Or that the accidents, or forms, or shews of bread and wine be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not rather that4 bread and wine itself.



[blocks in formation]


untruth, ever presumed, and never proved.

In Homil.

De Cons. Dist. 2, cap. Omnia.

Forasmuch as, by the almighty power of God's word pronounced by the priest in the consecration of this sacrament, the body and blood of Christ are made (253) The two really present, the substance of bread (253) turned into the substance of the body, hintyathird and the substance of wine into the substance of the blood; the bread (which is con

sumed away by the fire of the divine substanceó, as Chrysostom

saith, and now is become the bread which was formed by the hand of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin, and decocted with the fire of the

passion in the altar of the cross, as St Ambrose saith) cannot be
the sacrament of the body, nor the wine of the blood.

Neither can it be said that the bread and wine which were before are the sacraments, for that the bread is become the body, and the wine the blood, and so now they are not ; and if they be not, then neither be they sacraments. Therefore, that the outward forms of bread and wine which remain be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not the very bread and wine itself, it followeth by sequel of reason, or consequent of understanding, deduced out of the first truth, which of St Basil,

in an epistle ad Sozopolitanos, speaking against certain that went Latino codice 8.]

about to raise up again the old heresy of Valentinus, is called το εν διανοίαις ακόλουθονθ. Of which sequel of reason in the matter of the sacrament many conclusions may be deduced in case of want of express scriptures. Which way of reasoning Basil used against heretics, as also sundry other fathers, where manifest scripture might not be alleged.

Epist. 65. [In


M. Harding presumeth that his new fantasy of transubstantiation must needs stand for good. And therefore, imagining that the bread and wine are wholly removed, and cannot be the sacraments, he thinketh he may well conclude that the forms and shews that are left behind must needs be the sacraments. But this error is soon reproved by the consent of all the old catholic fathers of the church. St Augustine saith : Quod videtis, panis est 10: “The thing that ye see August. ad (speaking of the sacrament) is (not a form or an accident, but) very bread.”


[" The, H. A. 1564.]

[5 'Αλλ' ώσπερ κηρός πυρί προσομιλήσας ούδεν απουσιάζει, ουδέν περισσεύει ούτω και ωδε νόμιζε συναναλίσκεσθαι τα μυστήρια τη του σώMatos ovoia. - Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. De Pænit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. col. 350. Conf. Op. Lat. Basil, 1547. De Euch. in Encæn. Admon. Sum. Tom. III. col. 919.)

[9 ... illum utique intelligo panem, qui manu sancti Spiritus formatus est in utero virginis, et igne passionis decoctus in ara crucis.--Ambros. in Corp.

Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De
Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 74. col. 1954.]

[? And the wine, H. A. 1564.]

[8 Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. Ad Sozop. Epist. cclxi. (al. Ixv). 3. Tom. III. p. 402.]

[° These words are not in H. A. 1564. They appear in H. A. 1565.]

[10 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Serm. Infant. Tom. V. col. 1103. See before, page 776, note 11.]


Dial. I et 2.


De LL. et
et Lon. Con.

[ocr errors]

Epist. 3.

Epist. ad

16. Chrysost. in Encpa.

De Consecr.
Dist. 2. Quid

Chrysost. ad St Chrysostom", Theodoretus?, Gelasius", and other learned fathers confess by Gelas. contra manifest and express words, that “there remaineth still in the sacrament the

very nature and substance of bread and wine.” Therefore this doctrine is built upon a false ground, and cannot stand.

But Chrysostom saith: “The bread is consumed by the force of the divine presence.” And St Ambrose, saith M. Harding, reporteth the same.

It is great frowardness, whatsoever any one or other of the fathers happen to utter in vehemency and heat of talk, to dissemble the manner of their speech, and to draw and force the same violently to the rigour of the letter. Paulus saith : In fraudem [legis facit], ... qui, salvis verbis legis, sententiam ejus circumvenit*: “He doth wrong to the law, that, following only the bare words, defraudeth the

meaning of the law." Cypr. Lib. ii.

