Filter authors and titles

A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveareJohn Jewel, 1565

THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

pp. 421–439104 passagespart 1 of 3

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.

:2615p. 421

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

1Transubstantiatio.

:2616p. 421

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

:2617p. 421

Or that in the Sacrament after the words of Consecration, there remain only the Accidents and Shows, without the Substance of Bread and Vine.

Or that in the Sacrament after the woordes of Consecration, there remaine onely the Accidentes and Shewes, without the Substance of Breade and UUine.

:2618p. 421

M. Harding. The .1. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .1. Diuision.

:2619p. 421

In this Sacrament after Consecration, (175)

:2621p. 421

M. Harding granteth, that this Doctrine hath no express Authority by precise terms, neither in the Scriptures, nor in the Ancient Councils, nor in any Old Father, Greek, or Latin: yet the Old Fathers both Greeks, & Latins, in their kinds were counted Eloquent, & were thought •able to utter their Doctrine in express, and precise words, if there had been then any such Doctrine received in the Church. Wherefore finding herein such want of all Antiquity, we may be bold expressly, and in precise terms to say, This seemeth to be a very New Doctrine, resting only upon a False Position, and a little coloured with drift of Reason: which Reason notwithstanding never entered into mans head, within a whole thousand years, after that the Gospel had been preached. By like Position, and by like drift, the Old Heretics the Manichees held, that all, that outwardly appeared in Christ, was nothing else, but Accidents: that is, as M. Harding him self expoundeth it, the Form, the Shape, the Colour, the Weight, and so in deed nothing else, but the Show, and Appearance, and Fantasy of a Body. From such Doctors, it appeareth, these men have received their New Doctrine. For Doctor Tonstal confesseth, It was first determined in the Council of Lateran,¹ which was holden in Rome in the year of our Lord a thousand, two hundred, and fifteen: and that, before that time it was evermore free for any man, without impeachment of his Faith, to hold the contrary.

M. Hardinge graunteth, that this Doctrine hath no expresse Authoritie by precise termes, neither in the Scriptures, nor in the Ancient Councelles, nor in any Olde Father, Gréeke, or Latine: yet the Olde Fathers bothe Gréekes, & Latines, in their kindes were counted Eloquent, & were thought •able to vtter their Doctrine in expresse, and precise woordes, if there had béene then any suche Doctrine receiued in the Churche. Wherefore findinge herein suche wante of al Antiquitie, wee may be bolde expressely, and in precise termes to say, This séemeth to be a very New Doctrine, restinge onely vpon a False Position, and a litle coloured with drifte of Reason: whiche Reason notwithstanding neuer entred into mans head, within a whole thousande yéeres, after that the Gospel had béene preached. By like Position, and by like drifte, the Olde Heretiques the Manichees helde, that al, that outwardly appeared in Christe, was nothinge els, but Accidentes: that is, as M. Hardinge him selfe expoundeth it, the Forme, the Shape, the Coloure, the Weight, and so in deede nothinge els, but the Shew, and Appearance, and Fantasie of a Bodie. From suche Doctours, it appeareth, these men haue receiued their New Doctrine. For Doctour Tonstal confesseth, It was first determined in the Councel of Laterane,¹ whiche was holden in Rome in ye yeere of our Lorde a thousande, twoo hundred, and fifteene: and that, before that time it was euermore free for any man, without empeachement of his Faithe, to holde the contrary.

1Cuthbert. Tonstallus de Eucharist. li. 1. pa. 45. Gabriel Biel de Canon. lect. 40.

:2622p. 421–422

Likewise M. Hardinges own Doctor Gabriel Biel saith, Quomodo ibi sit Corpus Christi, an per Conuersionem alicuius in illud: an sine Conuersione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum Pane, manentibus Substantia, & Accidentibus Panis, non inuenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae. In what sort the Body of Christ is there, whether it be by the turning of any thing into that, or without any turning (or Transubstantiation) the Body of Christ begin to be there together with the Bread, both the Substance, and Accidents of the Bread remaining, it is not found expressed in the Scriptures. So likewise Duns him selfe saith,¹ De Sacramentis tenendum est, sicut tenet Sancta Romana Ecclesia. Nam verba Scripturae possent Saluari, Secundum intellectum facilem, & Veriorē, Secundum apparentiam. ⟨p. 422⟩Touchinge the Sacraments, ²we must hold, as the holy Church of Rome holdeth. For the words of the Scripture might be saved (without Transubstantiation) by an easy, and truer▪ understanding in appearance. Thus it appeareth by D. Tonstal, that this Doctrine hath no ground of Antiquity: and by Biel, and Scotus, that it hath no certain Authority of God's word. Upon this foundation, which by their own Confession is uncertain, M. Harding buildeth up the whole certainty of this Article.

Likewise M. Hardinges owne Doctour Gabriel Biel saith, Quomodo ibi sit Corpus Christi, an per Conuersionem alicuius in illud: an sine Conuersione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum Pane, manentibus Substantia, & Accidentibus Panis, non inuenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae. In what sorte the Bodie of Christe is there, whether it be by the turning of any thing into that, or w•thout any turning (or Transubstantiation) the Bodie of Christe beginne to be there togeather with the Breade, bothe the Substance, and Accidentes of the Breade remaininge, it is not founde expressed in the Scriptures. So likewise Duns him selfe saith,¹ De Sacramentis tenendum est, sicut tenet Sancta Romana Ecclesia. Nam verba Scripturae possent Saluari, Secundum intellectum facilem, & Veriorē, Secundum apparentiam. ⟨p. 422⟩Touchinge the Sacramentes, ²we must holde, as the holy Churche of Rome holdeth. For the woordes of the Scripture might be saued (without Transubstantiation) by an easy, and truer▪ vnderstandinge in appearance. Thus it appeareth by D. Tonstal, that this Doctrine hath no grounde of Antiquitie: and by Biel, and Scotus, that it hath no certaine Authoritie of Goddes woorde. Upon this fundation, whiche by their owne Confessiō is vncertaine, M. Hardinge buildeth vp the whole certaintie of this Article.

