網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

distantia partium est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in sacramento ; quia sic non habet quantitatem dimensivam": “In the body of Christ in the sacrament there is no distance of parts one from another, as between eye and eye, or eye and ear, or head and feet, as it is in other natural bodies ; for such a distance there is in the true body of Christ, but not as it is in the sacrament. For so it hath no dimension of quantities.” Out of which words the reader may gather, by the way, that the true body of Christ is not in the sacrament. what a Christ have they devised for themselves! He hath neither quantity, nor proportion of body, nor distance of parts: he is neither long, nor short, nor round, nor broad, nor thick, nor thin: his eyes, his ears, his head, his feet, are all in one. Yet is this the very proportion and stature of Christ's body, even as he walked upon the earth, and even as he was nailed upon the cross.

And, lest any man should stagger hereat and stand in doubt, this matter is overlooked and considered in the decrees by the canonists by these words: Sed secundum hoc videtur, quod, ubi pars est, ibi est totum ; et secundum hoc De Consecr. ridetur, quod pes et nasus sunt conjuncti ; quod non credos: “By this it ap- Ubi pars. peareth that, where as the part is, there is the whole; and that Christ's foot

In Gloss. and his nose are both together. But I cannot believe that.” So clearly and plainly these men are wont to teach the people.

I pass over the rest of their doctrine. Sometimes their accidents have power to nourish; sometimes the same accidents are parts of the substance; sometimes substance must be an accident; sometimes accidents must be substance. To be short, thus of night they make day, and of day they make night. They are now ashamed of their own doctors that lately were in highest room; and, as it befell sometime unto them that enterprised the tower of Babylon, one of them understandeth not another's language : and therefore now their building is at a stay.

This is the simplicity and plainness of M. Harding's church. It is an easier matter for the simple people to go to heaven than for him and his fellows to agree well and thoroughly of the way.

Here M. Harding, without either scripture, or council, or doctor, hath interlarded a long fable of his own; which notwithstanding, as he saith, is the doctrine of the church. But miserable is that church that hath neither scripture, nor council, nor doctor, to approve her doctrine.

First he imagineth, that “ Christ's body is really in the sacrament so long as the sacrament is a sacrament.” Again, by the tenor and force of his doctrine, if Christ's body once depart away, then is the sacrament no more a sacrament. Thus this doctrine turneth round. If it be a sacrament, then is Christ's body there: if Christ's body be there, then is it a sacrament. So simply and plainly they teach the people. O happy are they that have such masters!

Further he saith: “The substance of the bread and wine is really changed into the body and blood of Christ.” And this he avoucheth by scriptures without words, and by doctors without names.

Afterward he keepeth great moots about qualities and quantities; how far the colour or savour or other qualities of the bread may be altered; and into how small mites the bread may be crumbed (for these be his own words), and vet nevertheless Christ's body continue in it. No doubt, a very plain and comfortable and a savoury doctrine for the people. St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Hierome, St Chrysostom, and other learned fathers travailed far and deeply with great study; St Paul was lifted up into the third heaven; yet none of them could understand it.

[ Ad secundum dicendum, quod illa determinata distantia partium in corpore organico fundatur super quantitate dimensiva, ipsa autem natura substantiæ præcedit etiam quantitatem dimensivam, et quia conversio substantiæ panis directe terminatur ad subsantiam corporis Christi, secundum cujus modum proprie et directe est in hoc sacramento corpus Christi, talis distantia partium est quidem in ipso corpore

Christi vero, sed non secundum hanc distantiam com-
paratur ad hoc sacramentum, sed secundum modum
snæ substantiæ, sicut dictum est.—Thom. Aquinat,
Op. Venet. 1595. Summ. Theol. Tert. Pars, Quæst.
lxxvi. Art. 3. Tom. XII. fol. 246. 2.]

[® Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret, Gra.
tian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr, Dist, ii, Gloss.
in can. 78. col. 1955.]

