VIII. Henry ber of whom was Hilbert, bishop of Mans; whose verses in commendation of his master I thought here not unworthy to be preserved, being otherwise rare, peradventure, to be found in our story writers. A. D. 1540. Verses in Praise of Berengarius.' Quem modo miratur, semper mirabitur orbis, Sanctior et major sapientia, majus adorta, Pectus eam voluit, vox protulit, actio prompsit: Vir sacer et sapiens, cui nomen crescit in horas: Cui nec desidiam, nec luxum res dedit ampla: Qui nec ad argentum, nec ad aurum lumina flexit, Lædere nec quenquam, cunctis prodesse, favorem : Quem pudor hospitium statuit sibi, quamque libido, Quem natura parens cum mundo contulit (inquit), Quæque vagabatur, et pene reliquerat orbem, Vir sacer à puero, qui quantum præminet orbi, Fama minor meritis, cum totum pervolet orbem, Livor enim deflet, quem carpserat antea nec tam, Vir vere sapiens, et parte beatus ab omni, Post obitum secum vivam precor ac requiescam, Nec fiat melior sors mea sorte sua. Although in this time of Berengarius, which was about the year of our Lord 1050 (as ye have heard), this error of transubstantiation (1) These verses are in Malmesbury, with a few trifling variations. Lib. iii.-ED 2 VIII. tion first began to grow in force and strength, by the supporting of certain Henry popish monks above rehearsed, as Lanfranc, Guimund, Algerius,' Hugo bishop of Lincoln, Fulbert (of whom it is said in stories, that A.D. our Lady gave him suck, being sick, with her own breasts), and such 1540. others yet, notwithstanding, all this while the said transubstantiation. was decreed for no public law, nor doctrine to be holden by any general consent, either of the church of Rome, or any other council, before the council of Lateran, under pope Innocent III, who, A.D. Transub1215, celebrating in the church of Lateran a general council of stantiathirteen hundred bishops, enacted there divers constitutions, as of decreed yearly confession, and the communion to be used by the whole multi- general tude once a year through every parish church. Item, for the recovery pope of the holy land, with subsidy also to be levied for the same. for the abolishing of the books and writings of Joachim the Abbot, and also the opinions of Almaric before mentioned. Notwithstanding that the said Joachim did subscribe with his own hand, that he held the same doctrine which was in the church of Rome, and also submitted his books to be presented to the see of Rome, there to be corrected or approved, yet was he judged, though not a heretic, yet to be erroneous; and especially in those books which he wrote against Peter the Lombard, called afterwards the Master of Sentences.4 5 for a law by Item, Innocent In the said council, besides divers other constitutions and the articles of the creed there in order repeated, as appeareth, there was also enacted, decreed, and established the faith and belief of transubstantiation, in these words following. The Words of the Council whereby Transubstantiation was first established. There is one universal church of the faithful, without which none can be saved; in which church the selfsame Jesus Christ is both priest and also the sacrifice; whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar, under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, by the power and working of God: so that to the accomplishing of this mystery of unity, we might take of his, the same which he hath taken of ours. And this sacrament none can make or consecrate, but he that is a priest lawfully ordained, according to the keys of the church, which Jesus Christ hath left to his apostles, and to their successors, &c. And thus was the foundation laid for the building of Transubstantiation, upon the consent of these aforesaid thirteen hundred bishops in the year of our Lord above specified, under pope Innocent, and the doctrine thereof intruded for an article of faith into the church, necessarily to be believed of all men under pain of heresy. III. ration But yet all this while, notwithstanding that the substance of bread Elevation and wine was now banished out of the sacrament, and utterly trans- and adocorporated into the substance of Christ's very body and blood, yet brought was not this body elevated over the priest's head, nor adored by the in by pope Honorius (1) Algerius.' The treatises of Algerius and Hugo, are found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, III. Lugduni, 1677, tom. xviii.-ED. (2) This number includes abbots and priors. See Collier's Historical Dictionary.-ED. (3) The words of the council are these: verit, apostolicæ sedis judicio approbanda seu 1714, tom. vii. col. 19-ED. (4) Ex Antonin. pars 3. tit. 19. eap. 1. Joachim omnia scripta sua nobis assignari manda- (5) Extr. De summa Trinit. 6. a. 1. 'Firmiter credimus,' et Fide Catholica, chap. 1. [The passage appears in the Decretals of Gregory IX., tom. ii. p. 1, of the Corpus Juris Canonici a Pithæo.' Paris, 1677.