« VorigeDoorgaan »
THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.
Cicero saith: “A simple poet, when he cannot tell how to shift his matters, imagineth some god suddenly to come in place a little to astonne the people; and there an end.” So M. Harding, finding himself much encumbered with his accidents, is fain to bring in God with his whole omnipotent power, to hold
Children in their schools are taught to know, that an accident hath no being without a subject. Which rule, being otherwise evermore true, hath exception, as M. Harding saith, only in this sacrament, wherein be the accidents and shews of bread and wine, and yet no subject. For they are not in the bread; because, as he saith, that is gone ; nor in the air, for that cannot be seen; nor in Christ's body, for that is not round, &c. So there is a white thing, yet nothing is white; and a round thing, yet nothing is round. Therefore, forasmuch as these accidents neither are able to stand alone, nor have any subject there to rest in; for that cause, M. Harding saith, they be sustained by the power of God.
One saith: Nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit 8: “Never bring forth any god in a tragedy, to play a part, unless it be upon some occasion of great matter, meet for a god to take in hand.” St Paul saith: Deus portat He!. I. omnia verbo virtutis suæ : “God beareth all things by the word of his power.” And the heathen poets imagine that Atlas holdeth up the heavens. But for God the Creator and Cause of all causes, to come from heaven to hold up accidents, it seemeth a very simple service.
M. Harding's reason standeth thus: God is omnipotent;
And that this being of accidents without substance or subject in this sacrament, under which, the bread not remaining, the body of Christ is present, may the rather be believed, it is to be considered that this thing took place at the first creation of the world, after the opinion of some doctors, who do affirm that that first light which was at the beginning until the fourth day (182) was not in any subject, The hundred
and eightybut sustained by the power of God, as him liked. For that first light and the second unBasilius Hexaem- same' were as whiteness, and a body whited 10, saith St Basil. Neither Fur St Basil
then was Wickliff yet born, who might teach them that the power of God the contrary,
cannot put an accident without a subject. For so he saith in his book Paulus Burgensis
De Apostasia, cap. 5, as Cochleus reporteth". Hereof it appeareth out
of what root the gospellers of our country spring ; who, smatching of the sap of that wicked tree, and hereby shewing their kind, appoint bounds and borders to the power of God, that is infinite and incomprehensible. And thus by those fathers we may conclude that, if God can sustain and keep accidents with substance, he can so do without substance.
eron, Hom. 6. Damas. Lib. ii.
THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.
It is great violence to force an ancient father to bear false witness, and specially against himself. This report of St Basil's meaning is as true as is that long peevish fable, so often alleged under the name of Amphilochius, that is to wit, a vain shew without substance. And because M. Harding only nameth Damascene and Paulus Burgensis in his margin, as being afraid to touch their words, he may remember that Damascene saith : Non aliud est ignis, quam lux, Damasccn.
Lib. ii. cap.
p The, 1565, 1609.]
[10 Πρώτον μεν ούν εκ του τα σύνθετα πάντα ούτω παρ' ημών διαιρείσθαι, είς τε την δεκτικήν ουσίαν, και εις την επισυμβασαν αυτη ποιότητα. ως ούν έτερον μέν τι τη φύσει η λευκότης, έτερον δέ τι το λελευκασμένον σωμα, ούτω και τα νύν
είρημένα διάφορα όντα τη φύσει ήνωται τη δυνάμει
[" Hic sæpe dixi, quod nec Deus nec homo potest
Basil. in Hexaem. Hom. 6.
ut quidam aiunt? : “ The fire is nothing else but the light, as some men say.”
And Burgensis saith : Quidam tradunt lucem fuisse nubem lucidam2: “Some men i. cap. Gen. write that the light was a bright cloud." By these expositions it appeareth,
that either the fire or the cloud was a subject to receive the light. Certainly neither Burgensis, nor Damascene, nor Basil ever said that the light stood without a subject. Therefore that note in the margin might well have been spared.
But it is an easy matter with shew of names to deceive the simple.
The light was not in the sun; ergo, it was in nothing.
This error cometh of the equivocation or double taking of this word, “being in.” For one thing may be in another, as in an instrument, as the light is in a candle ; which is the similitude that Basil useth. The same thing may be in another, as in a subject, as light in the air. This diversity considered, now let us weigh M. Harding's reason.
The light (saith he) was not in the sun, as in an instrument to carry it about the world;
Ergo, it was not in the air as in a subject.
