Obrazy na stronie

In Matth. hom. 17.

iii. cap. xxv.

In Lucam.

d In Lucam. Acts ii.





gave to them, was not simple and common bread, but the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: for so Chrysostom7, ↳ Augustine, Bede9, and a TheoDe Consensu phylact 10, with one accord do witness. It appeareth also, that the communion Evangel. lib. under one kind was used at Hierusalem among Christ's disciples, by that St Luke writeth in the Acts of the Apostles of the breaking of the bread. If M. Jewel here think to avoid these places by their accustomed figure, Synecdoche, among his own sect happily it may be accepted; but among men of right and learned judgment that shift will seem over weak and vain. Now to conclude, touching the sixth chapter of St John, as thereof they can bring no one word mentioning the cup or wine, for proof of their both kinds; so it sheweth, and not in very obscure wise, that the form of bread alone is sufficient, whereas Christ saith, Qui manducat panem hunc, vivet in æternum: "He that eateth this bread shall live for ever."


In these words M. Harding chargeth not only us, but also the apostles of Christ, and all the fathers of the primitive church, with great oversight; who in their times ministered the holy sacrament unto the vulgar people, as it is now supposed by these men, without any example of Christ, and without commission.

Touching the institution of Christ, I have already said so much as unto a quiet mind may seem sufficient. Yet for further declaration I would demand of M. Harding, what thing he requireth to Christ's institution: if words, Christ's words be plain; if example, Christ himself ministered in both kinds; if authority, Christ commanded his disciples, and in them all other ministers of his church, to do the like; if certainty of his meaning, the apostles endued with the Holy Ghost so practised the same, and understood he meant so; if continuance of time, he bade the same to be continued until he come again. If neither the words, nor example, nor commandment of Christ, nor the understanding and practice of the apostles can warrant us Christ's institution, alas, what warrant then have they, that, being utterly void of all these things, only stay themselves, as it is confessed by the best of that side, by the simple devo- S. Gardiner tion of the people"? When Christ had delivered both kinds unto his disciples, Sophistry. he said unto them: "This do ye," the same that ye see I have done. But where did Christ ever say, Minister unto yourselves one way, and another way unto the people; or, Receive ye in both kinds, and let all the rest receive in one?

in the Devil's

in 7. Parte

Although these things be plain and evident of themselves 12, yet, that the folly of these men may the better appear, it shall be good to hear the report of one of their own doctors touching these matters. One Gerardus Lorichius, in a book that he wrote, De Missa Publica Proroganda, hath these words: Sunt Ger. Lorich. pseudocatholici, qui reformationem ecclesiæ quoquo modo remorari non verentur. Canonis. Hi ne laicis altera species restituatur, nullis parcunt blasphemiis. Dicunt enim, Christum solis apostolis dixisse, Bibite ex eo omnes. Atqui verba canonis habent, Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes. Hic dicant, oro, num et hoc ad solos dictum sit apostolos... Ergo, laicis et a specie panis est abstinendum: Quod dicere est hæresis, et blasphemia pestilens, et execrabilis: Consequitur ergo, utrumque verbum dictum esse ad omnem ecclesiam 13: "They be false catholics," saith this man, "that are not ashamed by all means to hinder the reformation of the church. They, to the intent the other kind of the sacrament may not be restored unto the lay-people, spare no kind of blasphemies. only unto his apostles, Drink ye all of this.' But the words of the canon (of the mass) be these: 'Take and eat ye all of this.' Here, I beseech them, let them tell me whether they will have these words also only to pertain unto the apostles. Then must the lay-people abstain from the other kind of the bread also. Which thing

[ocr errors]

[Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. Opus Imperf. in Matt. Hom. xvii. ex cap. vii. Tom. VI. p. lxxxviii.]

[ August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. De Consens. Evang. Lib. III. cap. xxv. 72. Tom. III. Pars 11. cols. 141, 2.]