1Scotus in▪ 4. Senten. dis. 11. q. 2.
2This is my BodyThis is my Bodie

:2625p. 422

Nevertheless, in that sense, and meaning, that Christ spake in, that Bread was Christs Body. For in this case we may not consider, what Bread is in it self, but what it is by Christs Institution. As the Body of Christ is his very Natural Body: So the Bread in it self, is very Natural Bread. And yet by way of a Sacrament,¹ the Bread both is called, and also is Christs Body. So S. Paul saith, The Rock was Christ: And S. Augustine saith, Non dicit, Petra Significabat Christum: sed, Petra erat Christus. He saith not, The Rock Signified Christ: but, The Rock was Christ. The Rock naturally, & in deed was a Rock, as it was before. Yet,² because it gave water, to refresh the people, by a Sacramental understanding the Rock was Christ. So it is written, Sanguis est Anima, The Blood is the Soul: Which words rightly understanded are true: and yet to say, that Naturally, and Really the Blood is the Soul, it were an error. Unto which words of Moses S. Augustine, by way of Exposition, resembleth these words of Christ,³ This is my Body. His words be these: Possum interpre•ari praeceptum illud in Signo esse positum. Non enim dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est Corpus meum, cùm Signum daret Corporis sui. I may expound that commandment to consist in a Sign. For Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my Body, when he gave a Sign of his Body. And to come near to the Institution of Christs Supper,⁴ S. Luke, and S. Paul say, This Cup is the New Testament. Yet was not the Substance, and Nature of the Cup changed by any force of these Words: neither was that Cup in deed, and Really the New Testament. Now, As the Rock was Christ: The Blood is the Soul: The Cup is the New Testament, remaining notwithstanding each of them in their several Nature and Substance: Even so is the Bread, the Body of Christ: remaining still notwithstanding in the Nature, and Substance of very Bread. It is a Sacrament, that Christ ordained: and therefore must have a Sacramental understanding. Verily, as Water remaining still Water, is the Sacrament of Christs Blood: So Bread remaining still Bread, is the Sacrament of Christs Body.

Neuerthelesse, in that sense, and meaninge, that Christe spake in, that Breade was Christes Bodie. For in this case we maie not consider, what Breade is in it self, but what it is by Christes Institution. As the Bodie of Christe is his very Natural Bodie: So the Breade in it self, is very Natural Breade. And yet by waie of a Sacrament,¹ the Breade both is called, and also is Christes Bodie. So S. Paule saith, The Rocke was Christe: And S. Augustine saith, Non dicit, Petra Significabat Christum: sed, Petra erat Christus. He saith not, The Rocke Signified Christe: but, The Rocke was Christe. The Rocke naturally, & in deede was a Rocke, as it was before. Yet,² bicause it gaue water, to refreashe the people, by a Sacramental vnderstandinge the Rocke was Christe. So it is written, Sanguis est Anima, The Bloude is the Soule: Whiche woordes rightly vnderstanded are true: and yet to saie, that Naturally, and Really the Bloude is the Soule, it were an erroure. Unto whiche woordes of Moses S. Augustine, by waie of Exposition, resembleth these woordes of Christe,³ This is my Bodie. His woordes be these: Possum interpre•ari praeceptum illud in Signo esse positum. Non enim dubitauit Dominus dicere, Hoc est Corpus meum, cùm Signum daret Corporis sui. I maie expounde that commaundement to consist in a Signe. For Our Lorde doubted not to saie, This is my Bodie, when he gaue a Signe of his Bodie. And to come neare to the Institution of Christes Supper,⁴ S. Luke, and S. Paule saie, This Cuppe is the Newe Testament. Yet was not the Substance, and Nature of the Cuppe changed by any force of these Woordes: neither was that Cuppe in deede, and Really the Newe Testament. Nowe, As the Rocke was Christe: The Bloude is the Soule: The Cuppe is the Newe Testament, remaininge notwithstandinge eche of them in theire seueral Nature and Substance: Euen so is the Breade, the Bodie of Christe: remaininge stil notwithstandinge in the Nature, and Substance of very Breade. It is a Sacrament, that Christe ordeined: and therefore must haue a Sacramental vnderstandinge. Uerily, as Water remaininge stil Water, is the Sacrament of Christes Bloude: So Breade remaininge stil Breade, is the Sacrament of Christes Bodie.

11. Corin. 10. Augustin. in Levitt. quaest. 57.1. Corin. 10. Augustin. in Leuitt. quaest. 57.
2Deuteron. 12.
3Augustin. contrary Adimantum. cap. 12.Augustin. contra• Adimantum. cap. 12.
4Luc. 22. 1. Corin. 11.

:2626p. 422–423

But the contrary hereof was determined in the Council of Lateran in Rome about the year of our Lord.¹ 1215. Howe be it, the determination of that Council neither was General, nor was ever Generally received. For the Christians in Asia,² and Grecia, and of all other parts of Christendom would never agree unto it, as it appeareth by the Council of Florence: but evermore refused it, as an error. But what special power had that Council of Lateran, to alter the Faith ⟨p. 423⟩of the Church:³ and to change the sense of God's Word: and to make that Catholic, that before that time was never Catholic: and to make that Heresy, that for the space of twelve hundred years, and more before was no Heresy? Certainly, the Old Catholic Fathers of the Primitive Church, and these young Fathers of the Church of Lateran agree not together. For Gelasius saith, Non desinit esse Substantia, ⁴vel Natura Panis. & Vini. It ceaseth not to be the Substance, or Nature of Bread, and Wine. S. Chrysostom saith, Natura Panis in Sacramento remanet: ⁵The Nature of Bread remaineth in the Sacrament. Theodoretus saith, Christus Naturam (Panis) non mutat, sed Naturae adijcit Gratiam. Christ changeth not the Nature (of the Bread) but unto the same Nature he addeth Grace. S. Augustine saith, Quod vide•is, Panis est, & Calix: quod vobis etiam oculi renuntiant: The thing, that you see, is Bread, and the Cup: which thing your eyes do testify. Here be the plain testimonies of four Ancient Catholic Fathers in this behalf. But these New Lateran Fathers contrary wise say,⁶ Here •easeth the Substance, and Nature of Bread, and Wine: The Nature of Bread remaineth not: Christ changeth the Nature, and Substance of the Bread: Believe not the witness of your eyes: The thing, that you see, is no Bread. Thus these New Fathers, as it may appear, of purpose are contrary to the Old. Hereof we may reason thus: The Old Catholic Fathers understood not this New fantasy of Transubstantiation:

