A04474:757
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 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 2 › The B. of Sarisburie.
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.
To come near the matter, Unity, saith M. Harding, is the substance of this Sacrament, and who so receiveth not the same in Unity, receiveth a testimony against him self. As this is true, & avouched by S. Augustine, and of our parts not denied, so is it also true that S. Ambrose writeth,1 Indignus est Domino, qui aliter Mysterium celebrat, quàm ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse, qui aliter praesumit, quam darum est ab authore. He is unworthy of the Lord, that doeth otherwise celebrate the Mystery, then it was delivered of the Lord. For he cannot be devout, that taketh it otherwise, then it was given of the author. But this excuse under the pretence and colour of unity, seemeth to import some default. For what, think these folk, that unity cannot stand without the breach of Christs Institution? Or that the Apostles, and holy Fathers, that ministered the Communion under both kinds, were not in unity? Or that there was never unity in the Church for the space of a thousand, four hundred and moe years after Christ, until the Council of Constance, where this matter was first concluded? Herein standeth that Mystical Unity, that one Bread is broken unto all, and one Cup is delivered unto all, equally without difference:2 and that, as Chrysostom saith, in the reverend Sacrifice,3 there is no difference between the Priest and the people, but all is equal. But our adversaries have herein forced a difference between the Priest, and the people, without cause: and say, There must needs be such a difference.
To come néere the mater, Vnitie, saithe M. Hardinge, is the substance of this Sacrament, and who so receiueth not the same in Vnitie, receiueth a testimonie against him selfe. As this is true, & auoutched by S. Augustine, and of our parts not denied, so is it also true that S. Ambrose writeth,1 Indignus est Domino, qui aliter Mysterium celebrat, quàm ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest deuotus esse, qui aliter praesumit, quam darum est ab authore. He is vnwoorthy of the Lorde, that doeth otherwise celebrate the Mysterie, then it was deliuered of the Lorde. For he cannot be deuoute, that taketh it otherwise, then it was geuen of the authour. But this excuse vnder the pretence and colour of vnitie, séemeth to importe some defaulte. For what, thinke these folke, that vnitie cannot stande without the breache of Christes Institution? Or that the Apostles, and holie Fathers, that ministred the Communion vnder bothe kindes, were not in vnitie? Or that there was neuer vnitie in the Churche for the space of a thousande, foure hundred and moe yéeres after Christe, vntil the Councel of Constance, where this mater was firste concluded? Herein standeth that Mystical Unitie, that one Breade is broaken vnto al, and one Cuppe is deliuered vnto al, equally without difference: