Obrazy na stronie

difference between the priest and the people without cause, and say, there must Whole Christ in needs be such a difference.

either part.

And when the French king, who until this day receiveth still in both kinds, had moved his clergy wherefore he might so do more than others, they made him answer, "For that kings are anointed as well as priests1." Gerso2 saith that, dan. Lib. ix. if laymen should communicate under both kinds as well as priests, dignitas

Johan. Slei

Gerson. in

Tract. con.
Hær. Com.
Laic. sub
Utr. Spec.

Gab. Biel.

1 Cor. xi.

Lib. Epist.
Epist. 146.

sacerdotis non esset supra dignitatem laicorum3: “the dignity of the priest should not be above the dignity of laymen." And Gabriel Biel extolleth the priest above our lady, and All-hallows, because he may communicate under both kinds, and they cannot1. And so have they altered the sacrament of equality and unity, and made it a sacrament of difference and dissension.

"The fruit of the sacrament," saith M. Harding, "hangeth not of the forms of bread and wine." This is a strange form of speech unto the ignorant, that knoweth not what these forms mean. Beware, good reader; for under this word there lieth a snare. St Paul five times in one place calleth it bread; but this man saith it is the "form," the "appearance," and "shew of bread," but he would have thee believe that indeed it is no bread.

We know well the fruit of the sacrament standeth not, neither in the forms, nor in the bread or wine, which are outwardly received with the bodily mouth, but in the flesh and blood of Christ, which only are received spiritually into the soul.

He addeth further: "Whole Christ is under either kind; therefore he that receiveth in one kind only hath no wrong." If any ancient doctor had said the same, it might the rather have been believed. But M. Harding, of false principles of his own, thinketh he may boldly gather the like conclusions. These toys are sufficient to please vain fantasy; but they are not sufficient to content a godly conscience. But doth M. Harding so surely know that whole Christ is in either kind; and did Christ himself not know it? Or, if Christ did know it, was not he able to break his own ordinance, and to provide for this inconvenience, as well as others? We know, and it is our belief, that Christ's whole humanity, both flesh and blood, is in heaven. But that the same humanity of Christ is in the sacrament in such gross sort as is supposed by our adversaries, notwithstanding many bold vaunts thereof made, yet was it hitherto never proved. And although this matter be moved by M. Harding out of season, as being no part of this question, yet I think it not amiss briefly to signify by the way what the old catholic fathers have thought of it.

Consentius demandeth this question of St Augustine: "Whether the body of Christ, being now in heaven, have in it blood or no?" Here to leave St Augustine's answer, it is easy for any man to consider, if Consentius had been persuaded, as M. Harding would seem to be, that Christ's body hath blood in the sacrament, he would never have moved this question of the body of Christ that is in heaven. To leave these new fantasies, whereof it doth not appear that ever the old catholic doctors made any report, we must understand that the bread is the sacrament of Christ's body, and the wine is the sacrament of his blood. So saith Beda in Luc. Beda: Panis ad corpus Christi mystice, vinum refertur ad sanguinem": "The bread in mystical manner hath relation to the body of Christ: the wine hath relation unto his blood." So likewise saith St Paul: "The bread that we break, is it not the communication of the body of Christ? And the cup of the blessing which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ ?" St Paul saith not each part is in other; but each hath a peculiar signification by itself.

cap. xxii.

Lib. vi.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]





Alex. iv.

But if it were so as M. Harding and certain others of late days have grossly Whole imagined, yet notwithstanding the people, taking but one kind only, receiveth Christ in injury; as M. Harding may see by Alexander of Hales, and Durandus, and other either of his own doctors. Alexander's words be these: Licet illa sumptio, quæ est in accipiendo sub una specie, sufficiat, tamen illa quæ est sub duabus est majoris meritis: " Although that order of receiving the sacrament which is under one quest. lii. kind be sufficient, yet the other which is under both kinds is of greater merit." Memb. i. And immediately after: Sumptio sub utraque specie, quem modum sumendi tradidit Dominus, est majoris efficacia, et [majoris] complementi: "The receiving under both kinds, which order the Lord delivered, is of greater strength, and of greater fulness." And the same Alexander again saith: Totus Christus non con- Alex. iv. tinetur sub utraque specie sacramentaliter; sed caro tantum sub specie panis, [et] Memb. iii. sanguis...sub specie vini10: "Whole Christ is not contained under each kind by way of sacrament, but the flesh only under the form of bread, and the blood under the form of wine." The like might be reported out of Durandus and others. Here M. Harding's own doctors confess that the people, receiving under one kind, receiveth not the full sacrament, nor the blood of Christ by way of sacrament; and that their doing therein is of less strength and merit than the doing of the priest. Wherefore M. Harding, in saying, "The people receiving only under one kind taketh no injury," doth the people double injury.

