In Gloss.


Libi сар

iv. Sentent. Dist. 13. Quæst. 2. Durand. Lib. iv.

whole Christ, God and man, into his belly; yet others of them contrariwise tell us, and hold it likewise for most certain, that a faithful christian man,

be he never so godly, yet cannot receive the body of Christ into his belly. De Consecr. For thus they write : Certum est quod, quam cito species teruntur dentibus, tam Tribus grad. cito in coelum rapitur corpus Christil: “It is certain that, as soon as the forms

of the bread be touched with the teeth, straightway the body of Christ (is not received into the belly, but) is caught up into heaven.” And he saith not 'perhaps," as M. Harding doth, but, certum est, “it is certain and out of question,” and therefore catholic.

And Hugo, a great school-doctor, such a one as M. Harding may not well Hugo de Sa. deny, saith thus : Quando in manibus sacramentum ... tenes, corporaliter tecum est Paris.cop.. [Christus] : quando ore suscipis, corporaliter tecum est.... Postquam autem corpoBonavent

. in ralis sensus in percipiendo deficit, deinceps corporalis præsentia quærenda non est?:

“While thou holdest the sacrament in thy hand, Christ is bodily with thee: while thou receivest the sacrament with thy mouth, Christ is bodily with thee. But, after that the sacrament is passed further, and) thy bodily sense beginneth to fail, thou mayest no longer look for bodily presence.” Thus they grant that a mouse may receive the body of Christ into his belly; and yet they deny the same unto a man. Such is the certainty and constancy of this doctrine.

But, to conclude, and to give some certain resolution in this uncertain and doubtful doctrine, it behoveth us to understand that, as St Augustine saith, there is great difference between Christ's body and the sacrament. For the sacrament is corruptible: Christ's body is glorious, and void of all corruption. The sacrament is in the earth: Christ's body is in heaven. The sacrament is received by our bodily mouth: Christ's body is received only by faith, which is the mouth of our soul. And whoso understandeth not this difference understandeth not the meaning of any sacrament.

Now, to apply the same to this purpose : The mouse or other worm may receive the substance of the bread, which is the outward corruptible element of the sacrament; but the very body of Christ itself, which is in heaven, cannot be received but by faith only, and none otherwise.

St Augustine speaketh thus in the person of Christ : [Ego] sum cibus granAugust. Confess. Lib. vii. dium: cresce, et manducabis me: “I am the food of great ones : grow, and

thou shalt eat me." August. in

Again he saith: Hoc est ... manducare illam escam, et cachiano . Trac illum potum bibere, in Christo manere, et Christum manentem in se haberet: “ « This

is the eating of that food and the drinking of that drink, for a man to abide

in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in him.” Chrysost. ex

Chrysostom saith : Magnus iste panis... replet mentem, ... non ventrem. Iste Manite locomot panis et noster est, et angelorums: “This great loaf (meaning thereby the body .

of Christ, that is in heaven) filleth the mind, and not the belly. This is our bread, and the bread of angels." As the angels receive it, so we receive it.

And, to conclude, so saith St Hilary: “The bread that came down from heaven is not received but of him that hath our Lord, and is the member of Christ 6."

By the old learned fathers' undoubted judgment this is the only eating of the flesh of Christ; wherein mice, and brute beasts, and wicked men, that are worse than brute beasts, have no portion. And if these holy fathers were now alive, doubtless they would say to M. Harding and to his fellows: 0 curvi in terris animi, et coelestium inanes ! O you that lie grovelling on the ground, and have no sense of things above !"

cap. X.

[ocr errors]

tat. 26

[ocr errors]



Hilar. de Trin, Lib. viii.

[Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert, Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in can. 23. col. 1922; where species quam cito dentibus teruntur.]

[? Hug. de Sanct. Vict. Op. Mogunt. 1617. De
Sacram. Lib. II. Pars vii. cap. xiii. Tom. III. p.
464; where sensus corporalis.

Bonavent. Op. Mogunt. 1609. In Lib. iv. Sentent.
Dist. xiii. Art. ii. Quæst. 2. Tom. V. p. 158.

Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. iv.
cap. xli. 41. fol. 167.)

[? August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Confess. Lib. vii, cap. x. 16. Tom. I. col. 139; where cibus sum.]

[* Id. in Johan. Evang. cap. vi. Tractat. xxvi, 18. Tom. III. Pars 11.col. 501; where bibere potum, and illum manentem.]

[5 Chrysost. Op. Lat. Basil. 1547. Ex Matt. cap. v. De Orat. Domin. Hom. Tom. V. col. 716.]

