Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

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 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.

Errors touching Christ's body.

August. ad

Deum.

95.

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 had only a fantastical body, without any material flesh, blood, or bone, in appear- Quod-vultance and in sight somewhat, but in very deed and in substance nothing1. 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 ad Leon. 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 Fab. Hæret. 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.

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. Sacra 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 hominibus nota sunt, quia per homines fiunt, honorem, tanquam religiosa, habere possunt; Trin. Lib. 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

[4 August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Ad Quodvultd.

Lib. de Hær. 46. Tom. VIII. col. 16.]

[ Léon. 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 åvw, Tòv dè káтw.-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. 111. cap. x. 20. Tom. VIII. col. 803; where possunt habere.]

31

August. de

iii. cap. x.

A mean between

both.

Gers. contr.
Flor.

August. ad

Dard. Epist. 57.

Prosp.

95, ad Leon. August.

August.

the whole countenance of this, matter. And this whole place M. Harding hath borrowed, even word by word, out of Gerson'. But, whereas he addeth that the 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.

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 Christus: "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 ; ... Johan. cap. creatricis et creatæ : quæ tamen substantiæ, non...confusa, sed unitæ, atque in una eademque persona inseparabiles, et in sua semper proprietate manentes: “We 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.

Flavian. ad
Leon.

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 had two manner bodies; the one mortal, the

[See before, page 480, note 2.]

[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.]

[ Leon. Magni Op. Ad Leon. Angust. Epist. xevii. 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 Christes. -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.]

other immortal; the one glorious, the other not glorious. Thus M. Harding's A mean rules and examples match not together.

Psal. cxix.

between He addeth further: "Christ's body walked upon the waters, vanished out of both. sight, ascended through the clouds, and entered through the doors, being fast shut," &c. These were the reasons that deceived the old Manichees. I marvel that M. Harding, being (as he saith) lately become a professor of the catholic faith, would found the whole substance of his doctrine upon heretics. Touching the special trust that the Manichees reposed in this argument, St Hierome writeth thus: Cum dicit Manichæus, et similis Manichæorum, Dominus non resurrexit in Hieron. in corporis veritate, et, ut scias non fuisse verum corpus, clausis ingressus est ostiis, nos quid dicemus? Domine, libera animam meam a labiis iniquis, et a lingua dolosa: "When the Manichee, or any other like the Manichees, saith, The Lord arose not again in the truth of his body; and for proof thereof saith thus, He entered in when the doors were shut; what then shall we say? Even thus: O Lord, deliver my soul from wicked lips and deceitful tongues." Here we see M. Harding is driven to seek upon old condemned heretics, and to borrow their weapons; wherefore it shall be good to follow St Hierome's counsel, and to say: “O Lord, deliver my soul from wicked lips and deceitful tongues.”

Luc. Lib. x.

Likewise St Ambrose saith the apostles of Christ, by the same manner of reasoning, were deceived. For upon that, "Christ entered, the gates being shut," he writeth thus: Denique conturbati discipuli æstimabant se spiritum videre. Et Ambros. in ideo Dominus, ut speciem nobis resurrectionis ostenderet, Palpate, inquit, et videte; cap. xxiv. quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere1o: "The disciples, being astonied, thought they saw a spirit or a fantasy. Therefore the Lord, to shew a token of his resurrection, said unto them, 'Feel, and see; for a spirit or fantasy hath not flesh and bone, as you see that I have'." Now, if these arguments were able to deceive the apostles of Christ, it is not impossible but they may likewise deceive M. Harding. Chrysostom saith: Clausa erant ostia, et Chrysost. in ingressus est Jesus: ... non erat phantasma: non erat spiritus: vere corpus erat: Johan. Bapt. habebat carnes, et ossall: "The doors were shut; and Jesus entered: it was no fantasy: it was no spirit: it was verily a body: it had flesh and bones." Thus, notwithstanding these marvellous effects, yet the ancient godly fathers said, Christ's body nevertheless is, and continueth still a creature, not a mean between both, as M. Harding here strangely hath imagined. Now let us consider M. Harding's arguments:

Christ's body walked upon the waters:

It entered through the doors being shut:

It ascended through the clouds;

Ergo, it may be at one time in sundry places.

Although this argument may soon be espied, having utterly no manner sequel in reason, yet the folly thereof may the better appear by the like:

St Peter walked upon the water:

Elias was taken up into the clouds:

12;

St Bartholomew entered through the doors being shut 12

Ergo, St Peter, Elias, and St Bartholomew may be at one time in sundry places.

Hom. de

Matt. xiv.

2 Kings ii.

And that I allege here of St Bartholomew, although it be but a vain fable, yet it may not easily be denied. For it is recorded by Abdias the bishop of Abd. in Babylon 12, who, as Master Harding supposeth, saw Christ in the flesh, and was one of the apostles' fellows.

