up the bread, the same dove (so saith this Amphilochius) used evermore to rouse

Dove. herself over the altar, and moved and stirred of herself hither and thither; much like to the mathematical dove, that Archytas Tarentinus made, that was able to fly alone'. If this golden dove had not been endued with spirit and life, this tale had lost half his grace. Again, Pekham in his Provincial giveth a strait commandment of 10 all priests, that the bread in the pix be changed and renewed every seventh day", for avoiding of putrefaction, or some other loathsomeness that may happen. But M. Harding's golden dove had a special virtue above all others, to keep the bread seven years together without corruption, and the same at the last meet to be given to a sick man in his death-bed.

But there is mention made of golden and silvern doves in the council of Constantinople. I grant. Howbeit, there is no mention made there of any pix or reservation of the sacrament. But if every dove there were a pix, or, as they call it, a monster, then hath M. Harding a great advantage. For, seeking out but one pix, he hath found twenty, and that all together in one church, some about the altar, some about the holy font, and some elsewhere. And yet I could never understand, but evermore in one church, were it never so big, one pix was thought sufficient. O what pains M. Harding hath taken to furnish a fable! God grant us to be simple as doves in obeying of God's truth, and wise Matt. x. as serpents in discerning and eschewing lies.

The rest, that is alleged of Symmachus, Gregorius Romanus, Gregorius Turonensis, and Theodorus, as it is not denied, so it is no parcel of this question. The hanging of the sacrament, and the canopy, wherein the greatest danger stood, being removed, somewhat may be considered touching reservation, when it shall be thought necessary. Wherein to counterpoise the credit of these four obscure and late doctors, we have the authority of eight other doctors counted learned and ancient, Clemens, Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hierome, Augustine, Hesychius, and Nicephorus, as it is already proved.

[° Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. Lib. x. cap. xii. 4.]
[° To, 1565, 1609.)
["? Quod quidem venerabile sacramentum omni

die dominica præcipimus innovari.—Joh. Pecch. in
Lyndew. Provincial. Antw. 1525. Lib. I. De Cus.
tod. Euch. fol. 179. 2.]





Or that in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, there remain only the accidents and shews without the substance of bread and wine.



[blocks in formation]

The hundred and seventy

[ocr errors]

bread and wine remain eth still, as shall

In this sacrament after consecration (175) nothing in substance remaineth that arth untruch, was before, neither bread nor wine, but only the accidents of bread and wine, as For the sube their form and shape, savour, smell, colour, weight, and such-like?, which here

have their being miraculously without their subject; forasmuch as * after consecra

tion there is none other substance than the substance of the body and blood of Untruth, as our Lord, which is not affected with such accidents, as the scholastical doctors term

it. Which doctrine hath always, though not with these precise terms, (176) been and seventy- taught and believed from the beginning, and dependeth of the article of transubtruth. For stantiation. For, if the substance of bread and wine be changed into

(Transubstanthe substance of the body and blood of our Lord (177) (which is contaught from stantly affirmed by all the learned and ancient fathers of the church), 1864.] the beginning.

it followeth by a necessary sequel in nature, and by drift of reason, that then The hundred the accidents only remain. For witness and proof whereof I will not let to recite

certain most manifest sayings of the old and best approved doctors.

The hundred

this doctrine was neither believed

tiation affirm
ed. H.A.

and seventyseventh untruth. For this kind of real and material change is not affirmed by

any father.

M. Harding granteth that this doctrine hath no express authority by precise

terms, neither in the scriptures, nor in the ancient councils, nor in any old father, Transub

Greek or Latin; yet the old fathers, both Greeks and Latins, in their kinds were stantia

counted eloquent, and were thought able to utter their doctrine in express and tion.

precise words, if there had been then any such doctrine received in the church :
wherefore, finding herein such want of all antiquity, we may be bold expressly
and in precise terms to say, this seemeth to be a very new doctrine, resting only
upon a false position, and a little coloured with drift of reason; which

notwithstanding, never entered into man's head within a whole thousand years
after that the gospel had been preached. By like position and by like drift the
old heretics, the Manichees, held that all that outwardly appeared in Christ was
nothing else but accidents; that is, as M. Harding himself expoundeth it, the
form and shape, the colour, the weight; and so indeed nothing else but the

shew and appearance and fantasy of a body. From such doctors, it appeareth, Cuth. Tonst. these men have received their new doctrine. For Doctor Tonstal confesseth,

it was first determined in the council of Lateran, which was holden in Rome in

year of our Lord a thousand two hundred and fifteen; and that before that
time it was evermore free for any man, without impeachment of his faith, to hold
the contrary

de Euch. Lib. i.