Reservaa In the end he saith: “ There must be a convenience and a resemblance tion, between the sacrament and the things whereof it is a sacrament.” For example,

as water doth wash and refresh our bodies, so by resemblance we are taught in the water of baptism, that Christ's blood doth wash and refresh our souls : and, as our bodies be fed by material bread, so in the holy communion we are taught by like resemblance, that our souls are fed with the body of Christ. Such convenient likeness there is between the sacrament and the thing that is represented by the sacrament. But what such resemblance or likeness can M. Harding imagine herein to further his fantasy? Wherein are his accidents like unto Christ's body? Or wherein is Christ's body like unto his accidents ? Will he say that the accidents of bread do nourish and increase the substance of our bodies? Or that our souls live so by Christ's body as our bodies live by accidents ? If he leave this resemblance of feeding and nourishing, what other resemblance can he find ?

O how much better were it for M. Harding simplyl and plainly to confess that, as well for this article as for the rest, he is utterly destitute, not only of the scriptures, but also of general councils and ancient fathers, and hath nothing to allege but only certain vain imaginations of his own!

M. HARDING.

THE FOURTH DIVISION. Here, because many of them which have cut themselves from the church condemn the reservation of the sacrament, and affirm that the body of Christ re

or reservation of maineth not in the same no longer than during the time whiles it is the sacrament. received, alleging against reservation the example of the paschal lamb in Erod. rii. the old law, wherein nothing ought to have remained until the morning, and likewise of manna; I will rehearse that notable and known place of Cyrillus Alexandrinus. His words be these : Audio quod dicant mysticam benedictionem, si

Ad Calosyrium ex ea remanserint in sequentem diem reliquiæ, ad sanctificationem Arsenoicen. Epiinutilem esse. Sed insaniunt hæc dicentes. Non enim alius fit Thomas, Part. iti.

Quæst. 76. Christus, neque sanctum ejus corpus immutabitur; sed virtus benedictionis et vivifica gratia manet in illo?: It is told me, they say that the mystical blessing (so he calleth the blessed sacrament), in case portions of it be kept until the next day, is of no virtue to sanctification. But they be mad that thus say. For Christ becometh not another, neither his holy body is changed ; but the virtue of the consecration, and the quickening or life-giving grace, abideth still in it." By this saying of Cyrillus we see, that he accounteth the error of our adversaries in this article no other than a mere madness. The body of Christ, saith he, (which he termeth the mystical blessing, because it is a most holy mystery done by consecration) once consecrated is not changed; but the virtue of the consecration, and the grace

that gireth life, (250) (whereby he meaneth that flesh assumpted of the Word,) rehundred and maineth in this sacrament also when it is kept, (250) verily even so long as the truth, stands outward forms continue not corrupt. and guileful

THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. Truth is not afraid of slanderous tragedies. We have not cut off ourselves from the catholic church of God. We have forsaken the dangerous company of them that have turned the church of God into a cave of thieves; whose company God by special words hath willed us to forsake: for thus the Almighty saith unto us: “O my people, come out from her, and be not partaker of her sins, lest ye take part of her plagues.”

The matter of reservation is only pasted on, and utterly impertinent and nothing belonging to this question. Howbeit, unless M. Harding had used the advantage of this digression, he had passed over this whole article without framing3 of

any

doctor. I grant, the sacrament in the old time in some certain churches was reserved; howbeit, not to be worshipped with godly honour, but

only to be received in the holy communion of the people. And Origen, amongst Orig. in other godly fathers, seemeth to mislike the same. For thus he writeth: Dominus

The two

construction.

Rev. xviii.

Levit. Hom. 0.

[ Simple, 1611.)

[Cyril. Alex. in Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. Summ. Theol. Tert. Pars, Quæst. Ixxvi. Art. 6. Tom.

XII. fol. 248; where the passage is cited with some variation. It is most probably not genuine.]

[ Naming, 1565.]

panem, quem discipulis dabat, ... non distulit, nec serrari jussit in crastinum 4 :

Reserva“The bread that the Lord gave to his disciples, he deferred it not, nor willed it

tion. to be reserved until the next day."