[6 The exact words have not been found; but for a nearly similar idea see Hilar. Op. Par. 1693. De Trin. Lib. viii. 42. cols. 972,3. Conf. Comm. in Matt. cap. ix. 3. col. 648.]




Or that, when Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum, this word hoo pointed not the bread, but individuum vagum, as some of them say.


ARTICLE XXIV. H. A. 1564.)


2 Thess. ii.

Whatsoever hoc pointeth in this saying of Christ after your judgment, M. Jewel, right meaning and plain christian people (who through God's grace have

received the love of truth, and not the efficacy of illusion to believe

lying) believe verily that in this sacrament, after consecration, is the very body of Christ, and that upon credit of his own words, Hoc est corpus meum. They that appoint themselves to follow your Genevian doctrine in this point, deceived by that ye teach them, hoc to point the bread, and by sundry other un

truths, instead of the very body of Christ in the sacrament rightly The benefit of

ministered verily present, shall receive nothing at your communion but a

bare piece of bread, not worth a point. As for your "some say,who will have hoc to point individuum vagum, first, learn you well what they mean, and if their meaning be naught, whosoever they be, handle them as you list; therewith shall we be offended never a deal. How this word hoc in that saying of Christ is to be taken, and what it pointeth, *we know, who have more learnedly, •M. Hardmore certainly, and more truly treated thereof than Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, ipin molto Cranmer, Peter Martyr, or any their offspring.

the Genevian communion.

opinion of himself.


In this article M. Harding only uttereth some part of his choler against them whom it pleaseth him to call Genevians; and vaunteth much of 8 his own learning, as learned men seldom use to do, with reproach and disdain of others; and in the end, touching the matter, saith utterly nothing. Yet is there not lightly any doubt that amazeth and troubleth the best learned of his side so much as this.

For, their fantasy of transubstantiation presupposed to stand in force, if they say that Christ by this pronoun hoc meant the bread that he held in his hand; then must it needs follow, that the very substance of that bread was the very body of Christ. For by this position that must needs be the purport and meaning of these words.

If they say, Christ by the same pronoun meant the accidents and shews of the bread; then must it follow that the same accidents and shews of bread were the body of Christ. But so should an accident be a substance: which error were much worse and far more unsensible than the former.

If they say, this pronoun hoc signified the body of Christ itself; then the meaning of these words, “ This is my body," must needs be this : “My body is my Holcot in body.” “ But this,” saith Holcot, “were vainly spoken, and to no purpose 9.” And Quæst. S.

iv. Sentent.

[? 1611, omits if.]
(8 1565, 1609, omit of.]

[° Per illud pronomen aut igitur illud est corpus Christi vel panis. Si corpus Christi: ergo corpus

Christi est ibi ante finem prolationis formæ, et sic
erit transubstantiatio ante prolationem aliorum ver-
borum.-Rob. Holkot sup. Quat. Libr. Sentent. Lagd.
1497. Lib. iv. Quæst. ii. fol. m. vii.]

Gerson contra Floret. Lib. iv.

Occam in iv.
Dist. 13.

The Dis- by this exposition “ Christ's body should be there before the words of consecrasension of tion were pronounced,” and so there should be no virtue or force in consecration; Doctors, or rather there should be consecration before consecration, and so consecration

without consecration.

Upon these few words they have built up their whole religion. This is the foundation of all together. Therefore M. Harding should not so lightly and so disdainfully have passed it over without answer. Otherwise, this change being so great as it is supposed, we shall not know neither what thing is changed, nor whereof Christ's body is made present.

Neither is there any just cause wherefore M. Harding should be thus angry with the Genevians in this behalf. For he knoweth right well that this new fantasy of individuum vagum is no part of their doctrine.

But, briefly to touch how pitifully the learned of M. Harding's side have entangled themselves in this case, first of all Gerson saith thus: Dicendum est, quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panisl : “We must say that this pronoun hoc signifieth the substance of the bread.” By this doctor the substance of bread is Christ's body.

Occam saith: Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi? : “ This pronoun hoc hath relation to the body of Christ.” By this doctor the body of Christ is the body of Christ.

Yet Petrus Alliacensis saith: Hoc demonstrat corpus Christi : alioqui falsa est lent. Dist. 13. propositio 3: Hoc pointeth the body of Christ; otherwise Christ's saying is not


Thomas of Aquine goeth learnedly to work, and expoundeth it thus : Hoc, id Dist. B. Art. est, hoc contentum sub istis speciebus, est corpus meum4: This, that is to say, this

thing contained under these forms, is my body.”

