preaching of the gospel there until this

day, as it is easy to be seen in the last action of the general council holden Concil. Flor. at Florence? And Duns himself, having occasion to entreat hereof, writeth

thus : [Ad hanc sententiam] principaliter ... videtur movere, quod de sacramentis tenendum est, sicut tenet sancta Romana ecclesia;... ipsa autem tenet, panem transubstantiari in corpus, et vinum in sanguinem 3 : “ To this determination this thing seemeth specially to lead, that we must hold of the sacraments as the holy church of Rome holdeth,” &c. For confirmation hereof he allegeth, not the

Greek church, as knowing it had evermore holden the contrary; but only the Concil. Lat. particular determination of the church of Rome, concluded first in the council

of Lateran, in the year of our Lord a thousand two hundred and fifteen, and never before.

And Isidorus, the bishop of Russia, for that, after his return home from the Hist. de Novo council of Florence, he began to practise both for unity herein, and also in all

other causes, to be concluded between his churches and the church of Rome, was therefore deposed from his office, and utterly forsaken of all his clergy“. So well they liked this new device of transubstantiation.

M. Harding will reply, Cyrillus saith, év TÚMW ăptov, which he expoundeth, In specie vel figura panis, “ In the form or figure of bread.” And this, as he imagineth, is as much as accidents without subject. What manner consideration leadeth him hereto, I cannot tell. But it is most certain, that by this very way the old heretics were led into their errors. Marcion the heretic held that Christ appeared not in the very natural body of a man, but only in a fantasy or shew of a man's body: and, to prove the same, he used M. Harding's reason. For it is written, said he: In similitudinem hominum factus est et figura inventus ut homo : “He was made after the likeness of men, and found in figure

(which M. Harding expoundeth, ‘in shews and accidents') as a man.” And St Ambros. Lib. Ambrose saith: Nec sibi blandiatur virus Apollinare, quia ita legitur, Et specie

inventus, ut homo 5 : “Let not that heretic Apollinarius& flatter himself for that it is thus written, “He was found in figure and form as a man'.” Here we see

M. Harding is driven to fight with old heretics' weapons; otherwise his friends Ambros. ad would not judge him catholic. St Ambrose saith, Christ appeared in figura Orig.-repl humana, “in the figure of a man.” Origen saith : Christus est expressa imago Αρχων, et figura Patris 8 : “Christ is the express image and figure of his Father.” Again Lib. i. cap. ii. Ambros. de St Ambrose saith : Gravior est ... ferri species, quam aquarum natura': “ The Myst. cap. iii. form of iron is heavier than the nature of the water.” And Gregory Nyssene





vii. Epist. 48.

['They, 1565.)

[Gen. viii. Synod. Sess. Ult. Sanct. Union. Litt. in Crabb. Concil. Col. Agrip. 1551. Tom. III. p. 476. See before, page 534, note 1.)

[3 Joan. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. In Lib. iv. Sentent. Dist. xi. Quæst. 3. Tom. VIII. p. 616; where autem ipsa.]

[* The author intended is Lodovicus Vartomannus Bononiensis, qui et Romanus Patritius, Navig. Ethiop. &c. in Nov. Orb. Basil. 1555; but no reference to the fact mentioned has been there found. See, however, M. a Michov. Tractat. de duab, Sarmat. Lib. i1. cap. i. in eod. pp. 473, 4. This last author is cited for the same fact by Jewel elsewhere.]

[ Ambros. Op. Par. 1686-90.

Ad Sabin. Epist. xlvi. 8. Tom. II. col. 986; where Apollinaris. ]

[ Apollinaris, 1565.)

[? Id. Comm. in Epist. ad Col. cap. i. v. 15. Tom. II. Append. col. 261.]

[ In the chapter referred to, Origen quotes Heh. i. 3: splendor gloriæ, et figura expressa substantia ejus; and repeatedly afterwards uses the words imago and figura applied to Christ.—Orig. Op. Par. 1733-59. De Princ. Lib. 1. cap. ii. 5, &c. Tom. I. pp. 55, &c.]

[° Ambros. Op. Lib. de Myst. cap. ix. 51. Tom. II. col. 339; where aquarum liquor. See also De Sacram. Lib. IV. cap. iv. 18. Tom. II. col. 370.]

saith: Sacerdos... quod ad speciem externam attinet, idem est qui fuit 10: “ The priest, Gregor. Nyss. as touching his appearance or outward form, is the same that he was before.” Baptism. And will M. Harding gather hereof that Christ, or a piece of iron, or a priest, is nothing else but an accident or a shew without substance ?

