Obrazy na stronie

readeth his books with indifferent judgment shall find that, sithence the apostles' time,
never wrote man so arrogantly, ne so despitefully against the church, nor so contra-
rily to himself. Which marks be so evident, that whosoever will not see them, but
suffereth himself to be carried away into error, hatred of the church, and contempt
of all godliness, either by him or by his scholars, except he repent and return, he is
guilty of his own damnation, utterly overthrown, and sinneth inexcusably, [Tit. iii. H.
as one condemned by his own judgment. But for excuse hereof, in his book A. 1564.]
of the Captivity of Babylon, he confesseth that he wrote thus, not for that he thought
so, nor for that he judged the use of one kind unlawful, but because he was stirred
by hatred and anger so to do. His words do sound so much plainly: Provocatus,
imo per vim raptus1: "I wrote this (saith he) otherwise than I thought in my heart,
provoked, and by violence pulled to it, whether I would or no." Here I doubt not
but wise men will regard more that Luther wrote when his mind was quiet and calm,
than when it was enraged with blustering storms of naughty affections2.

Extr. de

Const. Licet

Prier. Magist.


There is nothing so easy as to speak ill. There was nothing further off from Luther's mind, than, upon any determination of any council, to minister the sacrament under one kind, and so to break Christ's institution into halves. But he thought it not meet that God's truth immortal should hang of the authority of a mortal man, and stand for true no further than it should please a man to allow of it. Notwithstanding, such interest and authority the pope hath claimed to himself, forcing the world to believe, as he himself writeth, that "he hath all right and law in the closet of his breast"." And one Sylvester Prierias, governor of pope Leo's palace, was not ashamed nor afraid to write these words: A doctrina RoPalatii. manæ ecclesiæ et Romani pontificis sacra scriptura robur et auctoritatem trahit1 : "The holy scripture taketh strength and authority of the church and bishop of Rome." This was the thing that D. Luther misliked, and thought intolerable. And therefore he said he would have God's word received only because it is God's word, and spoken by him, not because it is authorised by a council; and if the council would allow the ministration in one kind, then, he said, he would use both, because Christ in his institution appointed both. But if the bishops in the council would agree upon both kinds, as a matter standing wholly in their pleasures, as though they had full power to control or to ratify the will of God, then, he said, he would have no regard unto the authority of such a council, that setteth itself above God, but rather would use one kind only, or none at all. For this cause M. Harding reproveth Doctor Luther so bitterly, and calleth him arrogant, because he would not have God's will subject to the will of man.

Acts xvi.

Gal. ii.

Fuseb. Lib. ii. cap. ii.

Yet it appeareth that St Paul in the like case did the like. For, notwithstanding he had circumcised Timothy, yet, when he saw certain come in that would needs force the same upon Titus also, and so make it necessary, he withstood them stoutly, and would not yield. Thus he writeth: "Neither was Titus, that then was with me, compelled to be circumcised, for the coming in of certain false brethren, which came upon us to try out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, to the intent to bring us into bondage. Unto whom we gave no place by yielding, no, not for any time, that the truth of the gospel might remain among you."

Eusebius in his story saith, there was an old law in Rome, that no emperor should consecrate a god, unless the same god had been first allowed by the council. Tiberius being emperor, when he heard of the wonderful works that

[The whole passage will shew Luther's real meaning: Nam quo tempore sermonem de eucharistia edebam, in usu communi hærebam...At nunc, provocatus et exercitatus, imo per vim raptus in hane harenam, dabo libere, quæ sentio.-Id. De Captiv. Babyl. Tom. II. fol. 64. 2.]

[This passage is almost literally from Hosius, Op. Col. 1584. De Utr. Spec. Com. Tom. I. p. 649.] [3 Bonifac. VIII. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd.

1624. Sext. Decretal. Lib. 1. Tit. ii. cap. 1. col. 11. See before, page 68.]

[ Quicunque non innititur doctrinæ Romanæ ecclesiæ ac Romani pontificis, tanquam regulæ fidei infallibili, a qua etiam sacra scriptura robur trahit et autoritatem, hæreticus est.-Sylvest. Prier. In Luth. Concl. Dial. in Luth. Op. Witeb. 1552-80. Tom. I. fol. 159. 2.]

