Page images
PDF
EPUB

VIII.

Henry Mary; and that in such sort as there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, after the priest's consecration; but only the body A. D. and blood of Christ, under the outward forms of bread and wine: 1540. First, here is to be noted, that this monstrous article of theirs, in that form of words as it standeth, was never obtruded, received, or holden either in the Greek church, or in the Latin church, universally for a catholic, that is, for a general opinion or article of doctrine, before the time of the Lateran council at Rome, under pope Innocent III., A.D. 1216.

The article of the sacrament

consist

And forasmuch as it hath been a common persuasion amongst the most sort of people, that this article, in the form of words as here it standeth, is, and hath been ever since Christ's time, a true catholic and general doctrine, commonly received and taught in the church, being approved by the Scriptures and doctors, and consent of all ages unto this present time; to the intent therefore that the contrary may appear, and the people may see how far they have herein been beguiled, we will here (Christ willing) make a little stay in our story, and examine this aforesaid article by true antiquity and course of histories; to try whether it be a doctrine old or new.

Now therefore, for the better discussing of the matter, let us first orderly and distinctly advise the words of the article; the contents of which article consist in two parts or members. In the first thereof is eth in two noted to us a presence of a thing which there was not before: in the second, is noted a privation or absence of a thing which there before was present.

parts.

The presence is noted by these words of the article, where it is said that in the blessed sacrament, by the words pronounced, are present the natural body and blood of our Saviour under the forms of bread and wine: so that in these words, both the sacrament and the natural body are imported necessarily to be present. For else, how can the natural body of Christ be present in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, if the sacrament there were not present itself? or how can a thing be said to be in that which is not there? Wherefore by these words both the sacrament, and also the body, must necessarily have their being and presence, the one being in the The pre other. And this presence both of the sacrament, and of the body, being rightly taken, may right well stand together; the sacrament to tural the outward eyes and mouth of man, the body of Christ to the inward eyes of faith, and mouth of the soul. And therefore touching these pounded, prepositions in this article, in' and 'under,' if question be asked, In what is the body of Christ? it may be well answered, In the sacraAbsence ment, to the eyes of our faith; like as the outward sacrament is also present to the outward eyes of the body. Again, if the question be asked, Under what is the body of Christ? it may be well answered, Under the forms of bread and wine, so as the doctors did take the forms to mean the outward elements and natures of the sacrament, and not the accidents.

tence of

the na

body of Christ, well-ex

may be

granted.

of bread.

And thus, to the first part of the article, being well expounded, we do assent and confess the same to have been the true catholic opinion, approved by the ancient doctors and consent of all times, even from the first institution of this sacrament.

But as concerning the second member or part of the article, which

VII.

taketh away all presence and substance of bread from the sacrament; Henry to that we say, that first it standeth not with their own article: secondly, that it standeth not with the doctrine of Scripture: A.D. thirdly, that it standeth not with antiquity, but is merely a late 1540. invention.

And first, that it agreeth not with their own article, it is manifest. For whereas in the former part of their article they say, that the natural body of Christ is present in the blessed sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, how can the natural body of Christ be present in the sacrament, if there remain no sacrament? or how can any sacrament of the body remain, if there remain no substance of bread, which should make the sacrament? for how can the body of Christ be of Christ in that thing, which is not? or how can the sacrament of the body cannot be have any being, where the substance of bread hath no being? For crament first, that the body itself cannot be the sacrament of the body, is body. evident of itself.

Secondly, that the accidents of bread, without the substance of bread, cannot be any sacrament of Christ's body, certain it is, and demonstrable by this argument.

Argumentum à Definitione.

Ca- A sacrament is, that which beareth a similitude of that thing whereof it is

a sacrament.

mest- Accidents bear no similitude of that thing which is there signified. Ergo, Accidents can in no wise be a sacrament.1

res.

Wherefore, upon this argument being thus concluded, upon the same this also must needs follow.

Da

ri

i.

In the sacrament of the Lord's body, the thing that representeth, must
needs bear a similitude of the thing represented.

The substance of bread in the sacrament, is only that which beareth the
similitude of Christ's body.

Ergo, The substance of bread must needs be in the sacrament.

The body

of his

presence

substan

cannot

And therefore, by this demonstration it is apparent that these two The parts in the article aforesaid are evil couched together, whereof the popish one must needs destroy the other. For if the first part of the article and tranbe true, that the natural body of Christ is present in the sacrament, tiation under the forms of bread and wine, and seeing the sacrament wherein stand the body of Christ is present, must needs be the substance of bread, together. and not the accidents only of bread, as is above proved, then the substance of bread cannot be evacuated from the sacrament; and so the second member of the article must needs be false.

stantia

from the

ture.