["Remaineth, H. A. 1564.)
[? Such the like, 1565, and H. A. 1564.]
(3 The shape, 1565, 1609.)

[* Tonst. de Verit. Corp. et Sang. Dom. in Euch. Lut. 1554. Lib. 1. fol. 46.]

[ocr errors]

Gab. Biel. de


iv. Sentent

Quæst. 2.

Likewise M. Harding's own doctor Gabriel Biel saith : Quomodo ibi sit corpus TransubChristi; an per conversionem alicujus in illud, an sine conversione incipiat esse stantiacorpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia et accidentibus panis, non invenitur tion. expressum in canone biblics : “In what sort the body of Christ is there, whether it be by the turning of any thing into that, or, without any turning (or transub- Canon. Lecto stantiation), the body of Christ begin to be there together with the bread, both 40. the substance and accidents of the bread remaining, it is not found expressed in the scriptures.” So likewise Duns himself saith : De sacramentis tenendum est Scot. in sicut tenet sancta Romana ecclesia. ... [Nam] verba scripturæ possent salvari, secun- Dist. 11, dum intellectum facilem et veriorem, secundum apparentiam : “ Touching the sacraments, we must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth. For the words of the scripture might be saved (without transubstantiation), by an easy and truer understanding in appearance." Thus it appeareth by D. Tonstal, that this doctrine hath no ground of antiquity; and by Biel and Scotus, that it hath no certain authority of God's word. Upon this foundation, which by their own confession is uncertain, M. Harding buildeth up the whole certainty of this article. But he will reply, Christ saith: “ This is my body.” So the Arian heretics

This is were able to allege as many and as plain words of Christ: Pater major me est : “ My Father is greater than 1.” Neither ever was there any heresy so gross, but my body. was able to make some simple shew of God's word. But Christ saith not, This bread is now no bread; or, This bread is transubstantiate into my body; or, My body is really and fleshly contained under the accidents of this bread.

But contrariwise the evangelists do witness, that Christ took bread; and St 1 Cor. Paul, after consecration, sundry times calleth it bread; and the holy fathers expressly and constantly affirm, that the bread remaineth still in nature and substance as it did before.

Nevertheless, in that sense and meaning that Christ spake in, that bread was Christ's body. For in this case we may not consider what bread is in itself, but what it is by Christ's institution. As the body of Christ is his very natural body, so the bread in itself is very natural bread. And yet, by way of a sacrament, the bread both is called and also is Christ's body. So St Paul saith : “ The rock i Cor. x. was Christ.” And St Augustine saith : Non dicit, Petra significabat Christum ; August. in sed, Petra erat Christus?: “ He saith not, The rock signified Christ; but, The Quest. 57. rock was Christ.” The rock naturally and indeed was a rock, as it was before : yet, because it gave water to refresh the people, by a sacramental understanding the rock was Christ. So is it 8 written: Sanguis est anima : “ The blood is the Deut. xii. soul.” Which words rightly understanded are true; and yet to say, that naturally and really the blood is the soul, it were an error. Unto which words of Moses St Augustine, by way of exposition, resembleth these words of Christ, “ This is my body." His words be these: Possum ... interpretari præceptum illud in signo August. esse positum. Non enim dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum mant. cap. signum daret corporis sui': “I may expound that commandment to consist in a sign. For our Lord doubted not to say, “This is my body,' when he gave a sign of his body.” And, to come near to the institution of Christ's supper, St Luke Luke xxii. and St Paul say:


is the new testament." Yet was not the substance 1 Cor. xi. and nature of the cup changed by any force of these words; neither was that cup indeed and really the new testament. Now, as the rock was Christ, the blood is the soul, the cup is the new testament, remaining notwithstanding each of them in their several nature and substance; even so is the bread the body of Christ, remaining still notwithstanding in the nature and substance of very bread. It is a sacrament that Christ ordained, and therefore must have a sacramental understanding. Verily, as water, remaining still water, is the sacrament



contr. Adi.


6. This

[5 Gab. Biel, Sacr. Canon. Miss. Expos. Basil. 1515. Lect. xl. fol. 94. 2; where sit Christi corpus, and in ipsum.]

[Joan. Dans Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. In Sentent. Lib. iv. Dist. xi. Quæst. 3. Tom. VIII. pp. 61649.)

[? Petra erat Christus. Non enim dixit, Petra

significat Christum.- August. Op. Par. 1679-1700.
Quæst. in Heptat. Lib. III. Quæst. lvii. 3. Tom. III.
Pars I. col. 516.)

[8 It is, 1565.)

[° Id. Lib. contr. Adimant. cap. xii. 3. Tom. VIII. col. 124; where Dominus dubitavit.]