But all these expositions seem to import some inconvenience. For hereby it may be gathered, that the bread is transubstantiate, and, as they imagine, Christ's 5 body made present before the words of consecration.

Therefore Johannes de Burgo thought it good to help the matter with a

disjunctive, in this sort: Hoc sub hac specie præsens, vel de propinquo futurum, est Forina Verb. corpus meum 6 : “ This thing, that either is present already under these forms, or

anon will be present, is my body."

By all these doctors' judgments the meaning of Christ's words is none other Holcot in iv. but this : “My body is or shall be my body.” “Which exposition,” as Holcot Quæst. 3. saith, “is childish, vain, fantastical, and to no purpose7." Holcot

And therefore Holcot himself saith: Hoc significat quiddam utrique termino eodem loco.

commune; et termino, a quo, et termino, ad quem 8 : “ This pronoun hoc signifieth a certain thing that is indifferently common, as well to the bread as to Christ's body.” But what thing that indifferent thing should be, it were hard to know.

Doctor Durand, seeing all these inconveniences and difficulties, and not Durand. Lib. knowing how to get out, in the end concludeth thus : Super hoc dicunt quidam,

quod per pronomen hoc nihil significatur*; sed illud materialiter ponitur) : " Here

Pet. Alliacen. in iv

Quæst. 5.

Thom. in iv.



Johan. De
Burg. de

requisita, &c.

cap. iv.



[{Floret. Lib. Lugd. 1499. Lib. iv. fol. 95.)

[? Nothing to the point has been found in Occam on the Sentences. But see Quodlib. G. Hokam. Par. 1487. Quodl. ii. Quæst. 19, fol. g. i.; where the author says: Ad argumentum principale dico, quod proferens sacerdos talem propositionem semper tam in principio quam in fine demonstrat corpus Christi.]

(P. de Alliaco discusses the questions what Christ meant and what the priest now means by the word referred to, and cites various doctors. Quoting Occam, he says: Uno modo potest dici ... quod sacerdos significative recipiens dicta verba debet demonstrare per ly hoc corpus Christi, &c.; again : Alio modo dici potest quod non est necesse quod sacerdos rite conficiens aliquid demonstret per ly hoc, &c.Pet. de Alliac. sup. Sentent. Par. Quart. Lib. Quæst. Quint. Art. Prim. fol. 250. 2.)

aut facit demonstrationem ad intellectum, aut ad sensum. Si ad intellectum, ut sit sensus, Hoc,

id est, significatum per hoc, est corpus meum, tunc, &c. Si autem facit demonstrationem ad sensum. ergo demonstrabit substantiam contentam sub illis speciebus sensibilibus : sed, &c.—Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. In Quart. Sentent. Dist. viii. Quæst. ii. Art. 1. Tom. VII. fol. 42.]

[ Christ, 1609, 1611.)

[° Joan. de Burg. Pup. Ocul. Argent. 1518. Pars Iv. cap. iv. fol. 19.)

[? See before, page 787, note 9.]

[8 Sed quæritur quid demonstretur per hoc pronomen hoc. Dico quod illud quod manet sub utroque termino transmutationis: &c.—Rob. Holkot sup. Quat. Libr. Sentent. Lugd. 1497. Lib. iv. Quæst. iii. fol, m. vii.]

[° Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. iv. cap. xli. 44. fol. 167.2; where per hoc pronomen nihil demonstratur.]

Offic. Miss.
Par. iii. cap.

. .


upon some say that this pronoun hoc signifieth nothing at all, but is put materially and absolutely, without any manner signification.”

But hereof groweth another doubt greater than any of all the rest. For, if this word hoc signify nothing at all, what force then can it have to work consecration ?

Innocentius, weighing these things indifferently all together, is driven to say, that “ Christ consecrated the sacrament, not by these words, Hoc est corpus meum, Innce. 1. De but by his blessing that went before 10."

Likewise is John Duns driven to say touching the same: Illa propositio, Hoc Scot. in iv. est corpus meum, non est consecrativa, nec ut vera, nec ut falsa : sed ut est pro- dists. positio neutrall: “ This sentence, Hoc est corpus meum, is not the sentence of Quæst. 3. consecration, neither as it is true nor as it is false; but only as it is a sentence neuter between both, that is to say, neither true nor false.”

All this notwithstanding, D. Stephen Gardiner, not greatly regarding the authority of any of these doctors, in his first book of the sacrament, intituled “ The Devil's Sophistry," writeth thus: “Christ spake plainly, “This is my body,' The Devil's

Sophistry, making demonstration of the bread 12.” Which last exposition being true, if this for? pronoun hoc signified the material bread that Christ held in his hand, then, by M. Harding's doctrine, that very material bread was indeed and verily the body of Christ.