But to pass over these scholastical subtle points, it behoveth us to know that Christ the Son of God appointed the sacrament of his body to be given in bread, and the sacrament of his blood to be given in wine. These be the holy mysteries of Christ's body and blood. We may not here account what may be in either of them by the drift of vain fantasy; but rather we ought to consider what Christ in the first institution hereof did, and what he commanded to be done. Neither do we here condemn the church, as it pleaseth M. Harding unjustly to charge us; but we wish and pray to God that his whole church may once be reformed after the example and institution of Christ; without whom the church is no church, neither hath any right or claim without his promise, nor any promise without his word.

Now, whereas M. Harding saith, "The reasons that we make for the maintenance of Christ's institutions are so slender;" if he had first weighed his own, perhaps he would the more favourably have reported ours. I mean not the reasons that others of that side have taken of men's beards, of fear of the palsy and shaking, or other diseases, or inconveniences that may happen; but even of the same that he hath here planted in the first rank and entry of his cause. The first is this:

"It is a sacrament of unity; therefore, if it be abused, we may seek no redress."

The second is this: "The fruit of the sacrament dependeth not of the forms of bread and wine; therefore we may break Christ's institution."

Art. 2.


The third is this: "Whole Christ," as M. Harding saith, "is in either part of the sacrament; therefore there is no wrong done in barring the people from one kind." Certainly these reasons seem very slender, and specially to countermand the plain word of God. The sentence that St Basil useth in this case is very terrible: "Whoso forbiddeth the thing that God commandeth, and whoso com- Basil. Moral. mandeth the thing that God forbiddeth, is to be holden accursed of all them that love the Lord 12."


Summ. cap.

seventh un

Now, concerning the outward forms of bread and wine, (47) their use is employed The fortyin signification only, and be not of necessity, so as grace may not be obtained by truth. For worthy receiving of the sacrament, unless both kinds be ministered. Therefore in wine signify

[8 Alex. Alens. Theol. Summ. Col. Agrip. 1622. Pars IV. Quæst. XI. Membr. ii. Art. iv. 3. p. 406; where we find illa tamen.]

[9 Id. ibid.]

[10 Id. Pars IV. Quæst. x. Membr. vii. Art. iii. 2. Resol. p. 350.]

[Institution, 1565.]

[12... qui prohibet nos facere quod a Domino præceptum est; vel rursum imperat quod Dominus fieri prohibuit; execrabilis debet esse, qui ejusmodi est, omnibus qui diligunt Deum.-Basil, Op. 1520. De Inst. Mon. Reg. cap. xiv. fol. 165.]

the bread and




blood of

Christ: the whiteness, the roundness, and

other out

ward forms signify nothing.

consecrating of the sacrament, according to Christ's institution, both kinds be necesChrist in sary; forasmuch as it is not prepared for the receiving only, but also for renewing and stirring up of the remembrance of our Lord's death. So inasmuch as the sacrament serveth the sacrifice, by which the death and oblation of Christ is represented, both the kinds be requisite; that, by divers and sundry forms, the blood of Christ, shed for our sins, and separated from his body, may evidently be signified. But inasmuch as the faithful people do receive the sacrament, thereby to attain spiritual grace and salvation of their souls; diversity of the forms or kinds, that be used for the signification only, hath no further use nor1 profit. But by one kind, because in it whole Christ is exhibited, abundance of all grace is once given; so as by the other kind thereto over added (which giveth the same, and not another Christ) no further augmentation of spiritual grace may be attained. In consideration of this, the catholic church, taught by the Holy Ghost all truth, whiles in the daily sacrifice the memory of our Lord's death and passion is celebrated, for that it is necessary therein, to express most plainly the shedding and separating of the blood from the body that was crucified, hath always to that purpose diligently used both kinds of bread and wine; but in distributing of the blessed sacrament to christian people hath used liberty2 (which Christ never imbarred by any commandment to the contrary), so as it hath (48) ever been most for the behoof and commodity of the receivers; and truth. For hath ministered sometimes both kinds, sometimes one kind only, as it hath been thought most expedient, in regard of time, place, and persons.