Or, if the second part be true, that there is no substance of bread Transubremaining, and seeing there is nothing else to make the sacrament tion disaof the natural body of Christ but only the substance of bread, foras- greeth much as the accidents of bread can make no sacrament of Christ's Scripbody, as is above showed; then, taking away the substance of bread, the first part of the article must needs be false, which saith, that the natural body of Christ is present in the sacrament; forasmuch as the substance of bread being evacuated, there remaineth no sacrament,

(1) Aug. ad Bonif., Epist. xxiii.

VIII.

1540. A late

Henry wherein the body of Christ should be present. Secondly, that it disagreeth from the whole order and course of the Scriptures, it is A.D. sufficiently explained before in the treatise of John Lambert upon the sacrament, as also in sundry other places in these volumes besides. Thirdly, that the said article of transubstantiation is no ancient or of no an- authentic doctrine in the church publicly received; but rather is a novelty lately invented, reaching not much above the age of three or four hundred years, or at most above the time of Lanfranc A.D. 1070, it remains now to be proved.

opinion

tiquity.

Phrases

of the

doctors

of the sacrament.

Herein first may be joined this issue: that this monstrous paradox of transubstantiation was never induced or received publicly in the church, before the time of the Lateran council, under pope Innocent III., A. D. 1216; or at most before the time of Lanfranc, the Italian, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1070.

In this time of Lanfranc, I deny not but that this question of transubstantiation began to come in controversy, and was reasoned upon, amongst certain learned of the clergy. But that this article of transubstantiation was publicly determined or prescribed in the church, for a general law or catholic doctrine, of all men necessarily to be believed, before the time of the aforesaid Innocent III.,' it may be doubted, and also by histories of time, proved to be false.

And though our adversaries seem to allege out of the old doctors certain speeches and phrases, which they wrest and wring to their speaking purposes; wherein they say, "that the bread is called, is believed, and is, the body of Christ;"" that of bread is made the body of Christ;" and "that the bread is changed, altered, or converted to the body of Christ, or is made to be his body;" "that the creatures be converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ;" "that the bread and wine do pass into the divine substance;" with such other like sentences; and bear themselves brag upon the same, as though this doctrine of transubstantiation stood upon the consent of the whole universal church, of all ages and times, of nations and people, and that the judgment of the church was never other than this and yet, if the old doctors' sayings be well weighed, and the discourse of times by history well examined, it will be found pretend that this prodigious opinion of transubstantiation hath no such for their ground of consent and antiquity as they imagine; nor yet that any stantia heresy or treason was made of denying of transubstantiation before the time of Innocent III., or, at the furthest, of Lanfranc, as is afore said, about which time Satan, the old dragon, was prophesied by the Apocalypse, to be let loose, to seduce the world.

The papists falsely

antiquity

transub

tion.

Doctors

against transub

For probation whereof, first I will begin with the time of Tertullian and of Augustine;2 who both do teach the sacrament to be a stantia figure, a sign, a memorial, and a representation of the Lord's body, and knew no such transubstantiation; and yet were no traitors nor heretics.

tion.

Neither was St. Ambrose any heretic or traitor, where he writeth these words, "Ut sint quæ erant, et in aliud convertantur," &c.; which words Lanfranc could not answer unto any other wise, but by denying them to be the words of Ambrose. Gelasius was bishop of Rome, and lived about five hundred years after Christ, and

(1) Innocent the Third was bishop of Rome, A.D. 1215.

(2) A. D. 408.

VIII.

A. D.

speaketh of a transmutation' of the bread and wine into the divine Henry nature; but there, expounding himself, he declareth what he meaneth by that mutation, so that he expressly showeth the elements of bread and wine, notwithstanding, to remain still in their proper nature, with other words more, very plain to the same effect: unto which words Contarenus in the assembly of Ratisbon could not well answer, but stood astonied.

Theodoret likewise, speaking of the visible symbols, hath these words: "After the sanctification they remain in their former substance, figure, and form."

Ireneus, where he saith that "the bread broken, and the cup mixed, after the vocation of God, cease to be common bread any more, but are the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ :" and, explicating his words more plainly, addeth, moreover, that "the Eucharist consisteth in two things, one being earthly, which is bread and wine; the other heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ," &c. he declareth, in these words, both his own opinion plainly, and also teacheth us what was then the doctrine of his time.

3

Hesichius also, who was five hundred years after Christ, where he speaketh of the said mystery, to be both flesh and bread; declaring thereby two substances to be in the sacrament. By the which we have to understand that transubstantiation, in his age, was not crept into the church; and yet neither heresy, nor treason, therefore, was ever laid to his charge for so saying.

