Natu rally, cor porally. Hilar. de Trin. Lib. viii. Per naturam est, natura unius fidei, id liter. Ejusdem regeneratione naturæ. For better trial hereof, understand thou, gentle reader, that both Cyrillus and Hilarius in those places dispute against the Arians, whose error was this, that God the Father and the Son are one, not by nature, but only by will and consent. Against them Hilarius reasoned thus: Christ is as really joined unto the Father as unto us: But Christ is joined unto us by nature; Therefore Christ is joined to God the Father by nature. The minor, that is, that "Christ is joined unto us by nature," he proveth thus: "We are joined unto Christ by faith," that is, "by the nature of one faith, and that is to say, naturally." Likewise he saith: "We are joined unto Christ by the regeneration of one nature." And again: "We are joined to Christ by the nature of one baptism." Hereof he concludeth: "Therefore are we naturally joined unto him1." Thus it appeareth by St Hilary, we may have Christ naturally Per naturam within us by three other sundry means; and therefore not only, as M. Harding holdeth, by receiving of the sacrament. And like as Christ is naturally, corporally, and carnally in us by faith, by regeneration, and by baptism; even so, and none otherwise, he is in us by the sacrament of his body. In which holy mystery Christ is joined unto us corporally, as being man, because we are fed indeed and verily with his flesh; and spiritually is joined to us, as God. ejusdem baptismi. Thus much unto Cyrillus and Hilarius, in whom M. Harding is not yet able to find that Christ's body is either corporally received into our bodies, or corporally present in the sacrament; which was the only thing that M. Harding hath here taken in hand, and should have proved; and now, not having proved that, notwithstanding all this great ado, hath proved nothing. But he saith: "It had been more convenient rather modestly to have interpreted these words, than thus utterly to have denied them." Verily, perhaps it were so for him, that can make somewhat of nothing, and devise a commentary without a text, and imagine constructions, as M. Harding doth, of words that were never spoken. Hereof M. Harding guesseth thus: These fathers say that Christ is naturally and corporally in us; ergo, it is likely their meaning was, that Christ is naturally and corporally present in the sacrament. This reason is very simple; for, notwithstanding Christ were naturally within our bodies, yet the like being in the sacrament would not follow. But this argument would conclude the contrary, and hold better in this wise: Christ's body is not naturally or corporally present within us; Therefore much less it is corporally present in the sacrament. M. HARDING. THE ELEVENTH DIVISION. And the catholic fathers, that sithence the time of Berengarius have written in defence of the truth in this point, using these terms sometimes for excluding of metaphors, allegories, figures, and significations only, whereby the sacramentaries would defraud faithful people of the truth of Christ's precious body in this sacrament, do not thereby mean that the manner, mean, or way of Christ's presence, dwelling, union, and conjunction with us, and of us with him, is therefore natural, substantial, corporal, or carnal; but they and all other catholic men confess the contrary, that it is far higher and worthier, supernatural, supersubstantial, invisible, unspeakable, special, and proper to this sacrament, true, real, and in deed notwithstanding; and not only tropical, symbolical, metaphorical, allegorical; not spiritual only, and yet spiritual; not figurative or significative only. And likewise concerning the manner of the presence and being of that body and blood in the sacrament, they and we acknowledge and confess that it is not local, circumscriptive, diffinitive, or subjective, or natural; but such as is known to God only. [1... quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt? ...cessat in his assensus unitas, qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturæ ?...quid...hic animorum concordia faciet, cum per id unum sint, quod uno Christo per naturam unius baptismi induantur? ...Eos nunc, qui inter Patrem et Filium voluntatis ingerunt unitatem, interrogo utrumne per naturæ veritatem hodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis?-Hilar. Op. Par. 1693. De Trin. Lib. VIII. 7, 8, 13. cols. 951, 2, 4.] THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. Dist. 2. These doctors lived within these two or three hundred years, and are such as M. Harding thought not worth the naming. Their doctrine in these cases is very unsavoury and without comfort. Generally, they hold that Christ's body remaineth no longer in our bodies, but only until the forms of the bread and wine begin to alter. Some others say that, as soon as our teeth touch the bread, straightways Christ's body is taken up into heaven. The words be these: Certum est, quod De Consecr. quam cito species dentibus teruntur, tam cito in cœlum rapitur corpus Christi. Tribus This doctrine notwithstanding, they say that Christ is naturally and corporally in Glossa. gradibus. within us. Here a man may3 say unto M. Harding, as he did before to the Arian heretic What, troweth M. Harding, or his new doctors, that Christ cometh to The absurdius from heaven, and by and by forsaketh us? Or, that we eat Christ, and yet Harding's receive him not? Or, that we receive Christ, and yet have him not? Or, that Christ is corporally within us, and yet entereth not? Is this Christ's natural being in us? Is this the virtue of the mystical benediction? Is this the meaning of these holy fathers? Or troweth M. Harding, that, holding and maintaining such absurdities, his reader, be he never so simple, will believe him? ties of M. doctrine. Last of all, to declare the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament, he saith, it is not local, not circumscriptive, not diffinitive, not subjective. By these terms his reader may rather wonder at his strange divinity and eloquence, than well conjecture what he meaneth. And, as it appeareth, he himself is not yet able to conceive his own meaning. For thus he saith: "This presence is known to God only." Then it followeth: M. Harding knoweth it not. And so this article at last is concluded with an ignoramus. Howbeit, the old learned fathers never left us in such doubts. Emissenus saith, as it is before alleged: Præsens est in De Consecr. gratia: "Christ is present by his grace." St Augustine saith: Est in nobis per Quia corpus. Spiritum: "Christ is in us by his Spirit." Likewise again he saith: "Non hoc August. de corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis ;... sacramentum aliquod vobis trado: "Ye August. in shall not eat this body that ye see. It is a certain sacrament that I deliver you." Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present, not corporally, carnally, naturally; but, as in a sacrament, by his Spirit, and by his grace. [2 Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. Gloss. in can. 23. col. 1922; where species quam cito.] [3 May a man, 1565.] [Euseb. Emiss. in eod. ibid. can. 35. col. 1927; where esset.] [5 See before, page 477, note 12.] [ Id. in Psalm. xcviii. Enarr. 9. Tom. IV. col. 1066; where commendavi for trado.] Dist. 2. Trin. Psal. xcviii. OF BEING IN MANY PLACES. THE SIXTH ARTICLE. The hundred and fortyfourth untruth. the ancient fathers ever knew this miracle. and forty THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. OR, that Christ's' body is or may be in a thousand places or more at one time. [OF THE BEING OF CHRIST'S BODY IN MANY PLACES AT ONE TIME.— ARTICLE VI. H.A. 1564.] M. HARDING. THE FIRST DIVISION. As (144) Among the miracles of this blessed sacrament one is, that one and the same body may be in many places at once, to wit, under all consecrated hosts. For none of for God, it is agreeable to his Godhead to be every where simpliciter et proprie; but as for a creature, to be but in one place only. But as for the body of Christ, (145) it is after a manner between both. For, whereas it is a creature, it ought not The hundred to be made equal with the Creator in this behalf, that it be every where: but, whereas and untruth. it is united to the Godhead, herein it ought to excel other bodies, so as it may in one trine hitherto (146) time be in more places under this holy sacrament2. For the uniting of Christ's. seldom heard natural body unto the almighty Godhead, duly considered, bringeth a true christian The hundred man in respect of the same to forsake reason and to lean to faith, to put apart all doubts and discourses of human understanding, and to rest in reverent simplicity of For, notwith- belief. standing the body of And a doc of. and fortysixth un truth. be creature. Matt. zir. Luke xxiv. Matt. xxviii. Thereby through the Holy Ghost persuaded, he knoweth that, although the body Christ with of Christ be natural and human indeed, yet, through the union and conjunction, the Godhead, many things be possible to the same now, that to all other bodies be impossible; as eth still a to walk upon waters, to vanish away out of sight, to be transfigured and made bright as the sun, to ascend up through the clouds; and, after it became immortal, death being conquered, to rise up again out of the grave, and to enter through doors fast shut. Through the same faith he The hundred believeth and acknowledgeth that, (147) according unto his word, by his seventh un- power it is made present in the blessed sacrament of the altar, under the form of bread and wine, wheresoever the same is duly consecrated, according unto his institution in his holy supper; and that not after a gross or carnal manner, but spiritually and supernaturally, and yet substantially; not by local, but by substanGod's word is tial presence; not by manner of quantity, or filling of a place, or by changing of place, or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of the Father, but in such a manner as God only knoweth, and yet doth us to understand by faith the truth of his very presence, far passing all man's capacity to comprehend the manner how. and forty truth. For Christ uttereth no such word; and faith without no faith. sacrament at one tradiction. H. A. Whereas some