The B. of Salisbury.: A reply unto M. Hardinges answer by John Jewel | AskReformation

Skip to content

:792p. 103

They be false Catholics (saith this man) that are not ashamed by all means to hinder the Reformation of the Church. They, to the intent the other kind of the Sacrament may not be restored unto the Lay people, spare no kind of blasphemies. For they say, that Christ said only unto his Apostles, Drink ye all of this. But the words of the Canon (of the Mass) be these, Take and eat ye all of this. Here I beseech them, let them tell me, whether they will have these words also, only to pertain unto the Apostles. Then must the lay people abstain from the other kind of the Bread also. Which thing to say, is an Heresy, and a pestilent, and a detestable blasphemy. Wherefore it followeth, that each of these words was spoken unto the whole Church. Thus far Lorichius, an earnest defender of Transubstantiation, of the Popes Supremacy, and of Private Mass: lest M. Harding should say, he were one of Luther's Scholars, and so except against him, as being a party. And Leo sometime Bishop of Rome, hearing of certain that used to dip the Bread in the Wine, and so to deliver it to the people, had no way to reform them, but only by Christs Institution. For thus he saithe.¹ Quod pro complemento Communionis▪ intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Evangelio testimonium receperunt. Whereas for accomplishment of the Communion, they dip the Sacrament, and deliver it unto the people, they have not received this witness of the Gospel. He addeth further: Seorsum enim Panis, & seorsum Calicis, commendatio memoratur. For the delivery of the Bread, and the delivery of the Cup, are mentioned asunder. And thus he speaketh of the ministration of the Sacrament, that is due not only to the priests, but also to the people.

They be false Catholikes (saithe this man) that are not ashamed by al meanes to hinder the Reformation of the Churche. They, to thintent the other kinde of the Sacrament may not be restored vnto the Laye people, spare no kinde of blasphemies. For they saye, that Christe saide onely vnto his Apostles, Drinke ye al of this. But the woordes of the Canon (of the Masse) be these, Take and eate ye al of this. Here I beseche them, let them tel me, whether they wil haue these woordes also, onely to perteine vnto the Apostles. Then must the laye people absteyne from the other kinde of the Bread also. Whiche thinge to saye, is an Heresie, and a pestilent, and a detestable blasphemie. Wherefore it foloweth, that eche of these woordes was spoken vnto the whole Churche. Thus farre Lorichius, an earnest defender of Transubstantiation, of the Popes Supremacie, and of Priuate Masse: lest M. Hardinge shoulde saye, he were one of Luthers Scholars, and so excepte against him, as beynge a partie. And Leo sometime Bishop of Rome, hearinge of certaine that vsed to dippe the Breade in the Wine, and so to deliuer it to the people, had no waie to reforme them, but onely by Christes Institution. For thus he saithe.¹ Quod pro complemento Communionis▪ intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis, nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt. Whereas for accomplishment of the Communion, they dippe the Sacrament, and deluer it vnto the people, they haue not receiued this witnesse of the Gospel. He addeth further: Seorsum enim Panis, & seorsum Calicis, commendatio memoratur. For the deliuerie of the Breade, and the deliuerie of the Cuppe, are mentioned asunder. And thus he speaketh of the ministration of the Sacrament, that is due not onely to the priestes, but also to the people.

1De con. dist. 2 Cum omne.

:793p. 104

The learned men of Bohemia s•we they could have no hold of Christs Institution, and therefore to maintain their new fangled attempt, as it pleaseth M. Harding to ter•e it, they were […]to take the words of Christ out of the sixth Chapter of John, onlesse […]flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. But these words in the sixth Chapter of S. John, saith M. Harding, our new Masters will have expounded of the spiritual, not of the Sacramental eating. Of the Bohemians, I cannot see why they should be called new fangled. Their request was none other, but that they might continue the order of the Primitive Church,¹ which Thomas of Aquine saith, had continued in diverse Churches from the Apostles until his time, for the space of a thousand and three hundred years without controlment. And it may il become a Christian man, and a scholar of thaposto••que See, to call the doing of Christ, and of his Disciples, new fangled. Touching their reasons made in this behalf, I need not to speak. God's name be blessed, they have prevailed with the best learned of the world. What so ever their premisses seem to M. Harding, their Conclusion was this, that no mortal creature should presume, to disallow the ordinance of the Immortal God.

The learned men of Bohemia s•we they coulde haue no holde of Christes Institution, and therefore to mainteine their newe fangled attempte, as it pleaseth M. Hardinge to ter•e it, they were 〈…〉to take the woordes of Christe out of the sixthe Chapter of Iohn, onlesse 〈…〉fleashe of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloude, ye shal haue no life in you. But these woordes in the sixte Chapter of S. Iohn, saithe M. Hardinge, our newe Maisters wil haue expounded of the spiritual, not of the Sacramental eatinge. Of the Bohemians, I cannot sée why they shoulde be called newe fangled. Their requeste was none other, but that they might continue the order of the Primitiue Churche,¹ whiche Thomas of Aquine saithe, had continued in diuerse Churches from the Apostles vntil his time, for the space of a thousande and thrée hundred yéeres without controlement. And it may il become a Christian man, and a scholar of thaposto••que See, to cal the dooinge of Christe, and of his Disciples, newe fangled. Touchinge their reasons made in this behalfe, I néede not to speake. Goddes name be blissed, they haue preuailed with the best learned of the worlde. What so euer their premisses séeme to M. Hardinge, their Conclusion was this, that no mortal creature shoulde presume, to disallowe the ordinance of the Immortal God.