Emissene, comparing a man converted unto Christ by regeneration, unto the holy mysteries converted into the body and blood of our Lord, expresseth plainly, that outwardly nothing is changed, and that all the change is inward, &c.; wherein, no doubt, he spake against this article, and yet no man, in all that age, did accuse him therefore to be either heretic or traitor.

Here might be added the words of Fulgentius,5 "This cup is the new testament; that is, this cup which I deliver unto you, signifieth the new testament."

Bede also, who lived about the year 730, writing upon the twentyfirst Psalm, hath these words :6 "Poor men, to wit, despisers of the world, shall eat indeed really, if it be referred unto the sacraments, and shall be filled eternally; because they shall understand in bread and in wine, being visibly set before them, a thing invisible, to wit, the true body and true blood of the Lord, which are true meat and true drink, wherewith not the belly is filled, but the mind is nourished."

And thus, in these words of Bede, likewise, is to be understood, that no transubstantiation as yet in his time was received in the church of England.

(1) Gelasius, lib. contra Eutichen.

(2) Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος, καὶ τοῦ εἴδους. Theodoretus, Secund. Dial. contra Eutichen.

(3) 'Quod simul panis et caro est.' Hesichius, lib. xx. in Levit. c. 8.

(4) Quod in exteriori nihil additum est, et totum in interiori mutatum est.' Emissenus, D Consecra. dist. 2, 'Quia corpus.' (A D. 500.)

(5) Hic calix est novum testamentum; id est, hic calix quem vobis trado, novum testamentum significat.'

(6) Edent pauperes, &c. Pauperes, id est, mundi contemptores edent quidem realiter, si ad sacramenta referantur, et saturabuntur æternalite, qui intelligent in pane et vino visibiliter sibi proposito, invisibile scilicet corpus verum, et sanguinem verum Domini, quæ verus cibus et verus potus sunt, quo non venter distenditur, sed mens saginatur,' &c.

1540.

Henry

VIII.

;

Long it were to stand upon all particulars. Briefly to conclude the further the church hath been from these our latter days, the A. D. purer it was in all respects, and especially touching this barbarous 1540. article of transubstantiation. We will now draw more near our own

time, coming to the age of Bertram and of Haymo, who were about the year of our Lord 810, under Charlemagne.'

66

By whose writing it is evident, that the church was infected as yet with no such fantasy of transubstantiation, neither did any almost dream of taking away the substance of bread from the sacrament. For although Haymo, Remigius, Rabanus, and others who lived in that age, do attribute to the sacrament, the honourable name and reverence (as we also do) of the Lord's body and blood, yet they exclude not from thence all substance of meal and bread, and leave the bare accidents, as our new-come Catholics do, as by the words of Haymo doth appear. Where he, following the words of Bede, showeth also the cause, why it is so called by the name of the Lord's body ?2 Because," saith he, "bread confirmeth the heart of man, therefore it is called conveniently the body of Christ; and because wine worketh blood in the flesh of man, therefore it is referred to the blood of Christ." What can be more effectually spoken to prove the substance of bread there to remain? for take away the substance of bread and wine, what is in the accidents left, that can confirm man's heart, or engender blood in the flesh? And therefore, seeing there must needs something remain, that must be referred to Christ's body and blood in that sacrament, it either must be the substance of bread and wine, or else it can be no sacrament. And furthermore, speaking of the visible things which are sanctified, how and whereunto they be converted, he saith, that by the Holy Ghost they passed to a sacrament of the Lord's body.

And likewise the same Haymo, in another place, speaking of the fruits of the earth, that is, of corn and wine, declareth how our Saviour making of them "an apt mystery," converteth them to "a sacrament of his body and blood," 993 &c.

Bertram likewise, as he lived in the same age, so in like sort he showed his opinion therein, to the like effect as Haymo did. For, as Haymo, writing in these words, declareth," "The sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another thing for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but with the virtue of the sacrament the inward man is satisfied."

So after like manner, Bertram, according to the same, thus writeth:5 "The bread, which by the ministry of the priest is made the body of Christ, doth import one thing outwardly to the senses of man, and another thing it speaketh to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly, it is bread, the same it was before; the same form is pretended, the colour appeareth, the same taste remaineth: but inwardly, there is another matter far more precious and more excellent, because it is

(1) 'Quia panis corpus confirmat, ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.' Haymo, De Sermonum Proprietate, lib. v. c. 11.

(2) Haymo, lib vii. in Eccle. cap. 8. (3) Charlemagne, born A.D. 742, died A.D. 814.-ED.
(4) Quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti: sacramentum enim ore percipitur,
virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur.' Haymo, lib. vii. in Eccle. cap. 8.

(5) Ille panis, qui per Sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus efficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, et aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat,' &c. A. D. 810. Bertram. lib. De Corpore et Sang. Domini.

« PreviousContinue »