other worm or beast happen to eat the sacrament through negligence of keeping, let the keeper through whose negligence it happened be enjoined to penance forty days. And, if it be possible, let the mouse be taken and burnt, and let his ashes be buried in or about the altar. But Peter of Palus saith: The mouse's entrails must be drawn, and the portion of the sacrament that there remaineth, if the priest be squeamish to receive it, must reverently be laid up in the tabernacle, until it may naturally be consumed. But the host so found in the mouse's entrails may in no wise be thrown out into the pool, as a certain priest sometime used a fly that he found in his chalice after consecration. But if a man had such a fervent zeal,' saith he, that his stomach would serve him to receive the same without horror, there were no way to it, specially if the man were fasting. So St Hugh of Clunice much commendeth Goderanus, a priest, for receiving the like portions cast up again by a leper. But he said afterward, St Laurence's gridiron was nothing so bad."" Hitherto Antoninus. 1 And, for more likelihood hereof, this is holden as a catholic conclusion of that De Con. Dist. side: [Corpus Christi] potest evomi2: "The very body of Christ may be vomited up again." 2. Si quis. In Gloss. I protest again, as before, the very blasphemy and loathsomeness hereof unto a godly heart is untolerable. Neither would I have used this unpleasant rehearsal, were it not that it behoveth each man to know how deeply the people hath been deceived, and to what villany they have been brought. This doctrine hath been published and maintained in schools, in churches, by the school-doctors, by the canonists, by preachers, by bishops, by general councils, Fortal. Fid. and by him that wrote the very Castle and Fort of Faith3. Yet M. Harding doubteth not to say it is a vile asseveration, and was never counted catholic. Lib. iii. Simile 4. The two hundred and truth. For These be the imps of their transubstantiation. For, like as Ixion, instead of lady Juno, having the company of a cloud, begat Centauros, that were monstrous and ugly forms of half a man and half a horse joined together; even so these men, instead of God's holy mysteries, companying with their own light and cloudy fantasies, have brought forth these strange, ugly, deformed shapes in religion, loathsome to remember, and monstrous to behold. M. HARDING. THE SECOND DIVISION. Concerning the matter of this article, whatsoever a mouse, worm, or beast eateth, the body of Christ, now being impassible and immortal, sustaineth no violence, injury, ne villany. As for that which is gnawn, bitten, or eaten of worm or beast, whether it be the substance of bread, as appeareth to sense, which is denied, (251) because fifty-first un- it ceaseth through virtue of consecration; or the outward form only of the sacrament, the bread re- as many hold opinion, (252) which also only is broken and cheweds of the receiver, maineth still, the accidents by miracle remaining without substance: in such cases, happening contrary to the intent and end the sacrament is ordained and kept for, it ought not to seem unto us incredible, the power of God considered, that God taketh his body from those outward forms, and permitteth either the nature of bread * to return, as before consecration, or the accidents to supply the effects of the proved in the substance of bread; as he commanded the nature of the rod which became a serpent to return to that it was before, when God would have it serve no more to the uses it was by him appointed unto. as it is plain hundred and away untruth, as it is fully tenth article. • The cer tainty of M. Harding's doctrine. : custodiam species sacramenti comederit; ille per ther of mice beasts, &c. speaketh neinor of brute *The grave authority of St Cyprian addeth great weight to the balance for St Cyprian this judgment in weighing this matter, who in his sermon de Lapsis, by the report of certain miracles, sheweth that our Lord's body made itself away from some that, being defiled with the sacrifices of idols, presumed to come to the communion ere they had done their due penance. One (as he telleth there), thinking to have that blessed body which he had received with others in his hand, when he opened the same to put it into his mouth, found that he held ashes. And thereof St Cyprian saith: Documento unius ostensum est, Dominum recedere cum negatur: "By the example of one man it was shewed that our Lord departeth away when he is denied." It is neither wicked nor a thing unworthy the majesty of that holy mystery, to think our Lord's body likewise done away in cases of negligence, villany, and profanation. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY, "for De Offic. O what shifting here is to avoid this miserable inconvenience! Innocentius thinketh it not good to say the mouse eateth Christ's body in the sacrament: but rather he saith, that "Christ, when he seeth the mouse coming, Innoc. 