ePub 版

Offic. Miss.
Par. iii. cap.

cap. xiv.!

upon some say that this pronoun hoc signifieth nothing at all, but is put materially and absolutely, without any manner signification."

But hereof groweth another doubt greater than any of all the rest. For, if this word hoc signify nothing at all, what force then can it have to work consecration ?

Innocentius, weighing these things indifferently all together, is driven to say, that “ Christ consecrated the sacrament, not by these words, Hoc est corpus meum, Inncc. 1: De but by his blessing that went before 10.

Likewise is John Duns driven to say touching the same: Illa propositio, Hoc Scot. in it! est corpus meum, non est consecrativa, nec ut vera, nec ut falsa : sed ut est pro- Seiten positio neutrall: “ This sentence, Hoc est corpus meum, is not the sentence of Quæst. 3. consecration, neither as it is true nor as it is false; but only as it is a sentence neuter between both, that is to say, neither true nor false.”

All this notwithstanding, D. Stephen Gardiner, not greatly regarding the authority of any of these doctors, in his first book of the sacrament, intituled “The Devil's Sophistry,” writeth thus : “ Christ spake plainly, 'This is my body,' The Devil's making demonstration of the bread 12.” Which last exposition being true, if this top124 pronoun hoc signified the material bread that Christ held in his hand, then, by M. Harding's doctrine, that very material bread was indeed and verily the body of Christ.

But, if the same pronoun hoc signified not that same material bread that Christ held in his hand, then was not that same material bread changed into the substance of Christ's body.

Thus the best learned of that side are utterly amazed at this matter, and run each man his own way, and know not what may please them best.

Yet M. Harding thinketh it sufficient thus to conclude with a courage: that word hoc is to be taken, and what it pointeth, we know, who have more learnedly, more certainly, and more truly treated hereof than Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, Peter Martyr, or any their offspring." If M. Harding and his fellows know so much as here he seemeth to take upon him, he hath the greater cause to give God thanks. Whatsoever he have, he hath received it. God give him grace to use it well !

He would seem not to know who they be that would force us to this fancy of his individuum vagum. And therefore he saith : “ If their meaning be naught, handle them as ye st.” Howbeit, he cannot be so ignorant herein as he would seem to be. For, although perhaps he be not much acquainted with the doctrine, yet he cannot choose but know the doctor: him I mean of whom he hath D. Stephen borrowed good store of matter, sometimes a whole leaf and more together, towards the building of his book.

He, notwithstanding he were once persuaded that Christ by this pronoun hoc made demonstration of the bread, yet afterward thought all that not worth a point, but utterly changed his whole mind, and thought it better to say that Christ by the same pronoun hoc pointed not the bread that he held in his hand, but only individuum vagum.

And that, for the better understanding of his Mar. Anton, reader, he calleth individuum in genere, individuum entis, unum substantice, unum entis, individuum insignitum, individuum individui13. This fancy he so warranteth and forceth every where, as if Christ's words could bear none other exposition.

Thus therefore he imagineth Christ to say: This thing that ye see me hold in my hand is not two things: it is only one certain thing. But what one certain thing it is, I cannot tell; but sure I am, bread it is not.

« How



[1° Sane dici potest, quod Christus virtute divina confecit; et postea formam expressit, sub qua posteri benedicerent.-Innoc. Papæ III. Col. 1575. Myst. Miss. Lib. iv. cap. vi. Tom. I. p. 377. Ab hujus ergo quæstionis laqueo facile se absolvit, qui dicit, quod Christus tunc confecit quum benedixit.Ibid. cap. xvii. p. 384.)

[" Et si quæras tunc, qualis, aut ut vera, aut ut falsa est propositio conversiva? Dico, quod neque

sic, neque sic: sed tantum ut est propositio neutra. -J. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. Lib. iv. Sentent. Dist. viii. Quest. ii. Tom. VIII. p. 440.]

[1 ...it cannot be maintained of Christ's words, who spake &c.-A Detection of the Deuils Sophistrie, Lond. 1546. fol. 24. 2.]

[13 Confut. Cavill. in Ven. Euch. Sacr. Verit. Par. 1552. Ad Object. xiii. xiv. xv, foll. 9, &c. 19% 21.]

tra Marcion. Lib. iv.

Hieron. in Esai. Lib. ii. cap. v.