[5 Jesu, 1565.]

were wrought by Christ in Jewry, thought therefore he was a God, and promoted a bill unto the council, that Christ might be proclaimed and taken for a God. But the council was otherwise bent, and would allow him for no God". Tertullian laugheth at their folly. His words be these: Apud vos de humano arbitrio divi- Tertull. in vinitas pensitatur. Nisi homini Deus placuerit, non erit Deus. Homo jam Deo Apologet. propitius esse debet: "Amongst you the divinity and state of God is weighed by man's judgment. Unless God please man, God (amongst you) shall be no God. Now therefore man must be good and favourable unto his God." The like folly seemeth to be in them that think God's truth is no truth, unless the consent of a council allow it to be truth. To this same purpose Luther wrote a book unto the knights of the order of Russia, after they had obtained from the pope a dispensation to marry, notwithstanding their vow. He chargeth them, "that in any Ad Nobiles wise they marry not by warrant of that dispensation; otherwise (he saith) they tonici." offend God, and be worse than adulterers, as having more regard unto man than unto God; and having God's own dispensation, as if it were not sufficient, would seek further for the dispensation of a man.

Ordinis Teu

Luther wrote not this in the despite of any godly council, no more than the prophet Esay, when he said: Inite concilium, et dissipabitur: "Go, gather your Isal, viii. council; and it shall be broken." But he could not suffer to see God's glory so defaced, that a company of men should presume to allow or disallow his truth, as if it were not true in itself, but must fall or stand only at their pleasure.

The rest that followeth is nothing else but unseemly slander. But God be blessed, that hath delivered that godly man from lying tongues!

But Luther, saith M. Harding, was contrary unto himself. Even so Marcion the heretic charged St Paul that he spake against the ceremonies, and yet himself shaved his head at Cenchreæ, and observed the ceremonies; that he would not Acts xxi. circumcise Titus, and yet had circumcised Timotheus; that he would sometime defend the law, and sometime reprove the law; and so was evermore contrary to himself. And he that had M. Harding's spirit perhaps would no more doubt to find fault with St Paul for inconstancy than with Luther. If Luther were ever contrary to himself, yet might no man worse charge him in that behalf than M. Harding. But Luther evermore followed God's calling, and never returned back unto his vomit, neither fought against his own conscience, nor against the manifest known truth. And therefore, although he were contrary unto himself, as passing from error unto truth, yet was he not contrary unto God.


[blocks in formation]

Now to put this matter, that Luther judged it a thing indifferent whether one receive the sacrament under one kind or both, more out of doubt, Philip MelancIn Locis Com thon, his scholar, and nearest of his counsel, writeth: Sicut edere suillam, aut abstinere a suilla, sic alterutra signi parte uti medium esse: "That, as it is a thing indifferent to eat swine's flesh, or to forbear swine's flesh, so it is also to use which part of the sign a man listeth." By the word "sign," he meaneth the sacrament, liking better that strange word, than the accustomed word of the church, lest he might perhaps be thought, of the brethren of his sect, in somewhat to join with the catholics.

Bucer also is of the same opinion, who, in the conference that was had between the catholics and protestants, for agreement in controversies of religion at Ratisbone, confirmed and allowed this article by his full consent, with these words: Ad controversiam, quæ est de una aut utraque specie, tollendam, cum primis conducturum, ut sancta ecclesia liberam faceret potestatem sacramentum hoc in una vel in utraque specie sumendi; ea tamen lege, ut nulli per hoc detur occasio, quem usum tantopere retinuit ecclesia, temere condemnandi, aut invicem judicandio: "That the controversy for the one or both kinds may be taken

[Euseb. in Hist. Eccles. Script. Amst. 16951700. Lib. II. cap. ii. pp. 31, 2.]

