That Tertullian in this place is so to be understanded, we are taught by the great learned bishop St Augustine, and by Hilarius, who was bishop of Rome next De Consecr. figura. thority in St name. after Leo the first. St Augustine's words be these: Corpus Christi et A bastard auveritas et figura est: veritas, dum corpus Christi et sanguis [in] virtute Augustine's Spiritus sancti... ex panis et vini substantia efficitur; figura vero est...quod exterius sentitur: "The body of Christ is both the truth and the figure: the truth, whiles the body of Christ and his blood by the power of the Holy Ghost is made of the* substance of bread and wine; and it is the figure, Christ's that is with outward sense perceived." body of the substance of bread. shunneth his Where St Augustine here saith the body and blood of Christ to be made of the substance of bread and wine, beware, thou unlearned man, thou think them not M. Harding thereof to be made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and own doctor. wine, neither that they be made of bread and wine as of a matter; but that, where bread and wine were before, after consecration there is the very body and blood of Christ born of the virgin Mary, and that in substance, in sort and manner to our weak reason incomprehensible. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. 66 These words are bastard and misbegotten, as nothing resembling neither the sense nor the words of St Augustine, but rather contrary to them both. They are alleged only by certain late writers, as namely by Gratian, by Peter Lombard, and by Algerius, as other things also be without any great choice or judgment. Only St Augustine, upon whom they are fathered, and therefore should best know them, knoweth them not. Howbeit, by whatsoever name we may call this new doctor, M. Harding findeth him so far and so rank of his side, that he is fain to check him of too much riot, and to call him back. Beware, thou unlearned man," saith he: if thou take not very good heed, this new doctor, whom I call St Augustine, will deceive thee. This Augustine saith, Christ's body is made of the substance of bread; but say thou, Christ's body is not made of the substance of bread. This Augustine saith twice together in one place, Christ's body is created; but he was not well advised what he said; therefore say thou, Christ's body is not created: believe not this Augustine's words: he saith one thing, and thinketh another. Thus this doctor is set to school. But it may well be doubted, whether we ought to give more credit to this young St Augustine, that cannot tell his own tale, or to M. Harding's commentary, that goeth so far beside the text. If these words be false, why doth M. Harding here allege them? why are they not rectified, either by Gratian, or by the gloss, or at least by some note in the margin? And why are they published for a rule of our faith? If they be true, why should we shun them? Or why should we beware and take heed of them, specially being uttered without figure, or metaphor, or heat of speech? Dist. 2. can. M. HARDING. THE EIGHTH DIVISION. 8 The words of Hilarius the pope utter the same doctrine: Corpus Christi quod sumitur de altari figura est, dum panis et vinum videtur extra; Corpus Christi. veritas autem, dum corpus... Christi...interius creditur9: "The body of Christ, which is received from the altar, is the figure, whiles bread and wine are seen outwardly; and it is the truth, whiles the body and blood of Christ are believed inwardly." [ August. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugd. 1624. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 72. col. 1951. Gratian refers to Paschasius, Rabanus, and Algerus for this canon. See also Pet. Lomb. Lib. Sentent. Col. Agrip. 1576. Lib. iv. Dist. 1. D. fol. 352. 2.] [7 Not them, H. A. 1564.] [ Figurata, 1609, 1611.] [ Hilar. in Corp. Jur. Canon. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars, De Consecr. Dist. ii. can. 79. col. 1956; where we have extra videtur.] Intus. Foris. Extra. Interius. August. August. Epist. 50. THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. These words of Hilary are partly answered before. His meaning is this: The bread that we see with our senses is the figure; but the very substance of the sacrament, that thereby is signified, is the body of Christ in heaven. The bread is received with our bodily mouth; the body of Christ only with our faith. And thus these two words, extra and interius, which Hilary useth, have relation to our mouth and to our faith, and so to the sacrament that is present before us, and to the body of Christ that is at the right hand of God. And in this sense St Augustine saith: Aqua...exhibet forinsecus sacramentum gratiæ; et Spiritus operatur intrinsecus beneficium gratiæ1: "The water outwardly sheweth the sacrament of grace; and inwardly the Spirit worketh the benefit of grace." And, to come near to the words of Hilary, St Augustine again saith: Habent foris sacramentum corporis Christi; sed rem ipsam non tenent intus, cujus est illud sacramentum2: "Outwardly they have the sacrament of Christ's body; but inwardly they have not the thing itself, whereof that thing is a sacrament.” Further, we may say that Christ's body is in the sacrament itself, understanding it to be there as in a mystery. But to this manner of being there is required neither circumstance of place, nor any corporal or real presence. So Chrysostom Chrysost. in saith: Oleum visibile in signo est: oleum invisibile in sacramento est. Oleum spi Psal. xliv. Paulin. ad rituale intus est: oleum visibile exterius est3: "The visible oil is in a token: the oil invisible is in a sacrament. The spiritual oil is within: the visible oil is without." So Paulinus writeth to Cytherius: In suarum literarum corpore Paulus magister adfuit: "Paul the teacher was present in the body of his letters." So St Augustine: Novum testamentum absconditum erat in lege5: "The new tesExod. Lib. ii, tament was hidden in the law." So the ancient father Origen: In vestimento poderis erat universus mundus: "The whole world was in the priest's long Chrysost. in gown." So Chrysostom: In scripturis insertum est regnum Dei: “The kingdom August. in Op. Imperf. II. Act. 6. of God is inclosed in the scriptures." So Paulinus, writing unto St Augustine: In hoc pane Trinitatis soliditas continetur8: "In this cake the perfection of the holy Trinity is contained." I use purposely the more examples in this behalf, for that I see many of simplicity are deceived, thinking that one thing cannot possibly be in another, unless it be contained in the same presently, really, and Concil. Nic. indeed. Yet it is written in that fond council of Nice the second: Qui imaginem imperatoris videt, in ea imperatorem ipsum contemplatur 9: "He, that seeth the emperor's image, in the same seeth the emperor himself." Likewise saith Prudentius: Legis in effigie scriptus per ænigmata Christus 10: "Christ written by figure in the shew of the law." Therefore M. Harding's error herein standeth in over gross understanding of these words extra and interius. For by the former he can conceive nothing else but accidents, by the latter 12 nothing but Christ's body under the same secretly hidden; which was never any part of this holy father's meaning. [August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Ad Bonifac. Epist. xcviii. 2. Tom. II. col. 264; where exhibens and operans.] [2... in Christi corpore, cujus habent foris sacramentum, sed rem, &c.-Id. ad Bonifac. Epist. clxxxv. seu De Correct. Donatist. Lib. cap. xi. 50. Tom. II. col. 663.] [ Possibly the following may be the passage intended:... μὴ ἁπλῶς ἔλαιον νόμιζε, ἀλλὰ τὴν χρίσιν νόει. καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἔλαιον σύμβολον τοῦ πνεύματος ἦν, καὶ τὸ προηγούμενον καὶ ἀναγκαῖον τὸ πνεῦμα v.-Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. Expos. in Psalm. xliv. Tom. V. p. 176.] [ Paulin. Op. Antv. 1622. Ad Cyther. xiii. p. 489.] [5 An forte significat novum testamentum nomine Jesu, et absconditum esse in lege, &c.-August. Op. Quæst. in Hept. Lib. 11. Quæst. ciii. Tom. III. Pars I. col. 454.] [ Orig. Op. Par. 1733-59. De Princip. Lib. II. cap. iii. 6. Tom. I. p. 82. Origen quotes this from the book called the Wisdom of Solomon. See Wisd. xviii. 24.] ... [7 in illis [scripturis] insertum est regnum cœlorum. Chrysost. Op. Op. Imperf. in Matt. Hom. xliv. ex cap. xxiii. Tom. VI. p. clxxxvi.] [ Paulin. et Theras. Epist. ad Alyp. in August. Op. Epist. xxiv. 6. Tom. II. col. 36; where in quo etiam Trinitatis.] [9 Refut. falso Nom. Def. Tom. IV. in Concil. Nic. 11. Act. VI. in Concil. Stud. Labb. et Cossart. Lut. Par. 1671-2. Tom. VII. col. 456.] [10 Aur. Prud. Op. Han. 1613. Apoth. Adv. Jud. v. 399. p. 174; where scriptum, and Christum.] [ Figures, 1565, 1609.] [12 Later, 1565.] shift. By this exposition how can itself be a understand words. Thus the fathers call not only the sacrament, but also the body and blood of Christ itself in the sacrament, sometimes