Thus are they driven to wander in vanities, and to seek up strange and monstrous forms of speech, such as the ancient catholic doctors never knew, lest

they should seem plainly and simply to say, as the learned father Tertullian Tertull. con- saith: Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, figura corporis meil: “This is my body,

that is to say, this is a figure of my body;" or, as it is written in their own Distcon toc decrees: Vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significat (corpus Christi]?: “It is called est. In Gloss the body of Christ, that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ.”

St Hierome saith : Tam diu ... quærunt hæretici nova veteribus [adjungere, et eadem recentioribus immutare, donec [eos] et sensus humanus et verba deficiant 3 : “ The manner of heretics is so long to mingle and blend new things with the old, and still to alter new for new, until both their wits and their speech begin to fail them.”

Here note, good reader, that in this whole article M. Harding hath alleged no manner doctor, nor old nor new. The reason, thereof is this, for that of the old doctors he had none to allege, and of his new doctors he was ashamed.

[' Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Adv. Marcion. Lib. iv. 40. p. 571. See before, page 447, note 13.]

[ ? Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist, ii. Gloss, in

can. 48. col. 1937. See before, page 503, note 13.]

[ Hieron. Op. Par. 1693-1706. Comm. Lib. 11. in Isai. Proph. cap. v. Tom. III. col. 49; where et sermo deficiat.]





Or that the accidents, or forms, or shews of bread and wine be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not rather that4 bread and wine itself.



[blocks in formation]

untruth, ever presumed,

In Hornil.

De Cons. Dist. 2, cap. Omnia.

Forasmuch as, by the almighty power of God's word pronounced by the priest in the consecration of this sacrament, the body and blood of Christ are made (253) The two really present, the substance of bread (253) turned into the substance of the body, fifty third and the substance of wine into the substance of the blood; the bread (which is con

sumed away by the fire of the divine substanceó, as Chrysostom and weaver

saith, and now is become the bread which was formed by the hand of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin, and decocted with the fire of the

passion in the altar of the crosse, as St Ambrose saith) cannot be

the sacrament of the body, nor the wine of the blood. Neither can it be said that the bread and wine? which were before are the sacraments, for that the bread is become the body, and the wine the blood, and so now they are not; and if they be not, then neither be they sacraments. Therefore, that the outward forms of bread and wine which remain be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not the very bread and wine itself, it followeth by sequel of reason, or consequent of understanding, deduced out of the first truth, which of St Basil, Epist. 65. [In in an epistle ad Sozopolitanos, speaking against certain that went Latino codices. ]

about to raise up again the old heresy of Valentinus, is called év Ölavolais åkóhovdov. Of which sequel of reason in the matter of the sacrament many conclusions

may be deduced in case of want of express scriptures. Which way of reasoning Basil used against heretics, as also sundry other fathers, where manifest scripture might not be alleged.


M. Harding presumeth that his new fantasy of transubstantiation must needs stand for good. And therefore, imagining that the bread and wine are wholly removed, and cannot be the sacraments, he thinketh he may well conclude that the forms and shews that are left behind must needs be the sacraments. But this error is soon reproved by the consent of all the old catholic fathers of the church. St Augustine saith : Quod videtis, panis est 10: “The thing that ye see August, ad (speaking of the sacrament) is (not a form or an accident, but) very bread.”


(* The, H. A. 1564.]

[ 'Αλλ' ώσπερ κηρός πυρί προσομιλήσας ού. δεν απουσιάζει, ουδέν περισσεύει' ούτω και ωδε νόμιζε συναναλίσκεσθαι τα μυστήρια τη του σώMatos ovoia. - Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. De Penit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. col. 350. Conf. Op. Lat. Basil, 1547. De Euch. in Encan. Admon. Sum. Tom. III. col. 919.]

[ ... illum utique intelligo panem, qui manu sancti Spiritus formatus est in utero virginis, et igne passionis decoctus in ara crucis.--Ambros. in Corp.

Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De
Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 74. col. 1954.]

[? And the wine, H. A. 1564.]

[ Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. Ad Sozop. Epist. cclxi. (al. Ixv). 3. Tom. III. p. 402.]

[° These words are not in H. A. 1564. They appear in H. A. 1565.]

[10 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Serm. cclxxii. ad Infant. Tom, V. col. 1103. See before, page 776, note 11.]


Dial. 1 et 2.

