herein, I remit the reader unto the gloss upon the same, the words whereof are these: Coelestis (panis], id est, coeleste sacramentum, quod vere repræsentat carnem De Consecr. Christi, dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie. Unde dicitur, Suo modo; sed non est. In Gloss. rei veritate, sed significante mysterio ; ut sit sensus, Vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significat (corpus Christi]8: “The heavenly bread, that is to say, the heavenly sacrament, which verily representeth the flesh of Christ, is called Christ's body, but unaptly and unfitly. Therefore it is said, in a peculiar manner belonging unto itself;' not in truth of matter, but by a signifying mystery; that the sense may be this, It is called the body of Christ, that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ.”

But here mark thou, gentle reader, into what straits these men be driven. To maintain the inconveniences and absurdities of their doctrine, they are fain to say, that the very body of Christ is not rei veritate, “ verily and indeed,” but improprie, “unaptly and unfitly,” called the body of Christ.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

is answered

Again, St Augustine saith in another place : Non hoc corpus quod videtis In Psal. xcviii. comesturi estis? : “Not this body which ye see shall ye eat.* And This place In i. Cap. Ephes. St Hierome saith: Divinam et spiritualem carnem_manducandam before in the dare, aliam quidem ab ea quæ crucifixa est 10 : That divine and and in the

seventh divispiritual flesh is given to be eaten, other beside that which was crucified.Wherefore sion. in respect of the exhibiting the flesh is divided, that in itself is but one; and the flesh exhibited in mystery is in very deed a sacrament of Christ's body visible and palpable, which suffered on the cross. And thus it followeth of convenience, whereas the flesh is not the same, according to the qualities of the exhibiting, which was crucified, and which now is sacrificed by the hands of a priest ; again, whereas the passion, death, and resurrection are said to be done, not in truth of the thing, but in mystery signifying; it followeth, I say, that the flesh is not the same in qualities, so as it was on the cross, though it be the same in substance.

Many more authorities might be alleged for the opening of this matter; but these for this present are enough, if they be not too many, as I fear me they will so appear to the unlearned reader, and to such as be not given to earnest study and diligent search of the truth. By these places it is made clear and evident that these names, figure, image, sign, token, sacrament, and such other the like, of force of their signification do not always exclude the truth of thell things, but do only shew and note the manner of presence. Wherefore, to conclude this matter, that is somewhat obscure to senses little exercised, the figure of the body, or sign1 of the body, the image of the 13 body, doth note the covertness and secretness in the manner of the exhibiting, and doth not diminish any whit the truth of the presence. So we do accord with M. Jewel in this article touching the form of words ; but withal we have thought it necessary to declare the true meaning of the same, which is contrary to the doctrine of the sacramentaries.


M. Harding, as in his words he pretendeth great store of authorities, so in his choice he bewrayeth great want. For, to pass by the place of Hierome 14, which is answered before in the fifth article and seventh division 15, the words of St Augustine seem utterly to overthrow all these his gross and fleshly fantasies. For better understanding whereof it is to be noted that, when Christ had opened that heavenly doctrine of the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, the Capernaites, hearing his words, imagined, even as M. Harding now doth, that he

[® Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in can. 48. col. 1937 ; where we read Christi carnem, significati, and Christi corpus.]

[See below, page 622, note 1.]

[" Hieron. Op. Par. 1693-1706. Comm. Lib. I. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. i. Tom. IV. Pars I. col. 328.

See before, page 460.]

[" 1565, 1609, and H. A. 1564, omit the.]
[1? The sign, H. A. 1564.]
[13 1611, omits the.)
[4 St Hierome, 1565.]
[S See before, pages 462, &c.]

meant a very fleshly eating with their bodily mouths, and therefore began to be offended, and said his speech was over hard, and departed from him. Upon occasion hereof St Augustine writeth thus : Ipsi erant duri, non sermo... Christus instruxit eos, [qui remanserant], et ait illis : Spiritus est, qui vivificat : caro autem nihil prodest. Verba, quo locutus sum vobis, spiritus sunt, et vita. Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis, nec bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi; spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos!: “They were hard: Christ's word was not hard. Christ instructed them that remained, and said unto them, “It is the Spirit that giveth life: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken are spirit and life.' Understand ye spiritually that I have spoken. Ye shall not eat this body that ye see; neither shall ye drink that blood that they shall shed that shall crucify me. I have recommended unto you a certain sacrament: being spiritually understanded, it will give you life.” These words be plain of themselves, and need no long construction.

