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.
John Jewel 1522–1571Imprinted 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
[24], 212, 212-523, 526-641, [12] p. · 449k words · STC 14606 · ESTC S112269
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.
By these words, that Christ at his last Supper spake unto his Disciples, This is my Body, it is plain (saith M. Harding) that he gave unto them the very same Body, that was Crucified the next day upon the Cross: and upon occasion thereof the learned Fathers had just cause to say, that Christs Body is Really, and Carnally in the Sacrament. This argument is called Petitio Principij, which is, when a thing is taken to make proof, that is doubtful, and standeth in question, and ought it self to be proved. This Fallax may well beguile Children: but among the Learned, it is counted in reasoning a great folly. The Order, or Form hereof is naught: the Antecedent unproved: the Consequent false, as shall appear.
By these woordes, that Christe at his last Supper spake vnto his Disciples, This is my Body, it is plaine (saith M. Hardinge) that he gaue vnto them the very same Body, that was Crucified the next day vpon the Crosse: and vpon occasion therof the learned Fathers had iust cause to say, that Christes Body is Really, and Carnally in the Sacrament. This argument is called Petitio Principij, which is, when a thinge is taken to make proufe, that is doubtful, and standeth in question, and ought it selfe to be prooued. This Fallax may wel beguile Children: but emonge the Learned, it is counted in reasoninge a greate folie. The Order, or Forme hereof is naught: the Antecedent vnprooued: the Consequent false, as shal appeare.
M. Harding saith, These words, This is my Body, must needs be taken without Metaphor, Trope, or Figure, even as the plain letter lieth, and none otherwise. So saith M. Harding only upon his own credit. But the old Catholic Doctors of the Church, of whom (he saith) he hath such store, say not so. S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, Tertullian, and others call the Sacrament a Figure, a Token, a Sign, an Example, an
a Similitude, a Remembrance: as hereafter, God willing, shall be showed more at large upon better occasion, in an Article specially touching the same. Even Duns him self, with sundry others of that side, saw, that following the very bare Letter, we must needs say, That the Bread it self is Christs Body. For so the words stand. This (Bread) is my Body: which were a great inconvenience, and a repugnance in Nature. For salving whereof, they are driven to say, That Christ,
when he pointed to the Bread, & said, This, meant not, This Bread, but, as they call it, Individuum vagum, Which is one certain thing in general: but what one thing, they cannot tell: but sure they be, it was no Breade. Est,
that is to say, This shall be: Againe, Erit, hoc est, transubstantiabitur, that is, The Substance of th•s uncertain General one thing, that no man knoweth, shall be changed into the Substance of my Body. Is given,
and besides these, a great many moe: as in place more convenient it shall be declared: Yet saith M. Harding, These words of Christ must of fine force be taken even according to the order, & Nature of the bare letter. And this, he saith, is sufficient to the humble believer. Howbeit, Christian humility standeth not in error,
M. Harding saith, These woordes, This is my Body, must néedes be taken without Metaphore, Trope, or Figure, euen as the plaine letter lieth, and none otherwise. So saith M. Hardinge onely vpon his owne credite. But the olde Catholique Doctours of the Churche, of whom (he saith) he hath suche stoare, say not so. S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Basile, Tertullian, and others cal the Sacrament a Figure, a Token, a Signe, an Example, an ⟨p. 326⟩Image,1 a Similitude, a Remembrance: as hereafter, God willinge, shalbe shewed more at large vpon better occasion, in an Article specially touchinge the same. Euen Duns him selfe, with sundrie others of that side, sawe, that folowinge the very bare Letter, we must needes saie, That the Breade it selfe is Christes Bodie. For so the woordes stande. This (Breade) is my Bodie: whiche were a greate inconuenience, and a repugnance in Nature. For saluinge whereof, they are driuen to saie, That Christ,2 when he pointed to the Breade, & said, This, meante not, This Breade, but, as they cal it, Indiuiduum vagum, Whiche is one certaine thinge in general: but what one thinge, they cannot tel: but sure they be, it was no Breade. Est, 3they expounde, Erit, 4that is to saie, This shalbe: Againe, Erit, hoc est, transubstantiabitur, that is, The Substance of th•s vncertaine General one thinge, that noman knoweth, shalbe chaunged into the Substance of my Bodie. Is giuen, 5They expounde, shalbe geuen: Is broakē, they expounde,6 shalbe broaken: Do ye this, they expounde, Sacrifice ye this. This Breade, they expounde thus,7 This, that was Breade. And, where as these Uerbes stande togeather in order,8 and Construction, and rule al one Case, Accepit, Benedixit, Fregit, dedit:9 He tooke, He Blissed, He Brake, He gaue: They are faine to shifte it thus: He tooke the Breade:10 He blissed it awaie, and in place of it put an other substance: He Brake the Accidentes,11 or Shewes of Breade: He Gaue his Bodie. Upon these fewe woordes of Christ, thus many Figures haue they imagined:12 and bisides these, a great many moe: as in place more conuenient it shalbe declared: Yet saith M. Hardinge, These woordes of Christ must of fine force be taken euen accordinge to the order, & Nature of the bare letter. And this, he saith, is sufficient to the humble beleeuer. Howbeit, Christian humilitie standeth not in erroure,13 but in trueth: And S.