12

Over all this M. Harding throweth a sweet mist, to carry away the simple in the dark: Christ's body, saith he, is in the sacrament, not by local, but by substantial presence; carnally, but not in carnal manner; placed in the pix, in the hand, in the mouth, and yet in no place at all; a very natural body, even as

[ This passage does not appear in the place referred to.]

[10 Ambros. Op. Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. Lib. x. cap. xxiv. 169. Tom. I. col. 1540.]

[Chrysost. Op. Lat. Bas. 1547. De Joan.

Bapt. Hom. Tom. III. col. 426; where habebat
ossa.]

[12... apparuit regi apostolus, ostio clauso, in
cubiculo ipsius, &c.-Abd. Apost. Hist. Par. 1571.
Lib. VIII. fol. 97. 2.]

Barthol.

Epiphan.
August. ad
Quod-vult-
Deum.

August. Epist. 57.

it was upon the cross, yet without all manner quantity and dimensions or proportions of a body, that is, neither thick, nor broad, nor short, nor long; there now where before it was not, and yet without any shifting or change of places. Unless this man were fast asleep, he could never fall into so deep a dream. In these fantasies he seemeth well to agree with the old heretics Eutyches and Manichee. For even such a body they imagined that Christ received of the blessed virgin; and yet were they heretics notwithstanding. For which of all the old learned fathers ever taught us this strange doctrine? Who ever durst to spoil Christ of his place, of his quantity, and of the natural proportions of his body? If the doctors of the church say thus, why are they not alleged? If they say not thus, why is this matter carried away with such countenance of antiquity? Or why doth M. Harding thus avouch this unsensible and unsavoury learning, only upon his own credit, without the authority of any doctor? The Manichees in old times, the better to maintain their error, and to avoid absurdities, were driven to say there were two Gods; the one good, the other ill1. Even so M. Harding, to maintain his errors, and to avoid infinite absurdities, is driven to say: There are two Christs; the one local, the other not local; the one above, the other beneath; the one with proportion of body, the other without proportion. Howbeit, he seemeth to publish this principle unawares against himself. For if Christ's body in the sacrament be not local, as he saith, then is it no natural or real body. This rule St Augustine taketh to be infallible. His words be these: Tolle loca corporibus, et nusquam erunt; et quia2 nusquam erunt, nec erunt3: “Take away the places from the bodies, and the bodies shall be no where; and, because they shall be no where, they shall have no being;" and so shall be no bodies at all. And he speaketh not thus only of other natural bodies, but specially and namely of the body of Christ.

Certainly, the more spiritual a thing is, the more it is void from the circumstance and necessity of place. Wherefore, when M. Harding saith the body of Christ is in heaven as in a place, and in the sacrament without place; he Christ's body seemeth secretly to say that Christ's body in the sacrament is more glorious,

more glori

ous in the sacrament, than in heaven.

more spiritual, and divine, than is the very body of Christ indeed that is in heaven, in the glory of God the Father. Which conclusion, how well it may stand either with the rest of his own doctrine, or with the truth of our christian religion, I leave it in consideration to the reader.

But what needeth this new-devised difference of Christ's body local, and Christ's body not local? Or what forceth these men to say that only the bare substance of Christ's body is in the sacrament, without length, breadth, or any other respect of quantity? Will M. Harding now at the last forsake the reverend simplicity of his belief, and lean to reason? Or will he in God's secret mysteries give credit to his eyes, and hearken to the course of nature? Verily God, as he is able by his omnipotent power to make Christ's body present without place and quantity; so is he likewise able to make the same body present in place, and with quantity, and all other natural dimensions. If M. Harding will say nay, Scot. iv. Sent. Duns himself, his own doctor, will reprove him. His words be plain: Idem corpus localiter et dimensive potest esse in diversis locis. Et Deus potest quodcunque corpus universi convertere in corpus Christi, sicut panem; et facere corpus Christi ubique esse, non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam localiter et dimensionaliter3: “One body, both locally and with the natural dimensions of a body, may be in sundry places. And God is able to turn any body in the world into the body of Christ, as well as bread; and to cause Christ's body to be every where, not only by way of sacrament, but also by way of place and dimensions." Which saying seemeth

Dist. 10.

Quæst. 2.

['Epiphan. Op. Par. 1622. Adv. Hær. Lib. II.
Hær. lxvi. 8. Tom. I. P. 625.

August. Op. Par. 1679-1700. Lib. de Hær. 46.
Tom. VIII. col. 13.]

[2 Qui, 1565.]

[3 Id. Lib. ad Dard. seu Epist. clxxxvii. 18. Tom. II. col. 683; where spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam.]

[* That, 1611.]

[5...dico, idem corpus simul esse localiter in diversis locis, &c.......ipsi concedunt, quod corpus Christi posset ubique esse sacramentaliter: posset enim Deus quodcumque corpus universi convertere in corpus Christi, sicut panem; et ego dico, quod non est major limitatio ad esse alicubi localiter quam sacramentaliter, comparando ad potentiam Dei.-Joan. Duns Scot. Op. Lugd. 1639. In Lib. IV. Sentent. Dist. x. Quæst. 2. Tom. VIII. pp. 513, 9.]