But, touching the force of this article, Cyrillus speaketh not one word, neither of corporal presence, nor of forms, nor of accidents, nor of crumbs, nor of quantities, nor of qualities, nor of putrefaction or corruption, nor of the coming of Christ's body, nor of the abode or departure of the same, nor of any other the like M. Harding's mysteries. Therefore this holy father neither reproveth our doctrine, nor chargeth us, as M. Harding imagineth, with any madness. But if he were now alive, he would account him mad and twice mad that would so madly rack his words to so vain a purpose.

Concerning the reservation of the sacrament that Cyrillus speaketh of, the matter stood thus. Sometimes, after that the people had received the holy mysteries, it happened that there remained some portions untouched. These portions so remaining, the godly fathers that then were thought it not meet to turn to any profane use; but rather reserved them until the next day to be received of the people in the holy communion. For as yet there was no private mass known in the whole church of God throughout the world.

The Messalian monks repined hereat, and said the sacrament could not so long continue holy. Cyrillus answereth them, not that the flesh which Christ received of the blessed virgin continueth still as inclosed in the sacrament, as it is untruly reported by M. Harding; but that Christ's institution, and the mystical benediction, which he calleth the quickening grace, continueth still. And his reason is this, for that all sacraments have their virtue and power, not of themselves", but wholly and only from Christ. Wherefore, as Christ is one, and continueth still without change; even so must the grace that Christ worketh in us by his sacraments be likewise one, and continue still. And, as there is no virtue in the water of baptism but when it is used, even so there is no virtue in the bread of the holy communion but likewise only when it is used.

As for the quickening grace, it is as well in the one sacrament as in the other. St Ambrose saith: Aqua baptismatis habet gratiam Dei et presentiam Trinitatis 6 : Ambros, de “ The water of baptism hath the grace of God, and the presence of the holy i. cap.v. Trinity.” And in the Nicene council it is written thus : Cogita aquas plenas ignis alien... coelestis?: “Imagine this water to be full of heavenly fire." And this grace is not

πυρός νόει only for one hour or two, but lasteth and continueth still. So St Augustine saith: ta üồata. Arca testamenti, (quamvis] ab hostibus capta, virtutem tamen suæ sanctificationis non August, amisit 8 : The ark of God, notwithstanding it were taken and carried away by dent. Lib. ii. the enemies, yet it lost not the virtue of the former holiness that was in it."

Yet may not M. Harding upon occasion hereof either think' or say, that this grace is really and substantially inclosed either in the one sacrament or in the other. Bonaventura saith: Non est aliquo modo dicendum, quod gratia continetur In iv. Sen. in ... sacramentis essentialiter, tanquam aqua in vase. ... Hoc enim dicere est erro- Quæst. 3. neum. Sed dicuntur continere gratiam, quia 10 eam significantll: “We may not in any wise say that the grace of God is contained in the sacraments substantially and indeed, as water is contained in a vessel. For so to say, it were an error. But sacraments are said to contain the grace of God, because they signify the grace of God.”

Here the opinion that M. Harding seemeth to maintain is condemned for an error, and this sentence allowed for true and catholic: “Sacraments are said to contain the grace of God, because they signify the grace of God.” To conclude, he saith : Gratia est in animis, non in signis visibilibus 12: The grace is in the minds or souls of the receivers, not in the visible signs or sacraments.”

του θείου

{* Orig. Op. Par. 1733-39. In Levit. Hom. v. 8. Tom. II. p. 211.]

(s Themself, 1565.)

[ ... aqua sanat, quæ habet gratiam Christi...adsit præsentia Trinitatis æternæ.-Ambros. Op. Par. 1686-90. De Sacram. Lib. 1. cap. v. 15, 18. Tom. II. cols. 352, 3. See before, page 763.)

[7 Gelas. Cyz. Hist. Concil. Nic. cap. xxx. in Concil. Stud. Labb, et Cossart. Lut. Par. 1671-2.

Tom. II. col. 233.)

[ August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Contr. Gaudent. Lib. 11. 11. Tom. IX. col. 672; where nequaquam virtutem suæ sanctificationis amisit. )

[' Thinks, 1611.) (10 Qui, 1609, 1611.)

[" Bonavent. Op. Mogunt. 1609. In Lib, iv. Sentent. Dist. i. Quæst. 3. Tom. V. p. 7. See before, page 473, note 14.)

