panem, quem discipulis dabat,...non distulit, nec servari jussit in crastinum1 : Reserva"The bread that the Lord gave to his disciples, he deferred it not, nor willed it to be reserved until the next day." But, touching the force of this article, Cyrillus speaketh not one word, neither of corporal presence, nor of forms, nor of accidents, nor of crumbs, nor of quantities, nor of qualities, nor of putrefaction or corruption, nor of the coming of Christ's body, nor of the abode or departure of the same, nor of any other the like M. Harding's mysteries. Therefore this holy father neither reproveth our doctrine, nor chargeth us, as M. Harding imagineth, with any madness. But if he were now alive, he would account him mad and twice mad that would so madly rack his words to so vain a purpose. Concerning the reservation of the sacrament that Cyrillus speaketh of, the matter stood thus. Sometimes, after that the people had received the holy mysteries, it happened that there remained some portions untouched. These portions so remaining, the godly fathers that then were thought it not meet to turn to any profane use; but rather reserved them until the next day to be received of the people in the holy communion. For as yet there was no private mass known in the whole church of God throughout the world. The Messalian monks repined hereat, and said the sacrament could not so long continue holy. Cyrillus answereth them, not that the flesh which Christ received of the blessed virgin continueth still as inclosed in the sacrament, as it is untruly reported by M. Harding; but that Christ's institution, and the mystical benediction, which he calleth the quickening grace, continueth still. And his reason is this, for that all sacraments have their virtue and power, not of themselves, but wholly and only from Christ. Wherefore, as Christ is one, and continueth still without change; even so must the grace that Christ worketh in us by his sacraments be likewise one, and continue still. And, as there is no virtue in the water of baptism but when it is used, even so there is no virtue in the bread of the holy communion but likewise only when it is used. tion. Sacram. Lib. As for the quickening grace, it is as well in the one sacrament as in the other. St Ambrose saith: Aqua baptismatis habet gratiam Dei et præsentiam Trinitatis: Ambros. de "The water of baptism hath the grace of God, and the presence of the holy i. cap. v. Trinity." And in the Nicene council it is written thus: Cogita aquas plenas ignis p... τοῦ θείου cœlestis": "Imagine this water to be full of heavenly fire." And this grace is not πυρὸς νόει only for one hour or two, but lasteth and continueth still. So St Augustine saith: Ta data. Arca testamenti, [quamvis] ab hostibus capta, virtutem tamen suæ sanctificationis non August. amisits: 66 The ark of God, notwithstanding it were taken and carried away by dent. Lib. iii. the enemies, yet it lost not the virtue of the former holiness that was in it." neum. contr. Gau tent. Dist. Yet may not M. Harding upon occasion hereof either think or say, that this grace is really and substantially inclosed either in the one sacrament or in the other. Bonaventura saith: Non est aliquo modo dicendum, quod gratia continetur In iv. Senin... sacramentis essentialiter, tanquam aqua in vase.... Hoc enim dicere est erro- Quæst. 3. Sed dicuntur continere gratiam, quia 10 eam significant 11: "We may not in any wise say that the grace of God is contained in the sacraments substantially and indeed, as water is contained in a vessel. For so to say, it were an error. But sacraments are said to contain the grace of God, because they signify the grace of God." Here the opinion that M. Harding seemeth to maintain is condemned for an error, and this sentence allowed for true and catholic: "Sacraments are said to contain the grace of God, because they signify the grace of God." To conclude, he saith: Gratia est in animis, non in signis visibilibus 12: "The grace is in the minds or souls of the receivers, not in the visible signs or sacraments." WHETHER A MOUSE, &c. THE TWENTY-THIRD ARTICLE. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. OR that a mouse or any other worm or beast may eat the body of Christ; for so some of our adversaries have said and taught. [WHAT IS THAT THE MOUSE OR WORM EATETH.-ARTICLE XXIII. H. A. 1564.] Whereas M. Jewel imputeth this vile asseveration but to some of the adversaries of his side, he seemeth to acknowledge that it is not a doctrine universally taught and received. The like may be said for his next article; and, if it hath been said of some only, and not taught universally of all, as a true doctrine M. Jewel confor christian people to believe, how agreeth he with himself, saying trarieth himself. after the rehearsal of his number of articles, the same, none excepted, to be the highest mysteries and greatest keys of our religion? For if that were true, as it By this rule is not true for the greatest part, *then should this article have been affirmed and points of M. taught of all. For the highest and greatest points of the catholic religion be not catholic reli- particular2, but of universal teaching. the greatest Harding's gion may well come in question. Thom. Par. iii. de Euchar. Quæst. 