[ Ven. Bed. Op. Col. Agrip. 1612. In Luc. Evang. cap. xxiii. Lib. vi. Tom. V. col. 446.] [10

[ocr errors]

μεταλαμβάνουσι τοῦ εὐλογημένου ἄρτου.

For they say, that Christ said

[blocks in formation]

to say is an heresy, and a pestilent and a detestable blasphemy. Wherefore it followeth, that each of these words was spoken unto the whole church." Thus far Lorichius, an earnest defender of transubstantiation, of the pope's supremacy, and of private mass; lest M. Harding should say he were one of Luther's scholars, and so except against him, as being a party. And Julius, sometime bishop of Rome, hearing of certain that used to dip the bread in the wine, and so to deliver it to the people, had no way to reform them, but only by De Con. Dist. Christ's institution. For thus he saith: Quod pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt: "Whereas for accomplishment of the communion they dip the sacrament and deliver it unto the people, they have not received this witness of the gospel." He addeth further: Seorsum enim panis, et seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur1: "For the delivery of the bread and the delivery of the cup are mentioned asunder." And thus he speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament, that is due not only to the priests, but also to the people.

2. Cum omine.

[ocr errors]

The learned men of Bohemia saw they could have no hold of Christ's institution; and therefore, to maintain their "new-fangled attempt," as it pleaseth M. Harding to term it, they were fain to take the words of Christ out of the sixth chapter of John: "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you." But "these words in the sixth chapter of St John," saith M. Harding, our new masters will have expounded of the spiritual, not of the sacramental eating.” Of the Bohemians I cannot see why they should be called "new-fangled." Their request was none other but that they might continue the order of the primitive church, which Part. iii. Qu. Thomas of Aquine saith had continued in divers churches from the apostles until his time, for the space of a thousand and three hundred years, without controlment2. And it may ill become a christian man, and a scholar of the apostolic see, to call the doing of Christ and of his disciples "new-fangled." Touching their reasons made in this behalf, I need not to speak. God's name be blessed, they have prevailed with the best-learned of the world. Whatsoever their premises seem to M. Harding, their conclusion was this, that no mortal creature should presume to disallow the ordinance of the immortal God.

80. Art. 12.

"But our new masters," saith M. Harding, "must needs have these words of St John expounded of the spiritual eating." If it be either the violence of nature, or the manner of his catholic doctrine, that driveth M. Harding thus to taunt, he must be borne withal; notwithstanding it agreeth not with his promise. As touching the understanding of the words of Christ in the sixth of St John, they are not all new masters that have so taken them. For, to leave St Augustine, Origen, and others of that age, Nicolas Lyra, a man of latter3 years, saith, the said words of Christ must needs be taken spiritually, Nicol. Lyra and none otherwise. Thus he saith: Ista intelligi debent de manducatione et potatione spirituali; quia sequitur, Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Quod B. Augustinus exponens ait: Hoc est manducare illam escam, et bibere illum potum, in Christo manere, et Christum manentem in se habere: quod nihil aliud est, quam esse in caritate Christi1: "These words must be taken of the spiritual eating and drinking. For it followeth He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him.' Which thing St Augustine expounding saith thus: This is the eating of that food, and the drinking of that drink, for a man to dwell in Christ, and

in Psal. cxi.

[ Jul. Papa in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 7. col. 1915, where in the text recipit.]

[ The author most probably refers to those expressions of Aquinas which imply that the communion in one kind was customary in some, not in all churches; e.g. Contra est multarum ecclesiarum usus, in quibus populo communicanti datur corpus Christi communicanti sumendum, non autem san

guis.-Thom. Aquinat. Op. Venet. 1595. Summ. Theol. Pars III. Quæst. lxxx. Art. 12. Tem. XII. fol. 267. See also below, page 261.]

[3 Later, 1565.]