the truth, sometimes a figure; the truth, that is to wit, the very and true body and blood of Christ; a figure, in respect of the manner of being of the same there present, which is really and substantially, but invisibly, under the visible form of the outward elements. And so Tertullian A miserable meaneth by this 13, "That is, the figure of my body;" as though Christ had shewed by the word hoc that which was visible, which verily is the figure of the body, Christ's body right so as that which is the invisible inward thing is the truth of the body. figure? Which interpretation of Tertullian indeed is not according to the right sense of Tertullian Christ's words, though his meaning swerve not from the truth. For, where as our ethnot Lord said, "This is my body," he meant not so as though he had said, The out- Christ's ward form of the sacrament, which here I deliver to you, is a figure of my body under the same contained; forasmuch as by these words, hoc est, he shewed not the visible form of bread, but the substance of his very body, into which by his divine power he turned the bread. And therefore (192) none of all the fathers ever so The hundred expounded those words of Christ, but contrariwise, namely Theophylact and secondIn Matt.cap.xxvi. Damascene. "He said not," saith Theophylact, "this is a figure, but truth, notoLib. iv. cap. xiv. this is my body 14" "The bread nor wine 15" (meaning their outward For M. Hardforms), saith Damascene*, “is not a figure of the body and blood of Christ: not that all the so in no wise. But it is the body itself of our Lord deificated; sith our Lord expounded it himself saith, 'This is my body,' not the figure of my body, but my body; and not *Outward the figure of my blood, but my blood, &c.16" THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. rious. ninety ing knoweth old fathers SO. forms and accidents are Christ's body itself. Dist. 2. Doctr. Christ. Here is imagined another strange kind of figures. For Christ's body itself is now become a figure. But Hilarius saith: Figura est, quod extra videtur 17: De Consecr. "The figure is that is seen outwardly." And St Augustine saith: Signum est Corpus. quod speciem ingerit oculis 18: "A sign is a thing that offereth a sight unto the August de eyes." Wherefore, by M. Harding's judgment, Christ's very body appeareth Lib. ii. cap. i. outwardly, and is seen in the sacrament with our corporal eyes. If so, how then is it there secretly, as he said before, and under covert? If not, how then can M. Harding it be called a figure? In confessing the one, he must needs deny the other. himself. If Christ's body be a figure, it is not in covert: if it be in covert, it is not a figure. He will say, the accidents and shews are figures of Christ's body there hidden. And again, the same body so invisibly hidden is a figure of that body that died visibly upon the cross. Thus, where as others may not once name any figure in these cases, it is lawful for M. Harding to heap figure upon figure; and that not such figures as have been used by any the ancient fathers, but such as he himself for a shift can best devise. Tertullian, saith M. Harding, supposeth that Christ, when he had the bread in his hand, and said hoc, "this," shewed only the visible accidents and forms of bread, as if Christ had said: This whiteness, this roundness, this breadth, this lightness, &c., is my body: by which skilful construction it must needs follow, that Christ had a body made of accidents. "Howbeit," saith M. Harding, "this interpretation of Tertullian indeed is not according to the right sense of Christ's words." Hereby it appeareth what affiance M. Harding hath in the judgment of this learned father. After so many fair words, he beginneth utterly to mislike him, and concludeth in the end, that he wrote he knew not what, and took upon him to expound Christ's words, and [13 His, 1565, 1609, and H. A. 1564.] [14 Οὐ γὰρ εἶπε τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀντίτυπον, ἀλλὰ TOUTÓ ÉOTL Tò owμá μov.-Theophyl. Op. Venet. 