St Cyprian saith : Passio Christi est sacrificium quod offerimus): “The sa

crifice that we offer is the passion of Christ.” Chrysost. in Chrysostom saith: Baptisma Christi sanguis ejus este: “The baptism of Hebr. Hom. Christ is Christ's blood."

And again he saith: In mysteris sanguis ex Christi latere hauritur?: “In the time of the holy communion the blood of Christ is drawn out of his side.”

St Gregory saith : [Christus] iterum in hoc mysterio moritur8 : “In this sit sanguis. mystery (of the holy communion) Christ is put to death again.”

I trow, M. Harding will not so straitly force us to believe, only upon the sight of these bare words, either that the holy communion is Christ's passion, or that the water of baptism is Christ's blood, or that Christ is slain and put to death in the time of the holy mysteries, or that Christ's blood at that time is drawn and poured from his side ; and that without help of figure, verily, really, and indeed.

By such manner of amplification and kind of speech St Chrysostom saith, “ The bread is consumed;" not for that there remaineth in the sacrament no bread at all, but for that, in comparison of the death of Christ, that there is laid forth and represented before us, the material bread seemeth nothing. For

otherwise Chrysostom most plainly confesseth that the nature of bread remaineth Chrysost. ad still. These be his words : In sacramento manet natura panis 9 : “In the sacrament

there remaineth still the nature of bread.”

And as he saith, “ The bread is consumed;" even so in the same place he seemeth to say, the priest is consumed. His words be these: Ne putes, te accipere divinum corpus ab homine 10 : “Think not that thou receivest the divine body of a man.”

And to like purpose he speaketh of the sacrament of baptism: Non baptizaris a sacerdote: Deus ipse tenet caput tuumil: “ Thou art not baptized of the priest : it is God himself that holdeth thy head."

Thus the holy fathers, entreating of the sacraments, use to advance 12 our minds from the sensible and corruptible elements to the cogitation of the

heavenly things that thereby are represented. And therefore Chrysostom saith : Chrysost. in Mysteria omnia interioribus oculis videnda sunt 13: “We must behold all mysteries

with our inner eyes ;" which inner eyes doubtless have no regard to any cor-
ruptible and outward thing.

Hereby the feebleness of M. Harding's sequel may soon appear.
True it is that he further saith: “In case of want of the scriptures, we may


In Encan.

Chrysost, in
Matt. Hom.


1 Cor. cap. ii.

Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 83.

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

[? Theodor. Op. Lut. Par. 1642-84. Tom. IV. Immut. Dial. i. Inconf. Dial. ii. pp. 18, 85.)

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

[Paul, in Corp. Jur. Civil. Amst. 1663. Digest. Lib. 1. Tit. iii. 29. Tom. I. p. 78.)

[5 Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. lxiii. p. 156; where passio est enim Domini.]

[6 Chrysost. Op. In Epist. ad Hebr. cap. ix. Hom.

xvi. Tom. XII. p. 159. See before, page 518, note 4.]

[? Id. De Pænit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. col. 349.)

( Gregor. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 73. col. 1953.]

[° Chrysost. Op. Epist. ad Cæsar. Monach, Tom. III. p. 744. See before, page 545.]

[Id. De Pænit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. p. 350.)
[ Idin Matt. Hom. 1. Tom. VII. p. 517.]
pi? Avance, 1565.]
[13 Id. in 1. Cor. cap. ii. Hom. vii. Tom. X. p.51.
Id. in Matt. Hom. lxxii. Tom. VII. p. 787.)

[ocr errors]

. .


sometime guide ourselves by discourse and drift of reason 14." Notwithstanding St Augustine saith: Hæc consuetudo periculosa est 15: “ The custom hereof is very August. de dangerous.” But in this case M. Harding wanteth neither the scriptures nor Lib. iii. cap. the authority of ancient doctors.