Besides all this, M. Harding is fain to falsify Cyrillus, his own doctor, and to allege his words otherwise than he found them. For, whereas in the common Latin translation it is written thus, Sciens panem hunc, qui videtur a nobis, non esse panem, etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat,Knowing that this bread that is seen of us is no bread, albeit our taste do perceive it to be bread;" M. Harding hath chosen rather to turn it thus : Cum scias, qui videtur esse panis, M. Harding non esse, sed corpus Christi : “ Knowing that the thing that seemeth to be bread on sitten and is no bread, but the body of Christ.” Wherein he hath both skipped over one heroine whole clause, and also corrupted the words and meaning of his author. For fathers. Cyrillus saith : “With our outward eyes we see bread.” M. Harding saith : “ It appeareth or seemeth only to be bread.” Cyrillus saith: “Our taste perceiveth (or knoweth) it to be bread.” This clause M. Harding hath left out both in his Latin translation, and also in the English. But speaking of the cup, he turneth it thus : “ Albeit the sense make that account of it.” Corrupt doctrine must needs hold by corruption. For it is certain Cyrillus meant thus: “That, as we have two sorts of eyes, corporal of the body, and spiritual of the mind; so in the sacraments we have two sundry things to behold, with our bodily eyes the material bread, with our spiritual eyes the very body of Christ.” And thus the words of Cyril agree directly with these words of St Augustine: Quod... August, in ridetis, panis est: ... quod ... etiam oculi vestri renuntiant. Quod autem fides Infant. restra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi 12 : “ The thing that you see is bread; which thing your eyes do testify. But touching that your faith would be instructed of, the bread is Christ's body;" in such sort and sense as is said before.

Samona, Methonensis, and Cabasilas are very young to be alleged or allowed for doctors. As for Marcus Ephesius, he seemeth well to brook his name: for his talk runneth altogether ad Ephesios. For, whereas St Basil in his liturgy, after the words of consecration, calleth the sacrament évtituttOY 13, that is to say, a token or a sign of Christ's body; this doctor Marcus imagineth of himself that St Basil speaketh thus of the read before it be consecrate.

A very child would not so childishly have guessed at his author's meaning. Yet M. Harding herein seemeth not much to mislike his judgment. Howbeit he knoweth that the bread before consecration is neither sacrament nor sign of Christ's body; no more than any other common baker's bread. Otherwise, it should be a sign, and signify nothing; and a sacrament, before it were consecrate and made a sacrament.

Yet D. Stephen Gardiner seemeth to consider better and more advisedly of the Steph. Gardimatter. For he thinketh it likely that Basil's liturgy was disordered, and that ject. 185. set behind that should have been before; and that one ignorant simple scribe corrupted all those books throughout the whole world 14 M. Harding saith, St Basil calleth the bread ávtitutov, a sign or token, before it be perfitly consecrate; as if there were two sorts of consecration, the one perfit, the other unperfit. And yet he knoweth it is commonly holden in the schools, that the very beginning and end of consecration is wrought, not by degrees, but in an instant.

[1° Gregor. Nyss. Op. Par. 1638. In Baptism. Christ. Tom. III. p. 370.]

(" See before, page 573, note 17.]

["August. Op. Par. 1679--1700. Serm. cclxxii. Tom. V. cols. 1103, 4.)

{13 ...προσθέντες τα αντίτυπα του αγίου σώματος και αίματος του Χριστού σου, κ.τ.λ.-Basil. Lit. in Lit. Sanct. Patr. Par. 1560, p. 58. These words occur in a prayer immediately after the words of consecration.]

(14 Damascenus Græcus de hoc verbo (avtítuop) ita refert, Basilium in sua liturgia usum fuisse, sed ante sanctificationem: quod etsi in nostris exem

plaribus aliter reperiatur hactenus; tamen valet Damasceni testimonium, ut nobis referat illorum temporum catholicam de eucharistia fidem, secundum quam post consecrationem crederemus veram corporis et sanguinis Christi præsentiam, non solam figuram, quam sonus verbi (avtitutOV) videtur insinuare. Itaque fieri probabiliter potest, ut quum illis temporibus non typis, ut nunc, sed librariorum singulari opera, exemplaria liturgiæ Basilii divulgarentur, verbum illud (ávtiturov) a sciolo fuerit loco motum, quasi non commode post consecrationem collocatum.- Confut. Cavill. in Ven. Euch. Sacr. Verit. Par. 1552. Ad Object. 185. foll. 125, 6.]