The difference that M. Harding hath devised, between Christ's body in substance and the self-same body in respect of qualities, is a vain gloss of his own, without substance. For St Augustine saith not, as M. Harding would fain have him to say, Ye shall not eat this body (with your bodily mouth) quale videtis, under such conditions and qualities of mortality and corruption as you now see it; but quod videtis, that is, you shall not eat the same body in nature and substance that now ye see.

Neither was the body of Christ at that time, when he ministered the holy communion, and spake these words to his disciples, endued with any such qualities. For it was neither spiritual, nor invisible, nor immortal; but contrariwise, earthly, visible, and subject to death.

To be short, St Augustine speaketh not one word, neither of this carnal presence, nor of secret being under covert; nor saith, as M. Harding saith, that the very body of Christ is a figure of Christ's body; nor imagineth in Christ two sundry sorts of natural bodies; nor knoweth any one of all these M. Harding's strange collections. Thus only he saith: Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis : touching your bodily mouth, "ye shall not eat this body of mine that ye see.” Of which words M. Harding, contrary to St Augustine’s express and plain meaning, as his common wont is, concludeth the contrary; ergo, with your bodily mouth ye shall eat this self-same body in substance that ye see.

Now, forasmuch as M. Harding will say, we devise figures of ourselves without cause, and that Christ's words are plain, and ought simply to be taken as they sound, without any manner figure; I think it therefore necessary in few words to shew, both what hath led us and all the ancient writers and old doctors of the church thus to expound the words of Christ, and also how many and how strange and monstrous figures M. Harding with his brethren are driveň to use in the exposition of the same. And, to pass over all the old learned fathers, 1. which in their writings commonly call the sacrament a representation, a remembrance, a memory, an image, a likeness, a sampler, a token, a sign, and a figure, &c.; Christ himself, before all others, seemeth to lead us hereunto, both for that 2. at the very institution of the holy mysteries he said thus, “ Do ye this in remembrance of me;" and also for that in the sixth chapter of St John, speaking of the 3. eating of his flesh, he forewarned his disciples of his ascension into heaven, and 4. shewed them that his very natural flesh, fleshly received, can profit nothing.

Moreover, it is not agreeable, neither to the nature of man, really and indeed 5.

to eat a man's body, nor to a man's body really and indeed, without figure, to be August. de Dogus hist. eaten; for that, St Augustine saith, were flagitium et facinus“, “an horrible Lib. iii. cap. wickedness.” And again he saith: Horribilius est humanam carnem manducare,


August. contr. Advers. Leg. et Proph. Lib. ii. cap. ix.

[August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. In Psalm. xcviii. Enarr. 9. Tom. IV. Pars II. cols. 1065, 6; where we have ille autem instruzit, spiritus est, and et bibituri.]

[? Themself, 1565.]

[? A man, 1565.]

[* Facinus vel fagitium videtur jubere: figura est ergo.—Id. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. III, cap. xvi. 24. Tom. III. Pars I. col. 51.]



[ocr errors]


66 The cup

quam perimere; et sanguinein humanumbibere, quam fundere ® : “ It is a more horrible thing to eat man's flesh, than it is to kill it; and to drink man's blood, than it is to shed it.” For this cause he concludeth : Figura ergo est : “ There- August. de fore it is a figure.” And in like manner Cyrillus saith: Sacramentum nostrum non Lib. iii. cap. asseverat hominis manducationem?: “Our sacrament avoucheth not the eating of Cyril. contr.

Object. a man. 6. Again, in these words of Christ we find duo disparata, that is, two sundry

terms of sundry significations and natures, panis and corpus; which, as the learned know, cannot possibly be verified the one of the other without a figure. Besides

all this, in every of these clauses, which so nearly touch Christ's institution, there 7. is a figure: “ To drink the cup of the Lord,” instead of the wine in the cup, it is 8. a figure, “ To drink judgment:" judgment is a spiritual thing, and cannot be 9. drunken with the mouth; therefore it is a figure. “My body that is given, that

is broken," instead of, That shall be given, and that shall be broken, is a figure. 10. “I am bread;" Christ really and indeed was no material bread; it is a figure. 11.“ The bread is the communication of the Lord's body," instead of these words, 12. It representeth the communication of the Lord's body; it is a figure.

is the new testament:" the cup indeed and verily is not the new testament; therefore it is a figure. In every of these clauses M. Harding must needs see and confess a figure; and so it appeareth that, in the very institution of Christ's holy mysteries, there are used a great many and sundry figures; all notwithstanding both consonant to reason, and also agreeable to God's holy word.