1. getteth himself away, and leaveth the sacrament 8." This doctor's judgment Miss. cap. xi. M. Harding alloweth before others, and thinketh it best to stand with reason. But what then is it that the mouse eateth? Bread it cannot be; that is gone," as they say, "by consecration." It remaineth that the mouse must needs eat the shews and accidents. Howbeit that were a strange kind of feeding. But nothing is strange to M. Harding. Yet shews and accidents cannot nourish. What is it then wherewith the mouse is nourished? M. Harding answereth: Perhaps almighty God by a miracle suffereth the bread to return again to feed the mouse. Or else, if this will not serve, he saith further: Perhaps God worketh another miracle, and by his omnipotent power giveth the very accidents of bread strength to nourish and increase substance, as if it were bread. Thus these men have devised a pretty way to feed mice with miracles. Thomas of Aquine saith that, if a man take overmuch of the consecrate Thom. in wine, notwithstanding the substance of the wine be gone, yet he may be overseen by the accidents, and so may happen to be drunken by a miracle. Here we see M. Harding answereth only by "perhaps," as being not yet well advised what he may say. Whereby it appeareth his doctrine holdeth no certainty. Therefore, whatsoever he say, we may give no great credit to his tale, nor take it for catholic. 1 Cor. xl. St Cyprian, that is here alleged, maketh no manner mention neither of forms nor of accidents; nor teacheth us that the mouse can eat Christ's body; nor that Christ conveyeth himself away, and leaveth the sacrament; nor that the substance of bread returneth again; nor that the accidents have power to nourish; nor any other like fantasy. Only he saith: God gave that wicked man by Cypr. Serm. that miracle to understand, that for his infidelity and idolatry his grace was 5. de Lapsis. so departed from his heart as the sacrament was departed from his hand 10. Therefore this place maketh utterly nothing to M. Harding's purpose. Notwithstanding, he thought it good so in this article to use the name of St Cyprian, as in the article before he used the name of St Cyril, lest he should be thought to pass over any article without a doctor. The best that may be gathered of St Cyprian's words is this, that the wicked receiveth not the body of Christ. Which thing, as it is most true, so it utterly overthroweth the whole substance of M. Harding's doctrine. Now, good christian reader, that thou mayest see how aptly M. Harding's doctors agree together, notwithstanding so many of them tell us, and hold it. for most certain, that a mouse may eat the very body of Christ, and receive [ Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. De Laps. p. 133.] [ Si vero quæratur, quid a mure comeditur.... Respondetur, quod sicut miraculose substantia panis convertitur in corpus dominicum cum incipit esse sub sacramento: sic quodammodo miraculose revertitur, cum ipsum ibi desinit esse, &c.-Innoc. Papæ III. Op. Col. 1575. Myst. Miss. Lib. IV. cap. xi. Tom. I. p. 380.] [ Et hac ratione species illæ panis et vini pos- De Consecr. Dist. 2. In Gloss. Hugo de Sa cram. Lib. i. Par. 8. cap. xiii. Bonavent. in iv. Sentent. Dist. 13. Quæst. 2. Durand. Lib. iv. August. Con cap. x. August. in whole Christ, God and man, into his belly; yet others of them contrariwise tell us, and hold it likewise for most certain, that a faithful christian man, be he never so godly, yet cannot receive the body of Christ into his belly. For thus they write: Certum est quod, quam cito species teruntur dentibus, tam cito in cœlum rapitur corpus Christi1: "It is certain that, as soon as the forms of the bread be touched with the teeth, straightway the body of Christ (is not received into the belly, but) is caught up into heaven." And he saith not "perhaps," as M. Harding doth, but, certum est, "it is certain and out of question," and therefore catholic. And Hugo, a great school-doctor, such a one as M. Harding may not well deny, saith thus: Quando in manibus sacramentum...tenes, corporaliter tecum est [Christus]: quando ore suscipis, corporaliter tecum est.... Postquam autem corporalis sensus in percipiendo deficit, deinceps corporalis præsentia quærenda non est2: "While thou holdest the sacrament in thy hand, Christ is bodily with thee: while thou receivest the sacrament with thy mouth, Christ is bodily with thee. But, after that (the sacrament is passed further, and) thy bodily sense beginneth to fail, thou mayest no longer look for bodily presence." Thus they grant that a mouse may receive the body of Christ into his belly; and yet they deny the same unto a man. Such is the certainty and constancy of this doctrine. But, to conclude, and to give some certain resolution in this uncertain and doubtful doctrine, it behoveth us to understand that, as St Augustine saith, there is great difference between Christ's body and the sacrament. For the sacrament is corruptible: Christ's body is glorious, and void of all corruption. The sacrament is in the earth: Christ's body is in heaven. The sacrament is received by our bodily mouth: Christ's body is received only by faith, which is the mouth of our soul. And whoso understandeth not this difference understandeth not the meaning of any sacrament. Now, to apply the same to this purpose: The mouse or other worm may receive the substance of the bread, which is the outward corruptible element of the