The hundred and eighty For this in Thus consecration is no consecration; no sacrament is a sacrament; that is a sign is no sign; that is no sign is a sign; books be corrupted and disordered; that cometh after that should go before, and that is before that should come after. And yet all these shifts will scarcely serve to help out a common error. M. HARDING. THE SEVENTH DIVISION. Sith for this point of our religion we have so good authority, (181) and being first untruth. assured1 of the infallible faith of the church, declared by the testimonies of these fallible faith worthy fathers of divers ages and quarters of the world; we may well say, with the to the prion same church against M. Jewel, that in this sacrament after consecration there tive church, remaineth nothing of that which was before, but only the accidents and shews, withrefused of the out the substance, of bread and wine. was unknown and openly Greek church in the council of Flo rence. 1 Cor. xi. Matt. xxvi. Ex hac gene ratione vitis. Chrysost, in Psal. xxii. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. The certainty of this article resteth only upon the most uncertain ground of transubstantiation: the determination whereof, forsomuch as it is not much more than three hundred years old, nor necessarily gathered of the force of God's word, as Duns himself confesseth, nor ever any where received saving only in the church of Rome, therefore is neither so infallible as M. Harding maketh it, nor so ancient, nor so catholic. Time will not suffer me to say so much as might be said to the contrary. St Paul acknowledgeth very bread remaining still in the sacrament, and that such bread as may be divided and broken; which words cannot without blasphemy be spoken of the body of Christ itself, but only of the very material bread. Christ likewise after consecration acknowledgeth the remaining of very wine, and that such wine as is pressed of the grape. For thus he saith: "I will drink no more of this generation of the vine." Chrysostom saith: In similitudinem corporis et sanguinis, Christus nobis panem et vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech ostendit in sacramento3: "Christ shewed us (not accidents, or qualities, but) bread and wine in the sacrament, according to the order of MelchiChrysost. in sedech, as all likeness or figure of his body and blood." Again he saith: Christus, quando hoc mysterium tradidit, vinum tradidit..... [non bibam] inquit, ex hac generatione vitis; quæ certe vinum producit, non aquam5: 'Christ, when he delivered this mystery, delivered (not shews or accidents, but) wine. Christ saith (after consecration), 'I will no more drink of this generation of the vine.' Doubtless the vine bringeth forth wine, and not water." Cyrillus saith: Christus credentibus disci Matt. Hom. 83. Cyril. in iv. cap. xiv. pulis fragmenta panis dedit": "Christ gave to his faithful disciples fragments or pieces of bread." I pass by St Cyprian, St Augustine, Gelasius, Theodoretus, and other ancient and holy fathers; according unto whose most plain words and authorities, if there be bread remaining in the sacrament, then is there somewhat else besides accidents. What M. Harding may say, that saith so much, it is easy to see; but that shews and accidents hang empty without the substance of bread and wine, none of the old fathers ever said. God's omni potent power to bear up accidents. M. HARDING. THE EIGHTH DIVISION. And this is a matter to a christian man not hard to believe. For if it please God the almighty Creator, in the condition and state of things thus to ordain that substances created bear and sustain accidents; why may not he, by his almighty power, conserve and keep also accidents without substance, sith that the very heathen philosophers repute it for an absurdity to say, Primam causam non posse id præstare solam, quod possit cum secunda: that is to say, "that the first cause (whereby they understand God) cannot do that alone which he can do with the second cause," whereby they mean a creature? [Thus assured, H. A. 1564.] [2 1565 omits the.] [3 Chrysost. Op. Lat. Basil. 1547. Expos. Psal. xxii. Tom. V. col. 712; where Christi panem, and nobis ostenderet.] [A likeness, 1565.] [5 Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. In Matt. Hom. lxxxii. Tom. VII. p. 784.] [ Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. In Joan. Evang. Lib. IV. cap. ii. Tom. IV. p. 360. See also Op. Insig. in Evang. Joan. a G. Trapezont. traduct. Par. 1508. Lib. 1v. cap. xiv. fol. 95.] 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 them up. 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: "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 Heb. 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; eron, Hom. 6. Damas. Lib. ii. M. HARDING. THE NINTH DIVISION. and eighty truth. 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 but 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 whited1o, saith St Basil. Neither For St Basil then was Wickliff yet born, who might teach them that the power of God Plainly sh cannot put an accident without a subject. For so he saith in his book De Apostasia, cap. 5, as Cochlæus reporteth11. 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. cup. vii. Paulus Burgensis Lib. ii. Hist. Hus- THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. the contrary. 