-ED.] VIII. Henry people, till the days of pope Honorius III., succeeding after Innocent, who, by his council, likewise commanded adoration and elevation to be joined with transubstantiation; as one idolatry commonly bringeth A. D. 1540. forth another. Again, the said sacrament of the Lord's supper being now consecrated, transubstantiated, elevated, and adored, yet it was not offered up for a sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and the dead, nor for a remedy of the souls in purgatory, nor for a meritoperis operati, sine bono motu utentis,' &c., before that other popes, coming after, added still new additions to the former inventions of their predecessors. And thus have you the whole order and origin of these idolatrous parts of the mass described by their times and ages, which first began with consecration and the form thereof, which were words of the canon. Then came transubstantiation by Innocent, and afterwards elevation and adoration by Honorius; and, last of all, came the oblation, meritorious and propitiatory, for the quick and the dead in remission of sins, ex opere operato; which things being thus constituted by the too much usurped authority of the church of Rome, shortly after Persecu followed persecution, tyranny, and burning among the Christians; being first beginning with the Albigenses, and the faithful congregation of in these Toulouse, near about the time of the said Innocent, as is before beginning latter days. remembered. And thus much for the first article of Transubstantiation, which, as you have heard, was not admitted into the church for any general doctrine of faith, before the year and time above assigned of pope Innocent III. and therefore, if any have been otherwise persuaded, or yet do remain in the same persuasion still of this doctrine, as though it had been of a longer continuance than for the time above. expressed, let him understand that by ignorance of histories he is deceived and for the more satisfying of his mind, if he credit not me, let him believe the words of one of his own catholic sort, John Duns Scotus I mean, who, in his fourth book, writing of transubstantiation, in what time and by whose authority it was first established, hath these words, which also are before mentioned: "These words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and more plainly without transubstantiation; but the church did choose this sense, which is harder, being thereto moved, as seemeth, chiefly because men should hold, of the sacraments, the same which the church of Rome doth hold," &c. And further, in the same place, the said Duns, expounding himself what he meaneth by the church of Rome, maketh there express mention of the said Innocent III., and of this Council of Lateran, &c. And furthermore, to the intent that such as be indifferent seekers of the truth may be more amply satisfied in this behalf, that this transubstantiation is of no antiquity, but of a late invention, I will also adjoin to this testimony of John Scotus, the judgment and verdict of Erasmus, where he writeth in these words: "In the sacrament of the communion, the church concluded transubstantiation but of late days. Long before that, it was sufficient to believe the true body of Christ to be present either under bread, or else by some other manner," &c. (1) 'In synaxi transubstantiationem sero definivit ecclesia. Diu satis erat credere sive sub pane consecrato, sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi,' &c. Erasm lib. Annot. in 1 Cor. cap. vii. Ser. 6. THE SECOND ARTICLE OF BOTH KINDS. Henry VIII. As touching the second article, which debarreth from the lay-people A.D. the one-half of the sacrament, understanding that under one kind 1540. both parts are fully contained, forasmuch as the world well knoweth that this article is but young-invented, decreed, and concluded no longer since than at the Council of Constance, not two hundred years ago, I shall not need to make any long standing upon that matter; especially for that sufficient hath been said thereof before, in our long discourse of the Bohemians' story. Objec"" tions of the pa First, let us see the reasons and objections of the adversaries, in restraining the laity from the one kind of this sacrament. "The use, say they," hath been of so long continuance in the church :" where- pists unto we answer, that they have no evident nor authentic example of both any ancient custom in the church, which they can produce in that kinds. behalf. Item, where they alleged the place of St. Luke, where Christ was known in breaking of bread,' &c.; citing, moreover, many other places of Scripture, wherein mention is made of breaking of bread: to answer thereunto, although we do not utterly repugn, but that some of those places may be understood of the sacrament, yet, that being granted, it followeth not therefore, that one part of the sacrament was only ministered to the people without the other, when, by the common use of speech, under the naming of one part, the whole action is meant. Neither doth it follow, because