Tertull. Op. Lut. 1641. Apologet. 5. p. 6; where we find arbitratu, deus non erit, and debebit.]

[ Hosius confesses that in later editions of the

Common-places Melancthon left out these words.]
[ Hosius, from whom Harding transcribed the
passage, did not mean to attribute these words to
Bucer. They are, with some difference of expres-
sion, those of the article itself proposed at the con-

A Sign. away, it shall be very well done that holy church made it free to receive this sacrament in one or both kinds; yet under such condition as hereby no occasion be given to any body rashly to condemn the use which the church hath so long time kept, nor to judge another." Soothly he which would have it free and at liberty to receive the sacrament under one or both kinds, and holdeth opinion that the old custom of the one kind only is not to be condemned, seemeth plainly enough to confess that nothing hath been instituted or commanded of Christ touching this matter, as necessary to salvation.

Thus we may see plainly that they, which have divided themselves from the mystical body of Christ, that is, his church, who were of greatest learning and judgment, make it a matter indifferent (as it is indeed of itself left to the liberty of the church) whether the sacrament be ministered under one kind or both. And thus2 much hath been confessed against M. Jewel and his sect, not only by the learned adversaries of the church in our time, but also by a learned man of Bohemia, above six-score years past. His name is John Przybram, of whose writings some are set forth in print. This learned man, whereas he endeavoured


to prove the use of both kinds of the words of Christ written by St John, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you," at length uttereth these words according to the eloquence of his time : Veruntamen hic Deum timens, et mores impios aliorum præcavens, In Li. Profateor, quod quaslibet personas de ecclesia communioni fidelium sub fession. Fidei utraque specie repugnantes damnare aut hæreticare non intendo3: "But cap. xix. here, having the fear of God before mine eyes, and being well ware I follow not the wicked conditions of others, I grant that, what persons soever of the church repine against the communion of the faithful people under both kinds, I intend not to condemn them, nor to hold them for heretics." But if it be the commandment of God that the sacrament be received of all under both kinds, why should he be forbidden by the fear of God to condemn those that withstand that order of communion, seeing that whosoever goeth against God's commandment is worthy to be condemned? Therefore by his testimony the use of one or both kinds is indifferent1.

Thus we are able to allege Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and that learned Bohemian, for the indifferency of the communion to be ministered either under one kind or both: whereby I mean not that the use of the sacrament is so left to every man's liberty as he that listeth may require both kinds, and another may content himself with one kind. Not so. Every man is bound to follow the order of the church; but the church is not bound of necessity, by God's commandment, to minister it under both kinds to the laity.


To prove that the half communion is a thing indifferent, he bringeth forth the authority of Melancthon, Bucer, and a certain learned man of Bohemia; some of them falsely alleged, and some without any allegation at all. Neither doth he bring them to the intent to take them for his authors, and to follow them; for they, neither in their books, nor in the order of their churches, ever consented to the breach of Christ's institution. But herein he bewrayeth his want of old doctors; for, having the authority of them, he would never have alleged any of these.

In Melancthon he misliketh much the manner of his speech, in that he calleth the sacrament a sign: "which word," as he saith, "is strange, and not the accustomed word of the church." Saving that he seeketh occasions and quarrels without cause, as his wont is, otherwise he knoweth that a sacrament hath been called a sign in all times and ages of the church.

ference. See Lib. Propos. ad Comp. Relig. xxi. in
Joh. Eck. Apol. adv. Col. Buc. Antv. 1542. foll.
38, 9. The following is the opinion of Bucer: Porro
constituto consensu doctrinæ, si populus invitaretur
ad hunc usum, et usus restitueretur, esset jam con-
cordia. quia enim persecutio cessasset, et doctrina
sincera proponeretur, etiamsi non subito mutarent
suam consuetudinem singuli, in usu tamen discordia
publica non esset, &c.-Acta Coll. Ratisp. Hab. per

[blocks in formation]




Tract. 45.

tum, cap. xii.