But the contrary hereof was determined in the Councel of Laterane in Rome aboute the yeere of our Lorde.¹ 1215. Howe be it, the determination of that Councel neither was General, nor was euer Generally receiued. For the Christians in Asia,² and Grecia, and of al other partes of Christendome woulde neuer agree vnto it, as it appeareth by the Councel of Florence: but euermore refused it, as an erroure. But what special power had that Councel of Laterane, to alter the Faith ⟨p. 423⟩of the Churche:³ and to change the sense of Goddes Woorde: and to make that Catholique, that before that time was neuer Catholique: and to make that Heresie, that for the space of twelue hundred yeeres, and more before was no Heresie? Certainely, the Olde Catholique Fathers of the Primitiue Churche, and these younge Fathers of the Churche of Laterane agrée not togeather. For Gelasius saith, Non desinit esse Substantia, ⁴vel Natura Panis. & Vini. It ceaseth not to be the Substance, or Nature of Breade, and Wine. S. Chrysostome saith, Natura Panis in Sacramento remanet: ⁵The Nature of Breade remaineth in the Sacrament. Theodoretus saith, Christus Naturam (Panis) non mutat, sed Naturae adijcit Gratiam. Christe changeth not the Nature (of the Breade) but vnto the same Nature he addeth Grace. S. Augustine saith, Quod vide•is, Panis est, & Calix: quod vobis etiam oculi renuntiant: The thinge, that yowe see, is Breade, and the Cuppe: whiche thinge your eyes doo testifie. Here be the plaine testimonies of foure Ancient Catholique Fathers in this behalf. But these Newe Laterane Fathers contrary wise saie,⁶ Here •easeth the Substance, and Nature of Breade, and Wine: The Nature of Breade remaineth not: Christe changeth the Nature, and Substance of the Breade: Beleue not the witnes of youre eies: The thinge, that yowe see, is no Breade. Thus these Newe Fathers, as it maie appeare, of purpose are cōtrary to the Olde. Hereof we maie reason thus: The Olde Catholique Fathers vnderstoode not this Newe fantasie of Transubstantiation:

1Concil. Lateran. sub Innocentio 3. Anno. 1215.
2Concil. Florentinum, session ultima.Concil. Florentinum, sessione vltima.
3Bread Remaineth.Breade Remaineth.
4Gelasius contra Eutychem.
5Chrysost. ad Caesarium Monach. Theodoretus Dialogo primo. Augustin. ad Infa•es.
6Citatur • •eda. 1. Cori•. 10.

:2630p. 423

S. Cyprian that learned Bishop and holy Martyr saith thus, In Sermone de Coena Domini. Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est Caro. This Bread, which our Lord gave to his Disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almighty power of the word (he meaneth Christs word of Consecration) is made Flesh. Lo he confesseth the Bread to be changed, not in shape or form, for that remaineth, but in Nature, that is to say, in Substance. And to signify the change of Substance, and not an accidentarie change only, to wit, from the use of Common bread, to serve for Sacramental bread, as some of our new Masters do expound that place for a shift: he addeth great weight of words, whereby he far overpeiseth these mens light devise, saying that by the almighty power of our Lords word, it is made flesh. Verily they might consider, as they would seem to be of sharp judgement,^* that to the performance of so small a matter, as their Sacramental change is, the almighty power of God's Word, is not needful. And now if this word, Factus est maie signifie an imaginative making, then why maie not Verbum Caro factum est, likewise be expounded, to the defence of sundry old heinous heresies against the true Manhood of Christ? Thus the nature of the bread in this Sacrament being changed, and the form remaining, so as it seem bread, as before Consecration, and being made our Lords flesh by virtue of the word, the substance of bread changed into that most excellent substance of the flesh of Christ: Of that which was before, the accidents remain only, without the substance of bread. The like is to be believed of the wine.

S. Cyprian that learned Bishop and holy Martyr saith thus, In Sermone de Coena Domini. Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est Caro. This Breade, whiche our Lorde gaue to his Disciples, changed not in shape, but in nature, by the almightie power of the woorde (he meaneth Christes woorde of Consecration) is made Fleashe. Lo he confesseth the Breade to be changed, not in shape or forme, for that remaineth, but in Nature, that is to saie, in Substance. And to signifie the chaunge of Substance, and not an accidentarie change onely, to witte, from the vse of Common breade, to serue for Sacramental breade, as some of our newe Maisters doo expounde that place for a shifte: he addeth great weight of woordes, whereby he farre ouerpeiseth these mennes light deuise, saieinge that by the almightie power of our Lordes woorde, it is made fleashe. Verily they might consyder, as they woulde seeme to be of sharpe iudgemēt,^* that to the performance of so smal a mater, as their Sacramental chaunge is, the almightie power of Goddes VVoorde, is not needful. And nowe if this woorde, Factus est maie signifie an imaginatiue makinge, then why maie not Verbum Caro factum est, likewise be expounded, to the defence of sundrie olde hainouse heresies against the true Manhoode of Christe? Thus the nature of the breade in this Sacrament beinge chaunged, and the forme remaininge, so as it seeme breade, as before Consecration, and beinge made our Lordes fleashe by vertue of the woorde, the substance of breade chaunged into that most excellent substance of the fleashe of Christ: Of that whiche was before, the accidentes remaine onely, without the substance of breade. The like is to be beleued of the wine.

*This is à Blasphemy. For no Sacram. can be made without the almighty power of God. With this Example M. Harding fighteth against him self.This is à Blasphemie. For no Sacram. can be made vvithout the almighty power of God. VVith this Example M. Hardinge fighteth against him self.

:2632p. 423–424

This place of S. Cyprian is often, and much alleged, as if every word thereof were an argument: as in deed at the sight, and first appearance, it seemeth vehement, and soundeth much: but being well weighed and considered, it will appear in substance, as it is. Certainly of Annihilations, of Removing of Natures, of Remaining of Accidents without Subject, which thing M. Harding ⟨p. 424⟩hath taken to prove, it speaketh nothing.¹ For answer, first it is plain by these four Ancient learned Fathers, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, Gelasius, and Theodoretus, that the Bread, and Wine after the Consecration, remain in their Nature, and Substance, as they were before. Which thing notwithstanding, it is not the Nature of Bread, that worketh the effect, and force of this Sacrament: That is, that Christ may dwell in us, and we in him: no more, then it is the Nature of Water, in the Sacrament of Baptism, that worketh the effect thereof, and maketh us Flesh of Christs Flesh, and Bone of his Bones.² And for better evidence hereof, to compare one Sacrament with an other, S. Basile saith, Gratia (Baptismatis) non est ex natura aquae, sed ex praesentia Spiritus. The Grace of Baptism is not of the Nature of the Water, but of the Presence of the Sprite. And therefore Cyril saith, Quemadmodum viribus ignis, &c. As water being vehemently heat by the strength of fire, heateth no less then if it were fire in deed, so the Water of Baptism by the working of the holy Ghost, is reformed unto a Divine power (or Nature). So Chrysostom saith, Elizaeus potuit undarum mutare naturam, &c. ³Elisha was able to change the Nature of the Water, and made it able to bear iron. Here Chrysostom saith, even as S. Cyprian saith, that the Nature of the Water was changed:⁴ Yet the very Substance of the Water remained as before.