But now, mark well, I beseech thee, good christian reader, how many and what kinds of figures M. Harding and the rest of his company have been forced

to imagine in these cases. 1. First, they say this pronoun hoc, “this," signifieth not “this bread," as all

the old writers understand it, but individuum vagum, which is neither bread nor any certain determinates thing else, but only one certain thing at large in

generality. 2. This verb est they expound thus : Est, hoc est, transubstantiatur; such a figure

as never was used of any old author, either holy or profane, or hereticor 3. catholic, or Greek or Latin. In these words, “ Take ye, eat ye: this is my

body,” they have found a figure called hysteron proteron, which is, when the whole speech is out of order, and that set behind that should go before. For thus they are driven to shift it and turn it : “ This is my body: take ye, eat ye.”

In these four words, lying in order all together," he took," "he blessed,” “he brake," "he gave," they imagine three sundry figures, and expound the same in 4. this wise : “ He took" the bread : "he blessed,” he transubstantiated or turned the 5. bread: "he brake” the accidents or shews : “he gave” his body. Hoc facite, 6. “Do ye this in remembrance of me,” they expound thus : Sacrifice this. Which 7. also they flourish out with other figures in this wise : "Sacrifice me in remem8. brance of me.” In this one word panis, “ bread,” they have found a swarm of figures. 9. Sometimes, they say, it is called bread, because it was bread before; sometimes, 10. because the infidel taketh it to be bread; sometimes, because there remain still 11. the accidents and forms of bread; sometimes, because the same accidents feed 12. the body miraculously, as it' were bread; sometimes, because it is that supernatural bread that came from heaven.

Likewise in this one word frangimus, or frangitur, they have a number of 13. figures. For sometimes they expound it thus: “ The bread that we break,” that 14. is, the accidents that we break; sometimes, “the bread that we break,” that is to say, the bread that we take to be broken ; sometimes this word frangere is not

2 15.“to break,” but only to make a feast. In their masses they say, Frangitur, id 16. est, frangebatur, “It is broken, that is to say, it was broken;" sometimes they 17. say, Frangitur, id est, videtur frangi, It is broken, that is to say, it seemeth

[ocr errors]

[ Humanam, 1609, 1611.)

[ Id. Contr. Advers. Leg. et Proph. Lib. II. cap. ix. 33. Tom. VIII. col. 599; where videatur for est, and humanum sanguinem potare.]

[? Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. Apolog. adv.

Orient. Anath, xi. Def. Cyril. Tom. VI. p. 193,
See before, page 454.)

[ Determined, 1565.]
[° As if it, 1565.]

to be broken." The meaning whereof is this, Frangitur, id est, non frangitur, “It 18. is broken, that is to say, it is not broken.”

In these words, Non bibam amplius de hoc fructu vitis, “I will drink no more 19. of this fruit of the vine;" the fruit of the vine, which is a substance, they expound the accidents. And, to leave that miraculous figure of all figures, concomitantia, 20. whereby one is made two, and two are made one; consider, good reader, the strangeness of the figures, and the wonderful shifts that M. Harding hath imagined in this little treaty, to defeat and avoid the manifest words of the holy fathers. Sometimes the forms and accidents are the sacrament; sometimes Christ's body 21. itself is the sacrament; sometimes both together are the sacrament; sometimes 22. the bread is a figure of Christ's body before consecration; and so, by mean of 23. M. Harding's figures, there is a sacrament before it be a sacrament, and a figure 24. before it be a figure. Sometimes the holy accidents and outward holy shews are 25. a figure of Christ's body invisible, under them secretly contained; sometimes the 26. same body invisible is a figure of the body of Christ visible. And so there is figure upon figure, and a kind of demonstration, which they call notum per ignotum, or rather verum per falsum. Sometimes the sacrament is a figure of the 27. life to come; and sometimes, as Hosius fancieth, it is a figure of the church?; 28. sometimes Tertullian understood not, no, not so much as the grammatical sense of 29. Christ's words; sometimes Christ's very body is not aptly and fitly called the 30. body of Christ, but only improprie, and after a manner. Thus M. Harding roameth and wandereth up and down, as a man that had

Such shadows and colours he can cast; into so many forms and shapes and figures he can turn himself. So many and so monstrous figures may he forge in the institution of the holy sacrament, only to avoid one simple, plain, usual, and known figure. And yet he abuseth not the simplicity of the people! There he forceth his figures, where as is no need of figures; and without such vain figures this vain doctrine cannot hold. That one figure that we use is plain and clear, used by all the ancient learned fathers, and agreeable to the tenor of God's word. But M. Harding's figures, as they be many, so be they unnecessary and fantastical, never used or once mentioned by any ancient doctor of the church, and serve only to breed darkness, and to dim the light.