But, if the same pronoun hoc signified not that same material bread that Christ held in his hand, then was not that same material bread changed into the substance of Christ's body.

Thus the best learned of that side are utterly amazed at this matter, and run each man his own way, and know not what may please them best.

Yet M. Harding thinketh it sufficient thus to conclude with a courage: “How that word hoc is to be taken, and what it pointeth, we know, who have more learnedly, more certainly, and more truly treated hereof than Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, Peter Martyr, or any their offspring." If M. Harding and his fellows know so much as here he seemeth to take upon him, he hath the greater cause to give God thanks. Whatsoever he have, he hath received it. him grace to use it well !

He would seem not to know who they be that would force us to this fancy of his individuum vagum. And therefore he saith : “ If their meaning be naught, handle them as ye list.” Howbeit, he cannot be so ignorant herein as he would seem to be. For, although perhaps he be not much acquainted with the doctrine, yet he cannot choose but know the doctor: him I mean of whom he hath p. Stephen borrowed good store of matter, sometimes a whole leaf and more together, towards the building of his book.

He, notwithstanding he were once persuaded that Christ by this pronoun hoc made demonstration of the bread, yet afterward thought all that not worth a point, but utterly changed his whole mind, and thought it better to say that Christ by the same pronoun hoc pointed not the bread that he held in his hand, but only individuum vagum. And that, for the better understanding of his Mar. Anton. reader, he calleth individuum in genere, individuum entis, unum substantiæ, unum entis, individuum insignitum, individuum individui13. This fancy he so warranteth and forceth every where, as if Christ's words could bear none other exposition.

Thus therefore he imagineth Christ to say: This thing that ye see me hold in my hand is not two things : it is only one certain thing. But what one certain thing it is, I cannot tell; but sure I am, bread it is not.

God give



(lo Sane dici potest, quod Christus virtute divina confecit; et postea formam expressit, sub qua posteri benedicerent.-Innoc. Papæ III. Op. Col. 1575. Myst. Miss. Lib. iv. cap. vi. Tom. I. p. 377. Ab hujus ergo quæstionis laqueo facile se absolvit, qui dicit, quod Christus tunc confecit quum benedixit.Ibid. cap. xvii. p. 384.]

[" Et si quæras tunc, qualis, aut ut vera, aut ut falsa est propositio conversiva ? Dico, quod neque

sic, neque sic: sed tantum ut est propositio neutra. -J. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. Lib. iv. Sentent. Dist. viii. Quæst. ii. Tom. VIII. p. 440.]

["? cannot be maintained of Christ's words, who spake &c.—A Detection of the Deuils Sophistrie, Lond. 1546. fol. 24. 2.)

[13 Confut. Cavill, in Ven. Euch. Sacr. Verit. Par. 1552. Ad Object. xiii. xiv. xv, foll. 9, &c. 1921.]

tra Marcion.
Lib. iv.
De Consecr.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Hieron. in Esai. Lib. ii. cap. v.

Thus are they driven to wander in vanities, and to seek up strange and monstrous forms of speech, such as the ancient catholic doctors never knew, lest

they should seem plainly and simply to say, as the learned father Tertullian Tertull. con- saith: Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, figura corporis meil : “This is my body,

that is to say, this is a figure of my body;" or, as it is written in their own Disconsin me decrees: Vocatur corpus Christi

, id est, significat (corpus Christi]: “ It is called est. In Gloss the body of Christ, that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ."

St Hierome saith : Tam diu ... quærunt hæretici nova veteribus [adljungere, et eadem recentioribus immutare, donec [eos] et sensus humanus et verba deficiants: “ The manner of heretics is so long to mingle and blend new things with the old, and still to alter new for new, until both their wits and their speech begin to fail them.”

Here note, good reader, that in this whole article M. Harding hath alleged no manner doctor, nor old nor new. The reason thereof is this, for that of the old doctors he had none to allege, and of his new doctors he was ashamed.

['Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Adv. Marcion. Lib. iv. 40. p. 571. See before, page 447, note 13.]

[° Corp. Jur. Cauon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in

can. 48. col. 1937. See before, page 503, note 13.)

[? Hieron. Op. Par. 1693-1706. Comm. Lib. 11. in Isai. Proph. cap. v. Tom. III. col. 49; where et sermo deficiat.]

« VorigeDoorgaan »