This place of S. Cyprian is often, and muche alleged, as if euery woorde thereof were an argument: as in deede at the sight, and first appearance, it seemeth vehement, and soundeth muche: but beinge wel weighed and consydered, it wil appeare in substance, as it is. Certainely of Annihilations, of Remoouinge of Natures, of Remaininge of Accidentes without Subiecte, whiche thinge M. Hardinge ⟨p. 424⟩hath taken to proue, it speaketh nothinge.¹ For answeare, first it is plaine by these foure Ancient learned Fathers, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostome, Gelasius, and Theodoretus, that the Breade, and Wine after the Consecration, remaine in theire Nature, and Substance, as they were before. Whiche thinge notwithstandinge, it is not the Nature of Breade, that worketh the effecte, and force of this Sacrament: That is, that Christe maie dwel in vs, and we in him: no more, then it is the Nature of Water, in the Sacrament of Baptisme, that worketh the effecte thereof, and maketh vs Fleashe of Christes Fleashe, and Boane of his Boanes.² And for better euidence hereof, to compare one Sacrament with an other, S. Basile saith, Gratia (Baptismatis) non est ex natura aquae, sed ex praesentia Spiritus. The Grace of Baptisme is not of the Nature of the Water, but of the Presence of the Sprite. And therefore Cyril saith, Quemadmodum viribus ignis, &c. As water beinge vehemently heat by the strengthe of fiere, heateth no lesse then if it were fier in deede, so the Water of Baptisme by the workinge of the holy Ghost, is reformed vnto a Diuine power (or Nature). So Chrysostome saith, Elizaeus potuit vndarum mutare naturam, &c. ³Elizeus was hable to change the Nature of the VVater, and made it hable to beare yron. Here Chrysostome saith, euen as S. Cyprian saith, that the Nature of the Water was chaunged:⁴ Yet the very Substance of the Water remained as before.

1Natura.
2Ephes. 5. Basilius De Spiritu Sancto. ca. 15. [Greek or Hebrew].Ephes. 5. Basilius De Spiritu Sancto. ca. 15. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
3Cyril. in Johan. lib. 1. ca. 42.Cyrill. in Iohan. lib. 1. ca. 42.
4Chrysost. de virtutib. & vitijs, homi. 5.

:2633p. 424

Likewise S. Ambrose speaking of God's marvellous working in Baptisme, saith, Non agnosco usum Naturae: Nullus est hic Naturae ordo, ubi est excellentia Gratiae. In this case I have no skill of the use of Nature:¹ The order of Nature hath no rule, where as is the excellency of God's Grace. Again he saith, Est hoc illud magnum Mysterium, quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, ne• in Cor hominis ascendit? Aquas video, quas videbam quotidiè. Me istae habent mundare, in quas saepè descendi, & nunquam munda•us sum? ²Hinc cognosce, quòd Aqua non mundat sine Spiritu. Is this that great Mystery, that the eye never saw, that the ear never heard, that never •ntred into the heart of man? I see Water, that I saw every day before. Is this it, that shall make me clean? I have gone oftentimes into it,³ and was never the cleaner. Therefore understand thou, that Water (of his own Nature) without the holy Ghost cleanseth not. And again, Per predicationem Dominicae Crucis, Aqua fit dulcis ad Gratiam. By the preaching of our Lords Cross, ⁴the Water (beside his own Nature) is made sweet unto Grace. And in this respect S. Hilary saith, Uno Christo per Naturam unius Baptismi indu•mur. We put upon us,⁵ only one Christ, by the Nature of one Baptism. And Gregory Nyssene in like sort, Natura Aquae praecedente virga Fidei, &c. vitā praestat. The Nature of Water (thus considered) the Rod of Faith going before, giveth life. Otherwise he saith, Hoc beneficium nō Aqua largitur, ⁶&c. sed Dei praeceptum, & Spiritus. Aqua verò subseruit ad ostendendā purgationē. It is not Water (of his own Nature) that giveth this benefit: but the commandment of God, and the Holy Ghost. The Water serveth, to show us the cleansing of the Soul.

Likewise S. Ambrose speakinge of Goddes marueilous workinge in Baptisme, saith, Non agnosco vsum Naturae: Nullus est hic Naturae ordo, vbi est excellētia Gratiae. In this case I haue no skil of the vse of Nature:¹ The order of Nature hath no rule, where as is the excellencie of Goddes Grace. Againe he saith, Est hoc illud magnum Mysterium, quod oculus non vidit, nec auris audiuit, ne• in Cor hominis ascendit? Aquas video, quas videbam quotidiè. Me istae habent mundare, in quas saepè descendi, & nunquam munda•us sum? ²Hinc cognosce, quòd Aqua non mundat sine Spiritu. Is this that greate Mysterie, that the eie neuer sawe, that the eare neuer hearde, that neuer •ntred into the harte of man? I see Water, that I sawe euery daye before. Is this it, that shal make me cleane? I haue gonne oftentimes into it,³ and was neuer the cleaner. Therefore vnderstande thow, that VVater (of his owne Nature) without the holy Ghost cleanseth not. And againe, Per predicationem Dominicae Crucis, Aqua fit dulcis ad Gratiam. By the preachinge of our Lordes Crosse, ⁴the VVater (byside his owne Nature) is made sweete vnto Grace. And in this respecte S. Hilarie saith, Vno Christo per Naturam vnius Baptismi indu•mur. VVe put vpon vs,⁵ onely one Christe, by the Nature of one Baptisme. And Gregorie Nyssene in like sorte, Natura Aquae praecedēte virga Fidei, &c. vitā praestat. The Nature of VVater (thus considered) the Rodde of Faith goinge before, geueth life. Otherwise he saith, Hoc beneficium nō Aqua largitur, ⁶&c. sed Dei praeceptum, & Spiritus. Aqua verò subseruit ad ostēdendā purgationē. It is not VVater (of his owne Nature) that geueth this benefite: but the commaundement of God, and the Holy Ghost. The VVater serueth, to shewe vs the cleansinge of the Soule.

1Ambrosius de illis qui initiā tur Mysterijs. cap. 9.Ambrosius de illis qui initiā tur Mysterijs. cap. 9.
2Ambros. de illis qui initiantur Myster. ca. 4.
3Abros. de illis qui initiantur Myster. cap. 3.
4Hilarius de Trinit. lib. 8.
5Gregorius Nyssen. in vita Moseos.
6Gregor. Nyss. de Sancto Baptismate.