Petrus Lombardus thus defineth a sacrament: Sacramentum est signum rei A Sign. sacræ: "A sacrament is the sign of a holy thing." And as it is thought, the very substance and nature of a thing cannot be better known than by the defini- Lib. iv. Dist. tion. St Augustine saith: [Signa] cum ad res divinas adhibentur, sacramenta August. de vocantur: "Signs, when they be applied to godly things, be called sacraments." Christiana, And again, writing of the difference that is between the sacraments of the old law Lib. iii. cap. and of the new, he saith thus: In signis diversis eadem fides: "The signs being In Johan. divers, the faith is one." And writing against one Adimantus, he saith: Non August. condubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui: tra diman "The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body." Likewise saith Chrysostom: Si mortuus Jesus non est, cujus symbolum ac Chrysost. in signum hoc sacrificium est 10? "If Jesus died not, whose token and whose sign is Mat. Hom. this sacrifice?" And lest any man should be deceived in the meaning of this word "sign," St Augustine himself hath expounded it thus: Signum est res, præter August. de speciem, quam ingerit sensibus, aliud quiddam faciens ex se in cognitionem venire11: Christiana, "A sign is a thing, that, besides the sight itself which it offereth unto the senses, De Con. causeth of itself some other certain thing to come into knowledge.” Hereby it may appear that this word "sign" is not so strange as M. Harding would have it seem, nor so unaccustomed unto the church. Although it mislike him that we should do as the old fathers did, yet he might give us leave to use such words and phrases as the old fathers used.

"But," saith he12, "Melancthon and Bucer accounted it a13 thing indifferent." Indeed these godly-learned men, when they saw that, through the malice of their adversaries, they could not obtain that Christ's institution might universally be received, yet they desired at the least it might be left free, without restraint, for every church to do therein as they should think good, and that without murmur or offence of others. And thus far forth their desire was it might be judged free; not that they thought Christ had not ordained the sacrament to be ministered unto the people in both kinds, or that in itself it is indifferent, but that the faithful of God might indifferently and freely use it without controlment, and that it should not be judged heresy to do as Christ hath commanded.

So the godly fathers at the beginning, when they could not persuade the princes of the world, with their people, to receive the gospel, yet they thought they were gainers, and gave God thanks, when they might have place and liberty for themselves freely and with quiet conscience to meet together, and to preach the gospel.

This liberty M. Harding cannot like withal. He would have it free for the whole church to determine of it; but not for every church particular. This is a shift to deceive the ignorant. For he knoweth well that all other churches throughout the world, from the first planting of the gospel until this day, do still minister the holy communion in both kinds, as Christ commanded; and that Christ's institution was never openly and by consent broken, but only in the church of Rome; which church also is not universal, but mere particular; and that the same breach, in the same church of Rome, sprang not of any consent of bishops, or other learned men, but, as it is proved before, only of the simple devotion of the people. And doth M. Harding think the people may safely break Christ's institution without any general council, and may not safely return again to the same without a general council? Verily there needeth no council, where as nothing is done by council.

[ Pet. Lombard. Lib. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. Lib. IV. Dist. i. B. fol. 330. 2; where the words are transposed.]

[These words do not occur in the place indicated. See however August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Ad Marcellin. Epist. cxxxvii. 7. Tom. II. col. 412; where for adhibentur we find pertinent.]

[8 Id. In Johan. Evang. cap. x. Tractat. xlv. 9. Tom. III. Pars 11. col. 598.]

[ Id. Cont. Adimant. Lib. cap. xii. 3. Tom. VIII. col. 124; where the words are transposed: Non enim

Dominus dubitavit, and signum daret.]

[1] Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἀπέθανεν ὁ ̓Ιησοῦς, τίνος σύμ Bola Ta Teλoúμeva ;-Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. In Matt. Hom. lxxxii. Tom. VII. p. 783.]

[11 August. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 33. col. 1926; where we find aliud aliquid ex se faciens. Op. De Doctr. Christ. Lib. 11. cap. i. 1. Tom. III. Pars I. col. 19.]

[12 He saith, 1565.]
[13 It as a, 1565.]



Lib. ii.