sacrament; but the very body of Christ itself, which is in heaven, cannot be received but by faith only, and none otherwise. St Augustine speaketh thus in the person of Christ: [Ego] sum cibus granfess. Lib. vii. dium: cresce, et manducabis me3: "I am the food of great ones: grow, and thou shalt eat me." Again he saith: Hoc est... manducare illam escam, et Johan Trac- illum potum bibere, in Christo manere, et Christum manentem in se habere1: “This is the eating of that food and the drinking of that drink, for a man to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in him." tat. 26. Chrysost. ex variis locis in 9. Hilar. de Trin. Lib. viii. Chrysostom saith: Magnus iste panis... replet mentem,... non ventrem. Iste Matt Hom panis et noster est, et angelorum: "This great loaf (meaning thereby the body of Christ, that is in heaven) filleth the mind, and not the belly. This is our bread, and the bread of angels." As the angels receive it, so we receive it. And, to conclude, so saith St Hilary: "The bread that came down from heaven is not received but of him that hath our Lord, and is the member of Christ 6." By the old learned fathers' undoubted judgment this is the only eating of the flesh of Christ; wherein mice, and brute beasts, and wicked men, that are worse than brute beasts, have no portion. And if these holy fathers were now alive, doubtless they would say to M. Harding and to his fellows: 0 curvi in terris animi, et cœlestium inanes! "O you that lie grovelling on the ground, and have no sense of things above!" [ Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in can. 23. col. 1922; where species quam cito dentibus teruntur.] [2 Hug. de Sanct. Vict. Op. Mogunt. 1617. De Bonavent. Op. Mogunt. 1609. In Lib. IV. Sentent. [3 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Confess. Lib. VII. cap. x. 16. Tom. I. col. 139; where cibus sum.] [ Id. in Johan. Evang. cap. vi. Tractat. xxvi, 18. Tom. III. Pars 11. col. 501; where bibere potum, and illum manentem.] [5 Chrysost. Op. Lat. Basil. 1547. Ex Matt. cap. v. De Orat. Domin. Hom. Tom. V. col. 716.] [The exact words have not been found; but for a nearly similar idea see Hilar. Op. Par. 1693. De Trin. Lib. viii. 42. cols. 972, 3. Conf. Comm. in Matt. cap. ix. 3. col. 648.] OF INDIVIDUUM VAGUM. THE TWENTY-FOURTH ARTICLE. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. OR that, when Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum, this word hoc pointed not the bread, but individuum vagum, as some of them say. [WHAT THIS PRONOUN HOC POINTETH IN THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION.— ARTICLE XXIV. H. A. 1564.] 2 Thess. ii. M. HARDING. Whatsoever hoc pointeth in this saying of Christ after your judgment, M. Jewel, right meaning and plain christian people (who through God's grace have received the love of truth, and not the efficacy of illusion to believe lying) believe verily that in this sacrament, after consecration, is the very body of Christ, and that upon credit of his own words, Hoc est corpus meum. They that appoint themselves to follow your Generian doctrine in this point, deceived by that ye teach them, hoc to point the bread, and by sundry other untruths, instead of the very body of Christ in the sacrament rightly ministered verily present, shall receive nothing at your communion but a bare piece of bread, not worth a point. As for your "some say," who will have hoc to point individuum vagum, first, learn you well what they mean, and if their meaning be naught, whosoever they be, handle them as you list; therewith shall we be offended never a deal. How this word hoc in that saying of Christ is to be taken, and what it pointeth, we know, who have more learnedly, •M. Hardmore certainly, and more truly treated thereof than Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, ing's good Cranmer, Peter Martyr, or any their offspring. The benefit of the Genevian communion. * THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. In this article M. Harding only uttereth some part of his choler against them whom it pleaseth him to call Genevians; and vaunteth much of his own learning, as learned men seldom use to do, with reproach and disdain of others; and in the end, touching the matter, saith utterly nothing. Yet is there not lightly any doubt that amazeth and troubleth the best learned of his side so much as this. For, their fantasy of transubstantiation presupposed to stand in force, if they say that Christ by this pronoun hoc meant the bread that he held in his hand; then must it needs follow, that the very substance of that bread was the very body of Christ. For by this position that must needs be the purport and meaning of these words. If they say, Christ by the same pronoun meant the accidents and shews of the bread; then must it follow that the same accidents and shews of bread were the body of Christ. But so should an accident be a substance: which error were much worse and far more unsensible than the former. opinion of himself. If they say, this pronoun hoc signified the body of Christ itself; then the meaning of these words, "This is my body," must needs be this: "My body is my Holcot in body." "But this," saith Holcot, "were vainly spoken, and to no purpose"." And Quast. 