Thus consecration is no consecration; no sacrament is a sacrament; that is a sign is no sign; that is no sign is a sign; books be corrupted and disordered ; that cometh after that should go before, and that is before that should come after. And yet all these shifts will scarcely serve to help out a common error.


The hundred and

M. HARDING. Sith for this point of our religion we have so good authority, (181) and being irst untruth. assured of the infallible faith of the church, declared by the testimonies of these farible faith worthy fathers of divers ages and quarters of the world; we may well say, with the

same church against M. Jewel, that in this sacrament after consecration there time epench

, remaineth nothing of that which was before, but only the accidents and shews, withrefused of the out the substance, of bread and wine.

was unknown to the primi

in the council of Florence,


1 Cor. xi.

Psal. xxii.

The certainty of this article resteth only upon the most uncertain ground of transubstantiation: the determination whereof, forsomuch as it is not much more than three hundred years old, nor necessarily gathered of the force of God's word, as Duns himself confesseth, nor ever any where received saving only in the church of Rome, therefore is neither so infallible as M. Harding maketh it, nor so ancient, nor so catholic.

Time will not suffer me to say so much as might be said to the contrary. St Paul acknowledgeth very bread remaining still in the sacrament, and that such bread as may be divided and broken; which words cannot without blas

phemy be spoken of the body of Christ itself, but only of the? very material Matt. xxvi. bread. Christ likewise after consecration acknowledgeth the remaining of very Ex hac gene wine, and that such wine as is pressed of the grape. For thus he saith: “I Chrysost. in will drink no more of this generation of the vine." Chrysostom saith: In simili

tudinem corporis et sanguinis, Christus nobis panem et vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech ostendit in sacramento 3 : “ Christ shewed us (not accidents, or quali

ties, but) bread and wine in the sacrament, according to the order of MelchiChrysost. in sedech, as all likeness 4 or figure of his body and blood.” Again he saith : Christus,

quando hoc mysterium tradidit, vinum tradidit... [non bibam] inquit, ex hac generatione vitis ; quæ certe vinum producit, non aquam): “Christ, when he delivered this mystery, delivered (not shews or accidents, but) wine. Christ saith (after consecration), ‘I will no more drink of this generation of the vine.' Doubtless the vine

bringeth forth wine, and not water." Cyrillus saith : Christus credentibus disciiv. cap. xiv. pulis fragmenta panis dedit : “ Christ gave to his faithful disciples fragments or

pieces of bread.” I pass by St Cyprian, St Augustine, Gelasius, Theodoretus, and other ancient and holy fathers; according unto whose most plain words and authorities, if there be bread remaining in the sacrament, then is there somewhat else besides accidents. What M. Harding may say, that saith so much, it is easy to see; but that shews and accidents hang empty without the substance of bread and wine, none of the old fathers ever said.

Matt. Hom. 83.

Cyril. in
Johan. Lib.

God's omnipotent power to bear up accidents.

M. HARDING. THE EIGIITH DIVISION. And this is a matter to a christian man not hard to believe. For if it please God the almighty Creator, in the condition and state of things thus to ordain that substances created bear and sustain accidents; why may not he, by his almighty power, conserve and keep also accidents without substance, sith that the

heathen philosophers repute it for an absurdity to say, Primam causam non posse id præstare solam, quod possit cum secunda : that is to say, that the first cause (whereby they understand God) cannot do that alone which he can do with the second cause,whereby they mean a creature ?


(Thus assured, H. A. 1561.) [? 1565 omits the.]

[ Chrysost. Op. Lat. Basil. 1547. Expos. Psal. xxii. Tom. V. col. 712; where Christi panem, and nobis ostenderet.)

14 A likeness, 1565.]

[^ Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. In Matt. Hom. lxxxii. Tom. VII. p. 784.]

[© Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. In Joan. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. ii. Tom. IV. p. 360. See also Op. Insig. in Evang. Joan, a G. Trapezont, traduct. Par. 1508. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. fol. 95.]