1Par. 3. q. 80. art. 12▪

:794p. 104

But our new Masters, saith M. Harding, must needs have these words of S. John expounded of the spiritual eating. If it be either the violence of nature, or the manner of his Catholic doctrine, that driveth M. Harding thus to taunt, he must be borne with all: notwithstanding it agreeth not with his promise. As touching the understanding of the words of Christ, in the sixth of S. John, they are not all new Masters, that have so taken them. For, to leave S. Augustine, Origen, and others of that age, Nicolas Lyra,¹ a man of later years, sayeth, The said words of Christ must needs be taken spiritually, and none otherwise. Thus he saith, Ista intelligi debent de manducatione, & potatione spirituali. Quia sequitur, qui manducat meam Carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo. Quod B. Augustinus exponens ait▪ Hoc est manducare illam escam, & bibere illum potum, in Christo manere, & Christum manentem in se habere: quod nihil aliud est, quam esse in charitate Christi. These words must be taken of the spiritual eating and drinking. For it followeth, he that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: Which thing S. Augustine expounding, saith thus, This is the eating of that food, and the drinking of that drink, for a man to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ in him dwelling: which thing is nothing else, but to be in the love of Christ. Here we see, that Nicolas Lyra a man that lived two hundred years ago, and therefore no very new Master, expoundeth these words of the spiritual eating.

But our newe Maisters, saithe M. Hardinge, must needes haue these woordes of S. Iohn expounded of the spiritual eatinge. If it be either the violence of nature, or the manner of his Catholike doctrine, that driueth M. Hardinge thus to taunte, he muste be borne with al: notwithstandinge it agréeth not with his promisse. As touchinge the vnderstandinge of the woordes of Christe, in the sixthe of S. Iohn, they are not al newe Maisters, that haue so taken them. For, to leaue S. Augustine, Origen, and others of that age, Nicolas Lyra,¹ a man of later yéeres, saieth, The saide woordes of Christe muste néedes be taken spiritually, and none otherwise. Thus he saithe, Ista intelligi debent de manducatione, & potatione spirituali. Quia sequitur, qui manducat meam Carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, & ego in eo. Quod B. Augustinus exponens ait▪ Hoc est manducare illam escam, & bibere illum potum, in Christo manere, & Christum manentem in se habere: quod nihil aliud est, quam esse in charitate Christi. These woordes must be taken of the spiritual eatinge and drinkinge. For it followeth, he that eateth my Fleashe, and drinketh my Bloude, dwelleth in me, and I in him: Whiche thinge S. Augustine expoundinge, saithe thus, This is the eatinge of that foode, and the drinkinge of that drinke, for a man to dwel in Christe, and to haue Christe in him dwellinge: whiche thinge is nothinge els, but to be in the loue of Christe. Here we sée, that Nicolas Lyra a man that liued twoo hundred yéeres agoe, and therefore no very newe Maister, expoundeth these woordes of the spiritual eatinge.

1Nicol. Lyra in Psal. 111.

:799p. 105

An other reason is this: It doth not appear, that Christ ever ministered in Both Kinds, but only to his Disciples: Ergo, y• people may receive in one kind. I marvel, what luck M. Harding hath to such Conclusions. For what necessary sequel can there be, either from the Apostles to the people: or from both kinds to one kind: or from an Affirmative to a Negative? The sum of the reason standeth thus: The Apostles are commanded to receive Both Kinds: Ergo, the people is not commanded to receive Both Kinds. The weakness whereof is evident, & showeth it self. It will much rather & better follow thus: The people is commanded to receive, as The Apostles received, for there is expressed no difference: The Apostles received in both kinds: Ergo, the people is commanded to receive in both kinds. And thus, notwithstanding it be here stoutly avouched, that we have neither example, nor Institution, yet I trust it doth well appear, that we have both the example of Christ, that ministered the Sacrament in both kinds: and also Christs Institution, that bade his Disciples to do the same.

An other reason is this: It doothe not appeare, that Christe euer ministred in Both Kindes, but onely to his Disciples: Ergo, y• people may receiue in one kinde. I maruel, what lucke M. Hardinge hath to such Conclusions. For what necessarie sequele can there be, either from thapostles to the people: or from bothe kindes to one kinde: or from an Affirmatiue to a Negatiue? The summe of the reason standeth thus: Thapostles are cōmaunded to receiue Both Kindes: Ergo, the people is not commaunded to receiue Bothe Kindes. The weakenesse whereof is euident, & sheweth it selfe. It wil much rather & better follow thus: The people is commaunded to receiue, as Thapostles receiued, for there is expressed no difference: The Apostles receiued in bothe kindes: Ergo, the people is cōmaunded to receiue in both kindes. And thus, notwithstanding it be here stoutely auoutched, that we haue neither example, nor Institution, yet I truste it doothe wel appeare, that we haue bothe the example of Christe, that ministred the Sacrament in bothe kindes: and also Christes Institution, that bade his Disciples to doo the same.