1754-63. In Matt. Comm. cap. xxvi. Tom. I. p. 146.] [15 Nor the wine, H. A. 1564.] [15 Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ· μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλ ̓ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου τεθεωμένον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰπόντος, τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ, οὐ τύπος τοῦ σώ- [18 Signum est enim res præter speciem, quam contrary to 1 Cor. x. yet understood not what Christ meant; and that not in any deep allegory, or other spiritual or secret meaning, but even in the very literal sense and outward sound of Christ's words. And thus Tertullian is charged, not only with ignorance, but also with presumption. But if, as M. Harding saith, Tertullian understood not Christ's meaning, what if some man would likewise say, M. Harding understandeth not Tertullian's meaning? And what if the simple reader understand not M. Harding's meaning? It were too much to say further, M. Harding understandeth not his own meaning. Verily Tertullian not once nameth any one of all these M. Harding's strange fantasies, neither form, nor accident, nor visible, nor invisible, nor outward element, nor secret presence, nor really, nor substantially, nor I know not what. He wrote and meant plainly in these cases, as others the learned fathers wrote and meant. And touching the words of Christ, "This is my body;" he saith not, These shews or accidents of bread, as M. Harding full unadvisedly expoundeth him, but, "This bread is my body." Wherein he hath the consent both of the scriptures, and also of the ancient doctors of the church. St Paul saith: (Not the outward form or accident, but) "the bread that we break, is the participation of Christ's Iren. Lib. iv. body." Irenæus saith: Panis in quo gratiæ actæ sunt, est corpus Domini1: "The bread, wherein thanks are given, is the body of the Lord." Origen saith: Orig. In Matt. Dominus panem discipulis dabat, dicens, Hoc est corpus meum2: "Our Lord gave Cypr. Lib. ii. bread unto his disciples, saying, 'This is my body"." So St Cyprian: Vinum fuit, Epist. 3. quod sanguinem suum dixit3: "It was wine that he called his blood." So Chry cap. xxxiv. Tractat. 12. Matt. Hom. 83. Cyril. in cap. xiv. Chrysost. in sostom: Christus, cum hoc mysterium tradidit, vinum tradidit1: "Christ, when he gave this mystery, he gave wine." Likewise Cyrillus: Christus fragmenta panis Joan. Lib. iv. dedit discipulis: "Christ gave fragments or pieces of bread to his disciples." Thus Tertullian understood and expounded the words of Christ. Wherefore it is great folly to charge him with this new imagination of accidents, and so unadvisedly and without cause to reprove him for speaking that he never spake. By these we may the better judge of M. Harding's own exposition. For thus he saith: "When Christ said hoc, 'this,' he shewed not forth the visible accident or form of bread, but his very natural body." It appeareth that M. Harding either little considereth, or not much regardeth his own words. For all the rest of his side hold for most certain, that their transubstantiation is not wrought before the uttering of the last syllable. Which thing notwithstanding, M. Harding, contrary to all his fellows (I will not say, contrary to himself), saith that the bread is turned into Christ's body only at the utterance of the first syllable. And so, by this new divinity, Christ's body is made present, and the sacrament is a sacrament, before consecration; and all is ended before it be begun which in M. Harding's schools, not long sithence, was counted an error above all errors; which to shift, they were fain to devise individuum vagum. Again, if this pronoun hoc have relation to Christ's body, then must we of force, by M. Harding's fantasy, thus expound the words of Christ: "This is my body;" that is to say, "my body is my body:" which exposition of M. Iniv.Sentent. Harding's, D. Holcote saith, is vain, and peevish, and to no purpose". Quæst. 3. And, whereas M. Harding saith none of all the old fathers ever expounded these words of Christ by a figure, I marvel he can so boldly utter and publish so great untruth without blushing. For he knoweth right well that scarcely any one of all the old fathers ever expounded it otherwise. Damascene and Theophylact are very young doctors in comparison of them [Iren. Op. Par. 1710. Contr. Hær. Lib. 1v. cap. xviii. p. 251; where panem, sint, and corpus esse.] [ ...διὰ τοῦτο πρῶτον δίδωσι τὴν ἄρτον εὐλο γήσας καὶ κλάσας τοῖς μαθηταῖς, κ.τ.λ.—Orig. Op. Par. 1733-59. Comm. in Matt. XVI. 7. Tom. III. p. 720. See also Op. Basil. 1545. In Matt. Tract. xii. Tom. II. p. 98.] [3 vinum fuisse, quod, &c.-Cypr. Op. Oxon. 1682. Ad Cæcil. Epist. lxiii. p.152.] [Chrysost. Op. Par. 1718-38. In Matt. Hom. lxxxii. Tom. VII. p. 784.] [ Cyril. Alex. Op. Lut. 1638. In Joan. Evang. Lib. IV. cap. ii. Tom. IV. p. 360. See before, page 149, note 14.] [ Unde non intendit [sacerdos] demonstrare aliquid quod est ibi realiter, quando profert illud pronomen hoc: sed intendit demonstrare illud quod erit in fine prolationis, &c.