Concil. Lat. sub Innoc. III. Anno 1215.

rent. Sess. Ult.

[ocr errors]

[Bread re

of Christ's blood; so bread, remaining still bread, is the sacrament of Christ's
maineth. body.
1565.) But the contrary hereof was determined in the council of Lateran in Rome,

about the year of our Lord 12151. Howbeit, the determination of that council
neither was general, nor was ever generally received. For the Christians in Asia

and Græcia, and of all other parts of Christendom, would never agree unto it, as Concil. Flo- it appeareth by the council of Florence?; but evermore refused it as an error.

But what special power had that council of Lateran to alter the faith of the
church, and to change the sense of God's word, and to make that catholic, that
before that time was never catholic, and to make that heresy, that for the space
of twelve hundred years and more before was no heresy? Certainly, the old

catholic fathers of the primitive church and these young fathers of the church Gelas, contr. of Lateran agree not together. For Gelasius saith : Non desinit esse substantia Eutych.

vel natura panis et vini? : “ It ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread Chrysost. ad and wine.” St Chrysostom saith : Natura panis in sacramento remanett : “ The

nature of bread remaineth in the sacrament.” Theodoretus saith: Christus

naturam (panis) non mutat, sed naturæ adjicit gratiams: “Christ changeth not Dial. primo.

the nature (of the bread), but unto the same nature he addeth grace.” St AuAugustin, ad gustine saith : Quod... videtis, panis est et calix: quod vobis etiam oculi ... renuna Beda. 1 Cor. tiante: The thing that you see is bread and the cup, which thing your eyes do

testify.” Here be the plain testimonies of four ancient catholic fathers in this
behalf. But these new Lateran fathers contrariwise say: Here ceaseth the
substance and nature of bread and wine: the nature of bread remaineth not:
Christ changeth the nature and substance of the bread: believe not the witness
of your eyes: the thing that you see is not bread. Thus these new fathers,
as it may appear, of purpose are contrary to the old. Hereof we may reason
thus :

The old catholic fathers understood not this new fantasy of transub-

Therefore they understood not the remaining of the accidents without substance.

Yet hath M. Harding chosen this as the only foundation of his whole

Cæsar. Monach. Theodor.



[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

St Cyprian, that learned bishop and holy martyr, saith thus, In Sermone de Cæna Domini : Panis iste, quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro 8: This bread, which our Lord gave to his disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word (he meaneth Christ's word of consecration) is made flesh.Lo, he confesseth the bread to be changed, not in shape or form for that remaineth), but in nature, that is to say, in substance. And to signify the change of substance, and not an accidentary change only, to wit, from the use of common bread to serve for sacramental bread (as some of our new masters do expound that place for a shift), he addeth great weight of words, whereby he far overpoisetho these men's light device, saying that by the almighty power of our Lord's word it is made flesh. Verily they

might consider, as they would seem to be of sharp judgment, *that to the performance For noesaera of so small a matter, as their sacramental change is, the almighty power of God's

word is not needful. And now if this 10 word, factus est, may signify an imaginative powelroighty making, then why may not Verbum caro factum est likewise be expounded to the

• This is a blaspheiny

ment can be made without

of God. With this example M. Harding fighteth against him. self.

[ Concil. Later. sub Innoc. III. cap. 1. in Crabb. Concil. Col. Agrip. 1551. Tom. II. p. 946.]

[? Gen. viii. Synod. Florent. Sess. Ult. Sanct. Union. Litt. in eod. Tom. III. p. 476. See before, page 534, note 1.]

[ Gelas. Episc. Rom. adv. Eutych. et Nestor. in Mag. Biblioth. Vet. Patr. Col. Agrip. 1618-22. Tom. V. Pars 111.p. 671. See before, page 11, note 11.]

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

note 12.]

[5 Theodor. Op. Lut. Par. 1642-84. Immut. Dial. 1. Tom. IV. p. 18.]

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

[? No, 1565.]

[ Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. De Cen. Dom. (Ar-
nold.) p. 40.1

[° Overpeiseth, 1565, and H. A. 1564.)
[ Here this, H. A. 1564.]

defence of sundry old heinous heresies against the true manhood of Christ? Thus, Natura. the nature of the bread in this sacrament being changed, and the form remaining, so as it seem bread, as before consecration, and being made our Lord's flesh by virtue of the word, the substance of bread changed into that most excellent substance of the flesh of Christ; of that which was before, the accidents remain only, without the substance of bread. The like is to be believed of the wine.


Spir. Sanct.

του ύδαTOS.

Johan. Lib. i.

