ePub 版

That is here alleged of Wickliff, and of his offspring, as it sheweth much choler, so it maketh small proof. We know that God is omnipotent, and able not only to sustain accidents, but also to restore the dead from the grave, yea, although he be putrefied within himself, and fight against the Spirit of God. But Tertullian saith : Non... quia omnia potest facere, ideo ... credendum est, Tertull. illum fecisse :... sed, an fecerit, requirendum: “We may not believe that God contr. Prax. hath done all things, because he can do them ; but rather we must see whether he have done them or no.” For arguments taken of God's omnipotent power were a ready buckler in old times to serve Praxeas, and Eutyches, and other like heretics.

[blocks in formation]






Or that the priest then divided the sacrament in three parts, and afterward received all himself alone.



divinity should be

TIIE FIRST DIVISION. Of the priest's receiving the sacrament himself alone, enough hath been said before. This term allhere smatcheth of spite. For if any devout person require to be partaker with the priest, being worthily disposed and examined, he is not turned off, but with all gentleness admitted. And in this case the priest is not to be charged

with receiving all alone. Albeit, respect had to the thing received, how many This mystical soever receive, it is all of all and all of every one received. Concerning the breaking

of the sacrament, and the dividing of it in three parts: first, it is broken by the some ancient priest, that we may know our Lord in fractione panis, “ in the breaking Luke xxiv.

of the bread," as the two disciples acknowledged him, to whom Jesus appeared in the day of his resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus: and also that thereby the passion of Christ may be represented to our remembrance, at which his precious body was for our sins broken, rent, and torn on the cross. And this manner was used at

the sacrifice in the apostles' time, as it is witnessed by Dionysius, St Paul's scholar. The hundred Opertum panem pontifex aperit, (183) in frusta? concidens, &c.3: (Ecclesiast. Hierand eighty

The bishop,saith he,openeth the covered bread, dividing it in pieces, H. A. 1564.] standing in &c.”


third untruth,

untrue translation,


Sent. iv.
Dist. 12.

I marvel M. Harding would so slenderly pass this matter over, for that it is thought to make much both against his transubstantiation, and also against his private mass, which are both keys and locks of his whole religion. For first of all, the breaking itself seemeth to argue that there is very bread there remaining to be broken. And albeit, as it is reported by Petrus Lombardus, some held that there is in the sacrament a very real breaking, notwithstanding there be nothing there to be broken; some, that the body of Christ itself is there broken, and that verily and indeed, without any help or shift of figure; and some, that there is nothing broken, but only the shews and accidents; and some others, that there is no manner breaking there at all, notwithstanding unto our eyes and

senses there appear a breaking+: yet the holy evangelists witness plainly, that Matt. xxvi. “Christ took bread, and blessed it, and brake it;" and St Paul saith : (Not the

Luke xxii.
Mark xiv.

[ Himself all, H. A. 1564.]
[Frustra, 1611.)

[ Dionys. Areop. Op. Antv. 1634. De Eccles.
Hierarch. cap. iii. 3. Tom. I. p. 299.]

[* Ideo quibusdam placet, quod non sit ibi fractio, sicut videtur: sed dicitur frangi, quia videtur frangi. ... Alii vero dicunt, quod sicut ibi species panis est, et non est ibi res cujus vel in qua sit illa species : ita ibi fractio, quæ non fit in aliqua re, quia nihil ibi frangitur: quod mirabiliter Dei potentia fieri dicunt, ut ibi sit fractio, ubi nihil frangitur. Alii tradunt corpus Christi essentialiter frangi et dividi,

et tamen integrum et incorruptibile existere... Sed quia corpus Christi incorruptibile est, sane dici potest fractio illa et partitio non in substantia corporis, sed in forma panis sacramentaliter fieri, ut vera fractio et partitio sit ibi, quæ fit non in substantia corporis, sed in sacramento, id est, specie. Ne autem mireris vel insultes, si accidentia videantur frangi, cum ibi sint sine subjecto: licet quidam asserant ea fundari in aere. Est ibi vera fractio et partitio, quæ fit in pane, id est, in forma panis.Pet. Lomb. Lib. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. Lib. iv. Dist. xii. fol. 356.]