["? Id. ibid. p. 8; where gratia sit in anima.]

WHETHER A MOUSE, &c.

THE TWENTY-THIRD ARTICLE.

THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.

Or that a mouse or any other worm or beast may eat the body of Christ; for so some of our adversaries have said and taught.

[WHAT IS THAT THE MOUSE OR WORM EATETH.-ARTICLE XXIII. H. A. 1561.]

[blocks in formation]

Whereas M. Jewel imputeth this vile assereration but to some of the adversaries of his side, he seemeth to acknowledge that it is not a doctrine universally taught and received. The like may be said for his next article; and, if it hath been said of some only, and not taught universally of all, as a true doctrine M.! Jewel confor christian people to believe, how agreeth he with himself, saying trarieth himself. after the rehearsal of his number of articles, the same, none excepted, to be the

highest mysteries and greatest keys of our religion? For if that were true, as it • By this rule is not true for the greatest part, * then should this article have been affirmed and points of M. taught of all. For the highest and greatest points of the catholic religion be not catholic reli: particular?, but of universal teaching. gion may well

come in question.

THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.

Here it appeareth that M. Harding somewhat misliketh his catholic masters, and thinketh it now an error to say that a mouse may eat the body of Christ ; and therefore he calleth this part of his own doctrine “a vile asseveration." But, if this asseveration of M. Harding's own doctors and greatest doctors be so vile, then vile were they that first devised it. And yet I cannot well see how he may so lightly recant the doctrine that he was born and brought up in, and condemn his own fellows of villany, without blame.

Howbeit, one good excuse he seemeth to have, that this part of his religion was never universally received nor counted catholic. And therefore he saith it is no key of his religion. If M. Harding will measure all the rest in this sort, I fear me very few parts of his whole religion will prove catholic.

And yet the first devisers and setters forth and maintainers hereof took this evermore for a principal key, as without which the rest of their doctrine could not stand. Yet were they evermore accounted both as universal for their learning, and as catholic for their religion, and as constant in the same, as M. Harding.

But indeed the old holy fathers, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Hierome, St Chrysostom, never heard of this strange doctrine; nor, if they had heard it, would ever have taken it for lock or key of their religion; but would rather have thought him worthy to be locked up as a mad man that would either have taught it, as great numbers have done, or else have doubted of it, as M. Harding doth. Now let us see by whom this doctrine hath been maintained. So, whether it have been holden for catholic or no, it will soon appear.

Yet notwithstanding I must protest beforehand, that the speeches that they have used in this behalf are so blasphemous and so vile that, for the reverence I bear to the glorious body of Christ, I can neither hear them nor utter them without horror.

First of all, Thomas of Aquine saith thus : Quidam ... dixerunt, quod, cum primum sacramentum sumitur a mure vel [a] cane, desinit ibi esse corpus, [et

Thom. Par
iii. de Euchar.
Quæst. 79.
Art. 3.

[ 1565 and H.A. 1564 omit M.]

[? Of particular, H.A, 156+.]

Arelat. 111.

Euch.

cap. x.

Floret. Lib.

sanguis) Christi: sed hoc derogat veritati [hujus sacramentis: “Some have said that, as soon as the sacrament is touched of a mouse or a dog, the body and blood of Christ straightway departeth from it. But this is a derogation to the truth of this sacrament.” By these words M. Harding's judgment is utterly condemned as uttered against the truth and in the derogation of this sacrament.

M. Harding may not well call in question whether this doctor were catholic or no. For Christ said unto him by a vision in his dream: Bene scripsisti de me, Thoma4: “O Thomas, thou hast written full well of me.” And therefore he is called doctor angelicus, “ an angelical doctor,” for that in learning and judgment he so far surmounted all other doctors, and was accounted most catholic.

In the council of Arle it is written thus: Qui non bene custodierit sacrificium, Concil. et mus vel aliquod... animal comederit illud, quadraginta dies pæniteat): “Whoso can.co. keepeth not the sacrifice well and duly, and a mouse or any other beast happen to eat it, let him be put to penance forty days.” Johannes de Burgo saith: Mus... comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi6 : Johan, de

Burg. de Cust. “ The mouse, eating the sacrament, receiveth the body of Christ."