:2635p. 424–425

Notwithstanding this answer unto the discreet Reader may seem sufficient, yet M. Harding forceth the matter further, with this word, Factus est. If this word, Factus est, saith he, may Signify an imaginative making, then why maie ⟨p. 425⟩not,¹ Verbum Caro factum est, be so expounded? O what simple shifts are these? Is M. Harding able to allege no bar, but that may be pleaded against him self?² Or doeth he think, that this Latin Word, Facere, must needs signify, Transubstantiare? S. Augustine saith, Nos Christi Facti sumus: We are made Christs. Leo saith, Corpus regenerati, Fit Caro Crucifixi. The Body of the man, that is Regenerate, is made the Flesh of Christ, that was Crucified. Bede saith, Nos ipsi Corpus Christi facti sumus: We our selves are made the Body of Christ. Origen saith in like manner of speache,³ Spiritus Sanctus non in turturē Vertitur, sed Columba Fit. The Holy Ghost is not changed into a Turtle, but is made a dove. So S. Ambrose, Victa anima libidine Car••s, Fit Caro. The S•ule being overcome with the pleasure of the flesh, is made flesh. ⁴And will M. Harding upon warrant of this one Word, conclude, that our Bodies be utterly Transubstantiate, and Substantially, and Really become the Body of Christ? Or, that the Holy Ghost is verily Transubstantiate into a Dove? Or the Soul into Flesh? Or in these very words, that he hath alleged, Verbum Caro Factum est: The word, that is, the Son of God, was made Flesh, Doeth he think, that the Son of God left the Nature of his Godhead, and was verily Transubstantiate into Flesh? Doubtless this were a Monstrous Doctrine,⁵ & in old times it was Cherinthus, and Ebion's horrible Heresy. Verily Leo saith, Quamuis Johannes scribat, Verbum Caro factum est, Verbum •amen non est versum in Carnem: Although S. John say, The Word was made Flesh, yet was not the Word turned (or Transubstantiate) into •leashe. S. Augustine saith of the Heretics called Timotheani, Ad confirmandam huiusmodi impietatem, qua Deum asserunt ve•sum esse à Natura sua, ⁶cogunt Evangelistae testimonium dicentis, Et Verbum Caro factū est, quod ita interpre•antur, Divina Natura in Humanam versa est: These Heretics, to confirm their wickedness, whereby they hold, that God was changed from his own Nature, (and made man) rack the witness of the Evangelist S.

Notwithstandinge this answeare vnto the discreete Reader maie seeme sufficiēt, yet M. Hardinge forceth ye mater further, with this woorde, Factus est. If this woorde, Factus est, saith he, maie Signifie an imaginatiue makinge, thē why maie ⟨p. 425⟩not,¹ Verbum Caro factum est, be so expounded? O what simple shiftes are these? Is M. Hardinge hable to allege no barre, but that maie be pleaded against him self?² Or doeth he thinke, that this Latine Woorde, Facere, must needes signifie, Transubstantiare? S. Augustine saith, Nos Christi Facti sumus: We are made Christes. Leo saith, Corpus regenerati, Fit Caro Crucifixi. The Bodie of the man, that is Regenerate, is made the Fleashe of Christe, that was Crucified. Beda saith, Nos ipsi Corpus Christi facti sumus: We our selues are made the Bodie of Christe. Origen saith in like manner of speache,³ Spiritus Sanctus non in turturē Vertitur, sed Columba Fit. The Holy Ghost is not ch•nged into a Turtle, but is made a dooue. So S. Ambrose, Victa anima libidine Car••s, Fit Caro. The S•ule beinge ouercome with the pleasure of the fleashe, is made fleashe. ⁴And wil M. Hardinge vpon warrant of this one Woorde, conclude, that our Bodies be vtterly Transubstantiate, and Substantially, and Really become the Bodie of Christe? Or, that the Holy Ghost is verily Transubstantiate into a Dooue? Or the Soule into Fleashe? Or in these very woordes, that he hath alleged, Verbum Caro Factum est: The woorde, that is, the Sonne of God, was made Fleashe, Doeth he thinke, that the Sonne of God leafte the Nature of his Godhead, and was verily Transubstantiate into Fleashe? Doubtles this were a Monstrous Doctrine,⁵ & in olde times it was Cherinthus, and Ebions horrible Heresie. Uerily Leo saith, Quamuis Iohannes scribat, Verbum Caro factum est, Verbum •amen non est versum in Carnem: Although S. Iohn saie, The Woorde was made Fleashe, yet was not the Woorde turned (or Transubstant•ate) into •leashe. S. Augustine saith of the Heretiques called Timotheani, Ad confirmandam huiusmodi impietatem, qua Deum asserunt ve•sum esse à Natura sua, ⁶cogunt Euangelistae testimonium dicentis, Et Verbum Caro factū est, quod ita interpre•antur, Diuina Natura in Humanam versa est: These Heretikes, to confirme their wickednes, wh•r•by they holde, that God was changed from his owne Nature, (and made man) racke the witnes of the Euangelist S.

1Natura. Factus est.
2Augustin. in Joha•. tractatu. 21. Leo de passione Serm 14.Augustin. in Ioha•. tractatu. 21. Leo de passione Serm 14.
3•eda. 1. Cor. 10. Origen in Canti••, hom. 2.
4Ambr. ••orin. 5.
5Augustin. ad Quoduuldeum. Epistola Leonis ad ••onen Augustum.
6Augustin ad Quod••••deum.

:2638p. 425–426

But S. Cyprian further allegeth to this purpose,¹ The Omnipotent Power of God, which, saith M. Harding, Far overpoiseth all the•e mens light fantasies. Thus he saith, as though that without this light fantasy of Transubstantiation, God could not be Omnipotent: or, as if there were such wonderful weight in his Outward Shows, and Empty Accidents. But God worketh mightily, and showeth his Power Omnipotent, not only herein, but also in all other his holy Mysteries, as it is before declared in the fifth Article,² and the .3. Division. Leo saith, Christus dedit Aquae, quod dedit Matri. Virtus enim Al•issimi, & obumbratio Spiritus Sancti, quae fecit, ut Maria pareret Saluatorem, eadem fecit, ut Regeneraret unda credentem. Christ g•ue to the Water, that he g•ue to his Mother. For the power of the Highest, and the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, that caused Mary to bear the Saviour, the same Pow•r hath caused the Water to Regenerate the believer. To like purpose saith Chrysostom▪ ⟨p. 426⟩Ut Sarā, non Natura, ³sed Dei promissio fecit matrē &c. As the promise of God, and not Nature made Sarah a Mother, ⁴even so our Regeneration by Nature is nothing. But the Words of God, which the Faithful know, being pronounced by the Priest in the Bathe of Water, do form, and Regenerate him, that is Baptized, as it were, in his mothers womb. So they were wont to singe at the hallowing of the Fonte, Descendat Spiritus Sanctus in hane plenitudinem Aquae, ⁵totamque eius Substantiā Regenerationis foecunde• effectu. Let thy Holy Ghost come down into this fullness of Water, and let it fill the whole Substance thereof with the effect of Regeneration. Thus Leo, Chrysostom, and other Old Fathers, acknowledge the Omnipotency of God in the Sacrament of Baptism: yet did they not think it therefore necessary, to Transubstantiate the Nature, and Substance of the Water. The same S. Cyprian, (all be it in deed it is not S. Cyprian, but a far later writer, as by good proofs it doth appear) writing only of the Blessing of the Holy Oil, allegeth likewise the omnipotent Power of God above Nature, His words be these, Sanctificatis Elementis, jam non propria Natura praebet effectum: ⁶Sed Virtus Divina potentiùs operatur: addest Veritas Signo, & Spiritus Sacramento.