This argument seemeth very light. A man may easily and sensibly with his fingers feel the folly of it in the dark. Verily, St Basil's words to the contrary shine so clear, that I marvel M. Harding could not or would not see them. For thus he writeth before in the same book: περιελάμπετο δε αήρ μάλλον δε έγκεKpappévov éavto ohov dohov eixe to pôs*: Illustrabatur aer: vel potius lumen sibi totum
et in totum permistum habuit : “ The air was lightened, or rather it had the [ή οίκου- whole light wholly mingled with itself.” Again he saith: “The world was peun copa. invisible, because the air was without light5.” St Basil saith : “ The light was in To apti. the air, and that wholly through the whole," as in a subject; yet M. Harding OTOV elval forceth St Basil to say contrary to himself: The light was only an accident τον...αέρα. Ooooh without subject, and was stayed in nothing. Now judge thou, good christian
reader, what credit thou mayest give to M. Harding's words in reporting of the ancient doctors.
But he saith: “God's power is infinite and incomprehensible. Therefore he is able to sustain accidents." This error springeth of misunderstanding St Basil's words. For whereas St Basil writeth thus : tóre ... oủ karà kímnou v dlaniu, αλλά αναχεομένου του πρωτογόνου φωτός εκείνου ... ημέρα εγένετοβ: Dies tum febat, non per motum solarem, sed diffuso illo primigenio lumine: “The day was made, not by the moving or passing of the sun, but by pouring abroad the first light; appeareth that instead of ávaxeouévov, which is, “poured abroad,” M. Harding by error read ávexouévou, which is, “borne up, or sustained.” But he may not well maintain his accidents by shifting of words, or by misunderstanding or corrupting of his doctors.
[' Damascen. Op. Par. 1712. De Fid. Orthod. Lib. II. cap. vii. Tom. I. p. 163.]
[' Quidam enim dicunt illam lucem fuisse quandam nubem lucidam.-Bibl. cum Gloss. Ord, et Expos. N. de Lyra, Basil. 1502. In Gen. cap. i. Addit. (Burg.) Pars I. fol. 30. 2.]
[8 Και μηδενί άπιστου είναι δοκείτω το ειρημένον, ότι άλλο μέν τι του φωτός ή λαμπρότης, άλλο δε τι το υποκείμενον τω φωτί σωμα...και μή μοι λέγε αδύνατα είναι ταυτα απ' αλλήλων
διαιρείσθαι. ουδε γαρ εγω την διαίρεσιν του
[* Id. ibid. Hom. ii. 7. p. 19.)
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 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.
[' Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641.
Adv. Prax. 10. p. 641.)
OF DIVIDING THE SACRAMENT.
THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE.
THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.
Or that the priest then divided the sacrament in three parts, and afterward received all himself alone.
[OF DIVIDING THE SACRAMENT IN THREE PARTS.-ARTICLE X1. H. A. 1564.]
THE FIRST DIVISION. Of the priests receiving the sacrament himself alone, enough hath been said before. This term “all” here 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. Hier
“ The bishop,” saith he, “ openeth the covered bread, dividing it in pieces, H. A. 1564.) standing in
divinity should be
and eighty. third untruth,
THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY.
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 “Christ took bread, and blessed it, and brake it;" and St Paul saith : (Not the
Matt. xxvi. Luke xxii. Mark xiv.
[' Himself all, H. A. 1564.]
[* Dionys. Areop. Op. Antv. 1634. De Eccles.
[* 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
Johan. Lib. iv. cap. xiv.
de Miss. Pub.
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, participet 6 : “ 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- Purand. 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 Hierarch. covered, and cutteth it in pieces." Here note also by the way, Dionysius saith Cap. 11. 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 molld served a knife, which, as it appeareth by Chrysostom's liturgy or communion, was oedwv. called sacra lancea 10. For in such sort the bread was cut in picces, 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.”
(The diriding of
Now touching the dividing of the sacrament in three parts, it may The mystery
breaking juures, in appear to be a tradition of the apostles, or otherwise a custom very of accidents. apabilen utk 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
above rehearsed 12. And, where as Sergius saith that the portion of the can. 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
De Cons. Dist. 2.
[s Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. In Joan. Evang. Lib. iv. cap. ii. Tom. IV. p. 360. See before, page 480, note 6.)
[ Ger. Lorich. De Miss. Pub. Prorogand. 1536. Lib. 1. cap. iii. p. 283.]
[? The words of this passage have not been found. But see Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. iv. capp. liii. 3. lvi. 1. foll, 199. 2, 203, 2; where the practice of the primitive church is described.]
[ Frustra, 1609, 1611.]
[" 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