Alexander de Hales saith thus : Quidam dicunt, ubicunque ponantur species, Alex. Par. iv. sire in mundo loco, sive in immundo, sive in centre muris, ibi est corpus Christi, m. 1. Et in hoc non derogatur corpori Christi, nec sacramento: “Some say, wheresoever the forms be laid, whether it be in a fair place, or in a foul, or in the belly of a mouse, there is the very body of Christ. And this is no hinderance neither to the body of Christ nor to the sacrament.”

Again he saith: Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video, quare corpus Domini non simul trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci? : “If a dog or a swine should eat the whole host, being consecrate, I see no cause but our Lord's body should enter into the belly of the dog or of the swine.”

Gerson saith: Brutum sumit corpus Christi per accidens, quia sumit illud in Ger. contr. quo est 8 : “A brute beast receiveth the body of Christ, because it receiveth that iv. thing wherein Christ's body is contained.”

Bonaventura liketh better the contrary doctrine, as more agreeing, as he saith, both with civil honesty, and also with the judgment of common reason : Hæc opinio ... est ... honestior et rationabilior

Peter Lombard, the master of all catholic conclusions, one that taketh upon Quast. 1. e. him to teach all others, when he cometh to this point, he standeth in a mammering, and is not able to teach himself. For thus he saith touching the same: Quid igitur sumit mus, vel quid manducat ? “What is it then that the mouse iv. Sent. Dist. receiveth, or what eateth it?" He answereth: Deus norit 10: “God knoweth : I know it not.

Notwithstanding, his resolution is this: Sane dici potest, quod corpus Christi a brutis animalibus non sumiturll: “It may very well be said, that a brute beast receiveth not the body of Christ.” But this sentence is reversed, and not thought catholic. For the great faculty of Paris hath given this judgment upon the same: Hic magister non tenetur12: “Herein the master is not allowed.”

Therefore, notwithstanding M. Harding's contrary determination, this doctrine hitherto appeareth right good and catholic.

Touching such cases as herein may happen, Antoninus, the archbishop of Florence, writeth thus: Si mus, aut aliud animal, &c.13: “If a mouse or any Ant. de Def.

Miss. iii. Par.

Summ, 3. [* Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. Summ. Theol. Pars IV. Quæst. xi. Memb. ii. Art. 4. p. 407. Theol. Tert. Pars, Quæst. lxxx. Art. 3. Tom. XII. There is the idea here, but not the exact words, as fol. 262. 2; where quod statim cum sacramentum tan- above quoted.] gitur, and quod etiam derogat.]

[ ... brutum non sumit corpus Christi nisi per (* An account of this vision may be found in accidens, scilicet inquantum sumit illud in quo est the life of Aquinas prefixed to his works. Tom. I. corpus Christi.-Floret. Lib. Lugd. 1499. Lib. iv. fol. 17.2.]

fol. 99. 2.) [Ex Arelat. Concil. cap. 6. in Crabb. Concil. [° Bonavent. Op. Mogunt. 1609. In Lib. iv. Col. Agrip. 1551. Tom. I. p. 631. Conf. Corp. Jur. Sentent. Dist. xiii. Art. ii. Quæst. 1. Tom. V. p. 157.) Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. [° Pet. Lomb. Libr. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 94. col. 1964.]

Lib. iv. Dist. xiii. A. fol. 359. 2; where quid ergo.] [ Joan. de Burg. Pup. Ocul. Argent. 1518. Pars [" Id. ibid. ; where a brutis animalibus corpus iv. De Cust. Euch. fol. 27. 2; where the author pro- Christi.] ceeds: non sacramentaliter per modum sacramenti.] [° Id. inter Error. a Paris. condemn. fol. 450.)

[? Alex. Alens. Op. Col. Agrip. 1622. Summ. [18 Si mus aut aliud animal propter negligentem

Bon, in iv.
Sent. Dist. 13.

13.

« 上一頁繼續 »