It is plain by the manifest words of St Paul, of St Chrysostom, of St Augustine, of Theodoretus, of Gelasius, and of other more holy fathers, both Greeks and Latins, that in the sacrament, after the words of consecration, the

very nature and substance of the bread remaineth still. It were much for M. Harding to forsake all these, and to trust only to a bare shift of simple reason.



. 2,

semblance. The two hundred and


And whereas there must be a likeness between the sacrament and the thing of

the sacrament (for, if the sacraments had not a likeness of things . 22, ad Bonifacium whereof they are sacraments, properly and rightly they should not Episc.

be called sacraments 16; as the sacrament of baptism, which is the outward washing of the flesh, hath a likeness of the inward washing of the soul), and no likeness here appeareth to be between the forms that remain and the thing of the sacrament, (for they consist not, the one of many corns, the other of grapes, for thereof cometh not accident, but substance ;) hereto may be said, it is enough that these sacraments bear the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, forasmuch

as the one representeth the likeness of bread, the other the likeness of a strange recap. Hoc est quod wine, which St Augustine calleth (254) visibilem speciem elementorum ", " the visible form of the elements.

fifty-fourth untruth. For


by these

words meant What meaneth M. Harding, thus to encumber himself with these vain and

the very sub

stance of miserable follies ? St Augustine saith : “A sacrament must have a resemblance


August. or likeness of that thing whereof it is a sacrament. For without this re- Epist. 23, ad

Bonifac. semblance or likeness," he saith, “a sacrament is no sacrament 18.”

Therefore M. Harding cometh in with his fantasy, and telleth us that his forms and accidents are the resemblance and likeness of the body of Christ. But, alas! wherein standeth this comparison of resemblance and likeness ? Or wherein are M. Harding's accidents and Christ's body like together? Certainly M. Harding himself, notwithstanding he can say many things, yet he cannot truly say that Christ's body is either round, or plain, or white, or thin, or any way like unto his accidents.

Yet must there be a certain likeness in effects between the sacrament and the thing itself whereof it is a sacrament. Of which effects the one is sensible, and wrought outwardly to the body; the other is spiritual, and wrought inwardly in the mind. As, for example, in the sacrament of circumcision the outward visible cutting in the flesh was a resemblance of the inward spiritual cutting of the heart. In the sacrament of baptism the outward washing of the body is a resemblance of the inward spiritual washing of the soul.

Likewise in the sacrament of the holy communion, as the bread outwardly feedeth our bodies, so doth Christ's body inwardly and spiritually feed our souls. Thus is feeding an effect common unto them both. And therein standeth the resemblance and likeness of the sacrament. Therefore Rabanus Maurus saith : Quia panis corporis cor confirmat, ideo ille congruenter corpus Christi nominatur ; Raban. Maur. et, quia rinum sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo illud refertur ad sanguinem 19 : xxxi. “ Because the bread confirmeth the heart of our body, therefore is the same

[14 See before, p. 791.]

[15 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. 111. cap. xxviii. 39. Tom. III. Pars 1. col. 56.]

[16 Id. Ad Bonifac. Epist. xcviii. 9. Tom. II. col. 267. See before, page 503, note 11.)

[? Id. in Lib. Sentent. Prosp. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 48. col. 1936; where visibili

(JEWEL, 11.]

elementorum specie.]

[18 See above, note 16.]

["' Ergo quia panis corporis cor firmat, ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur. Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.-Raban. Maur. Op. Col. Agrip. 1626-7. De Inst. Cler. Lib. I. cap. xxxi. Tom. VI. p. 12.]


[ocr errors]

conveniently called the body of Christ; and, because wine worketh blood in our flesh, therefore the wine hath relation unto the blood of Christ."

Now, if M. Harding, touching this effect of feeding, will compare his accidents with Christ's body, then must he say that we eat accidents, and drink accidents, and be fed with accidents, and live by accidents; even as in the inner man we eat Christ, and drink Christ, and be fed with Christ, and live by Christ: Otherwise he must confess that, touching the effect of feeding, his accidents have no resemblance of Christ's body, and therefore can in no wise be called sacraments.