79. Art. 3. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. Here it appeareth that M. Harding somewhat misliketh his catholic masters, and thinketh it now an error to say that a mouse may eat the body of Christ; and therefore he calleth this part of his own doctrine "a vile asseveration." But, if this asseveration of M. Harding's own doctors and greatest doctors be so vile, then vile were they that first devised it. And yet I cannot well see how he may so lightly recant the doctrine that he was born and brought up in, and condemn his own fellows of villany, without blame. Howbeit, one good excuse he seemeth to have, that this part of his religion was never universally received nor counted catholic. And therefore he saith it is no key of his religion. If M. Harding will measure all the rest in this sort, I fear me very few parts of his whole religion will prove catholic. And yet the first devisers and setters forth and maintainers hereof took this evermore for a principal key, as without which the rest of their doctrine could not stand. Yet were they evermore accounted both as universal for their learning, and as catholic for their religion, and as constant in the same, as M. Harding. But indeed the old holy fathers, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Hierome, St Chrysostom, never heard of this strange doctrine; nor, if they had heard it, would ever have taken it for lock or key of their religion; but would rather have thought him worthy to be locked up as a mad man that would either have taught it, as great numbers have done, or else have doubted of it, as M. Harding doth. Now let us see by whom this doctrine hath been maintained. So, whether it have been holden for catholic or no, it will soon appear. Yet notwithstanding I must protest beforehand, that the speeches that they have used in this behalf are so blasphemous and so vile that, for the reverence I bear to the glorious body of Christ, I can neither hear them nor utter them without horror. First of all, Thomas of Aquine saith thus: Quidam... dixerunt, quod, cum primum sacramentum sumitur a mure vel [a] cane, desinit ibi esse corpus, [et [1 1565 and H.A. 1564 omit M.] [2 Of particular, H.A. 1564.] sanguis] Christi: sed hoc derogat veritati [hujus] sacramenti3: "Some have said that, as soon as the sacrament is touched of a mouse or a dog, the body and blood of Christ straightway departeth from it. But this is a derogation to the truth of this sacrament." By these words M. Harding's judgment is utterly condemned as uttered against the truth and in the derogation of this sacrament. M. Harding may not well call in question whether this doctor were catholic or no. For Christ said unto him by a vision in his dream: Bene scripsisti de me, Thoma: "O Thomas, thou hast written full well of me." And therefore he is called doctor angelicus, "an angelical doctor," for that in learning and judgment he so far surmounted all other doctors, and was accounted most catholic. Arelat. III. In the council of Arle it is written thus: Qui non bene custodierit sacrificium, Concil. et mus vel aliquod...animal comederit illud, quadraginta dies pœniteat3 : "Whoso can. 6. keepeth not the sacrifice well and duly, and a mouse or any other beast happen to eat it, let him be put to penance forty days." Euch. cap. x. Quæst. 45. Johannes de Burgo saith: Mus... comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi: Johan. de Burg. de Cust. "The mouse, eating the sacrament, receiveth the body of Christ." Alexander de Hales saith thus: Quidam dicunt, ubicunque ponantur species, Alex. Par. iv. sive in mundo loco, sive in immundo, sive in ventre muris, ibi est corpus Christi. m. 1. Et in hoc non derogatur corpori Christi, nec sacramento7: "Some say, wheresoever the forms be laid, whether it be in a fair place, or in a foul, or in the belly of a mouse, there is the very body of Christ. And this is no hinderance neither to the body of Christ nor to the sacrament." Again he saith: Si canis vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video, quare corpus Domini non simul trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porciTM: "If a dog or a swine should eat the whole host, being consecrate, I see no cause but our Lord's body should enter into the belly of the dog or of the swine." Floret. Lib. Gerson saith: Brutum sumit corpus Christi per accidens, quia sumit illud in Ger. contr. quo est: "A brute beast receiveth the body of Christ, because it receiveth that iv. thing wherein Christ's body is contained." Bonaventura liketh better the contrary doctrine, as more agreeing, as he saith, both with civil honesty, and also with the judgment of common reason: Hæc opinio... est...honestior et rationabilior9. Bon. in iv. Peter Lombard, the master of all catholic conclusions, one that taketh upon Quæst. 