De LL. et Senatuscon. et Lon. Con. Contra.

Epist. ad



De Consecr.

Chrysost. ad St Chrysostom!, Theodoretus?, Gelasius, and other learned fathers confess by Gelas. contra manifest and express words, that “there remaineth still in the sacrament the

very nature and substance of bread and wine.” Therefore this doctrine is built upon a false ground, and cannot stand.

But Chrysostom saith: “The bread is consumed by the force of the divine presence.” And St Ambrose, saith M. Harding, reporteth the same. It is great frowardness, whatsoever any one or other of the fathers happen to utter in vehemency and heat of talk, to dissemble the manner of their speech, and to draw and force the same violently to the rigour of the letter. Paulus saith: In fraudem [legis facit],...qui, salvis verbis legis, sententiam ejus circumrenit*: “He doth wrong to the law, that, following only the bare words, defraudeth the

meaning of the law.” Cypr. Lib. ii.

St Cyprian saith : Passio Christi est sacrificium quod offerimus): "The saEpist. 3.

crifice that we offer is the passion of Christ.” Chrysost. in Chrysostom saith: Baptisma Christi sanguis ejus este: “The baptism of Hebr. Hom. Christ is Christ's blood.” Chrysost. in And again he saith : In mysteriis sanguis ex Christi latere hauritur : " In the

time of the holy communion the blood of Christ is drawn out of his side.”

St Gregory saith: {Christus] iterum in hoc mysterio moriturS: “In this Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis mystery (of the holy communion) Christ is put to death again."

I trow, M. Harding will not so straitly force us to believe, only upon the sight of these bare words, either that the holy communion is Christ's passion, or that the water of baptism is Christ's blood, or that Christ is slain and put to death in the time of the holy mysteries, or that Christ's blood at that time is drawn and poured from his side ; and that without help of figure, verily, really, and indeed.

By such manner of amplification and kind of speech St Chrysostom saith, “ The bread is consumed;" not for that there remaineth in the sacrament no bread at all, but for that, in comparison of the death of Christ, that there is laid forth and represented before us, the material bread seemeth nothing. For

otherwise Chrysostom most plainly confesseth that the nature of bread remaineth Chrysost. ad still. These be his words: In sacramento manet natura panis : “ In the sacrament

there remaineth still the nature of bread.”

And as he saith, “The bread is consumed;" even so in the same place he seemeth to say, the priest is consumed. His words be these: Ne putes, te accipere divinum corpus ab homine 10 : “ Think not that thou receivest the divine body of a man.”

And to like purpose he speaketh of the sacrament of baptism: Non baptizaris a sacerdote: Deus ipse tenet caput tuumll: “ Thou art not baptized of the priest : it is God himself that holdeth thy head."

Thus the holy fathers, entreating of the sacraments, use to advance 12 minds from the sensible and corruptible elements to the cogitation of the

heavenly things that thereby are represented. And therefore Chrysostom saith : Chrysost. in Mysteria omnia interioribus oculis videnda sunt 13 : “We must behold all mysteries

with our inner eyes;” which inner eyes doubtless have no regard to any corruptible and outward thing.

Hereby the feebleness of M. Harding's sequel may soon appear. Chrysost. in True it is that he further saith : “ In case of want of the scriptures, we may


In Encan.

Chrysost. in Mati. Hom. 51.


1 Cor. cap. ii.

Matt. Hom. 83.

['Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. Fpist. ad Cæsar. Monach. Tom. III. p. 744. See before, page 545.]

[° Theodor. Op. Lut. Par. 1642-84. Tom. IV. Immut. Dial. i. Inconf. Dial. ii. pp. 18, 85.]

[Gelas. Episc. Rom. adv. Eutych. et Nestor, in Mag. Biblioth. Vet. Patr. Col. Agrip. 1618-22. Tom. V. Pars III. p. 671. See before, page 11, note 11.]

[^ Paul, in Corp. Jur. Civil. Amst. 1663. Digest. Lib. 1. Tit. iii. 29. Tom. I. p. 78.]

[' Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. Ixiii. p. 156; where passio est enim Domini.]

[ Chrysost. Op. In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. ix. Hom.

xvi. Tom. XII. p. 159. See before, page 518, note 4.]

[? Id. De Pænit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. col. 349.]

[° Gregor. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 73. col. 1953.]