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, Damascen. [ The, 1565, 1609.] [ Hor. de Art. Poet. vv. 191, 2.] [ The sun, H. A. 1564.] [10 Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ τὰ σύνθετα πάντα οὕτω παρ' ἡμῶν διαιρεῖσθαι, εἴς τε τὴν δεκτικὴν οὐσίαν, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐπισυμβᾶσαν αὐτῇ ποιότητα. ὡς οὖν ἕτερον μέν τι τῇ φύσει ἡ λευκότης, ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ λελευκασμένου σῶμα, οὕτω καὶ τὰ νῦν εἰρημένα διάφορα ὄντα τῇ φύσει ἥνωται τῇ δυνάμει [ Hic sæpe dixi, quod nec Deus nec homo potest facere accidens sine subjecto. Artic. Wicl. De Apost. cap. v. in Cochl. Hist. Hussit. Mogunt. 1549. Lib. 11. p. 90.] Lib. ii. cap. vii. Burgen. in i. cap. Gen. Basil. in Hexaem. Hom. 6. Basil. in ut quidam aiunt1: "The fire is nothing else but the light, as some men say.” And Burgensis saith: Quidam tradunt lucem fuisse nubem lucidam2: "Some men 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. St Basil saith, the light was in the world before the sun was made. Therefore it was, and had his being, without the sun. His words stand thus: Aliud quidem est, &c.3: "The brightness of the light is one thing; and the body subject unto the same (that is, the sun) is another thing. And say not now unto me, It is impossible to divide these things asunder. For I say not, that thou or I can possibly divide the body of the sun from the light. Yet notwithstanding the things that we may part asunder only by imagination, the same things God, the Creator of nature, is able to sunder verily and indeed.” Hereof M. Harding gathereth his reasons thus: The light was not in the sun; ergo, it was in nothing. It was not in the sun; ergo, it was not in the air. It was not in the sun; ergo, it was an accident without a subject. 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. diversity considered, now let us weigh M. Harding's reason. This 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 δὲ ἀήρ μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγκεκραμμένον ἑαυτῷ ὅλον διόλου εἶχε τὸ φῶς4: 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 Hév aópa- invisible, because the air was without light." St Basil saith: "The light was in τος], δια To ap- the air, and that wholly through the whole," as in a subject; yet M. Harding OTO eival forceth St Basil to say contrary to himself: The light was only an accident τὸν ἀέρα. 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. λου. 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 : τότε... οὐ κατὰ κίνησιν ἡλιακὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀναχεομένου τοῦ πρωτογόνου φωτὸς ἐκείνου . . . ἡμέρα ἐγένετο: Dies tum fiebat, 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;" it appeareth that instead of avaɣeoμévov, which is, "poured abroad," M. Harding by error read avexoμévov, 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. 11. 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.] [* Καὶ μηδενὶ ἄπιστον εἶναι δοκείτω τὸ εἰρημένον, ὅτι ἄλλο μέν τι τοῦ φωτὸς ἡ λαμπρότης, ἄλλο δέ τι τὸ ὑποκείμενον τῷ φωτὶ σῶμα...καὶ μή μοι λέγε ἀδύνατα εἶναι ταῦτα ἀπ ̓ ἀλλήλων διαιρεῖσθαι. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ τὴν διαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ σώματος ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ δυνατὴν εἶναί φημι, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἃ ἡμῖν τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ἐστὶ χωριστά, ταῦτα δύναται καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ἐνερ γείᾳ παρὰ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῆς φύσεως αὐτῶν διαστῆ vai.-Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. In Hexaem. Hom. vi. 3. Tom. I. pp. 51, 2.] [ Id. ibid. Hom. ii. 7. p. 19.] [5 Id. ibid. 1. p. 13.] [ Id. ibid. 8. p. 20.] 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. contr. Prax. [ Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Adv. Prax. 10. p. 641.] 584 OF DIVIDING THE SACRAMENT. THE ELEVENTH ARTICLE. Break ing. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. OR that the priest then divided the sacrament in three parts, and afterward received all himself1 alone. [OF DIVIDING THE SACRAMENT IN THREE PARTS.—ARTICLE XI. H. A. 1564.] divinity avouched by M. HARDING. THE FIRST DIVISION. Of the priest's 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 should be 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 frusta2 concidens, &c.3: [Ecclesiast. Hier"The bishop," saith he, "openeth the covered bread, dividing it in pieces, H. A. 1564.] &c." doctor and eightythird un truth, standing in untrue translation. Sent. iv. Matt. xxvi. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. arch. cap. iii. 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 [ Himself all, H. A. 1564.] [ Frustra, 1611.] [3 Dionys. Areop. Op. Antv. 1634. De Eccles. Hierarch. cap. iii. 3. Tom. I. p. 299.] [ 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 quia corpus Christi incorruptibile est, sane dici potest fractio illa et partitio non in substantia corporis, sed in forma panis sacramentaliter fieri, ut vera fractio et partitio sit ibi, quæ fit non in substantia corporis, sed in sacramento, id est, specie. Ne autem mireris vel insultes, si accidentia videantur frangi, cum ibi sint sine subjecto: licet quidam asserant ea fundari in aere. Est ibi vera fractio et partitio, quæ fit in pane, id est, in forma panis.-Pet. Lomb. Lib. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. Lib. IV. Dist. xii. fol. 356.] |