1According to the letter.Accordinge to the letter.
Augustine saith, as it is before alleged, Ea demum est miserabilis animae Seruitus, Signa pro Rebus accipere. To take the Signs in stead of the things, that thereby be signified, (is not the Humility of a Christian Faith, but) the miserable Servitude of the Soul. And Origen y• old learned Father saith,1 Si secundum Literam sequaris id, quod dictum est (Nisi manducaveritis Carnem Filij Hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis) Litera illa occidit. If you follow these words of Christ according to the Letter (Onlesse ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, ye shall have no life in you) this Letter killeth.
Augustine saith, as it is before alleged, Ea demum est miserabilis animae Seruitus, Signa pro Rebus accipere. To take the Signes in steede of the thinges, that thereby be signified, (is not the Humilitie of a Christian Faith, but) the miserable Seruitude of the Soule. And Origen y• olde learned Father saith,1 Si secundum Literam sequaris id, quod dictum est (Nisi manducaueritis Carnem Filij Hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis) Litera illa occidit. If yowe folowe these woordes of Christ accordinge to the Letter (Onlesse ye eate the Fleashe of the Sonne of Man, ye shal haue no life in yowe) this Letter killeth.
1Origen. Hom. 7. In Leviticum.Origen. Hom. 7. In Leuiticum.
Upon these grounds of his own, M. Harding reareth up this Conclusion: Then, saith he, may we say, that Christ is in the Sacrament Really, &c. In deed a man may say much, that hath no regard, what he say. But if he will say, as the Old Godly Fathers said,1 then must he saie, Hoc est corpus meum: hoc est, Figura Corporis mei. This is my Body: that is to say, a Figure of my Body: For so the Old learned Father Tertullian saith. Then must he saie, Christus Corporis sui Figuram Discipulis suis commendavit,2 Christ delivered unto his Disciples a Figure of his Body: For so the Old learned Father S. Augustine3 saith: Then must he say, Sacramentum Corporis Christi secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi est. The Sacrament of Christs Body after a certain phrase, or manner, or Trope, or Figure of speech, is the Body of Christ: For so again S. Augustine saith.
Upon these groundes of his owne, M. Hardinge reareth vp this Conclusion: Then, saithe he, maie we saie, that Christe is in the Sacrament Really, &c. In deede a man maie saie muche, that hath no regarde, what he say. But if he wil saie, as the Olde Godly Fathers saide,1 then muste he saie, Hoc est corpus meum: hoc est, Figura Corporis mei. This is my Bodie: that is to saie, a Figure of my Bodie: For so the Olde learned Father Tertullian saithe. Then must he saie, Christus Corporis sui Figuram Discipulis suis commendauit,2 Christe deliuered vnto his Disciples a Figure of his Bodie: For so the Olde learned Father S. Augustine3 saith: Then must he saie, Sacramentum Corporis Christi secundum quendam modum Corpus Christi est. The Sacrament of Christes Bodie after a certaine phrase, or manner, or Trope, or Figure of speache, is the Bodie of Christ: For so againe S. Augustine saith.