against this point of belief do allege the article of Christ's ascension, and of his being in heaven at the right hand of God the Father, [Christ's being in bringing certain texts of the3 scriptures pertaining to the same, and heaven and in the testimonies of ancient doctors signifying Christ's absence from the time implieth no conearth; it may be rightly understanded, that he is verily both in heaven 1564.] at the right hand of his Father, in his visible and corporal form, very God and man, after which manner he is there, and not here; and also in the sacrament invisibly [ His, H. A. 1564.] [2 Deo convenit esse ubique simpliciter, proprie; creaturæ convenit esse in uno loco tantum; corpus Christi autem medio modo se habet de corpore Christi cum enim sit creatura, non debet æquari Creatori in hoc, quod ubique est; in hoc vero, quod Errors and spiritually, both God and man in a mystery; so as the granting of the one may stand without denial of the other, no contradiction found in these beings, but only a touching distinction in the way and manner of being. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. Having somewhat largely answered the five first articles, wherein seemed to lie the greatest weight, I trust I may now the more slightly pass over the rest. Herein M. Harding seemeth in words thoroughly to yield unto us without exception. For, whereas the question is moved of the being of Christ's body in a thousand places, or more, his answer is, that Christ's body is local only in one place, and so cannot be in a thousand places, but only in one place at one time. Howbeit, thus saying, he swerveth much from the old fathers, whose words, as it shall appear, sound far otherwise. Christ's body. Quod-vult 95. ad Leon. Hilar. de Further, for the better understanding hereof, it shall behove thee, gentle reader, to understand that, touching the body of Christ, there have been sundry great errors raised and maintained in the church of old time, and that not only by heretics, but also by holy learned fathers. The Manichees held that Christ August. ad had only a fantastical body, without any material flesh, blood, or bone, in appear- Deum. ance and in sight somewhat, but in very deed and in substance nothing4. Eutyches held that Christ's body, after his incarnation, was made equal with his Leon. Epist. divinity5; an error much like unto this that is now maintained by M. Harding. Epist. Flav. St Hilary held that Christ received no flesh of the blessed virgin, but brought the same from heaven; and that his body was impassible, and felt no more grief Trin. Lib. x. when it was stricken, than water, fire, or air, when it is divided with a knife". Theodoretus saith that the heretics called Helcesai held that there be sundry Theodor. de Christs, two at the least; the one dwelling in heaven above, the other in the world here beneath. All these, and other such-like errors and heresies, grew only of admiration and reverence towards Christ's divine nature; and the authors and maintainers of the same, leaving reason, according to M. Harding's counsel, and cleaving wholly to their imagination, which they called faith, were far deceived. Fab. Hæret. Lib. ii. August. de Script. Nazianzen. But M. Harding layeth the foundation hereof upon a miracle; whereof, notwithstanding, touching this gross and fleshly presence, he hath no manner warrant, neither in the scriptures, nor in any of the holy fathers. As for that is alleged of Chrysostom and Basil, it is to a far other purpose, as shall appear, and may soon be answered. St Augustine wrote three special books namely of the miracles of the old and new testament; and Gregory Nazianzene wrote in like sort of the Mirab. Sacræ same yet did neither of them both ever make mention of this miracle. And Tom. 3. albeit this kind of reasoning, ab auctoritate negative, in such cases imply no great necessity; yet must it needs be thought either great negligence or great forgetfulness, writing purposely and namely of miracles, to leave out untouched the greatest miracle. Certainly, St Augustine hereof writeth thus: Quia hæc homi- August. de nibus nota sunt, quia per homines fiunt, honorem, tanquam religiosa, habere possunt; . cap. X. stuporem, tanquam mira, non possunt": "These things (speaking of the sacrament of Christ's body), because they are known unto men, and by men are wrought, may have honour, as things appointed to religion; but wonder, as things marvellous, they cannot have." Thus St Augustine overthroweth M. Harding's whole foundation, and saith that in his great miracle there is no wonder or miracle at all. He saith further: "It is agreeable to the Godhead to be every where, simpliciter and proprie. For a creature it is agreeable to be in one place. But as for the body of Christ," he saith, "it is after a manner between both." This is [ August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Ad Quodvultd. Lib. de Hær. 46. Tom. VIII. col. 16.] [ Leon. Magni Op. Lut. 1623. Ad Leon. August. Epist. xcvii. cap. i. cols. 495, 6. Flavian. ad Leon. Epist. cap. iii. in eod. cols. 299, 300.] [ Hilar. Op. Par. 1693. De Trin. Lib. x. 16, 20, 3. cols. 1045, 8, 50, 1, &c.] [JEWEL.] [7 Χριστὸν δὲ οὐχ ἕνα λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν avw, Tov de kάтw.