How much better were it for him to leave these shifts and childish fables, and plainly and simply to say, as Tertullian saith: Hoc est corpus meum, ... hoc est, figura corporis mei?: “This is my body; that is to say, this is a figure of my body.” Or, as Maximus the Greek scholiast saith : {ýußola taúra, åttà oủk åtýdela 3: “ These be tokens, but not the truth.” Or, as St Augustine saith: Figura est,

... praecipiens passioni Domini communicandum [esse,] et suaviter atque utiliter Doctr. Christ. recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sitt: “ It

is a figure, commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and com-
fortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified
and wounded for us."

[ocr errors]

lost his way

[merged small][ocr errors]

Lib. iv.
Max. Schol.
in Eccles.

cap. ii.

August. de

Lib. iii, cap. xvi.

[ Ecce quomodo cibum et potum altaris dixit esse quodammodo societatem corporis, quod est ecclesia: non quod ipse cibus et potus sit ipsa societas, sed ipsius societatis sacramentum, &c.—Hos. Op. Col. 1584. Confess. Cath. Fid. cap. xxxix. Tom. I. p. 99. See also before, page 593.)

[ Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Adv. Marcion. Lib.

IV. 40. p. 571; where id for hoc.)

[ Max. Schol. in Dionys. Areop. Op. Antv. 1634. De Eccles. Hierarch. cap. iii. 3. Tom. I. p. 306. See before, page 611, note 10.]

[* August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. III. cap. xvi. 24. Tom. III. Pars I. col. 52; where passioni dominicæ.]




Or that it was lawful then to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in one church in one day.


ARTICLE XIII. H. A. 1564.]

[blocks in formation]

offereth to

As M. Jewel here descendeth by divers proportions and degrees from thirty to five, first by taking away ten, the third part of the whole, and then five from the rest three times ; so it might have pleased him also to have taken away three from five, the last remnants, and so to have left but two in all. Which if he had done, Two masses then should we have made up that number, as in this audit he might not otherwise M. Harding do, in regard of his own free promise, but allow our account for good and sufficient. For that number we are well able to make good. And what reason hath moved the no more. ancient fathers, governors of the church, to think it a godly and a necessary thing to have two masses in one church in one day, the same reason in cases either hath or might have moved them, and their successors after them likewise, to allow three or four A simple masses, and in some cases five or more.

prove, but



de Sacrif.

M. Harding of his courtesy should give us leave to lay out our own reckonings, as we think best, having himself the advantage of controlment, if error happen to fall out. Of so great

Of so great a number of masses as they have this day in their churches, and say they have had and continued from the beginning, even from the apostles' time, if I require of him only the proof of five, I offer him no wrong: but, if he of that whole number be able to shew but only two, and if the same two in the end be found no masses neither, but only public communions, such as be now used in reformed churches, then is he a great dissembler, and doth no right. Upon what occasion M. Harding's masses grew first to this plenty, and to so great waste, Cochlæus, one of the chief patrons of that cause, declareth it thus : Quod olim tam frequentes non fuerint missce, neque tot sacer- Joan. Cochl. dotes, quot hodie, inde accidisse arbitror, quod olim omnes tum sacerdotes, tum laici, Missæ. quicunque intererant sacrificio missc, peracta oblatione, cum sacrificante communicabant : sicut ex canonibus apostolorum, et ex libris atque epistolis antiquissimorum ecclesice doctorum perspicue cognoscitur?: “That in old times there were not so many masses nor so many priests as be now, I reckon the cause thereof to be this, for that in old times all that were present at the sacrifice of the mass, as well priests as lay-men, did communicate together with the minister; as it is plain to be seen by the canons of the apostles, and by the books and letters of the most ancient doctors of the church.” He addeth further : Nunc vero, fc.: But now, seeing the order of communion is no more observed amongst us, and that through the negligence and slothfulness as well of the lay-people as of the priests, the Holy Ghost, by the often saying of private masses, hath found out a godly remedy for this want.” Here we see that negligence and slothfulness and


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« VorigeDoorgaan »