Here M. Harding seeing the inconveniences, and absurdities of his Doctrine, thought good to heal it up with some plaster. By these words, Really, Carnally, &c. The Godly learned Fathers, saith he, Meant that Christs very Body, and Flesh is there, but not in any Natural, or Carnal wise. And thus M. Hardinges Doctors wrote one thing, and meant an other. For M. Harding knoweth, that all Adverbs, taken of Nouns, signify evermore a quality, and never the Substance: which thing Children are taught to know in the Grammar School: and may be resolved thus, Viriliter, virili modo: muliebriter, muliebri modo. And therefore his very Canonists say in their manner of Eloquence, Deus non est remunerator Nominū ▪ sed Aduerbiorum. God rewardeth not Nouns, but Adverbs: That is to say, God regardeth ⟨p. 327⟩not the Doing of any thing, but the Manner of the Doing. But M. Harding thinketh he may take upon him to overlook, and to master the Grammar Rules. For onlesse we make Nouns, Adverbs: and Adverbs, Nouns: these mens Divinity cannot stand. Therefore, as they have devised a new Divinity: so must our Children learn for their pleasure a New Grammar.
Here M. Hardinge seeinge the inconueniences, and absurdities of his Doctrine, thought good to heale it vp with some plaister. By these woordes, Really, Carnally, &c. The Godly learned Fathers, saithe he, Meante that Christes very Bodie, and Fleshe is there, but not in any Natural, or Carnal wise. And thus M. Hardinges Doctours wrote one thinge, and meante an other. For M. Hardinge knoweth, that al Aduerbes, taken of Nownes, signifie euermore a qualitie, and neuer the Substance: whiche thinge Children are taught to knowe in the Grammar Schoole: and may be resolued thus, Viriliter, virili modo: muliebriter, muliebri modo. And therefore his very Canonistes saie in their manner of Eloquence, Deus non est remunerator Nominū ▪ sed Aduerbiorum. God rewardeth not Nownes, but Aduerbes: That is to say, God regardeth ⟨p. 327⟩not the Dooinge of any thinge, but the Manner of the Dooinge. But M. Hardinge thinketh he may take vpon him to ouerlooke, and to maister the Grammar Rules. For onlesse we make Nownes, Aduerbes: and Aduerbes, Nownes: these mens Diuinitie cannot stande. Therefore, as they haue diuised a newe Diuinitie: so must our Children learne for their pleasure a Newe Grammar.
But what are these Old Learned Fathers, that say, Christs Body is thus Really, and Fleshly in the Sacrament? Where be their Words? What be their Names? If they have neither Names, nor Words, how can they be allowed for sufficient witnesses? M. Harding well knoweth, that the Old learned Fathers never said so: yet must he needs imagine both causes, that moved them so to say: and also Expositions, what they meant by so saying. So Montanus the blind Senator, being at supper with the Emperor Tiberius, highly commended the great Mullet, that, he heard say, was set on the table before them: and showed, how round, how fair, how fat it was: how it filled the Charger, and how it lay: and evermore turned his face, and pointed with his finger, to the higher end of the table: and yet was not the Mullet there, but far beneath at the lower end. Reason would, that M. Harding had first been sure of the Effect, before he had thus gone about to guess the causes.
But what are these Olde Learned Fathers, that saie, Christes Bodie is thus Really, and Fleashly in the Sacrament? Where be their Woordes? What be their Names? If they haue neither Names, nor Woordes, howe can they be allowed for sufficient witnesses? M. Hardinge wel knoweth, that the Olde learned Fathers neuer saide so: yet must he needes imagine bothe causes, that moued them so to say: and also Expositions, what they meante by so saieinge. So Montanus the blinde Senatour, beinge at supper with the Emperour Tiberius, highely commended the great Mullet, that, he hearde saie, was set on the table before them: and shewed, how rounde, how faire, how fatte it was: how it filled the Charger, and howe it laie: and euermore turned his face, and pointed with his finger, to the higher ende of the table: and yet was not the Mullet there, but farre beneath at the lower ende. Reason woulde, that M. Hardinge had firste beene sure of the Effecte, before he had thus gonne aboute to gheasse the causes.
(132)1 And the Fathers have been driven to use these terms, for the more ample and full declaration of the Trueth, and also for withstanding and stopping objections made by Heretics. And because the Catholic faith touching the verity of Christs Body in the Sacrament, was not impugned by any man, for the space of a thousand years after Christs being in earth, and about that time (133)2 Berengarius first began openly to sow the wicked seed of the Sacramentary Heresy, which then soon confuted by learned men, and by the same first Author abjured and recanted, now is with no less wickedness, but more busily, and more earnestly set forth again: the Doctors that sithence have written in the defence of the true and Catholic faith herein, have (134)3 more often used the terms before mentioned, then the Old and Ancient Fathers that wrote within M. Ivelles six hundred years after Christ. Who doubtless would no less have used them, if that matter had been in question, or doubt in their time. And albeit these terms were strange, and new, as used within these five hundred years only, and that the people were never taught for six hundred years after Christ, as M. Ivel saith more boldly, then truly, and therefore more rashly, then wisely: Yet the Faith by them opened and declared, is Universal, and old: verily no less old, then is our Lords Supper, where this Sacrament was first instituted.