-Theodor. Op. Lut. Par. 164284. Hær. Fab. Lib. 11. 7. Tom. IV. p. 221.] [8 August. Op. De Mirab. Sacr. Script. Libr. Tres, Tom. III. Append. cols. 1, &c. This work is considered spurious.] [ Id. De Trin. Lib. 1. cap. x. 20. Tom. VIII. col. 803; where possunt habere.] 31 Trin. Lib. Gers. contr. the whole countenance of this matter. And this whole place M. Harding hath A mean borrowed, even word by word, out of Gerson1. But, whereas he addeth that the between both body of Christ, as it is united unto the Godhead, may be at one time in sundry places, he should have remembered that this is an old error, long sithence reproved and condemned by St Augustine and other learned fathers. St Augustine saith thus: Cavendum est,. ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. Non est autem consequens, ut, quod in Deo est, ita sit ubique, ut Deus: "We must beware that we do not so maintain the divine nature of Christ being man, that we take away the truth of his body. Neither doth it follow that the thing that is in God is therefore every where, as God is." St Augustine's words be plain, that whoso saith the body of Christ is every where (or in infinite places at one time, which is all one thing, the reason and miracle being like) utterly denieth the verity of Christ's body. 57. Prosp. 95, ad Leon. August. August. ... But what a fantasy is this, that "Christ's body is neither the Creator nor a creature, but," as it is here avouched, "after a manner between both ?" Who ever would warrant this doctrine, but that old heretic abbat Eutyches? Verily St In Lib. Sent. Augustine saith: Omnis substantia, quæ Deus non est, creatura est; et quæ creatura non est, Deus est... [et] quod Deo minus est, Deus non est3: "Every substance that is not God is a creature; and that is not a creature is God; and whatsoever is less than God is not God." Here St Augustine knoweth a Creator and a creature; but M. Harding's mean between both he knoweth not. Leo, writing against Eutyches, of whom M. Harding seemeth to have received this learning, Leon Epist. writeth thus: Emergunt alii, qui carnem Domini et divinitatem dicunt unius esse naturæ. Quæ tantum sacrilegium inferna vomuere?... Tolerabiliores sunt Ariani, &c.4: "Up there start others, that say the flesh of Christ and his divinity are both of one nature. What hell hath poured us out such wicked sacrilege? The very Arians are more to be borne withal than these men." St Augustine saith: Quod ad hominem attinet, creatura est Christus5: "Christ, as concerning his manhood, is (not a mean between both, but) a creature." Again he saith: Duas ...substantias, id est, naturas esse fatemur; divinitatis scilicet et humanitatis ; ... creatricis et creatæ: quæ tamen substantiæ, non... confusæ, sed unitæ, atque in una eademque persona inseparabiles, et in sua semper proprietate manentes: " confess there are in Christ two substances or natures; the one of the Godhead, the other of the manhood"; the one of the Creator, the other of the creature: which substances notwithstanding are not confused, but united, and in one selfsame person inseparable, and remaining evermore in their own properties." The like writeth Leo, Cyrillus, Gelasius, and all the rest of the old learned fathers. Therefore M. Harding was much overseen, either to teach the people that Christ's body is neither the Creator nor the creature, but a mean between both; or else to say that the same body, being united unto the Godhead, may therefore be in sundry places at one time. Herein rested the old heresy of Eutyches: for thus Flavianus writeth of him: Corpus Domini...humanum quidem... vocat; tamen negat esse nobis consubstantiales: "He calleth the body of our Lord a man's body; but yet he saith it is not one in substance with our bodies." Epist. 57. De Verb. Dom. in Evang. sec. Johan. cap. lviii. Flavian. 2d "We But M. Harding replieth: Christ's body is now become immortal and glorious. This is most true, and without all question. Howbeit, it may please him to remember, that when Christ ministered the holy communion to his disciples, his body was then mortal, and subject to death and other injuries, and not glorious. Therefore, if Christ's body in the sacrament be immortal and glorious, it must follow that for that present Christ hád two manner bodies; the one mortal, the [See before, page 480, note 2.] [ August. Op. 1679-1700. Lib. ad Dard. seu Epist. clxxxvii. 10. Tom. II. col. 681.] [3 Id. Prosp. Lib. Sentent. 55. Tom. X. Append. col. 227.] [4 Leon. Magni Op. Ad Leon. August. Epist. xcvii. cap. v. col. 505.. Leo, however, is quoting the words of Ambrose. See Ambros. Op. Par. 1686-90. Lib. de Incarn. Dom. Sacram. cap. vi. 49. Tom. II. col. 714; where dicant, and vomuerunt. As cited by Leo there are other slight variations.] [ Quod vero ad hominem, creatus est Christus. --August. Op. Lib. ad Dard. seu Epist. clxxxvii. 8. Tom. II. col. 680.] [ Id. de Myst. Trin. Serm. ccxlvi. 1. Tom. V. Append. col. 403.] [ Manhead, 1565.] [ Flavian. ad Leon. Epist. in Leon. Magni Op. col. 301; where non tamen nobis.] |