But S. Cyprian further allegeth to this purpose,¹ The Omnipotent Power of God, whiche, saith M. Hardinge, Farre ouerpoiseth al the•e mennes light fantasies. Thus he saith, as though that without this light fantasie of Transubstantiation, God coulde not be Omnipotent: or, as if there were such woonderful weight in his Outwarde Shewes, and Emptie Accidentes. But God worketh mightily, and sheweth his Power Omnipotent, not onely herein, but also in al other his holy Mysteries, as it is before declared in the fifthe Article,² and the .3. Diuision. Leo saith, Christus dedit Aquae, quod dedit Matri. Virtus enim Al•issimi, & obumbratio Spiritus Sancti, quae fecit, vt Maria pareret Saluatorem, eadem fecit, vt Regeneraret vnda credentem. Christe g•ue to the Water, that he g•ue to his Mother. For the power of the Highest, and the ouer•hadow•nge of the Holy Ghost, that caused Marie to beare the Saueour, the same Pow•r hath caused the Water to Regenerate the beleuer. To like purpose saith Chrysostome▪ ⟨p. 426⟩Vt Sarā, non Natura, ³sed Dei promissio fecit matrē &c. As the promise of God, and not Nature made Sara a Mother, ⁴euen so our Regeneration by Nature is nothinge. But the VVoordes of God, whiche the Faithful know, beinge pronounced by the Priest in the Bathe of VVater, doo forme, and Regenerate him, that is Baptized, as it were, in his mothers woombe. So they were wonte to singe at the halowinge of the Fonte, Descendat Spiritus Sanctus in hane plenitudinem Aquae, ⁵totamque eius Substantiā Regenerationis foecunde• effectu. Let thy Holy Ghost come downe into this fulnes of VVater, and let it fille the whole Substance thereof with the effecte of Regeneration. Thus Leo, Chrysostome, and other Olde Fathers, acknowledge the Omnipotencie of God in the Sacrament of Baptisme: yet did they not thinke it therefore necessary, to Transubstantiate the Nature, and Substance of the Water. The same S. Cyprian, (al be it in deede it is not S. Cyprian, but a farre later writer, as by good proufes it dooth appeare) writinge onely of the Blissinge of the Holy Oyle, allegeth likewise the omnipotent Power of God aboue Nature, His woordes be these, Sanctificatis Elementis, iam non propria Natura praebet effectum: ⁶Sed Virtus Diuina potentiùs operatur: adest Veritas Signo, & Spiritus Sacramento.

1Omnipotentìa Verbi,
2Leo Sermo 4. de […].Leo Sermo 4. de 〈…〉.
3Omnipotentia.
4Chrysost. in Epi•tol. ad Galat. Cap. 4.
5Totam Substantiam.
6Cyprianus de unctione Chrismatis.Cyprianus de vnctione Chrismatis.

:2643p. 426–427

Nothing can be plainer to this purpose,¹ then the sayings of S. Ambrose. Licet Figura Panis, & Vini videatur, ²nihil tamen aliud, quam Caro Christi, & Sanguis, post Consecrationem credendum est. Although, saith he, the form of Bread, and Wine be seen, yet after Consecration we must believe, they are nothing else, but the Flesh, and Blood of Christ. After the opinion of this Father, the show and figure of Bread and Wine are seen, and therefore remain after Consecration. And if we must believe, that which was Bread, and Wine before, to be none other thing, but the Flesh and Blood of Christ, then are they no other thing in deed. For if they were, we might so believe. For belief is grounded upon trueth, and what so ever is not true, is not to be believed. Hereof it followeth, that after Consecration the accidents, and shows only remain without the Substance of Bread and Wine.³ In an other place he saith as much. Panis iste, &c. This Bread before the words of the Sacraments, is Bread: as soon as the Consecration cometh, of Bread is made the Body of Christ. Again in an other place he saith most plainly, That the power of Consecration is greater, then the Power of Nature: Because Nature is changed by Consecration. By this Father it is evident, that the Nature (178)⁴ that is to say, the Substance of Bread, and ⟨p. 427⟩by Consecration being changed into the Body,⁵ and Blood of Christ, their natural qualities, which be accidents, continuing unchanged for performance of the Sacrament, remain without the Substance of Bread and Wine.

Nothinge can be plainer to this purpose,¹ then the saieinges of S. Ambrose. Licet Figura Panis, & Vini videatur, ²nihil tamen aliud, quam Caro Christi, & Sanguis, post Consecrationem credendum est. Although, saith he, the forme of Breade, and VVine be seene, yet after Consecration we must beleue, they are nothinge elles, but the Fleashe, and Bloude of Christe. After the opinion of this Father, the shewe and figure of Breade and VVine are seene, and therefore remaine after Consecration. And if we must beleue, that whiche was Breade, and VVine before, to be none other thinge, but the Fleashe and Bloude of Christe, then are they no other thinge in deede. For if they were, we might so beleue. For beleefe is grounded vpon trueth, and what so euer is not true, is not to be beleued. Hereof it foloweth, that after Consecration the accidentes, and shewes onely remaine without the Substance of Breade and VVine.³ In an other place he saith as muche. Panis iste, &c. This Breade before the woordes of the Sacramentes, is Breade: as soone as the Consecration cometh, of Breade is made the Bodie of Christe. Againe in an other place he saith most plainely, That the power of Consecration is greater, then the Power of Nature: Bicause Nature is changed by Consecration. By this Father it is euident, that the Nature (178)⁴ that is to say, the Substance of Breade, and ⟨p. 427⟩by Consecration beinge chaunged into the Bodie,⁵ and Bloude of Christe, theire natural qualities, whiche be accidentes, continewinge vnchanged for performance of the Sacrament, remaine without the Substance of Breade and VVine.

1De Conse. Dist. 2. Ca. omnia quae •••que.
2This place is Counterfeit, and not to be found in all S. Ambrose.This place is Countrefeite, and not to be founde in al S. Ambrose.
3De Sacramentis. lib. 4. cap. 4. De ijs qui initiantur.
4Untruth, standing in false interpretation: as shall appear.Vntrueth, standinge in false interpretatiō: as shal appeare.
5Accidents perform the Sacrament. A strange kind of Divinity.Accidentes performe the Sacramente. A strange kinde of Diuinitie.