Jóhan. Lib. iv. cap. xiv.

Lib. ill.

Lib. iv.

accidents of bread, but) “the bread that we break, is the participation of Christ's 1 Cor. x. body.” And in the primitive church the very supper of Christ was commonly Acts Xx. called “the breaking (not of accidents, but) of bread.” And Cyrillus calleth the broken portions of the sacrament fragmenta panis, “fragments" or " pieces of Cyril, in bread.”

Further, by this same ceremony Gerardus Lorichius, one of M. Harding's doctors, proveth that every mass ought to be common, and none private. For thus he writeth : Dividitur ... hostia, ut non solum ipse sacerdos missæ officium faciens, Ger. Lorich: sed et ministri quoque, imo omnis populus astans, participete: “ The host is broken, prorogand. that not only the priest that ministereth the mass, but also the deacons, yea, and all the people standing by, may communicate." Likewise saith Durandus : In primi- Durand. tira, &c.7: “In the primitive church the priest received one portion, and the deacons another; and the third was ministered to all the people that was present.” And therefore Dionysius saith, as M. Harding hath alleged him: Pontifex opertum Dionys. panem aperit, et in frustas concidit': “ The bishop uncovereth the bread that stood Ilierarch. covered, and cutteth it in pieces." Here note also by the way, Dionysius saith cap. iii. not, The bishop cutteth the shews or accidents, but “the bread” in pieces. I grant this tradition was used in the apostles' time; but it is utterly broken and abolished in the church of Rome at this time; and therefore it standeth M. Harding in small stead, unless it be to shew the world how boldly he and his church have broken the traditions and orders of the primitive church of God. Neither is there any manner mention in Dionysius, either of the breaking in three parts, or of any these mystical significations. Again, the words of Dionysius be otherwise than M. Harding reporteth them. For he saith not, In frustas concidens, “Dividing it in pieces” (which perhaps M. Harding would have us to understand of three), but, In multa concidens, “ Cutting it in many pieces.” And to that use eis molla served a knife, which, as it appeareth by Chrysostom's liturgy or communion, was called sacra lancea 10. For in such sort the bread was cut in pieces, not that one Lit. Chryman might receive the whole, but that it might suffice the congregation. And therefore it is decreed in an epistle that beareth the name of Clement : “Let so Clement. many hosts or portions be provided as may be sufficient for all the people 11.”

This, I say, was the cause of this ceremony; and not, as M. Harding vainly guesseth, "to know our Lord in the breaking of bread."



Epist. ii.

[blocks in formation]

(The diriling of The act amant in re

parts, tradition of the ajusties. 1361.]

Now touching the dividing of the sacrament in three parts, it may The mystery a appear to be a tradition of the apostles, or otherwise a custom very of accidents. H. A. ancient, forasmuch as Sergius the bishop of Rome, who lived within four

score years of the six hundred years after Christ that M. Jewel referreth us unto, wrote of the mystery of that breaking or dividing the outward form of bread, and declared the signification of the same.

It is no small argument of the antiquity of this observation, that St Basil, as the fable of Amphilochius writeth of him, divided the sacrament in three parts at his mass, as is chius. De Cons. Dist. 2. above rehearsed 12,

And, where as Sergius saith that the portion of the cea. Triforme. host which is put into the chalice betokeneth the body of Christ that is now risen again, and the portion which is received and eaten sheweth his body yet walking on the earth, and that other portion remaining on the altar signifieth his body in the sepulchre 13 ; what, I pray you, is there herein that any man should be

[ Cyril. Alex, Op. Lut. 16:38. In Joan. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. ii. Tom. IV. p. 360. See before, page 500, note 6.]

[ Ger. Lorich. De Miss. Pub. Prorogand. 1536. Lib. II. cap. iii. p. 283.]

[? The words of this passage have not been found. But see Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1365. Lib. iv. capp. liii. 3. Ivi. 1. foll. 199. 2, 203. 2; where the practice of the primitive church is deketibed.) 1 Frustra, 1609, 1611.)