The forty

eighth un

the church

never thus

ministered the sacrament unto

the people
in any open
within the

space of six


Here is much talk, and no proof. I grant, the priest, if he minister the communion orderly, and as he should, doth renew the memory of Christ's passion, according to his own commandment: "Do this in my remembrance." Yet all this concludeth not directly, that therefore Christ's ordinance may be broken. Neither is it yet so clearly proved, that the priest in his mass representeth the separation of Christ's blood from his body. For, beside that there is no ancient doctor here alleged for proof hereof, I might well demand by what words, by what gesture, or to whom doth he represent this separation? His words be strange, his gesture secret the people neither heareth nor seeth ought, nor knoweth what he meaneth. And being granted, that the separation of Christ's body and blood is represented in the holy mysteries, yet how knoweth M. Harding that the priest ought more to represent the same than the people? Doubtless Christ's blood was shed indifferently for all the faithful, as well for the people as for the priest; between Chrysost. in. whom and the people, as I have before shewed out of St Chrysostom, in this case there is no difference1. For whereas M. Harding taketh the name of sacrifice for some shew of proof in this matter, it behoveth him to know that not only the portion received by the priest, but also the portion that is distributed unto the people, is of the old fathers called a sacrifice. St Augustine hath these words: "In Carthage the manner was that hymns should be said at the altar out of the book of Psalms, either when the oblation was made, or when the thing that was offered was divided unto the people 5."

2 ad Cor. Hom. 18.

Retract. Lib. ii.

Epist. 2.

By these plain words we may see that both the priest and people received one sacrifice. And Clemens (as M. Harding calleth him, the apostles' fellow) saith thus: Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debeant®: "Let there be so many sacrifices offered at the altar, as may suffice for the people."

And, whereas it is further said that the priest, by receiving both parts in several, expresseth, as it were, unto the eye, how Christ's body and blood were done asunder; the scriptures and ancient fathers have taught us otherwise, that not any gesture of the priest, but the very ministration of the holy communion,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]




2. Cum fran

and the whole action of the people, expresseth unto us the manner and order of Christ's death. St Paul saith: "As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink 1 Cor. xi. this cup, ye shall declare the Lord's death until he come." And this St Paul writeth, not only to the priests, but also to the whole congregation of the Corinthians. And in like sort writeth St Augustine touching the same: Cum frangitur De Con. Dist. hostia, et sanguis de calice in ora fidelium funditur, quid aliud quam dominici cor- gitur. poris in cruce immolatio, ejusque sanguinis de latere effusio designatur"? "When the oblation is broken, and the blood from the cup is poured into the mouths of the faithful, what thing else is there signified, but the offering of the Lord's body upon the cross, and the flowing of his blood from his side?" Thus it is clear that the separation of Christ's body and blood is represented as well by the people as by the priest. Wherefore to devise a difference without cause, and of the same to conclude an error, it is double folly.

"The diversity of forms and kinds," saith M. Harding, "serveth for signification only, and hath no further use nor profit." Notwithstanding this saying were otherwise true, yet the issue thereof seemeth dangerous. It is our part to be obedient, and not to discuss or rectify God's commandments, and to say, any thing that Christ the Son of God hath appointed us to do is utterly void of use and profit. As for the liberty of the church that is here claimed, if we should demand where and when it was granted, perhaps the charter would not be found. The liberty of the church is not to be against God, nor to control any his ordinance. Neither hath M. Harding yet proved that the church within six hundred years after Christ, in open congregation and assembly of people (which is the state of this question), ever used any such kind of liberty.

In these words M. Harding hath privily couched sundry arguments, which of what value or force they be, I pray thee, gentle reader, to understand.

The first is this: The priest consecrateth the sacrament; therefore the people is not bound to receive in both kinds.

The second is this: The priest offereth the sacrifice, and representeth the separation of Christ's body and blood; ergo, it is sufficient for the people to receive in one kind.

The third is this: The church hath her liberty; ergo, she is not bound to Christ's institution.

Alas, how slenderly hang these things together! Yet these are the arguments that (as it is supposed) are never able to be answered.

[Matt. xxvi. H. A. 1564.]

[Christ's words bind not the laity to receive both kinds, H. A. 1564.]

Ante passionem nobis inquiunt apostoli apud Clementem. Lib. viii. Const.


ninth un

these words

well to the

As touching the words of Christ, Bibite ex hoc omnes, “Drink ye all of this;" they pertain to the apostles only, and to their successors. For to them (49) only he gave commandment to do The fortythat, which he did in his supper, as Clement saith, to them only truth. For saying, Do this in my remembrance, he gave commission to con- pertained as secrate, offer, and to receive the sacrament in remembrance of his people as to death and passion, by the same words ordaining them priests of as shall ap the new testament. Wherefore this belongeth not to the lay-people, neither can it pear. justly be 10 gathered by this place, that they are bound of necessity, and under pain Here M. of deadly sin, to receive the sacrament under both kinds.

solis præcepit hoc facere, Apostolicarum. cap. ulls


When I read the words of M. Harding's, I am stricken with horror to consider the terrible judgment of God. It is much to be feared that he that is led away of this sort offendeth not of ignorance-for so were the fault the more pardonable-but against the manifest known truth, and against the Spirit of God. For whereas Christ saith, "Drink ye all of this;" if he will follow the letter, the words

[ August. Lib. Sent. Prosp. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 37. col. 1930.]