This place of St Cyprian is often and much alleged, as if every word thereof were an argument, as indeed at the sight and first appearance it seemeth vehement, and soundeth much; but, being well weighed and considered, it will appear in substance as it is. Certainly, of annihilations, of removing of natures, of remaining of accidents without subject, which thing M. Harding hath taken to prove, it speaketh nothing. For answer, first, it is plain by these four ancient learned fathers, St Augustine, St Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodoretus, that the bread and wine, after the consecration, remain in their nature and substance as they were before. Which thing notwithstanding, it is not the nature of bread that worketh the effect and force of this sacrament, that is, that Christ may dwell in us, and we in him, no more than it is the nature of water, in the sacrament of baptism, that worketh the effect thereof, and maketh us flesh of Christ's Eph. V. flesh, and bone of his bones. And for better evidence hereof, to compare one sacrament with another, St Basil saith: Gratia (baptismatis) non est ex natura Basil. de aquæ, sed ex præsentia Spiritusll: “The grace of baptism is not of the nature of cap. xv. the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” And therefore Cyril saith : Quemad- inxámes plus

εκ της φύmodum viribus ignis, &c.12: “As water, being vehemently heat by the strength of sewe dati

eoti fire, heateth no less than if it were fire indeed; so the water of baptism, by the working of the Holy Ghost, is reformed unto a divine power (or nature).” So Cyril

. in Chrysostom saith : Elizeus potuit undarum mutare naturam, &c. 13 : “Elizeus was cap. xlii.

Chrysost. de able to change the nature of the water, and made it able to bear iron.” Here Virtutib. et

Vitiis, Hom. Chrysostom saith, even as St Cyprian saith, that the nature of the water was 6. changed; yet the very substance of the water remained as before.

Likewise St Ambrose, speaking of God's marvellous working in baptism, saith : Non agnosco usum naturæ : . nullus [est] hic naturæ ordo, ubi est excellentia Ambros, de gratiælt:

“ In this case I have no skill of the use of nature: the order of nature illis qui init. hath no rule, where as is the excellency of God's grace.” Again he saith: Est Ambros de hoc illud magnum mysterium, quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor Myst. cap. iv. hominis ascendit? Aquas video, quas videbam quotidie. Me istæ habent mundare, in quas sæpe descendi, et nunquam mundatus sum ? Hinc cognosce, quod aqua non mundat sine Spiritu 15 : “Is this that great mystery, that the eye never saw, that the ear never heard, that never entered into the heart of man? I see water, that I saw every day before: is this it that shall make me clean? I have gone oftentimes into it, and was never the cleaner. Therefore understand thou, that water (of his own nature) without the Holy Ghost cleanseth not.” And again : Per prædicationem dominicæ crucis aqua fit dulcis ad gratiam 16 : “By the preaching Ambros, de of our Lord's cross the water (beside his own nature) is made sweet unto grace.” Myse. cap. iii. And in this respect St Hilary saith : Uno Christo per naturam unius baptismi Hilar. de induimur 17: “We put upon us only one Christ by the nature of one baptism." Virtin

[ocr errors]

Myst. cap. ix.

» .

" Trin. Lib.

[" Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. Lib. de Spir. Sanct. cap. xv. Tom. III. p. 29.)

[* "Ονπερ γαρ τρόπον το εν τοις λέβησιν εκχεόμενον ύδωρ ταις του πυρός όμιλήσαν ακμαίς την εξ αυτου δύναμιν αναμάττεται, ούτω δια της του Πνεύματος ενεργείας το αισθητόν ύδωρ προς θείαν τινα και άρρητον αναστοιχειούται δύναμιν.-Cyril. Αlex. Op. Lut. 1638. Comm. in Joan. Evang. Lib. II. cap. i. Tom. IV. p. 147. See also Op. Insig. Cyril. Alex. in Evang. Joan. a G. Trapezont, traduct. Par. 1508. Lib. II. cap. xlii. fol. 41.]

(13 Helisæi lignum potuit undarum mutare naturam, quas quidem superficie sua quasi tergo ferrum

sustinere cogit.-—Chrysost. Op. Lat. Basil. 1547. De
Virt. et Vit. Serm. Tom. V. col. 775.]

[14 Ambros. Op. Par. 1686-90. Lib. de Myst. cap.
ix. 59. Tom. II. col. 342; where ubi excellentia
gratiæ est.]

[15 Id. ibid. cap. iv. 19. cols. 329, 30; where hoc
est illud, and istæ me.]

... in hunc fontem sacerdos prædicationem do-
minicæ crucis mittit, et aqua, &c.--Id. ibid. cap. iii.
14. col. 328.]

[17 Hilar. Op. Par. 1693. De Trin. Lib. vii. 8. col. 952; where induantur.]


« VorigeDoorgaan »