(132)1 And the Fathers haue bene driuen to vse these termes, for the more ample and ful declaration of the Truethe, and also for withstandinge and stoppinge obiections made by Heretiques. And because the Catholike faithe touchinge the veritie of Christes Bodie in the Sacrament, was not impugned by any man, for the space of a thousand yeeres after Christes beinge in earthe, and about that time (133)2 Berengarius firste beganne openly to sowe the wicked seede of the Sacramentarie Heresie, whiche then soone confuted by learned men, and by the same first Authour abiured and recanted, now is with no lesse wickednesse, but more busily, and more earnestly set foorth againe: the Doctours that sithence haue written in the defence of the true and Catholike faithe herein, haue (134)3 more often vsed the termes before mentioned, then the Olde and Auncient Fathers that wrote within M. Iuelles sixe hundred yeeres after Christe. VVho doubtlesse woulde no lesse haue vsed them, if that matter had beene in question, or doubte in their time. And albeit these termes were strange, and newe, as vsed within these fiue hundred yeeres onely, and that the people were neuer taught for sixe hundred yeeres after Christe, as M. Iuel saithe more boldely, then truely, and therefore more rashely, then wisely: Yet the Faithe by them opened and declared, is Vniuersal, and olde: verily no lesse olde, then is our Lordes Supper, where this Sacrament was firste instituted.
1The .132. Untruth. For the Fathers never used these terms.The .132. Vntruthe. For the Fathers neuer vsed these termes.
2The .133. Untruth. For beside S. Augustine, S. H•••rome. S. Ambros•, and others, Johan. Scotus, and Bertramus wrote here of 200. years before Berenga••.The .133. Vntru•th. For biside S. Augustine, S. H•••rome. S. Ambros•, and others, Iohan. Scotus, and Bertramus vvrote here of 200. yeeres before Berenga••.
3The .134. Untruth, For the Old writers in this case used them never.The .134. Vntrueth, For the Olde vvriters in this case vsed them neuer.
M. Harding thinketh he may lead along his simple Reader, and easily carry away the matter under the bare Titles, and Names of the Learned Fathers. But what privy mystery is this? As I said before, have M. Hardinges Doctors no names? Or is not he able to name his own Fathers? He should have set them out, as his wont is, with all their Circumstances, what they were, when, and where they lived, what they wrote, and how they have been ever, & are now esteemed among the learned. But he well knew, that these Good Fathers lived all within the compass of two hundred, or three hundred years paste, as Thomas, Duns, Ockam, Henricus de Gandavo, Robertus de collo torto, and such others. These be M. Hardinges great Fathers, by whom he claimeth his new Doctrine: in respect of S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and others, not worthy to have the name of Children.
M. Hardinge thinketh he may leade alonge his simple Reader, and easily carrie away the mater vnder the bare Titles, and Names of the Learned Fathers. But what priuie mysterie is this? As I saide before, haue M. Hardinges Doctours no names? Or is not he hable to name his owne Fathers? He shoulde haue sette them out, as his wonte is, with al their Circumstances, what they were, when, and where they liued, what they wrote, and how they haue béene euer, & are nowe estéemed emonge the learned. But he wel knewe, that these Good Fathers liued al within the compasse of two hundred, or thrée hundred yéeres paste, as Thomas, Duns, Ockam, Henricus de Gandauo, Robertus de collo torto, and suche others. These be M. Hardinges greate Fathers, by whome he claimeth his newe Doctrine: in respect of S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, and others, not woorthy to haue the name of Children.