1. e. him to teach all others, when he cometh to this point, he standeth in a mammering, and is not able to teach himself. For thus he saith touching the same: Quid igitur sumit mus, vel quid manducat? "What is it then that the mouse iv. Sent. Dist. receiveth, or what eateth it?" He answereth: Deus novit 10: "God knoweth: I know it not." Notwithstanding, his resolution is this: Sane dici potest, quod corpus Christi a brutis animalibus non sumiturll: "It may very well be said, that a brute beast receiveth not the body of Christ." But this sentence is reversed, and not thought catholic. For the great faculty of Paris hath given this judgment upon the same: Hic magister non tenetur12: "Herein the master is not allowed." Therefore, notwithstanding M. Harding's contrary determination, this doctrine hitherto appeareth right good and catholic. 13. Touching such cases as herein may happen, Antoninus, the archbishop of Florence, writeth thus: Si mus, aut aliud animal, &c.13: "If a mouse or any Ant. de Def. [3 Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. Summ. Theol. Tert. Pars, Quæst. lxxx. Art. 3. Tom. XII. fol. 262. 2; where quod statim cum sacramentum tangitur, and quod etiam derogat.] [An account of this vision may be found in the life of Aquinas prefixed to his works. Tom. I. fol. tt. 2.] [5 Ex Arelat. Concil. cap. 6. in Crabb. Concil. Col. Agrip. 1551. Tom. I. p. 631. Conf. Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 94. col. 1964.] [ Joan. de Burg. Pup. Ocul. Argent. 1518. Pars IV. De Cust. Euch. fol. 27. 2; where the author proceeds: non sacramentaliter per modum sacramenti.] [ Alex. Alens. Op. Col. Agrip. 1622. Summ. Theol. Pars IV. Quæst. xi. Memb. ii. Art. 4. p. 407. [8. brutum non sumit corpus Christi nisi per [ Bonavent. Op. Mogunt. 1609. In Lib. IV. [10 Pet. Lomb. Libr. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. [12 Id. inter Error. a Paris. condemn. fol. 450.] Miss. iii. Par. other worm or beast happen to eat the sacrament through negligence of keeping, let the keeper through whose negligence it happened be enjoined to penance forty days. And, if it be possible, let the mouse be taken and burnt, and let his ashes be buried in or about the altar. But Peter of Palus saith: 'The mouse's entrails must be drawn, and the portion of the sacrament that there remaineth, if the priest be squeamish to receive it, must reverently be laid up in the tabernacle, until it may naturally be consumed. But the host so found in the mouse's entrails may in no wise be thrown out into the pool, as a certain priest sometime used a fly1 that he found in his chalice after consecration. But if a man had such a fervent zeal,' saith he, 'that his stomach would serve him to receive the same without horror, there were no way to it, specially if the man were fasting. So St Hugh of Clunice much commendeth Goderanus, a priest, for receiving the like portions cast up again by a leper. But he said afterward, St Laurence's gridiron was nothing so bad."" Hitherto Antoninus. And, for more likelihood hereof, this is holden as a catholic conclusion of that De Con. Dist. side: [Corpus Christi] potest evomi2: “The very body of Christ may be vomited up again." 2. Si quis. In Gloss. I protest again, as before, the very blasphemy and loathsomeness hereof unto a godly heart is untolerable. Neither would I have used this unpleasant rehearsal, were it not that it behoveth each man to know how deeply the people hath been deceived, and to what villany they have been brought. This doctrine hath been published and maintained in schools, in churches, by the school-doctors, by the canonists, by preachers, by bishops, by general councils, Fortal. Fid. and by him that wrote the very Castle and Fort of Faith3. Yet M. Harding Lib. iii. Simile 4. The two hundred and truth. For doubteth not to say it is a vile asseveration, and was never counted catholic. These be the imps of their transubstantiation. For, like as Ixion, instead of lady Juno, having the company of a cloud, begat Centauros, that were monstrous and ugly forms of half a man and half a horse joined together; even so these men, instead of God's holy mysteries, companying with their own light and cloudy fantasies, have brought forth these strange, ugly, deformed shapes in religion, loathsome to remember, and monstrous to behold. M. HARDING. THE SECOND DIVISION. Concerning the matter of this article, whatsoever a mouse, worm, or beast eateth, the body of Christ, now being impassible and immortal, sustaineth no violence, injury, ne villany. As for that which is gnawn, bitten, or eaten of worm or beast, whether it be the substance of bread, as appeareth to sense, which is denied, (251) because fifty-first un- it ceaseth through virtue of consecration; or the outward form only of the sacrament, the bread re- as many hold opinion, (252) which also only is broken and cheweds of the receiver, maineth still, the accidents by miracle remaining without substance: in such cases, happening contrary to the intent and end the sacrament