[ Bibl. cum Gloss. Ord. et Expos. N. de Lyra, Basil. 1502. Psal. cx. Replic. Pars III. fol. 254; where we find, de qua manducatione et potatione intelligi debet videlicet de spirituali; quia, &c.]

to have Christ in him dwelling; which thing is nothing else but to be in the love of Christ." Here we see that Nicolas Lyra, a man that lived two hundred years ago, and therefore no very "new master," expoundeth these words of the spiritual eating.

in Psal. cxi.

Yet M. Harding saith, “ the same place may be taken also of the sacramental eating." But Lyra thinketh no, and therefore addeth further: [Hoc ver- Nicol. Lyra bum] nihil directe pertinet ad sacramentalem vel corporalem manducationem... Nam hoc verbum fuit dictum diu antequam sacramentum eucharistiæ esset institutum. Ex illa igitur litera de sacramentali communione non potest fieri argumentum efficax. "These words pertain not directly unto the sacramental or corporal eating. For it was spoken long before the sacrament was ordained. Therefore out of this letter there cannot be made any good argument for the sacramental communion."

Tract 5. con

Likewise one Michael Væhe, one of late years, a man of M. Harding's own side, touching the same matter writeth thus: Infirmum est argumentum: Mich. Vahe, quæ enim de spirituali manducatione dicta sunt, ille ad sacramentalem torquet: tra Luthe "This," saith he, "is but a weak reason; for the words that be spoken of rum. spiritual eating he applieth to the sacramental eating." Here may M. Harding see, besides St Augustine, Origen, and other old catholic fathers, whose words I have not alleged, what men he hath called "new masters." Nicolas Lyra was an Englishman, and lived two hundred years before Luther. Michael Væhe was of late years, and wrote namely against Luther. Verily, if Christ and his apostles were now conversant in the world, unless they would forsake their own doctrine, they should be called "new masters" too, as well as others.

And notwithstanding these words in the sixth chapter of St John be spoken and taken of the spiritual eating, as it is already proved, yet are they oftentimes by the old fathers applied unto the sacrament; but undirectly, as it is above noted by Lyra. To allege the places specially, being so many, and not unknown unto the learned, it would be tedious. Christ's being at Emmaus, and the disciples' breaking of bread at Hierusalem, because it hath pleased M. Harding to bring them twice, shall be afterward answered in their places.

The reasons that M. Harding hath here gathered be these: In the sixth chapter of St John there is no mention made of the cup or wine; ergo, the people may receive under one kind. This reason is very weak; for he may as well conclude of the same words; ergo, the priest may receive under one kind; which he himself saith is against Christ's institution. He might far better have concluded the contrary. The lay-people, being faithful and godly, by faith and in their hearts do indeed and verily drink the blood of Christ: therefore they may drink the sacrament of the same. And as Eckius, a doctor of that side, saith: "The people drinketh in the person of the priest." Therefore they may Eckius in drink in their own person as well and without danger.

Another reason is this: It doth not appear that Christ ever ministered in both kinds but only to his disciples; ergo, the people may receive in one kind. I marvel what luck M. Harding hath to such conclusions. For what necessary sequel can there be, either from the apostles to the people, or from both kinds to one kind, or from an affirmative to a negative? The sum of the reason standeth thus: The apostles are commanded to receive both kinds; ergo, the people is not commanded to receive both kinds. The weakness whereof is evident, and sheweth itself. It will much rather and better follow thus: The people is commanded to receive as the apostles received, for there is expressed no difference. The apostles received in both kinds; ergo, the people is commanded to receive in both kinds. And thus, notwithstanding it be here stoutly avouched that we have neither example nor institution, yet I trust it doth well appear that we have both the example of Christ that ministered the sacrament in both kinds, and also Christ's institution, that bade his disciples to do the same.

[ Id. ibid.; where hoc verbum follows manducationem, and fuerit is found for esset .]

["The editor has not been able to meet with the works of this writer.]



in cujus [sacerdotis] persona totus populus quadam spiritali sumptione sanguinem Christi bibere gaudenter debet credere.-Joh. Eck. Enchir. Loc. Com. Col. 1532. cap. x. fol. E 5. 2.]