Dist. 2. Sig

num est.


Touching the indifferency of this matter, whereupon M. Harding hath built this whole treaty, and in what sort the breach of Christ's institution may seem a thing indifferent, I know no better answer than that is already made by St Cypr. Lib. ii. Cyprian, who in the like case maketh answer thus: Si quis de antecessoribus Epist. iii. meis... non hoc observavit et tenuit, quod nos Dominus... exemplo et magisterio suo docuit, potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi: nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nunc a Domino admoniti et instructi sumus, &c.1: "If any of my predecessors have not followed and kept that thing which the Lord, by his example and commandment, hath taught us, he for his simplicity may be pardoned; but if we wilfully offend, there is no pardon for us, that are already warned and instructed of the Lord. We give God thanks, that, whiles he instructeth us what we shall do for the time to come, he forgiveth us that is past, because we have erred of simplicity." Thus far forth the breach of God's ordinance may be borne withal, by the judgment of St Cyprian. But he addeth Cypr. ad Ju- further: Post inspirationem vero, et revelationem factam, qui in eo quod erraverat perseverat, prudens et sciens, sine venia ignorantiæ peccat, præsumptione... atque obstinatione... superatus2: "After that God hath once opened and revealed (his truth) whoso continueth still in his error, willingly and wittingly offendeth, without hope of pardon, as being overcome with presumption and wilfulness."

baianum, de Hæreticis Baptizanuis.

The fiftysecond untruth.

ed, or once


church to communi

And whereas it was ministered in both kinds at Corinth, as it appeareth by St Paul, and in sundry other places, as we find most evidently in the writings of divers ancient fathers, yet the church hath been moved by divers and weighty [Causes moving the causes to take order that the people should receive their commu- cate under one kind. nion under one kind, not only in the council of Basil, but also in H. A. 1564.] that of Constance, and long before them, above a thousand years, in (52) the first council of Ephesus, as many do probably gather, and namely Urbanus Fors there Regius, a doctor of Luther's school, confesseth in his book De Locis Communicanon touch- bus 4. One cause, and not the least, was, that thereby the heresy of Nestorius moved in might the rather be extinguished, who, amongst other errors, held opinion (53) that under the form of bread in the sacrament is contained the body of Christ without his blood; and under the form of the wine, his blood only without his body. For Nesto Many other causes moved those fathers to take that order, for the avoiding of many inconveniences, dangers, and offences, which might happen in the use of the cup, as unreverence of so high a sacrament, whereof christian people at the beginning had a marvellous care and regard; the loathsomeness of many that cantions where not brook the taste of wine; the difficulty of getting, and impossibility of keeping wine from corruption, in countries situated near to the north pole, in that clime where is known to be great extremity of cold; beside a number of the like. So that it had been besides reason to have bound all to the necessity of both kinds.

that council.

The fiftythird untruth.

rius never

dreamed of any such




fore Christ's

institution should be



He granteth that St Paul at Corinth, and sundry other holy fathers in their several churches, ministered the sacrament in both kinds. He might as well have said, all the apostles, and all the holy fathers, saving for hindering of his cause. "But the church afterward upon good causes (as it is here alleged) took order to the contrary, and namely to confute the heretic Nestorius."

Here must thou mark, good christian reader, the question is, whether M. Harding's half communion were ever ministered openly to the people in the church within the space of six hundred years after Christ. For proof hereof he allegeth that this order was allowed in the councils of Constance and Basil;

[ Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. lxiii. pp. 156, 7; where for meis we find nostris.]

[ Id. Ad Jubai. Epist. Ixxiii. p. 204; where

cum ratione superetur.]

[3 1565 omits for.]

[ Nestorius Constantinopolitanus episcopus lai

cos sub utraque specie communicavit, Ephesina synodus restitit.-Urban. Reg. Op. Norib. 1562. Loc. Com. xii. fol. 318. 2. See also Hos. Op. Col. 1584. De Utr. Spec. Com. Tom. I. p. 645.]

[Beside, H. A. 1564.]

« PoprzedniaDalej »