-Rob. Holkot. sup. Quat. Lib. Sentent. Lugd. 1497. Lib. IV. Quæst. iii. fol. n. iii. See also ibid. fol. m. vii.] Yet that we may justly call old, as standing far without the compass of the first six M. HARDING. THE TENTH DIVISION. And the cause why Tertullian so expounded these words of Christ was, that thereby he might take advantage against Marcion the heretic; as many times the fathers in heat of disputation do handle some places, not after the exact signification of the words, but rather follow such way as serveth them best to confute their adversary. Which manner not reporting any untruth St Basil doth excuse in the setting forth of a disputation, not in prescribing of a doctrine. As he deEpist. 64 fendeth Gregorius Neocæsariensis against the Sabellians, for that in a contention he had with Elianus, an ethnick, to declare the mysteries of the Trinity, he used the word ὑπόστασις instead of οὐσία. And the learned men that be well seen in the fathers know they must use a discretion and a sundry judge9 between the things they write agonistikos, that is to say, by way of contention or disputation, and the things they utter dogmatikos that is, by way of setting forth a doctrine or matter of faith. Neither in that contention did Tertullian so much Tertullian reregard the exact use of words, as how he might win his purpose, and drive his the exact use adversary, denying that Christ took the true body of man, and that he suffered of folly! death indeed to confess the truth, which he thought to bring to pass, by deducing eth him to of an argument from the figure of his body, which consisteth in that which is prove this by visible in the sacrament, to prove the verity of his body. And therefore in framing had thought his reason by way of illation he saith: Figura autem non esset, nisi veritatis esset body itself corpus: "There were not a figure, unless there were a body of truth, or a very present? body indeed." THE BISHOP OF SARISBURY. Here M. Harding courteously deviseth a favourable excuse for Tertullian, not thinking it best, being so ancient a father and so near to the apostles' time, utterly to condemn him of folly. He uttered all this, saith he, in heat of contention, rashly and unadvisedly, and understood not what he said, neither had any great regard to the exact use of his words. Howbeit, Tertullian not only spake these words upon the sudden, but also leisurely and with study wrote them; and yet, afterward quietly perusing and considering the same, was never able to espy this fault. garded 19 not of his words. What need a figure, if he that Christ's was really 2 ad Tim. ii. But that such cases of heat may sometimes happen, we have over good trial in M. Harding; whom, as it now appeareth, contention hath caused so many ways and so far to overreach the truth, and to have so small regard to that he writeth. St Ambrose saith: Apostolus...impudoratos appellat eos, qui conten- Ambros. in tionibus nituntur: necesse est enim, ut contentio extorqueat aliquid, imo multa, quæ dicantur contra conscientiam; ut intus in animo perdat, foris victor abscedat: non enim patitur se vinci, licet sciat vera [esse], quæ audit13: "The apostle calleth them impudent that hold by contention. For it cannot be chosen, but that contention must force a man to say something, or rather many things, against his conscience; that he lose in his mind within, to the intent outwardly he may seem to have the victory. For he will not suffer himself to be conquered; no, although he know the things that he heareth be never so true." Afterward, being thus carried away with contention, and more regarding their own reputation than the truth of God, as Lactantius saith, they seek reasons and shifts to Lactant. [7 Freight, 1565.] ώς [* Καθῆκαν δέ τινα πεῖραν δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἄρα Γρηγορίου εἰπόντος ἐν ἐκθέσει πίστεως, Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν ἐπινοίᾳ μὲν εἶναι δύο, ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι οὐ δογματικῶς εἴρηται, ἀλλ ̓ ἀγω‐ νιστικῶς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Αἰλιανὸν διαλέξει, οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν συνιδεῖν, κ. τ. λ. Basil. Op. Par. 1721-30. Ad Prim. Neoc. Epist. ccx. 5. Tom. III. p. 316.] ["Needed, 1565.] [12 H.A. 1564 omits of.] Videri volunt, non tantum cum venia, sed etiam cum ratione pec care. |