(JEWEL, 11.)

[° Dionys. Areop. Op. De Eccles. Hierarch. cap. iii. 3. Tom. I. p. 299.]

[10 Chrysost. Lit. in Lit. Sanct. Patr. Par. 1560. p. 72.]

["Clement. Epist. ii. in Crabb. Concil. Col. Agrip. 1551. Tom. I. p. 41. See before, page 17.)

[1? See before, page 188.]

[13 Triforme est corpus Domini. Pars oblatæ in calicem missa corpus Christi, quod jam resurrexit, monstrat. Pars comesta, ambulans adhuc super terram. Pars in altari usque ad missæ finem rema


offended withal? I acknowledge that the mystery hereof is otherwise of some declared, and of all to this end, to put us in mind of the benefits purchased to us by Christ in his body.


Platina. Urspergensis.

Dist. 2.

M. Harding, of good policy to win credit, fathereth all his mystical fantasies upon the apostles. Of Sergius the first it is written, that he devised the Agnus Dei to be sung at the breaking and distribution of the mysteries?; but of the

breaking of the same in three parts, notwithstanding it be strongly avouched by De Consec. M. Harding, yet of Sergius the first there is written nothing. Indeed, Gratian

allegeth this decree in the name of Sergius the pope, but without date or any manner further addition. And therefore it may as well be Sergius the second, that was called Os Porci, or Sergius the third, that took Formosus his predecessor, being dead, out of the grave, and beheaded him, and threw out his carcase into the Tiber. Therefore this matter, for ought that may appear, beareth small certainty.

But let us grant that Gratian meant Sergius the first; yet was he well near seven hundred years after Christ. Neither were it any great inconvenience to say, that, as he was able to devise these mystical significations, so he was also able to devise the number of parts and manner of breaking. But what great mysteries there may be in this breaking of outward forms and accidents, that M. Harding imagineth, I leave unto himself to consider.

The fable of Amphilochius hath been six times alleged by M. Harding in this one book, to sundry purposes; and yet he himself knoweth it is but a very peevish fable. Whoso listeth to know it further, may find it answered in the first article, and in the thirty-third division?.

But, where as this Sergius saith, Triforme est corpus Domini, “The body of our Lord is of three forms;" whatsoever his meaning therein were, his speech is very strange, or rather monstrous. For the body of Christ is not of so many forms, but only one, and uniform. One of these portions, saith Sergius, signifieth Christ after his resurrection; the second, Christ walking in the earth; the third, Christ lying in his grave. All this, saith M. Harding, is holy and mystical.

Howbeit, some there were that liked not so greatly these imaginations, and Durand. Lib. therefore of themselves devised others. Some said, the first part signifieth the

saints in heaven; the second, the faithful that be alive; the third, the souls in purgatory. Some say, these three parts signify the three states of Christ, mortal, dead, and immortal : some, that they signify the three substantial parts of Christ, his Godhead, his soul, and his body: some others, that they signify the three Persons in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghosts And I marvel there was none that could say they signify the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, having utterly lost the very use of the breaking of the mysteries, they retain a bare ceremony thereof; and yet are so far out of knowledge of the same, that they cannot agree among themselves what to make of it; I mean, neither what they break, nor wherefore they break it. This Sergius disagreeth from Bonaventura, from Durandus, and all others; yet he liketh M. Harding best of all,

“And what hurt,” saith he, “is there herein? Or wherefore should any man herewith be offended ?" Verily, in the house of God that thing is hurtful that doth no good. All the ceremonies of the church ought to be clear, and lively, and

iv. cap. liii.

nens, corpus jacens in sepulchro; quia usque ad finem sæculi corpora sanctorum in sepulchris erunt.-Serg. Papa in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, Dist. ii. can. 22. col. 1921.)

["Constituit præterea ut in fractione dominici corporis caneretur, Agnus Dei, &c.- Plat. Vit. Pontif. Col. 1551. Serg. I. p. 91. See also Chron. Abbat. Ursperg. Argent. 1637. p. 163.]

[ See before, pages 189, &c.]