is ordained and kept for, it ought fathers. not to seem unto us incredible, the power of God considered, that God taketh hundred and away his body from those outward forms, and permitteth either the nature of bread fifty-second untruth, as to return, as before consecration, or the accidents to supply the effects of the proved in the substance of bread; as he commanded the nature of the rod which became a serpent to return to that it was before, when God would have it serve no more to the uses it was by him appointed unto. as it is plain by the old catholic The two it is fully tenth article. The cer tainty of M. Harding's doctrine. custodiam species sacramenti comederit; ille per speaketh nei nor of brute *The grave authority of St Cyprian addeth great weight to the balance for St Cyprian this judgment in weighing this matter, who in his sermon de Lapsis, by the report ther of mice of certain miracles, sheweth that our Lord's body made itself away from some that, beasts, &c. being defiled with the sacrifices of idols, presumed to come to the communion ere they had done their due penance. One (as he telleth there), thinking to have that blessed body which he had received with others in his hand, when he opened the same to put it into his mouth, found that he held ashes. And thereof St Cyprian saith: Documento unius ostensum est, Dominum recedere cum negatur: "By the example of one man it was shewed that our Lord departeth away when he is denied." It is neither wicked nor a thing unworthy the majesty of that holy mystery, to think our Lord's body likewise done away in cases of negligence, villany, and profanation. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. O what shifting here is to avoid this miserable inconvenience! Innocentius thinketh it not good to say the mouse eateth Christ's body in the sacrament but rather he saith, that "Christ, when he seeth the mouse coming, Innoc. III. De Offic. getteth himself away, and leaveth the sacrament." This doctor's judgment Miss. cap. xi. M. Harding alloweth before others, and thinketh it best to stand with reason. But what then is it that the mouse eateth? Bread it cannot be; "for that is gone," as they say, "by consecration." It remaineth that the mouse must needs eat the shews and accidents. Howbeit that were a strange kind of feeding. But nothing is strange to M. Harding. Yet shews and accidents cannot nourish. What is it then wherewith the mouse is nourished? M. Harding answereth: Perhaps almighty God by a miracle suffereth the bread to return again to feed the mouse. Or else, if this will not serve, he saith further: Perhaps God worketh another miracle, and by his omnipotent power giveth the very accidents of bread strength to nourish and increase substance, as if it were bread. Thus these men have devised a pretty way to feed mice with miracles. Thomas of Aquine saith that, if a man take overmuch of the consecrate Thom. in wine, notwithstanding the substance of the wine be gone, yet he may be overseen by the accidents, and so may happen to be drunken by a miracle. Here we see M. Harding answereth only by "perhaps," as being not yet well advised what he may say. Whereby it appeareth his doctrine holdeth no certainty. Therefore, whatsoever he say, we may give no great credit to his tale, nor take it for catholic. 1 Cor. xi. 5. de Lapsis. St Cyprian, that is here alleged, maketh no manner mention neither of forms nor of accidents; nor teacheth us that the mouse can eat Christ's body; nor that Christ conveyeth himself away, and leaveth the sacrament; nor that the substance of bread returneth again; nor that the accidents have power to nourish; nor any other like fantasy. Only he saith: God gave that wicked man by Cypr. Serm. that miracle to understand, that for his infidelity and idolatry his grace was so departed from his heart as the sacrament was departed from his hand1o. Therefore this place maketh utterly nothing to M. Harding's purpose. Notwithstanding, he thought it good so in this article to use the name of St Cyprian, as in the article before he used the name of St Cyril, lest he should be thought to pass over any article without a doctor. The best that may be gathered of St Cyprian's words is this, that the wicked receiveth not the body of Christ. Which thing, as it is most true, so it utterly overthroweth the whole substance of M. Harding's doctrine. Now, good christian reader, that thou mayest see how aptly M. Harding's doctors agree together, notwithstanding so many of them tell us, and hold it for most certain, that a mouse may eat the very body of Christ, and receive [7 Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. De Laps. p. 133.] [8 Si vero quæratur, quid a mure comeditur.... Respondetur, quod sicut miraculose substantia panis convertitur in corpus dominicum cum incipit esse sub sacramento: sic quodammodo miraculose revertitur, cum ipsum ibi desinit esse, &c.-Innoc. Papæ III. Op. Col. 1575. Myst. Miss. Lib. IV. cap. xi. Tom. I. p. 380.] [9 Et hac ratione species illæ panis et vini pos- |