that bread was broken among the brethren, therefore the cup was not distributed unto them: for so we find by the words of St. Paul, that the use of the Corinthians was to communicate, not only in breaking of bread, but in participating the cup also: "The cup," saith he, "which we participate, 2 &c. Also, after the apostles, in the time of Cyprian, of Jerome, of Gelasius, and others successively after them, it is evident that both the kinds were frequented in the church. First Cyprian,' in divers places, declareth that the sacrament of the blood was also distributed. How do we," saith he, "provoke them to stand in the confession of Christ, to the shedding of their blood, if we deny unto them the blood of Christ, when they prepare themselves to the conflict?" The words of Jerome are plain: " Priests," saith he, "who minister the Eucharist, and divide the blood unto the people." In Historia Tripartita, it was said to the emperor Theodosius, "How will you receive the body of the Lord with such bloody hands, or the cup of his precious blood with that mouth, who have spoiled so much innocent blood?" In the canon of Gelasius, and in the pope's own decrees, these words we read: "We understand that there be some, who, receiving only the portion of the Lord's body, do abstain from the cup of his sacred blood; to whom we enjoin that either they receive the whole sacrament in both kinds, or else that they receive neither for the dividing of that whole and one sacrament, cannot be done without great sacrilege," &c. So that this decree of pope Gelasius being con (1) Luke xxiv. (2) 1 Cor. x. (3) Cypria. lib. i. Epist. 2. De Laicis Martyrib. 'Scriberis.' against VIII. Henry tradictory to the Council of Constance, it must follow, that either the pope did err, or else the Council of Constance must needs be a sacriA. D. legious council; as no doubt it was. 1540. His testa ment The like testimony also appeareth in the Council of Toledo, that the laity did then communicate in both kinds, beside divers other old precedents remaining yet in the churches both of Germany and also of France, declaring likewise the same.1 And thus it standeth certain and demonstrable, by manifold probations, how far this new-found custom differeth from all antiquity and prescription of use and time. Again, although the custom thereof were ever so ancient, yet no custom may be of that strength to gainstand or countermand, the open and express commandment of God, who saith to all men, "Bibite ex hoc omnes, “Drink ye all of this," &c. Again, seeing the cup is called the blood of the new testament, who is he that dare or can alter the testament of the Lord, when none not to be may be so hardy to alter the testament of a man, being once approved or ratified? ought altered. 66 Further, as concerning those places of Scripture before alleged, "De fractione panis;" that is, "Of breaking of bread;" whereupon they think themselves so sure that the sacrament was then administered but in one kind: to answer thereunto, first, we say, it may be doubted whether all those places in Scripture "De fractione panis," are to be referred to the sacrament. Secondly, the same being given unto them, yet can they not infer thereby, because one part is mentioned, that the full sacrament therefore was not ministered. The common manner of the Hebrew phrase is, under breaking of bread, to signify generally the whole feast or supper: as in the prophet Isaiah, these words, Frange esurienti panem tuum," do signify as well giving drink, as bread, &c. And thirdly, howsoever those places, "De fractione panis," be taken, yet it maketh little for them, but rather against them. For, if the sacrament were administered among them "in fractione panis, that is, in breaking of bread, then must they needs grant, that if bread was there broken, ergo there was bread, forasmuch as neither the accidents of bread without bread can be broken, neither can the natural body of Christ be subject to any fraction or breaking by the The natu- Scripture, which saith, "And ye shall break no bone of him," &c. Talist Wherefore take away the substance of bread, and there can be no not to be fraction. And take away fraction, how then do they make a sacra of Christ broken. Another objection. 99 ment of this breaking, whereas neither the substance of Christ's body, neither yet the accidents without their substance can be broken, neither again will they admit any bread there remaining to be broken? And what then was it, in this their "fractione panis," that they did break, if it were not "panis," that is, "substantia panis, quæ frangebatur?" To conclude: if they say that this fraction of bread was a sacramental breaking of Christ's body, so by the like figure let them say that the being of Christ's natural body in the sacrament is a sacramental being, and we are agreed. Item, They object further, and say, that the church, upon due (1) Thus the forbidding of both kinds of the sacrament hath no ground of ancient custom. (2) Exod. xii |