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. tra Floret. 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 Gerson con- entangled themselves in this case, first of all Gerson saith thus: Dicendum est, quod hoc demonstrat substantiam panis1: "We must say that this pronoun hoc signifieth the substance of the bread." By this doctor the substance of bread is Christ's body. Lib. iv. Occam in iv. Pet. Alliacen. in iv. Sen Occam saith: Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi2: "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 tent. Dist. 13. propositio3: "Hoc pointeth the body of Christ; otherwise Christ's saying is not true." Quæst. 5. Thom. in iv. Thomas of Aquine goeth learnedly to work, and expoundeth it thus: Hoc, id Dist. 8. Art. est, hoc contentum sub istis speciebus, est corpus meum1: "This, that is to say, this thing contained under these forms, is my body." 16. 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 Forma Verb. corpus meum: "This thing, that either is present already under these forms, or anon will be present, is my body." Johan. De Burg. de requisita, &c. cap. iv. 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 saith, "is childish, vain, fantastical, and to no purpose"." Sentent. Holcot eodem loco. And therefore Holcot himself saith: Hoc significat quiddam utrique termino commune; et termino, a quo, et termino, ad quem3: "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 jv. [ Floret. Lib. Lugd. 1499. Lib. iv. fol. 95.] [3 P. de Alliaco discusses the questions what 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.] [5 Christ, 1609, 1611.] [6 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.] 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, Inncc. 1. De but by his blessing that went before 10." Offic. Miss. Par. iii. cap. vi.& cap. xiv. Sentent. 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- Disten 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." Sophistry, 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 making demonstration of the bread 12" Which last exposition being true, if this fol. 24. 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. God give 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 D. Stephen borrowed good store of matter, sometimes a whole leaf and more together, towards the building of his book. Gardiner. Constant. 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 individui 18. 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. [10 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. [12...it cannot be maintained of Christ's words, [13 Confut. Cavill, in Ven. Euch. Sacr. Verit. Par. 1552. Ad Object. xiii. xiv. xv. foll. 9, &c. 1921.] 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 mei1: "This is my body, that is to say, this is a figure of my body;" or, as it is written in their own De Conte decrees: Vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significat [corpus Christi]2: "It is called est. In Gloss. the body of Christ, that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ." tra Marcion. Lib. iv. Consecr. Hieron. in cap. v. St Hierome saith: Tam diu... quærunt hæretici nova veteribus [ad]jungere, et eadem recentioribus immutare, donec [eos] et sensus humanus et verba deficiant3 : "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. [1 Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Adv. Marcion, Lib. IV. 40. p. 571. See before, page 447, note 13.] [ Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in can. 48. col. 1937. See before, page 503, note 13.] [3 Hieron. Op. Par. 1693-1706. Comm. Lib. 11. in Isai. Proph. cap. v. Tom. III. col. 49; where et sermo deficiat.] WHETHER THE FORMS BE THE SACRAMENT. THE TWENTY-FIFTH ARTICLE. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. OR that the accidents, or forms, or shews of bread and wine be the sacraments of Christ's body and blood, and not rather that1 bread and wine itself. [WHO ARE THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD, THE ACCIDENTS, OR THE BREAD AND WINE.-ARTICLE XXV. H. A, 1564.] In Homil. De Cons. Dist. 2, cap. Omnia. M. HARDING. THE FIRST DIVISION. hundred and presumed, proved. 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, anty-third and the substance of wine into the substance of the blood; the bread (which is con- untruth, ever sumed away by the fire of the divine substance5, as Chrysostom and never 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, Epist. 65. [In in an epistle ad Sozopolitanos, speaking against certain that went Latino codice.] about to raise up again the old heresy of Valentinus, is called τὸ ἐν διανοίαις ἀκόλουθον. 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. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. 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.] [* Αλλ' ὥσπερ κῃρὸς πυρὶ προσομιλήσας ούτ δὲν ἀπουσιάζει, οὐδὲν περισσεύει· οὕτω καὶ ὧδε νόμιζε συναναλίσκεσθαι τὰ μυστήρια τῇ τοῦ σώHaтos ovcía. - Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. De Pœnit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. col. 350. Conf. Op. Lat. Basil, 1547. De Euch. in Encan. Admon, Sum. Tom. III. col. 919.] [... 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 [7 And the wine, H. A. 1564.] [8 Basil, Op. Par. 1721-30. Ad Sozop. Epist. cclxi. (al. lxv). 3. Tom. III. p. 402.] [9 These words are not in H. A. 1564. They appear in H. A. 1565.] [10 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Serm. cclxxii. ad Infant. Tom, V. col. 1103. See before, page 776, note 11.] Infant. Cæsar. Chrysost. ad St Chrysostom1, Theodoretus2, Gelasius3, 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. Eutych. Theodor. Dial. 1 et 2. De LL. et et Lon. Con. Cypr. Lib. ii. Chrysost. in 16. Chrysost. in De Consecr. Dist. 2. Quid sit sanguis. 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 circumvenit1: "He doth wrong to the law, that, following only the bare words, defraudeth the meaning of the law." St Cyprian saith: Passio Christi est sacrificium quod offerimus: "The sacrifice that we offer is the passion of Christ." Chrysostom saith: Baptisma Christi sanguis ejus est": "The baptism of Christ is Christ's blood." And again he saith: In mysteriis 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 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 panis9: “In the sacrament there remaineth still the nature of bread." Cæsar. In Encan. Chrysost. in 51. 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 tuum11: "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 advance12 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 sunt13: "We must behold all mysteries with our inner eyes;" which inner eyes doubtless have no regard to any corruptible and outward thing. 1 Cor. cap. ii. Chrysost. in 83. Hereby the feebleness of M. Harding's sequel may soon appear. [Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. Epist. ad Cæsar. [3 Gelas. Episc. Rom. adv. Eutych. et Nestor. in Lib. 1. Tit. iii. 29. Tom. I. p. 78.] [ Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. lxiii. p. 156; where passio est enim Domini.] xvi. Tom. XII. p. 159. See before, page 518, note 4.] [9 Chrysost. Op. Epist. ad Cæsar. Monach. Tom. III. p. 744. See before, page 545.] [10 Id. De Pœnit. Hom. ix. Tom. II. p. 350.] [13 Id. in 1. Cor. cap. ii. Hom. vii. Tom. X. p. 51. |