[ Ne, 1565, 1609.]


[Const. Apost. in Concil. Stud. Labb. et Cossart. Lut. Par. 1671-2. Lib. vIII. cap. xlvi. Tom. I. col. 509.]

[10 Be justly, H. A. 1564.]


the priests,

Harding altereth the


1 Cor. xi.

Spiritualis hostia.

The fiftieth
For they
changed not,


be plain that all should drink. If he will leave the letter, and take the meaning, St Paul hath opened it. For, writing unto the whole congregation at Corinth, he saith thus: "As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall declare the Lord's death until he come." If he doubt St Paul, yet the very practice and continual order of the primitive church fully declareth what Christ meant and they say, Consuetudo est optima interpres legis1: "Custom is the best interpreter of the law." If he will take neither the words of Christ, nor Christ's meaning, then I know not how to deal with him.

Once again he bringeth forth Clement, the apostles' fellow. And what Clement? Verily, even the same that ministered and delivered the holy communion to the faithful that then were in Rome under both kinds, as appeareth by the long usage of that church, even as Christ delivered it to his disciples; and M. Harding is not able to shew that the same Clement ever ministered otherwise. He seeth and knoweth that the word Omnes is against him; the meaning against him; the practice of the church against him; his own Clement against him: yet he beareth his countenance so as if all were with him. To be short, if Christ,

when he said, “Drink ye all,” meant not that all should drink; why did St Paul and all the apostles, and the whole primitive church, expound it and practise it as though he had meant so? And if he meant so, why doth M. Harding deceive the world, and say he meant not so?

But Clement saith, "Christ spake these words, 'Do this in my remembrance,' only unto the apostles." "Therefore," saith M. Harding, "these words, 'Drink ye all,' pertain to the apostles only, and to their successors." Understand, good reader, that Clement, in the place here alleged, speaketh not one word, either of one kind or of both; but only saith thus: "That Christ appointed his apostles to the office of the holy ministration," which he calleth "the spiritual oblation." Therefore thou mayest see that M. Harding, shewing thee one thing for another, and of the same concluding what him liketh, cannot seem to deal plainly.

The argument that hereof is gathered standeth thus: Clement saith that Christ gave only unto his apostles the office of the ministry, and authority to offer the spiritual sacrifice; ergo, these words, "Drink ye all of this," pertain nothing to the people. Here is a very faint conclusion. For by force of this reason he may take from the people both parts of the sacrament, as well as one, and so leave them no sacrament at all.

[blocks in formation]

And this understood they which above one hundred years past, (50) changing the old custom of the church of receiving the communion under one kind, by their but restored private authority would needs usurp the cup also. For, seeing themselves not to have the old cus- sufficient proof and warrant for their doing, of these words, "Drink ye all of this," the better to bolster up their new-fangled attempt, they thought it better to allege the words of Christ in St John: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, John vi. and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you;” which words, for all that, our new masters of forty years past will to be understanded of the spiritual, and not of the sacramental eating. [Which place although it be taken for the sacramental eating]", as it may be, and is taken for both, of the doctors viewed apart; yet in all that chapter there is no mention of the cup nor of wine at all. Wherefore they, that cry so much on the institution and commandment of Christ, cannot find in all the scriptures neither commandment where he gave charge the sacrament so to be given, neither so much as any example where Christ gave it under both kinds to any other than to the apostles. Whereas, contrariwise, it may be shewed of our part that the sacrament was given under one kind only to the two disciples that Luke xxiv. went to Emmaus; for that the bread which Christ there took, blessed, brake, and

[Corp. Jur. Civil. Amst. 1663. Digest. Lib. I. Tit. 111. 37. Tom. I. p. 79. This law is afterwards more fully given.]

[* Ὃς [Χριστὸς] γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος δι ̓ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὴν πνευματικὴν θυσίαν προσφέρων τῷ Θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ Πατρὶ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους ἡμῖν διετάξατο μόνοις τοῦτο ποιεῖν· κ. τ. λ. Const. Apost. in Con

cil. Stud. Labb. et Cossart. Lut. Par. 1671-2. Lib. VIII. cap. xlvi. Tom. I. col. 509.]

[3 An, H. A. 1564.]

[* 1565 omits for.]

[5 These forty, H. A. 1564.]

[6 The words between brackets are found only in H. A. 1564.]

« PoprzedniaDalej »