But, saith M. Harding, the accidents represent the likeness of bread; and the bread that was representeth the body Christ. Here is another subtle drift of M. Harding's reason ; from accidents to bread, and from bread to Christ's body. And so we have here fancy upon fancy, and one likeness upon another; but neither scripture, nor council, nor doctor, either Greek or Latin, or old or new, to avouch the same.

But here appeareth a marvellous perverse order in nature. For, by M. Harding's drifts, neither can the bread signify Christ's body, but only when the bread is abolished and nothing left to signify; nor can these accidents signify the bread, but only when there is no bread remaining there to be signified. And so the effect of M. Harding's drift and of this resemblance passeth from nothing to nothing, and standeth in nothing.

Here it behoved M. Harding to have foreseen the inconveniencies that might have followed. For, if the accidents of the bread be the sacrament, forasmuch as in one piece of bread there be sundry accidents, it must needs follow of these positions, that in one piece of bread be sundry sacraments, and so sundry sacraments in one sacrament. Innocentius himself espied this incon

venience; and therefore he demandeth this question : Cum sint multe species, cap. xxxviii. quomodo non sunt multa sacramenta??

But this resemblance or likeness St Augustine calleth visibilem speciem elementorum, the visible form of the elements.” By which words, saith M. Harding, he meant only the shews and accidents of the bread. Indeed St Augustine's words be true; but M. Harding's exposition is not true. For St Augustine by this word species meant not the outward forms or shews, as it is supposed, but the very kind and substance and nature of the bread.

So St Ambrose saith: Ante benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species illis Myst. cap. ix. nominatur; post consecrationem corpus [Christi] significatur3 : “Before the bless

ing of the heavenly words it is called (not another form or another shew, but) another kind or nature; but after the consecration Christ's body is signified.”

Which thing may also plainly appear by St Augustine himself in the same De Consecr. place. For thus he writeth: Panis, qui corpus Christi est, suo modo vocatur

corpus Christi, cum re vera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, &c.
ipsa immolatio carnis (Christi], quce sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors,
crucifixio ; non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio4. He saith, (not the form,
not the shew, not the accident, but) “The bread, that is the body of Christ
(not verily or indeed, but) after a manner, is called the body of Christ;
whereas it is indeed a sacrament of the body of Christ, &c. And the oblation
of the flesh of Christ, that is made with the priest's hand, is called the pas-
sion, the death, and the crucifying of Christ; not in truth of the matter, but
by a mystery signifying."

Innoc. De

. Miss.

Ambros. De

Dist. 2. Hoc est, quod dicimus.


Thus the forms of bread and wine are the sacraments of the body and blood

[' Body of Christ, 1565, 1609.)

[? Sed quæritur, Utrum species panis et veritas corporis unum sunt sacramentum, an diversa sint sacramenta ? &c. He concludes : Potest non incongrue responderi, quia omnia simul accepta sunt unum eucharistiæ sacramentum, eo quod nullum sacramentum solum significet per se, sed omnia simul panis speciem repræsentant, quæ corpus Christi con

tinet et significat.—Innoc. Papæ III. Op. Col. 1575. Myst. Miss. Lib. IV. cap. xxxviii. Tom. I. pp. 392, 3.)

[? Ambros. Op. Par. 1686-90. Lib. de Myst. cap. ix. 54. Tom. II. col. 339.]

[* ...panis, qui vere Christus caro est, suo &c.August. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 48. col. 1937.]

of Christ, not only in respect of the thing signified, which is the unity of the church, but also of the thing contained, which is the very flesh and blood of Christ,

whereof the Truth itself said: The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

John vi.


Petr. cap.



[ocr errors]

Johan. Lib.