Cicero saith: “A simple poet, when he cannot tell how to shift his matters, imagineth some god suddenly to come in place a little to astonne the people; and there an end.” So M. Harding, finding himself much encumbered with his accidents, is fain to bring in God with his whole omnipotent power, to hold them up. Children in their? schools are taught to know, that an accident hath no being without a subject. Which rule, being otherwise evermore true, hath exception, as M. Harding saith, only in this sacrament, wherein be the accidents and shews of bread and wine, and yet no subject. For they are not in the bread; because, as he saith, that is gone ; nor in the air, for that cannot be seen ; nor in Christ's body, for that is not round, &c. So there is a white thing, yet nothing is white; and a round thing, yet nothing is round. Therefore, forasmuch as these accidents neither are able to stand alone, nor have any subject there to rest in; for that cause, M. Harding saith, they be sustained by the power of God.

One saith: Nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit8 : “Never bring forth any god in a tragedy, to play a part, unless it be upon some occasion of great matter, meet for a god to take in hand.” St Paul saith: Deus portat Heb. i. omnia rerbo virtutis suæ : “God beareth all things by the word of his power.” And the heathen poets imagine that Atlas holdeth up the heavens. But for God the Creator and Cause of all causes, to come from heaven to hold up accidents, it seemeth a very simple service.

M. Harding's reason standeth thus : God is omnipotent ;
Ergo, accidents in the sacrament stand without subject.

[blocks in formation]

And that this being of accidents without substance or subject in this sacrament, under which, the bread not remaining, the body of Christ is present, may the rather be believed, it is to be considered that this thing took place at the first creation of the world, after the opinion of some doctors, who do affirm that that first light which was at the beginning until the fourth day (182) was not in any subject, The hundred but sustained by the power of God, as him liked. For that first light and the second ut? Basilius Heracm- same 9 were as whiteness, and a body whited 10, saith St Basil. Neither for si Basil

then was Wicklit yet born, who might teach them that the power of God the concerty

cannot put an accident without a subject. For so he saith in his book Paulus Burgensis

De Apostasia, cap. 5, as Cochlæus reporteth11 Hereof it appeareth out La Hist. Hus- of what root the gospellers of our country spring ; who, smatching of the sap of that wicked tree, and hereby shewing their kind, appoint bounds and borders to the power of God, that is infinite and incomprehensible. And thus by those fathers we may conclude that, if God can sustain and keep accidents with substance, he can so do without substance.

cron, Hon. 6. Dermas, Lib. ii.

cap. vii.



It is great violence to force an ancient father to bear false witness, and specially against himself. This report of St Basil's meaning is as true as is that long peevish fable, so often alleged under the name of Amphilochius, that is to wit, a vain shew without substance. And because M. Harding only nameth Damascene and Paulus Burgensis in his margin, as being afraid to touch their words, he may remember that Damascene saith: Non aliud est ignis, quam lux, Damascen.

Lib. ii. cap.


1? The, 1565, 1609.)
[Hor. de Art. Poet. vv. 191, 2.)
{* The sun, H. A. 1564.]

[10 Πρωτον μεν ούν εκ του τα σύνθετα πάντα ούτω παρ' ημών διαιρείσθαι, είς τε την δεκτικήν ουσίαν, και εις την επισυμβασαν αυτή ποιότητα. ως ούν έτερον μέν τι τη φύσει η λευκότης, έτερον δέ τι το λελευκασμένον σωμα, ούτω και τα νύν

είρημένα διάφορα όντα τη φύσει ηνωται τη δυνάμει
TOÙ KTÍGavtos.-Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. In
Hexaem. Hom. vi. 3. Tom. I. p. 51.]

[" Hic sæpe dixi, quod nec Deus nec homo potest
facere accidens sine subjecto. — Artic. Wiel. De
Apost. cap. v. in Cochl. Hist. Hussit. Mogunt, 1549.
Lib. 11. p. 90.]

i. cap. Gen.

Basil. in
Hom. 6.

ut quidam aiunt? : “ The fire is nothing else but the light, as some men say.” Burgen, in And Burgensis saith : Quidam tradunt lucem fuisse nubem lucidam? : “Some men

write that the light was a bright cloud." By these expositions it appeareth, that either the fire or the cloud was a subject to receive the light. Certainly neither Burgensis, nor Damascene, nor Basil ever said that the light stood without a subject. Therefore that note in the margin might well have been spared. But it is an easy matter with shew of names to deceive the simple.