:2646p. 427

But for contentation of the Reader, to answer that thing, that seemeth worthy of no answer, we must understand, that the Bread, the Wine, & the Water, of their own Nature, without further Consideration, are nothing else but usual, and simple creatures.¹ And therefore S. Augustine giveth this general rule touching the same, In Sacraments we must consider, not what they be of them self, but what they Signify. So S. Ambrose writeth of the Water of Baptisme: Quid vidisti? Aquas utique: sed nō solas. Apostolus docuit, non ea contemplanda, quae videntur, sed quae non videntur. What sawest thou (in thy Baptism) Water no doubt: but not only Water. The Apostle hath taught us, to behold, not the things, that be seen, but the things, that be not seen. ²Otherwise touching the very Substance of the Bread, and the Wine, he saith, Sunt, quae erant: They be the same things, that they were. And immediately before, he calleth the Sacrament touching the Bread, & the Wine, which are the material parts thereof,³ a Common, and a Known Creature.

But for contentation of the Reader, to answeare that thinge, that séemeth worthy of no answeare, we must vnderstande, that the Breade, the Wine, & the Water, of their owne Nature, without further Consideration, are nothinge els but vsual, and simple creatures.¹ And therefore S. Augustine geueth this general rule touchinge the same, In Sacramentes we must consider, not what they be of them self, but what they Signifie. So S. Ambrose writeth of the Water of Baptisme: Quid vidisti? Aquas vtique: sed nō solas. Apostolus docuit, non ea cōtemplanda, quae videntur, sed quae non videntur. VVhat sawest thou (in thy Baptisme) VVater no doubte: but not onely VVater. The Apostle hath taught vs, to beholde, not the thinges, that be seene, but the thinges, that be not seene. ²Otherwise touchinge the very Substance of the Breade, and the Wine, he saith, Sunt, quae erant: They be the same thinges, that they were. And immediatly before, he calleth the Sacrament touchinge the Breade, & the Wine, whiche are the material partes thereof,³ a Common, and a Knowen Creature.

1Augusti. contra Maximin. li. 3. Ambrosius de ijs, qui initiantur Mysterijs. cap. 2.
2Ambrosius de Sacramentis. li. 4. cap. 4.
3Ambros. de Sacram. li. 4. ca. 3. Creatura Solennis & nota.

:2648p. 427

But M. Harding will reply, This Ambrose saith, Figura Panis, & Vini videtur: The Figure of Bread, and Wine is seen: Therefore we must needs confess, there are Accidents without a Subject. If any Old Writer, Greek, or Latin: learned, or unlearned, ever used this Word, Figura, in this sense, to wite, to signify a Show alone without any Substance, then may M. Harding seem to say somewhat. If never any writer used it so, then have we good cause, to doubt his Conclusion. Verily, to leave other old writers of all sorts, S. Ambrose him self saith, Christus apparet in Figura Humana. Christ appeareth in the Form, or Figure of a Man. ¹And S. Paul saith to like purpose, Formam Serui accepit: Christ took upon him the Form of a Servant. I think, M. Harding will not warrant us upon the force of these words,² that Christ had only the Shape, and Show, and not the very Substance, and Nature of a Mans Body. For in so saying, he should seem openly to favour the Old condemned Heresy of the Manichees. In saying otherwise, this word, Figura, cannot further his purpose.

But M. Hardinge wil replie, This Ambrose saith, Figura Panis, & Vini videtur: The Figure of Breade, and VVine is seene: Therefore we must needes confesse, there are Accidentes without a Subiecte. If any Olde Writer, Greeke, or Latine: learned, or vnlearned, euer vsed this Woorde, Figura, in this sense, to wite, to signifie a Shewe alone without any Substance, then maie M. Hardinge seeme to saie somewhat. If neuer any writer vsed it so, then haue we good cause, to doubte his Conclusion. Uerily, to leaue other olde writers of al sortes, S. Ambrose him self saith, Christus apparet in Figura Humana. Christe appeareth in the Forme, or Figure of a Man. ¹And S. Paule saith to like purpose, Formam Serui accepit: Christe tooke vpon him the Forme of a Seruant. I thinke, M. Hardinge wil not warrant vs vpon the force of these woordes,² that Christe had onely the Shape, and Shewe, and not the very Substance, and Nature of a Mannes Bodie. For in so saieinge, he shoulde seeme openly to fauoure the Olde condēned Heresie of the Manichees. In saieinge otherwise, this woorde, Figura, cannot further his purpose.

1Ambros. in Epistol. ad Colossen. cap. 1.
2Philippen 2.

:2650p. 428

For answer to the other two places of S. Ambrose here alleged, touching the changing of Natures, and making of Christs Body, it may please thee, gentle Reader, to remember that, that is answered before in the Second Division hereof, unto the Words of S. Cyprian. I trow M. Harding will not say, that the Changing of any thing is straight way the Corruption of the same. Origen saith,¹ Si mutabuntur Coeli, utique non perit, quod mutatur. Al be it the Heavens shall be Changed, yet the thing, that is Changed, is not therefore utterly abolished, and put away. The question between us is not, whether the Bread be the Body of Christ, or no: but whether in plain, and simple manner of speech it be Fleshly, and Really the Body of Christ.² S. Augustine saithe, Secundum Quendam Modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est. After a Certain Manner (of speech) the Sacrament of Christs Body, is the Body of Christ. And S. Ambrose him self herein seemeth well, and sufficiently to open his own meaning. For thus he writeth, as is before alleged:³ Post Consecrationem Corupus Christi Significatur: post Consecrationem sanguis Christi Nuncupatur: In Typum Sanguinis Christi, nos Calicem Sanguinis Mysticum percipimus: Carnem, & Sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, Significamus: Similitudinem pretiosi Sanguinis bibis: Est Figura Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini: ⁴In Similitudinem accipis Sacramentum. After Consecration, the Body of Christ is Signified: After Consecration, it is Called the Blood of Christ: We receive the Mystical Cup of Blood, ⁵in Example of the Blood of Christ: We Signify the Flesh, and Blood of Christ, that were offered for us: Thou drinkest the Likeness of that Precious Blood: It is a Figure of the Body: and Blood of our Lord: For a Likeness, or Resemblance (of the Body of Christ) thou receivest the Sacrament. Thus many ways it seemed good to S. Ambrose, to qualify the heat, and rigour of his other words.