Locis Communibus.


Thus our adversaries have nothing to bring out of the scriptures against the use of the catholic church, in ministering the communion under one kind. And yet they cease not crying out upon the breach of Christ's express commandment. And M. Jewel, for his part, in his first answer to D. Cole, saith, that the council of Constance pronounced openly against Christ himself. But forasmuch as they are so hot in this point, I will send them to Martin Luther himself, their patriarch, that either by his sobriety in this matter they may be somewhat colded, or by his and his scholars' inconstancy herein be brought to be ashamed of themselves. Though the places be well known, as oftentimes cited of the catholic writers of our time against the gospellers, yet here I think good to rehearse them, that the unlearned may see how themselves make not so great a matter of this article as some seem to bear the people in hand it is1. Luther writeth to them of Bohemia these very words: Quoniam pul- [Luther and his offspring chrum quidem esset, utraque specie eucharistiæ uti, et Christus hac in doth not nere nihil tanquam necessarium præcepit; præstaret pacem et unitatem, munion unquam Christus ubique præcepit, sectari, quam de speciebus sacramenti kinds. H. A. contendere2: "Whereas it were a fair thing (saith he) to use both kinds 1564.] of the sacrament, yet, for that Christ herein hath commanded nothing as necessary, it were better to keep peace and unity, which Christ hath every where charged us withal, than to strive for the outward kinds of the sacrament." Again his words be these, in a declaration that he wrote of the sacrament: Non dixi, neque consului, neque est intentio mea, ut unus aut aliquot episcopi propria auctoritate alicui incipiant utramque speciem porrigere, nisi ita constitueretur et mandaretur in concilio generali2: “Neither have I said, nor counselled, nor my mind is, that any one or more bishops begin by their own authority to give both kinds (of the sacrament) to any person, unless it were so ordained and commanded in a3 general


cessitate com

der both

De Miss. Publica Proroganda.

1 Cor. xi.


It grieveth M. Harding that we should say the council of Constance decreed against Christ himself; and therefore he sendeth us to Luther himself, that, seeing his inconstancy, we may be ashamed of ourselves 4. And thus with one poor syllable he thought it good merrily to refresh himself: and yet touching inconstancy, wherein he so triumpheth against D. Luther, he seemeth utterly to have forgotten himself. For it is known to the world, that D. Luther in all his life never changed but once, and that from manifest error to the open confessed truth. But M. Harding, upon how good occasions I will not say, hath changed his doctrine and whole faith twice within the space of two years. And so much would I not now have touched, saving only to put him in remembrance of himself.

That the determination of the council of Constance was against Christ, besides Gerardus Lorichius, a doctor of M. Harding's own school, who affirmeth it in vehement words, what can there be so plain, as that St Paul writeth unto the Corinthians, "That I received of the Lord, the same have I delivered unto you?" After, he mentioneth each kind apart, and sheweth that, as Christ took the bread, so he also took the cup; and that the apostles received both at Christ's hands, not only for themselves, but also to the use and behoof of the people. Therefore, whereas M. Harding crieth so often against us, that the delivery of the cup unto the people is no part of Christ's institution, if he had considered these things well, or had conferred herein with the old catholic fathers, he would have better advised himself. For instead of many, for shortness sake, to allege Cypr. Lib. ii. but one, St Cyprian's words in this matter be very plain: Quidam vel ignoranter Epist. 3.

[In much of what Harding alleges under this article, he does little more than copy Hosius. See Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De Express. Dei Verb. Tom. I. pp. 625, &c. De Utr. Spec. Com. pp. 644, &c.]

[ Luther afterward speaks of his earlier opinion in these terms: Hactenus ego stultus sensi, pulchrum fore, si pro laicis utraque species sacramenti porri

genda statueretur concilio generali.-Luth. Op. Witeb. 1552-80. De Captiv. Babyl. Tom. II. fol. 63. 2.