In the end M. Harding, not only without any authority either of scriptures, or of councils, or of doctors, but also without any manner shew or drift of reason, concludeth in this sort : “ Thus the forms of bread and wine are the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ." Thus M. Harding bringeth in his conclusion without premises. By M. Harding's judgment St Augustine was not well advised, when he called the holy mystery sacramentum panis et vini", De Pid. ad “ the sacrament of bread and wine.” He should rather have called it, by xix. this construction, “the sacrament of forms and shews.” And whereas St Augustine saith, Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum 6; whereby he August. in meaneth that the bread itself is made a sacrament; M. Harding will rather Tractat. 80. expound it thus: “Let the word come to the element or creature of bread; and then the accidents thereof are made a sacrament."

Verily, touching the wine, Christ himself calleth it, not forms or accidents, Matt. xxvi. but “the fruit,” or, as Cyprian termeth it, “the creature of the vine,” crea- Cypr. Lib. ii. turam vitis?.

Epist. 3. St Cyprian calleth the bread after consecration panem ... ex multorum grano- Cypr. in Orat. rum adunatione congestum®, “ bread made (not of forms and accidents, but) of the (substance and) moulding of many corns.”

St Cyril saith: “ Credentibus discipulis fragmenta panis dedito: “Christ unto Cyril. in his disciples, believing in him, gave (not accidents or shews, but) fragments or iv. cap. xxiv. pieces of bread.”

Irenæus saith: “Of the same bread and wine after consecration augetur Iren. Lib. v. et consistit carnis nostro substantia 10, is increased and consisteth the substance of our flesh.”

Here must M. Harding needs say, as Marcus Constantius said before him, AdObject. 27. that accidents are the fruit of the vinell; that corns and grapes be likewise accidents; that fragments and pieces of bread be nothing else but accidents ; that the substance of our bodies is nourished and increased and standeth by accidents. Thus are their accidents fuga miserorum. They can prove and reprove all by accidents; and without their accidents they can do nothing. And thus, as bad surgeons, they make one salve to serve for all sores.

St Gregory saith: 0 Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum Greg. in Job. novitates. Quia cum laudari hæretici, tanquam de excellenti ingenio, cupiunt, cap. xiv. quasi nova quædam proferunt, quo in antiquorum patrum libris veteribus non tenentur. Sicque fit, ut, dum videri desiderant sapientes, miseris suis auditoribus stultitice semina spargant12: “O Timothy, keep that thou hast received; and beware of the wicked novelties of words. For these heretics, seeking the commendation of the excellency of their wit, bring forth new things, that in the old books of the ancient fathers are not found. And so it happeneth that, while they would be taken for wise men, they scatter amongst their poor hearers the seeds of folly.”

Certainly, M. Harding and his fellows, as of shews they have made sacraments, even so of the holy sacraments and whole religion of Christ they have left nothing to the simple people but a sight of shews.

[ocr errors]


[ August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Lib. de Fid. ad Petr. cap. xix. Tom. VI. Append. col. 30; where sacrificium.]

[* Id. in Johan. Evang. cap. xv. Tractat. lxxx. 3. Tom. III. Pars II. col. 703; where accedit.]

[? creatura vitis.—Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. lxiii. p. 152.]

[8 Id. ad Magn. Epist. lxix. p. 182. See before, pages 516, 7, note 8.]

(Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. In Joan. Evang.

Lib. iv. cap. ii. p. 360. See before, p. 580, note 6.]

[ 0 Iren. Op. Par. 1710. Contr. Hær. Lib. v. cap. ii. 3. p. 294.]

[" ...quid prohibet Christum appellare accidentia vini in sacramento genimen vitis, quum ex ipsa vite orta sint?--Confut. Cavill. in Ven. Euch. Sacr.Verit. Par. 1552. Ad Object. 27. fol. 28. 2.]

[1? Gregor. Magni Papæ I. Op. Par. 1705. Moral. Lib. xviii. in cap. xxviii. B. Job. cap. xxvi. 39. Tom. I. col.573; where quia dum, and sapientes desiderant.]

« VorigeDoorgaan »