For answeare to the other two places of S. Ambrose here alleged, touchinge the changinge of Natures, and makinge of Christes Bodie, it maie please thee, gentle Reader, to remember that, yt is answeared before in the Seconde Diuision hereof, vnto the Woordes of S. Cyprian. I trowe M. Hardinge wil not say, that the Changinge of any thinge is streight way the Corruption of the same. Origen saithe,¹ Si mutabuntur Coeli, vtique non perit, quod mutatur. Al be it the Heauens shal be Changed, yet the thinge, that is Changed, is not therefore vtterly abolished, and put away. The question betweene vs is not, whether the Breade be the Bodie of Christe, or no: but whether in plaine, and simple manner of speache it be Fleashely, and Really the Bodie of Christe.² S. Augustine saithe, Secundum Quendam Modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi est. After a Certaine Manner (of speach) the Sacrament of Christes Bodie, is the Bodie of Christe. And S. Ambrose him selfe herein séemeth wel, and sufficiently to open his owne meaninge. For thus he writeth, as is before alleged:³ Post Consecrationem Corupus Christi Significatur: post Consecrationem sanguis Christi Nuncupatur: In Typum Sanguinis Christi, nos Calicem Sanguinis Mysticum percipimus: Carnem, & Sanguinem, quae pro nobis oblata sunt, Significamus: Similitudinem pretiosi Sanguinis bibis: Est Figura Corporis, & Sanguinis Domini: ⁴In Similitudinem accipis Sacramentum. After Consecration, the Bodie of Christe is Signified: After Consecration, it is Called the Bloude of Christe: We receiue the Mystical Cuppe of Bloude, ⁵in Example of the Bloude of Christe: We Signifie the Fleashe, and Bloud of Christe, that were offered for vs: Thou drinkest the Likenes of that Pretiouse Bloude: It is a Figure of the Bodie: and Bloude of our Lorde: For a Likenes, or Resemblance (of the Bodie of Christe) thou receiuest the Sacrament. Thus many waies it seemed good to S. Ambrose, to qualifie the heate, and rigour of his other woordes.

1Origen. [Greek or Hebrew], lib. •. Ca. 6.Origen. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, lib. •. Ca. 6.
2Augustin. Epist. 23.
3Ambros. de ijs qui initiantur Mysterijs ca. 9.
4Ambros. 1. Corinth. 11.
5Ambros. de Sacrā. lib. 4. Ca. 4. De Sacra. li. 4. Ca. 5.Ambros. de Sacrā. lib. 4. Ca. 4. De Sacra. li. 4. Ca. 5.

:2651p. 428

Now, if M. Harding, as his manner is, will call all these, Naked Signs, and Bare Figures, let him then remember, he maketh sport, & game at S. Ambrose, his own Doctor▪ But the Sacraments of Christ, notwithstanding they be Signs, and Figures, as they be commonly called of all the Old Fathers, yet are they not therefore Bare, and Naked. For God by them, like as also by his Holy Word, worketh mightily, and effectually in the hearts of the Faithful. Touching the force of God's word,¹ S. Ambrose writeth thus: Vidimus, & oculis nostris perspeximus, & in vestigia Clavorū eius digitos nostros inseruimus. Videmur enim nobis vidisse, quem legimus, spectasse pendentem, & vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scru•ante tentasse. We have seen him, and beholden him with our eyes, and have thrust our fingers into the very holes of his nails. For we seem to have seen him, whom we have read, and to have beholden him hanging on the Cross, and with the feeling Sprite of the Church, to have searched his Wounds. ²So saith S. Cyprian, Cruci haeremus, & Sanguinem sugimus, & intra ipsa Redemptoris nostri vulnera figimus linguam. We cleave to the Cross, and suck up the Blood, and thrust our tongues even within the Wounds of our Redeemer. And in this respect S. Ambrose saithe, Baptismus est Mysterium, quod oculus non vidit, ³nec auris audivit, nec in Cor hominis ascendit. Baptism is, (not bare Water, but) a Mystery, that the eye never saw, the ear never heard, nor never entered into the heart of Man. In respect hereof, the Element of Water seemeth nothing. Even so in respect of Christs Body, and Blood, that are represented, the Bread, and Wine seem nothing. Thus, S. Ambrose saith, in either Sacrament the power of Consecration is greater, then the power of Nature: Thus by Consecration Nature is Changed.

Nowe, if M. Hardinge, as his manner is, wil cal al these, Naked Signes, and Bare Figures, let him then remember, he maketh sporte, & game at S. Ambrose, his owne Doctour▪ But the Sacramentes of Christe, notwithstandinge they be Signes, and Figures, as they be commonly called of al the Olde Fathers, yet are they not therefore Bare, and Naked. For God by them, like as also by his Holy Woorde, worketh mightily, and effectually in the hartes of the Faithful. Touchinge the force of Goddes woorde,¹ S. Ambrose writeth thus: Vidimus, & oculis nostris perspeximus, & in vestigia Clauorū eius digitos nostros inseruimus. Videmur enim nobis vidisse, quem legimus, spectasse pendentem, & vulnera eius Spiritu Ecclesiae scru•ante tentasse. We haue seene him, and beholden him with our eies, and haue thrust our fingers into the very holes of his nayles. For we seeme to haue seene him, whome we haue read, and to haue beholden him hanginge on the Crosse, and with the feelinge Sprite of the Churche, to haue searched his Woundes. ²So saithe S. Cyprian, Cruci haeremus, & Sanguinem sugimus, & intra ipsa Redemptoris nostri vulnera figimus linguam. VVe cleaue to the Crosse, and sucke vp the Bloude, and thrust our tongues euen within the VVoundes of our Redeemer. And in this respecte S. Ambrose saithe, Baptismus est Mysterium, quod oculus non vidit, ³nec auris audiuit, nec in Cor hominis ascendit. Baptisme is, (not bare Water, but) a Mysterie, that the eye neuer sawe, the eare neuer hearde, nor neuer entred into the harte of Man. In respect hereof, the Element of Water seemeth nothinge. Euen so in respecte of Christes Bodie, and Bloude, that are represented, the Breade, and Wine seeme nothinge. Thus, S. Ambrose saithe, in either Sacrament the power of Consecration is greater, then the power of Nature: Thus by Consecration Nature is Changed.

1Ambros. in Lucam li. 5. Ca. 7.
2Cyprian. de Coena Domini.
3Ambrosius de ijs qui initiantur Mysterijs. Ca. 4.

THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .1. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .1. Diuision.

THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.THE TENTH ARTICLE, OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .1. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .1. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .2. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .2. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .3. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .3. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .4. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .4. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,1 OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,1 OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .1. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .1. Diuision.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

THE TENTH ARTICLE,1 OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,1 OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .1. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .1. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .2. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .2. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .3. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .3. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

M. Harding. The .4. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .4. Diuision.

The B. of Salisbury.

The B. of Sarisburie.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTS WITHOUT SUBJECT.

THE TENTH ARTICLE,¹ OF ACCIDENTES VVITHOVT SVBIECTE.