6 parte Can.

Hales. iv.

Memb. 3.

also to be well liked and allowed of Durandus. Therefore M. Harding should Lib. iv. de not thus nicely shrink back, and so dissemble in dark speeches; but should rather boldly and plainly say, Christ's body is in the sacrament, not only substantially, but also locally and by way of place; as having as good warrant for the one as for the other. For it is a catholic man's part to be bold of God's omnipotent power; and whatsoever God, being omnipotent, is able to do, to believe it is already done, without any regard had to his will or promise. If he think it lawful for him without cause to deny this manner of Christ's presence, let him not be offended, if we upon good and just cause deny the other. Verily Alexander de Hales, a great doctor of that side, reckoneth M. Harding to be in a great error in this behalf. This is his resolution: Quidam ponebant corpus Alex. de Christi esse sub sacramento, non secundum quantitatem, &c. ... Sed hæc positio est Quæst. 40. erronea: "Some holds that Christ's body is under the sacrament, not according unto quantity; but this opinion is erroneous." Thus much I thought good only to touch; not so much for any great credit of the author, but that it may appear that, notwithstanding all these men would so fain have Christ really and fleshly present, yet they reprove one another of error and ignorance, and cannot agree among themselves in what sort they may have him present. Howbeit, the ancient fathers of the church have written far otherwise in this behalf. For like as Athanasius saith, Equalis Patri secundum divinitatem; minor Patre secundum humanitatem; "Christ, according to his divine nature, is equal unto the Father; and according to his manhood 10 is inferior unto the Father;" even so saith Gregory Nazianzene: "Christ, according to his body, is within the limitation of Gregor. Naplace: according to his spirit and Godhead, he is without the limits of any Apoll. περίγραπο place." But, that any one of all the old fathers ever said, "Christ's body is τος σωμαsometime in one place and sometime in many, sometime limited and sometime T, TÉρínot limited;" I think it not easy for M. Harding well to prove.

zianz. contr.

γραπτος πνεύματι...

ρητος.

As for the difference that he hath devised, of visible and unvisible, local χωρητὸς, and not local, which is both trench and bulwark to maintain this piece 12, it is kai axwa very toy, only meet to beguile children; as neither having foundation in the scriptures or holy fathers, nor effectually serving to prove his purpose. For we reason not of respects and qualities; but, as St Augustine, St Cyril, and other catholic doctors do, of the very nature and substance of Christ's body. Neither can M. Harding well maintain that whatsoever is invisible is therefore of nature infinite, or may be at one time in a thousand places. As touching Christ's being in a mystery, as it requireth no local presence, according to M. Harding's own confession, so likewise it requireth no natural or real body; as hereafter, God willing, it shall be shewed more at large.

M. HARDING. THE SECOND DIVISION.

And how the ancient fathers of the church have confessed and taught both these beings, of Christ in heaven and in the sacrament together, contrary to M. Jewel's negative, by witness of their own words we may perceive. Basil in his liturgy, that is to say, service of mass13, saith thus in a prayer: "Look down upon us, Lord Jesus Christ, our God, from thy holy tabernacle, and from the throne of glory of thy kingdom, and come to sanctify us, which sittest sedes, et hic in above with thy Father, and art* conversant here invisibly; and vouchsafe* No bodily, to impart unto us thine undefiled body and precious blood, and by us to and grace. all thy people 14."

[Qui supra cum Patre

visibiliter versaris. H. A. 1564,]

[6...idem corpus totum simul in diversis locis consistit, et a diversis percipitur, &c.-Durand. Rat. Div. Offic. Lugd. 1565. Lib. IV. cap. xli. 25. fol. 164. 2.]

[ Alex. Ales. Summ. Theol. Col. Agrip. 1622. Pars IV. Quæst. x. Membr. vii. Art. iii. 4. p. 352.] [8 Held, 1565.]

[ Athanas. Op. Par. 1698. Symb. de Fid. Cathol. Tom. II. p. 729.] [10 Manhead, 1565.] Gregor. Nazianz. Op. Par. 1778-1840.

[

Ad

Cledon. contr. Apoll. Epist. ci. Tom. II. p. 85; where
περίγραπτον, απερίγραπτον, χωρητὸν, and ἀχώ-
ρητον.]

[12 Piece: castle.]

[13 Of his mass, H. A. 1564.]

[14 Πρόσχες Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐξ ἁγίου κατοικητηρίου σου, καὶ ἀπὸ θρόνου δόξης τῆς βασιλείας σου, καὶ ἐλθὲ εἰς τὸ ἁγιάσαι ἡμᾶς, ὁ ἄνω τῷ Πατρὶ συγκαθήμενος, καὶ ὧδε ἡμῖν ἀοράτως συνώ · καὶ καταξίωσον τῇ κραταιᾷ σου χειρὶ

but by Spirit

« PoprzedniaDalej »