3. [7 1611, omits if.] [8 1565, 1609, omit of.] [ Per illud pronomen aut igitur illud est corpus Christi vel panis. Si corpus Christi: ergo corpus Christi est ibi ante finem prolationis formæ. et sic iv. Sentent. The Dis- by this exposition "Christ's body should be there before the words of consecrasension of tion were pronounced," and so there should be no virtue or force in consecration; Doctors. or rather there should be consecration before consecration, and so consecration without consecration. Gerson contra Floret. Lib. iv. Occam in iv. Pet. Alliacen. in iv. Sen Upon these few words they have built up their whole religion. This is the foundation of all together. Therefore M. Harding should not so lightly and so disdainfully have passed it over without answer. Otherwise, this change being so great as it is supposed, we shall not know neither what thing is changed, nor whereof Christ's body is made present. Neither is there any just cause wherefore M. Harding should be thus angry with the Genevians in this behalf. For he knoweth right well that this new fantasy of individuum vagum is no part of their doctrine. But, briefly to touch how pitifully the learned of M. Harding's side have entangled themselves in this case, first of all Gerson saith thus: Dicendum est, quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis1: "We must say that this pronoun hoc signifieth the substance of the bread." By this doctor the substance of bread is Christ's body. Occam saith: Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi2: "This pronoun hoc hath relation to the body of Christ." By this doctor the body of Christ is the body of Christ. Yet Petrus Alliacensis saith: Hoc demonstrat corpus Christi: alioqui falsa est tent. Dist. 13. propositio3: "Hoc pointeth the body of Christ; otherwise Christ's saying is not Quæst. 5. Thom. in iv. true." Thomas of Aquine goeth learnedly to work, and expoundeth it thus: Hoc, id Dist. 8. Art. est, hoc contentum sub istis speciebus, est corpus meum1: “This, that is to say, this thing contained under these forms, is my body." 16. But all these expositions seem to import some inconvenience. For hereby it may be gathered, that the bread is transubstantiate, and, as they imagine, Christ's body made present before the words of consecration. Therefore Johannes de Burgo thought it good to help the matter with a disjunctive, in this sort: Hoc sub hac specie præsens, vel de propinquo futurum, est Forma Verb. corpus meum: "This thing, that either is present already under these forms, or anon will be present, is my body." Johan. De Burg. de requisita, &c. cap. iv. By all these doctors' judgments the meaning of Christ's words is none other Holect in iv. but this: "My body is or shall be my body." "Which exposition," as Holcot saith, "is childish, vain, fantastical, and to no purpose"." Sentent. Quæst. 3. Holcot eodem loco. And therefore Holcot himself saith: Hoc significat quiddam utrique termino commune; et termino, a quo, et termino, ad quem8: "This pronoun hoc signifieth a certain thing that is indifferently common, as well to the bread as to Christ's body." But what thing that indifferent thing should be, it were hard to know. Doctor Durand, seeing all these inconveniences and difficulties, and not Durand. Lib. knowing how to get out, in the end concludeth thus: Super hoc dicunt quidam, quod per pronomen hoc nihil significatur; sed illud materialiter ponitur9: “Here iv. [Floret. Lib. Lugd. 1499. Lib. iv. fol. 95.] [2 Nothing to the point has been found in Occam on the Sentences. But see Quodlib. G. Hokam. Par. 1487. Quodl. ii. Quæst. 19, fol. g. i.; where the author says: Ad argumentum principale dico, quod proferens sacerdos talem propositionem semper tam in principio quam in fine demonstrat corpus Christi.] [ P. de Alliaco discusses the questions what Christ meant and what the priest now means by the word referred to, and cites various doctors. Quoting Occam, he says: Uno modo potest dici... quod sacerdos significative recipiens dicta verba debet demonstrare per ly hoc corpus Christi, &c.; again: Alio modo dici potest quod non est necesse quod sacerdos rite conficiens aliquid demonstret per ly hoc, &c.— Pet. de Alliac. sup. Sentent. Par. Quart. Lib. Quæst. Quint. Art. Prim. fol. 250. 2.] [... aut facit demonstrationem ad intellectum, aut ad sensum. Si ad intellectum, ut sit sensus, Hoc, id est, significatum per hoc, est corpus meum, tunc, &c. Si autem facit demonstrationem ad sensum. ergo demonstrabit substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus sensibilibus: sed, &c.-Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. In Quart. Sentent. Dist. viii. Quæst. ii. Art. 1. Tom. VII. fol. 42.] [5 Christ, 1609, 1611.] [ Joan. de Burg. Pup. Ocul. Argent. 1518. Pars IV. cap. iv. fol. 19.] [ See before, page 787, note 9.] [8 Sed quæritur quid demonstretur per hoc pronomen hoc. Dico quod illud quod manet sub utroque termino transmutationis: &c.-Rob. Holkot sup. Quat. Libr. Sentent. Lugd. 1497. Lib. IV. Quæst. iii. fol. m. vii.] [ Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. IV. cap. xli. 44. fol. 167.2; where per hoc pronomen nihil demonstratur.] |