[ ... aiunt quidam quod tres partes hostiæ tres status beatorum figurant: scilicet qui sunt in cælo: qui in purgatorio : et qui in mundo versantur...frangitur in tres partes. Primo in memoriam Trinitatis. Secundo, in memoriam triplicis status Christi. Primus, fuit in hominibus manens. Secundus, fuit mortuus in sepulchro jacens. Tertius, est immortalis, in cælo existens, &c.—Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. iv. cap. li. 8, 20. foll. 195, 6. 2.)

able to edify. And if this mystical ceremony be not hurtful, why then doth M. 1 Cor. xiv. Harding himself break it? and that, not of ignorance or oblivion, but wittingly and willingly, and as often as he saith his mass ? For Sergius saith one of the three portions ought to be reserved upon the altar until the mass be donet; but M. Harding, contrary both to Sergius, and also to his mystical significations, receiveth all the parts together, and reserveth none, and that by the warrant of the gloss in that place', which is quite contrary to the text. Why doth he thus De Consect. dissemble, and so openly mock the world ? If this ceremony be good, why doth form. in he break it? If it be ill, why would he have us to keep it ?

The guess that M. Harding useth herein seemeth very simple: Pope Sergius devised these mystical meanings seven hundred years after the apostles' time; ergo, this order of breaking came from the apostles.


[blocks in formation]


Now that this custom or mystical ceremony was not first ordained by Sergius, for ought that can be gathered, but of him expounded only touching the mystery of it, as used before his time from the beginning of the church, no one ancient council or author found upon whom it may be fathered, of good reason, sith it hath (184) generally been observed, we may refer the institution of it to the apostles; The hundred and that according to the mind of St Augustine, whose notable saying for that fourek un?" behalf is this : Quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec [in] conciliis constitutum, sed for it was semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime credi- never senco. turs. “What,saith he, the universal church keepeth, neither hath been ordained ed. in councils, but hath always been observed, of good right we believe it hath been delirered to the church) as a tradition by the authority of the apostles.

To conclude, if any spark of godliness remain in our deceived countrymen and brethren, they will not scorn and despise this ancient ceremony of dividing the sacrament in three parts at the blessed sacrifice of the mass, whereof any occasion of eril is not only not ministered, but rather, contrariwise, whereby we are admonished and stirred to tender our own souls' health, and to render thanks to God for the great benefit of our redemption.


There is no mention made, neither in old father nor in ancient council, of this manner of breaking of the sacrament; ergo, saith M. Harding, it came first undoubtedly from the apostles. The contrary hereof were much more likely. For he might rather have said thus: There is no mention made of it in any old father or council; therefore it came not from the apostles.

And, where as he saith, “ It hath been every where universally observed;" it is a great untruth, as, God willing, it shall appear. And therefore St Augustine's rule serveth nothing to this purpose.

For, first, as M. Harding is deceived in the manner of breaking, so is he also deceived in the quantity of the bread, imagining it was a little thin round cake, such as of late hath been used in the church of Rome: Which, Durandus Durand. Lib. saith, must be round like a penny; either because Judas betrayed Christ for parte canon. some like kind of coin, or because it is written: Domini est terra, et plenitudo ejus : “ The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof 10." But indeed it was a great cake, so large and so thick, that all the congregation might receive of it. Durandus himself saith : In primitiva ecclesia ... offerebant unum magnum panem, Durand, Lib.

iv. cap. liii.

(* Serg. Papa in Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, Dist. ii. can. 22. col. 1921. See before, page 585, note 13.]

(* Hodie non servantur, sed duæ partes siccæ comeduntur.-Gloss. in eod. ibid.]

[ The first institution, H. A. 1564.] 1° 1565 omits the. )

[8 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. De Bapt. contr. Donatist. Lib. iv. cap. xxiv. 31. Tom. IX. col. 140; where institutum.)

[® Soul, 1565, and H. A. 1564.]

(10 Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lib. iv. capp. xxx. 8. xli, 8. foll. 139, 162. 2. See before, page 15, note 15.]

« 上一頁繼續 »