A04474:1056
A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare
A reply unto M. Hardinges answer by perusing whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weak, and unstable grounds of the Romaine religion, which of late hath been accounted Catholic. By John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury.A replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare by perusinge whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weake, and vnstable groundes of the Romaine religion, whiche of late hath beene accompted Catholique. By Iohn Iewel Bishoppe of Sarisburie.
Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the sign of the Black Oliphant, by Henry Wykes, Anno. 1565Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the signe of the Blacke Oliphante, by Henry VVykes, Anno. 1565
Article 2 › M. Harding. The .31. Division.Article 2 › M. Hardinge. The .31. Diuision.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
M. Harding. The .31. Division.
M. Hardinge. The .31. Diuision.
And therefore M. Ivel doth us great wrong in wresting this Canon against us, for as much as we do not divide this divine Mystery, but believe steadfastly with heart, and confess openly with mouth, that under each kind, the very flesh and Blood of Christ, and whole Christ himself, is present in the Sacrament, 631 even as Gelasius believed. Upon this occasion, in the parties of Italy, where the Manichees uttered their poison, the Communion under Both Kinds was restored, and commanded to be used again: whereas before 642 of some the Sacrament was received under one kind, ⟨p. 148⟩and of some under Both Kinds.3 Else if the Communion under Both Kinds had been taken for a necessary Institution, and commandment of Christ, and so generally, and inviolably observed every where, and always without exception: what needed Gelasius to make such an ordinance of receiving the whole Sacraments, the cause whereof by this Parenthesis (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur adstringi) plainly expresseth? Again, if it had been so inviolably observed of all until that time, then the Manichees could not have covered, and cloaked their inf•lclitie, as Leo saith, by the receiving the Communion with other Catholic people under One Kind. For whiles the Catholics went from Church, contented with the only form of Bread, it was uncertain, whither he that came to receive were a Manichee, or a Catholic. But after that for discerning of them, it was Decreed, that the people should not forbear the Communion of the Cup any more: the good Catholic folk so received, and the Manichees by their refusal of the Cup, bewrayed them selves. Whereby it appeareth that the Communion under One Kind used before by the commandments of Leo, and Gelasius, was forbidden, to theintent thereby the Manichees heresy might the better be espied, rooted out, and clean abolished.