[° Chrysost. Op. Epist. ad Cæsar, Monach. Tom. III. p. 744. See before, page 545.]

[10 Id. De Pænit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. p. 350.]
[Id. in Matt, Hom. 1. Tom. VII. p. 517.]
pia Avance, 1565.]
(13 Id. in 1. Cor. cap. ii. Hom. vii. Tom. X. p. 51.
Id. in Matt. Hom. Ixxii. Tom. VII. p. 787.)


sometime guide ourselves by discourse and drift of reason 14.” Notwithstanding St Augustine saith : Hæc consuetudo periculosa est 15 : “ The custom hereof is very August, de dangerous.” But in this case M. Harding wanteth neither the scriptures nor Lib. ii. cap. the authority of ancient doctors.

It is plain by the manifest words of St Paul, of St Chrysostom, of St Augustine, of Theodoretus, of Gelasius, and of other more holy fathers, both Greeks and Latins, that in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, the very nature and substance of the bread remaineth still. It were much for M. Harding to forsake all these, and to trust only to a bare shift of simple reason.

[blocks in formation]


De Cons. Dist. 2,

seinblance. The two hundred and

untruth. For

by these words meant


And whereas there must be a likeness between the sacrament and the thing of

the sacrament (for, if the sacraments had not a likeness of things . 21. ad Bonifacium whereof they are sacraments, properly and rightly they should not

be called sacraments 16 as the sacrament of baptism, which is the outrard washing of the flesh, hath a likeness of the inward washing of the soul), and no likeness here appeareth to be between the forms that remain and the thing of the sacrament, (for they consist not, the one of many corns, the other of grapes, for thereof cometh not accident, but substance ;) hereto may be said, it is enough that these sacraments bear the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, forasmuch

as the one representeth the likeness of bread, the other the likeness of a strange recap. Hoc est quoi wine, which St Augustine calleth (254) visibilem speciem elemendicimus. torum 17, “the visible form of the elements.


St Augustine THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. What meaneth M. Harding, thus to encumber himself with these vain and then very submiserable follies? St Augustine saith : “A sacrament must have a resemblance breads or likeness of that thing whereof it is a sacrament. For without this re- Epist. 23, ad semblance or likeness,” he saith, “a sacrament is no sacrament 18.”

Therefore M. Harding cometh in with his fantasy, and telleth us that his forms and accidents are the resemblance and likeness of the body of Christ. But, alas ! wherein standeth this comparison of resemblance and likeness? Or wherein are M. Harding's accidents and Christ's body like together? Certainly M. Harding himself, notwithstanding he can say many things, yet he cannot truly say that Christ's body is either round, or plain, or white, or thin, or any way like unto his accidents.

Yet must there be a certain likeness in effects between the sacrament and the thing itself whereof it is a sacrament. Of which effects the one is sensible, and wrought outwardly to the body; the other is spiritual, and wrought inwardly in the mind. As, for example, in the sacrament of circumcision the outward visible cutting in the flesh was a resemblance of the inward spiritual cutting of the heart. In the sacrament of baptism the outward washing of the body is a resemblance of the inward spiritual washing of the soul.

Likewise in the sacrament of the holy communion, as the bread outwardly feedeth our bodies, so doth Christ's body inwardly and spiritually feed our souls. Thus is feeding an effect common unto them both. And therein standeth the resemblance and likeness of the sacrament. Therefore Rabanus Maurus saith : Quia panis corporis cor confirmat, ideo ille congruenter corpus Christi nominatur ; Raban. Maur. et, quia rinum sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo illud refertur ad sanguinem 19 : xXXI. “Because the bread confirmeth the heart of our body, therefore is the same

["4 See before, p. 791.]

[15 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. lll. cap. xxviii. 39. Tom. III. Pars I. col. 56.]

[16 Id. Ad Bonifac. Epist. xcviii. 9. Tom. II. col. 267. See before, page 503, note 11.)

["Id. in Lib. Sentent. Prosp. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 48. col. 1936; where visibili

(JEWEL, 11.]

i elementorum specie.]

[18 See above, note 16.]

["? Ergo quia panis corporis cor firmat, idco ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur. Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.-Raban. Maur. Op. Col. Agrip. 1626-7. De Inst. Cler. Lib. 1. cap. xxxi. Tom. VI. p. 12.]


« 上一頁繼續 »