But the Catholic Faith touching the Sacrament, saith M. Harding, for the space of a thousand years stood upright. Berengarius was the first that began to sow the seed of the ⟨p. 328⟩Sacramentary Heresy. 1It is likely, M. Harding hath no great regard, how his tales hang together.2 For before in the First Article, to serve his turn, he said, The Messalians were the first Fathers of this Heresy. Now he seemeth to be otherwise advised: and saith, This Heresy was never heard of within six hundred years, after the Messalians were repressed: and that the first founder of it was Berengarius. Yet M. Harding might soon have known, that one Johannes Scotus,3 a famous learned man, and Scholar unto Bede, and one Bertramus,4 as appeareth by his book, held and maintained the same Doctrine in the time of the Emperor Lotharius, two hundred years and more before Berengarius. Wherefore, it seemeth not to be so true, as M. Harding assureth it, That Berengarius was the First Author of this Doctrine.
But the Catholique Faithe touchinge the Sacrament, saithe M. Hardinge, for the space of a thousande yeeres stoode vpright. Berengarius was the firste that beganne to sowe the seede of the ⟨p. 328⟩Sacramentarie Heresie. 1It is likely, M. Hardinge hath no greate regarde, howe his tales hange togeather.2 For before in the First Article, to serue his turne, he saide, The Messalians were the first Fathers of this Heresie. Nowe he seemeth to be otherwise aduised: and saith, This Heresie was neuer hearde of within sixe hundred yeeres, after the Messalians were repressed: and that the first founder of it was Berengarius. Yet M. Hardinge might soone haue knowen, that one Iohannes Scotus,3 a famous learned man, and Scholar vnto Beda, and one Bertramus,4 as appeareth by his booke, helde and mainteined the same Doctrine in the time of the Emperoure Lotharius, two hundred yeeres and more before Berēgarius. Wherefore, it seemeth not to be so true, as M. Hardinge assuereth it, That Berengarius was the First Authour of this Doctrine.
But, for further declaration hereof, it shall be necessary to open Berengarius whole judgement in this matter: and afterward to consider the Confutation of the same.1 Thus therefore Berengarius wrote, as his greatest adversary Lanfrancus reporteth of him. Per-Consecrationem Altaris, Panis, & Vinum fiunt Sacramentum religionis: non ut desinant esse, quae erant, &c. By the Consecration of the Altar, the Bread, and the Wine are made a Sacrament of Religion, not that they leave to be the same, they were before: but that they be altered into an other thing, and become that, they were not before,2 as S. Ambrose writeth. And the Sacrifice of the Church standeth of two things, the one Visible, the other Invisible: that is to say, the Sacrament, and the matter, or Substance of the Sacrament. Which Substance notwithstanding, that is to say, the Body of Christ, if it were before our eyes, it should be Visible. But being taken up into Heaven, and sitting at the Right hand of the Father, until all things be restored, according to the words of the Apostle S. Peter,3 it cannot be called thence. Therefore S. Augustine saith, When Christ is eaten, life is eaten: and when we eat him, we make no parts of him. And again S. Augustine saith, Sacramentum est sacrum signum: A Sacrament is a holy token.
But, for further declaration hereof, it shalbe necessary to open Berengarius whole iudgement in this mater: and afterwarde to consider the Confutation of the same.1 Thus therefore Berengarius wrote, as his greatest aduersarie Lanfrancus reporteth of him. Per-Consecrationem Altaris, Panis, & Vinum fiunt Sacramentum religionis: non vt desinant esse, quae erant, &c. By the Consecration of the Aultar, the Breade, and the Wine are made a Sacrament of Religion, not that they leaue to be the same, they were before: but that they be altred into an other thinge, and become that, they were not before,2 as S. Ambrose writeth. And the Sacrifice of the Churche standeth of two thinges, the one Visible, the other Inuisible: that is to saie, the Sacrament, and the mater, or Substance of the Sacramente. Whiche Substance notwithstandinge, that is to saye, the Bodie of Christe, if it were before our eyes, it shoulde be Visible. But beinge taken vp into Heauen, and sittinge at the Right hande of the Father, vntil al thinges be restoared, accordinge to the woordes of the Apostle S. Peter,3 it cannot be called thence. Therefore S. Augustine saythe, When Christe is eaten, life is eaten: and when we eate him, we make no partes of him. And againe S. Augustine saith, Sacramentum est sacrum signum: A Sacrament is a holy token.
1Lanfrancus De Sacramen. Eucharistiae.
2Ambros. De Sacramentis. li. 4. ca. 4. Sacramentum, & res Sacramenti.
3Acta Apost. c. 3. Augustin. De Con. Dist. 2. Qui Manducas.
1522–1571
ReformersEngland
Bishop of Salisbury; author of the Apology of the Church of England.