These passages are extracted almost literally from Hosius, De Utr. Spec. Com. p. 649.] [3 H. A. 1564 omits a.]

[1 Ourself, 1565.]


Quod manda

tum est.

vel simpliciter, in calice dominico sanctificando et plebi ministrando, non hoc faciunt, quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, hujus sacrificii auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit: "Some there be that, in sanctifying the cup, and delivering it unto the people, do not that thing that Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and teacher of this sacrifice, both did and taught." And addeth further: "If any man be in this error, seeing the light of the truth, let him return again unto the root and unto the original of the Lord's tradition"." And after in the same epistle: Ad originem "We keep not the thing that is commanded us, unless we do the same that the dominicæ. Lord did." In these few words St Cyprian saith, "The Lord both did it, and taught it to be done." He calleth it "the Lord's tradition:" he calleth it "the Lord's commandment." And here cannot M. Harding steal away in the mist, and say, St Cyprian meant all this of the cup that the priest consecrateth for himself. For his very words be plain to the contrary: In calice dominico sanctificando, et plebi ministrando: that is, "In sanctifying the Lord's cup, and ministering it unto the people." And if St Cyprian might well write thus against the heretics called Aquarii, which in the holy ministration would use no wine, but instead thereof did consecrate water, and ministered it unto the people; much more may we say the same against our adversaries, which consecrate and minister unto the people no cup at all. Wherefore at the end of the same epistle he concludeth with these words: "Not to do that thing that the Lord did, what is it else than to cast off his word, and to despise his discipline, and to commit not worldly but spiritual robbery and adultery, while as a man from the truth of the gospel stealeth away both the sayings and doings of the Lord, and corrupteth and defileth God's commandments? So is its written in the prophet Jeremy: 'What is chaff in com- Jer. xxiii. parison of corn? Therefore will I upon these prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words each one of them from his neighbour, and deceive my people in their lies and in their errors".""

The words that Luther wrote to them of Bohemia, and the others here reported, were written by him before God had appointed him to publish the gospel; and therefore are no more to be alleged against him for that he wrote afterward, as note of inconstancy, than M. Harding's sermons, preached openly in the time of king Edward, are to be alleged against that he writeth now.

ference with

writeth Libel


first untruth,


Thus he wrote before he had 10 conceived perfect 11 hatred against the church. But [Of his con- after that he had been better acquainted with the devil, and of him, apthe devil he pearing unto him sensibly, had been instructed with arguments against the lo de missaan sacrifice of the mass, (51) that the memory of our redemption by Christ The fiftygulari. H. A. 1564.] wrought on the cross might utterly be abolished, he wrote hereof far other- joined with a wise: Si quo casu concilium... statueret... minime omnium nos velle [mus] utraque Never man specie potiri: imo tunc primum in despectum...concilii...vellemus aut una... aut spake more neutra, et nequaquam utraque potiri, et eos plane anathema habere, quicunque talis the oblation concilii auctoritate... potirentur utraque 12: "If in any case the council would so upon the ordain, we would in no wise have both the kinds; but even then, in despite of the council, we would have one kind, or neither of them, and in no wise both, and hold them for accursed whosoever by authority of such a council would have both." These words declare what spirit Luther was of.

[blocks in formation]

They shew him like himself. Whosoever

facta, et corrumpit atque adulterat præcepta divina?
Sicut apud Hieremiam scriptum est: Quid est, in-
quit, paleis ad triticum? propter hoc ecce ego ad
prophetas, dicit Dominus, qui furantur verba mea
unusquisque a proximo suo, et seducunt populum
meum in mendaciis suis et in erroribus suis.-Id.
ibid. p. 157.]

[10 Before that he had, H. A. 1564.]
[11 Perfite, 1565, and H. A. 1564.]

[12 Luth. Op. Form. Miss. pro Eccles. Witemb.
Tom. II. fol. 386; where for una we find alterutra,
ac plane eos, autoritate talis concilii, and utraque

reverently of of Christ


« PoprzedniaDalej »