Skip to content

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

M. Harding. The .7. Division.M. Hardinge. The .7. Diuision.

pp. 108–1095 passages

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.

:816p. 108

M. Harding. The .7. Division.

M. Hardinge. The .7. Diuision.

:817p. 108–109

Now to put this matter that Luther judged it a thing indifferent, whither one receive the Sacrament under one kind or both, more out of doubt, Philip Melanchthon, his scholar, and nearest of his Counsaile,¹ writeth: Sicut edere suillam, aut abstinere a suilla, sic alterutra signi part uti medium esse. That as it is a thing indifferent to eat Swines flesh, or to forbear Swines flesh, so ⟨p. 109⟩it is also to use, which part of the sign a man listeth. By the word, Sign, he meaneth the Sacrament, liking better that strange word, then the accustomed word of the Church: least he might perhaps be thought of the brethren of his sect, in some what to join with the Catholics.

Now to put this mater that Luther iudged it a thinge indifferent, whither one receiue the Sacrament vnder one kinde or bothe, more out of doubte, Philip Melanch•on, his scholar, and nearest of his Counsaile,¹ writeth: Sicut edere suillam, aut abstinere a suilla, sic alterutra signi parte vti medium esse. That as it is a thinge indifferent to eate Swines fleashe, or to forbeare Swines fleashe, so ⟨p. 109⟩it is also to vse, whiche parte of the signe a man listeth. By the woorde, Signe, he meaneth the Sacrament, likinge better that straunge woorde, then the accustomed woorde of the Churche: least he might perhaps be thought of the bretherne of his secte, in some what to ioyne with the Catholikes.

1In locis communibus.

Bucer also is of the same opinion, who in the conference that was had between the Catholics and protestants for agreement in controversies of religion at Ratisbone, confirmed, and allowed this article by his full consent with these words: Ad controversiam quae est de una aut utraque specie, tollendam, cum primis conducturum, ut sancta Ecclesia liberam faceret potestatem, Sacramentū hoc in una, vel in utraque specie sumendi. Ea tamen lege, ut nulli per hoc detur occasio, quem usum tantopere retinuit Ecclesia, temerè condennandi, aut inuicem judicandi. That the controversy for the one, or both kinds, may be taken away, it shall be very well done, that holy Church made it free, to receive this Sacrament in one or both kinds: yet under such condition, as hereby no occasion be given to any body, rashly to condemn the use, which the Church hath so long time kept, nor to judge one an other. Soothly he which would have it free and at liberty, to receive the Sacrament under one or both kinds, and holdeth opinion, that the old custom of the one kind only is not to be condemned, seemeth plainly enough to confess, that nothing hath been instituted or commanded of Christ touching this matter, as necessary to salvation.

Bucer also is of the same opinion, who in the conference that was had betweene the Catholikes and protestantes for agreement in controuersies of religion at Ratisbone, confirmed, and allowed this article by his ful consent with these woordes: Ad controuersiam quae est de vna aut vtraque specie, tollendam, cum primis conducturum, vt sancta Ecclesia liberam faceret potestatem, Sacramentū hoc in vna, vel in vtraque specie sumendi. Ea tamen lege, vt nulli per hoc detur occasio, quem vsum tantopere retinuit Ecclesia, temerè condēnandi, aut inuicem iudicādi. That the controuersie for the one, or both kindes, may be taken away, it shal be very wel done, that holie Churche made it free, to receiue this Sacrament in one or both kindes: yet vnder suche condition, as hereby no occasion be geuen to any bodie, rashely to condemne the vse, whiche the Churche hath so longe time keapte, nor to iudge one an other. Soothly he whiche would haue it free and at libertie, to receiue the Sacrament vnder one or bothe kindes, and holdeth opinion, that the olde custome of the one kinde onely is not to be condemned, seemeth plainely yenough to confesse, that nothinge hath beene instituted or commaunded of Christ toutchinge this mater, as necessarie to saluation.

:819p. 109

Thus we may see plainly, that they which have divided them selves from the Mystical body of Christ, that is, his Church, who were of greatest learning and judgement, make it a matter indifferent (as it is in deed of it self left to the liberty of the Church) whether the Sacrament be ministered under one kind, or both. And thus much hath ben confessed against M. Ivel, and his sect, not only by the learned adversaries of the Church in our time, but also by a learned man of Bohemia above six score years past. His name is John Przyxsam, of whose writings, some are set forth in print. This learned man, where as he endeavoured to prove the use of both kinds of the words of Christ written by S. John. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, at length uttereth these words according to the eloquence of his time.¹ Veruntamen hic Deum timens, & mores impios aliorum praecavens, fateor, quòd quaslibet personas de Ecclesia Communioni fidelium sub utraque specie repugnantes, damnare aut haerericare non intendo. But here having the fear of God before mine eyes, and being well ware, I follow not the wicked conditions of others, I grant, that what persons so ever of the Church repine against the Communion of the faithful people under both kinds, I intend not to condemn them, nor to hold them for Heretics. But if it be the commandment of God, that the Sacrament be received of all under both kinds, why should he be forbidden by the fear of God, to condemn those that withstand that order of Communion? Seeing that, who so ever goeth against Gods commandment, is worthy to be condemned? Therefore by his testimony the use of one, or both kinds is indifferent.

Thus we may see plainely, that they whiche haue diuided them selues from the Mystical bodie of Christe, that is, his Churche, who were of greatest learninge and iudgement, make it a mater indifferent (as it is in deede of it selfe lefte to the libertie of the Churche) whether the Sacrament be ministred vnder one kinde, or bothe. And thus much hath ben confessed against M. Iuel, and his secte, not onely by the learned aduersaries of the Churche in our time, but also by a learned mā of Bohemia aboue sixe score yeeres past. His name is Iohn Przyxsam, of whose writinges, some are set foorth in printe. This learned man, where as he endeuoured to proue the vse of bothe kindes of the woordes of Christe writen by S. Iohn. Excepte ye eate the fleashe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloude, ye shal not haue life in you, at length vttereth these woordes accordinge to the eloquence of his time.¹ Veruntamen hic Deum timens, & mores impios aliorum praecauens, fateor, quòd quaslibet personas de Ecclesia Communioni fidelium sub utraque specie repugnantes, damnare aut haerericare non intendo. But here hauinge the feare of God before mine eyes, and beinge wel ware, I followe not the wicked conditions of others, I graunte, that what personnes so euer of the Churche repine against the Communion of the faithful people vnder bothe kindes, I intende not to condemne them, nor to holde them for Heretiques. But if it be the commaundement of God, that the Sacrament be receiued of al vnder bothe kindes, why shoulde he be forbidden by the feare of God, to condemne those that withstande that order of Communion? Seeinge that, who so euer gooeth against Gods cōmaundement, is woorthie to be condēned? Therfore by his testimonie the vse of one, or both kindes is indifferent.

1In li. de professione fidei catholicae. Ca. 19.