St Basil saith, the light was in the world before the sun was made. Therefore it was, and had his being, without the sun. His words stand thus: Aliud quidem est, &c.3: “ The brightness of the light is one thing; and the body subject unto the same (that is, the sun) is another thing. And say not now unto me, It is impossible to divide these things asunder. For I say not, that thou or I can possibly divide the body of the sun from the light. Yet notwithstanding the things that we may part asunder only by imagination, the same things God, the Creator of nature, is able to sunder verily and indeed.” Hereof M. Harding gathereth his reasons thus :

The light was not in the sun; ergo, it was in nothing.
It was not in the sun; ergo, it was not in the air.
It was not in the sun; ergo, it was an accident without a subject.

This error cometh of the equivocation or double taking of this word, “being in.” For one thing may be in another, as in an instrument, as the light is in a candle ; which is the similitude that Basil useth. The same thing may be in another, as in a subject, as light in the air. This diversity considered, now let us weigh M. Harding's reason.

The light (saith he) was not in the sun, as in an instrument to carry it about the world ;

Ergo, it was not in the air as in a subject.

This argument seemeth very light. A man may easily and sensibly with his fingers feel the folly of it in the dark. Verily, St Basil's words to the contrary shine so clear, that I marvel M. Harding could not or would not see them. For thus he writeth before in the same book: περιελάμπετο δε αήρ μάλλον δε έγκεkpappévov čavto @lov diódov eixe tò pôs 4: Illustrabatur aer : vel potius lumen sibi totum

et in totum permistum habuit : “ The air was lightened, or rather it had the [vj olkov- whole light wholly mingled with itself.” Again he saith : “ The world was pévnaopa. invisible, because the air was without light5.” St Basil saith : “ The light was in Todo tc. the air, and that wholly through the whole,” as in a subject; yet M. Harding otov elvar forceth St Basil to say contrary to himself: The light was only an accident τον...αέρα.

04 without subject, and was stayed in nothing. Now judge thou, good christian

reader, what credit thou mayest give to M. Harding's words in reporting of the ancient doctors.

But he saith: “God's power is infinite and incomprehensible. Therefore he is able to sustain accidents." This error springeth of misunderstanding St Basil's words. For whereas St Basil writeth thus : τότε... ου κατά κίνησιν ηλιακήν, αλλά αναχεομένου του πρωτογόνου φωτός εκείνου ... ημέρα έγένετο6: Dies tum febat, non per motum solarem, sed diffuso illo primigenio lumine: “The day was made, not by the moving or passing of the sun, but by pouring abroad the first light ;” it appeareth that instead of avageouévov, which is, “poured abroad,” M. Harding by error read ávexouévov, which is, “borne up, or sustained.” But he may not well maintain his accidents by shifting of words, or by misunderstanding or corrupting of his doctors.

Basil. in
Hom. 2.


[' Damascen. Op. Par. 1712. De Fid. Orthod. Lib. 11. cap. vii. Tom. I. p. 163.)

[? Quidam enim dicunt illam lucem fuisse quandam nubem lucidam.--Bibl. cum Gloss. Ord. et Expos. N. de Lyra, Basil. 1502. In Gen. cap. i. Addit. (Burg.) Pars I. fol. 30. 2.]

[3 Και μηδενί άπιστον είναι δοκείτω το ειρημένον, ότι άλλο μέν τι του φωτός ή λαμπρότης, άλλο δε τι το υποκείμενον τω φωτί σώμα...και μή μοι λέγε αδύνατα είναι ταυτα απ' αλλήλων

διαιρείσθαι. ουδέ γαρ εγω την διαίρεσιν του
φωτός από του ηλιακού σώματος εμοί και σοι
δυνατήν είναι φημι, αλλ' ότι & ημίν τη επινοία
εστί χωριστα, ταυτα δύναται και αυτή τη ενερ-
γεία παρά του ποιητού της φύσεως αυτών διαστή-
val.-Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. In Hexaem. Hom.
vi. 3. Tom. I. pp. 51, 2.)

[* Id. ibid. Hom. ii. 7. p. 19. ]
[5 Id. ibid. 1. p. 13.]
[ Id. ibid. 8. p. 20.]

« 上一頁繼續 »