Answer unto a Crafy and Sophistical Cavillation, Debate · Confutation of book 3 · Section 64
Winchester.
This answere to Hylary, in the lxxviii. leafe requyreth a playne precise issue, worthy to be tried apparant at hand. The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me, who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely (as the copy did serue) and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin. This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy,An issue. because I hauehave Hilary now better correct, which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did, and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for, as is that in the book that I hauehave now better correct. Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these.Hylarius. Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est: qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit, & naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramēto nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit? Itae enim omnes vnum sumus, quia & in Christo pater est, & Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater, & Christus in nobis vnum in ijs esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur, carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit, & verè homo ille qui ex Maria natu… fuit Christus est, nos que vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnum erimus, quia pater in co est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si… vnitatis? My translation is this. If the word was made verely flesh, and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh, in our Lordes meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in vsus: who being borne man, hath taken vntounto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered, and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity, vnderunder the Sacrament of the communion of his flesh vntounto vsus, for so we be all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ in vsus. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ, must denye first either himselfe to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not to be naturally in him, for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vsus, maketh vsus to be one in them. And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the flesh of our body, and the man that was born of the virgine Mary is verely Christ, and allowe verely receiue vnderunder a mistery the flesh of his body, by meanes wherof we shalbe one, for the father is in Christ, and Christ in vsus: how shall that be called the vnitye of will, when the natural propriety brought to passe by the Sacrament, is the Sacramēt of perfect vnity?
This translation differeth from myne other, wherat this author findeth fault, but wherin? the word (Vero) was in the other coppy an adiectiue, and I ioyned it wyth (Misterio) & therfore sayd the true mistery: which word (mistery) needed no such adiectiue (true), for eueryevery mistery is true of it selfe. But to say, as Hilary truely correct sayth, that we receyue vnderunder the mistery, truely, the flesh of Christes body, that word (truely,) so placed, setteth forth liuely the reall presence, and substantiall presence, of that is receiued, and repeteth agayne the same that was before sayd, to the more vehemency of it. So as this correction is better then my first copy, and according to this correction, is Hilarius alleaged by Melancthon to Decolampadius: for the same purpose I alleage him. An other alteration in the translation thou séest reader in the word (Perfectae) which in my copy was (Perfecta) and so was ioyned to (Proprietas) which now in the genetiue case ioyned to (Vnitatis) geueth an excellent sence to the dignity of the Sacrament, how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrrament, is a Sacrament of perfect vnity, so as the perfect vnity of vsus with Christ,An issue. is to hauehave his flesh in vsus and to hauehave Christ bodely and naturally dwelling in vsus by his manhood, as he dwelleth in vsus spiritually by his Godhead: and now I speak in such phrase as Hylarie and Cyrill speake, and vse the words, whatsoeuer thys author sayth, as I will iustifye by their playne wordes.
And so I ioyne now with this author an Issue, that I hauehave not peruersely vsed the allegation of Hylary, but alleadged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter: which Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate, entreateth how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ, among which he accompteth fayth for one: then he commeth to the vnity in Baptisme,Unity in fayth. Unity in baptisme. where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities, and because there is but one Baptisme, and all that be baptised be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing, be, as he sayth, in nature one. From that vnity in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitye with Christ in flesh,Unity in flesh. which he calleth ye Sacrament of perfect vnity, declaring how it is whē Christ, who tooke truely our flesh mortal, in the vyrgins womb, deliuereth vsus the same flesh glorified truely to be communicate with our flesh, wherby as we be naturally in Christ, so Christ is naturally in vsus: and when this is brought to passe, then the vnitie betwéen Christ and vsus is perfected. For as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence, by the diuine nature: So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh, which he toke in the virgins wombe, and he naturally in vsus, by the same flesh in him glorified, and geuen to vsus, and receiued of vsus in the Sacrament For Hilarie sayth in playne words,Hylarius. how Christes very flesh, and Christes very bloud receyued and drunken (Accepta & hausta) bring this to pas. And it is notable how Hilarie compareth together ye (truely) in Christes taking of our flesh in the virgins wombe, with the (truely) of our taking of his flesh (In cibo dominica) in our Lordes meat: by which words, he expresseth the Sacrament, and after reproueth those that said: we were onelyonly vnited by obedience and will of religion to Christ, and by him so to the Father, as though by the Sacrament of flesh and bloud, no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vntounto vsus: whereas both by the honour geuen vntounto vsus, we be the sonnes of God, and by the sonne dwelling carnally in vsus, and we beyng corporally and inseparably vnite in hym, the mistery of true and naturall vnity is to be preached. These be Hilaries wordes: for this latter part, where thou hearest reader, the son of God to dwell carnally in vsus, not after mans grosse imagination, for we may not so thinke of Godly misteries, but (carnally) is referred to the truth of Christes flesh,Carnally. geuen to vsus in this Sacrament: and so is (naturally) to be vnderstanded,Naturally. that we receaue Christes naturall flesh, for the truth of it, as Christ receyued our naurall flesh of the virgine, although we receaue Christes flesh glorified incorruptible, very spiritual, and in a spiritual maner deliuered vntounto vsus. Here is mention made of the word (corporall) but I shall speake of that in the discussiō of Cyrill. This Hylary was before S. Augustine, and was known both of him and S. Hierome, who called him (Tubam latini eloquij) against the Arrians. Neuer man foūd fault at this notable place of Hylary. Now let vsus consider how the author of this booke forgetteth himselfe, to call Christ in vsus naturally by his Godhead, which were then to make vsus al Gods by nature, which is ouer great an absurdity, and Christ in his diuine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally, & in vsus by grace. But as we receaue him in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receiue hym worthily, so dwelleth he in vsus naturally, for the naturall communication of our nature and hys. And therfore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference betwéene our vnyon to Christ in Baptisme, and in the supper, let him trust in him no more that told hym so: or if this author will take vponupon him as of his owne knowledge, then I must say, and if he were another would say an aunswere in french, that I will not expresse. And hereupon will I ioynin the Issue,An issue. yt in Hylary the matter is so playn otherwise then this author rehearseth, as it hath no coulor of defence to the contrary. And what Hylary speaketh of Baptisme and our vnity therin, I hauehave before touched, and this vnity in flesh is after treated apart.
What shall I say to this so manifest vntruth? but that it confirmeth that I hauehave in other obserued, how there was neuer one of them that I hauehave red writing against the Sacrament, but hath in his writings sayd somewhat so euidently in the matter, or out of the matter discrepant from truth, as might be a certayn marke to iudge the quality of his spirite.