Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 12: The Testimony of St. Hilary
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Blessed Hilary was the equal of Athanasius; for these two eminent doctors the Lord raised up together to defend the faith against the Arians—the one in the East, the other in the West. He, then, says thus in Book 8 On the Trinity: “For if the Word was truly made flesh, and we truly receive the Word made flesh in the Lord’s food, how is He not to be thought to abide in us naturally?” And below: “Concerning the truth of the flesh and blood no room for doubting is left; for now, both by the profession of the Lord Himself and by our faith, it is truly flesh and truly blood,” and so forth.
To these the adversaries answer in two ways; nor have they besides any passage which they bring forward from Hilary. Calvin, in his last admonition to Westphal, contends that Hilary speaks hyperbolically. But he is most easily refuted from Hilary himself, who, as if he had foreseen what Calvin would say, in that very place affirms that he speaks properly and simply; for he says thus: “We must not speak of the things of God with a human or worldly sense, nor by a violent and shameless preaching is a perversity foreign and impious to sound understanding to be wrested from heavenly sayings. Let us read what is written, and understand what we read, and then we shall fulfill the office of perfect faith. For concerning the natural truth of Christ in us, what we say, unless we learn it from Him, we say foolishly and impiously; for He Himself says: My flesh is meat indeed,” and so forth. You see how Hilary says that he asserts nothing by a human or worldly sense, but only that which Scripture itself, rightly understood, teaches. Besides, since Hilary disputes against the Arians, and from the natural union of Christ with us through the sacrament of the Eucharist concludes a natural union between God the Father and God the Son, if he speaks hyperbolically of the natural union of Christ with us, it will be necessary that he speak hyperbolically also of the union of the Father and the Son; from which it will follow either that he was an Arian, or that he defended the cause of the faith unskillfully; for the Arians would not have denied a natural union between the Father and the Son hyperbolically.
Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, part 4, Theodore Beza in the Dialogue Cyclops against Heshusius, and Peter Boquin in his book On the Supper of the Lord against the same, answer that Hilary, when he says we truly receive in the Eucharist the flesh of the Lord, understands a spiritual reception which is made by faith; but when he says that Christ is naturally united with us, understands the union which was made in the Incarnation. For Christ is naturally united with us because He assumed the nature of our flesh.
Peter Martyr adds that a natural union in Hilary is not a real commingling of natures, but is some union greater than a union of wills; for he opposes a natural union to a union by the consent of the will alone, which the Arians placed in the Father and the Son. And this natural union, that is, greater than that of the will alone, we have with Christ, according to Peter Martyr, both because, as we said, Christ assumed our nature, and because through faith in the Sacrament we truly receive His flesh. And Peter Martyr proves that Hilary does not speak of a real commingling of natures when he says that Christ is united with us naturally through the Eucharist, because Hilary posits five natural unions. For first he says that all the faithful are one naturally, because through faith they are one. Secondly he says that we are one naturally, because we are one through regeneration. Thirdly he says that we are one naturally, because we are one through the sacrament of Baptism. Fourthly he says that we are one with the Father and the Son through the honor communicated to us by Christ. Fifthly he says that we are one with Christ naturally through the Eucharist. As therefore those unions—through faith, through regeneration, through Baptism, through honor—are called natural, because they include something beyond the consent of the will, although they include no commingling of natures, so also the union by which we are joined to Christ, while through faith we apprehend His flesh, can be called natural, although it include no real union of the flesh of the Lord with ours. So he.
But these figments of the adversaries can be refuted from Hilary himself in many ways. First, from those words: “We truly receive the Word made flesh in the Lord’s food.” For what he says (‘in the Lord’s food’) compels us to understand of a bodily eating, not of a spiritual one alone, as they will; for the Lord’s food, by the consent of all, is the Eucharist. Hilary means, therefore, that we, while we receive the Eucharist, in it and through it truly receive the flesh of the Lord.
Secondly, from those words: “Concerning the natural truth of Christ in us, what we say, unless we learn it from Him, we say foolishly and impiously.” For these words indicate that the mystery of the Eucharist is such that it might seem a most foolish paradox unless it were proposed by God. But that Christ is eaten by faith alone, and is in us only in that manner in which are the other things which are apprehended by the mind, can seem neither a paradox nor anything foolish, even if it were not said by God. But we might truly be held foolish if, without the word of God, we believed that the true flesh of Christ is eaten by the bodily mouth; for the unbelievers have always esteemed this a most foolish paradox, as is known of Averroes and others.
Thirdly, from those words: “Concerning the truth of the flesh and blood no room for doubting is left; for now, both by the profession of the Lord Himself and by our faith, it is truly flesh and truly blood.” And soon: “Or is this not the truth? Let it indeed happen that this is not true to those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God.” These words cannot be taken except in one of these three ways. For either Hilary means to say that Christ assumed true flesh; or that true flesh is eaten by faith in the Sacrament; or that true flesh is really and by the mouth of the body received when the Eucharist is received. The first understanding, which Beza and Boquin, and perhaps Peter Martyr, embrace, is not to the mind of Hilary. For he does not discourse in that place of the Incarnation, but of the Eucharist; nor does he dispute against the Manichees, who denied that Christ had true flesh, but against the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ, not the flesh. Besides, a little before he had said of the truth of Christ in us, “unless we learn it from Him,” and so forth, and had adduced that Scripture, My flesh is meat indeed, to prove that the flesh of Christ is naturally united to us; and after those words he immediately subjoins: “Concerning the truth of the flesh and blood no room for doubting is left,” and what follows. He speaks, therefore, of the truth of the flesh communicated to us, not of the truth of the flesh assumed. Finally, that proof by which Hilary proves that there can be no doubting of the truth of the flesh of the Lord, because Christ, who said, My flesh is meat indeed, is truly God, most plainly indicates that he speaks of the truth of the flesh in the Eucharist, not of the Incarnation. For it is not rightly proved that Christ has true flesh because the same Christ is God, or because He said, My flesh is meat indeed. But it is most rightly proved that in the Eucharist there is the true flesh of the Lord, because Christ is God, who said that His flesh is our food; for since He is God, He could accomplish what He said. The second understanding coincides with the first. For to eat true flesh by faith is nothing else than to believe that Christ has true flesh, and in that flesh truly died for us. Nor to prove this was it necessary to adduce an argument from the divinity of Christ asserting it; for it is not difficult (the mystery of the Incarnation being posited) that true flesh be eaten by faith. There remains, therefore, the third understanding, which without doubt is to the mind of Hilary.
Fourthly, it is proved from this, that Hilary very often repeats that Christ is naturally in us through the receiving of the Eucharist. For with Hilary, for one to be in another naturally is for the nature of one truly to be in the other, as is clear from many passages, but especially from those words which are had on the same page: “Why did He set forth a certain degree and order of the consummation of unity, unless it were that, since He was in the Father through the nature of the divinity, we on the contrary might be believed to be in Him through His bodily nativity, and He again in us through the mystery of the Sacraments?” Where he teaches that the Son is in the Father naturally, because the nature of the Son is truly in the Father, since the nature of both is one; likewise that we are in Christ naturally, because God truly united our nature to Himself through the mystery of the Incarnation; and finally that Christ is naturally in us, when we receive the Eucharist, because He unites to us the nature of His flesh. As therefore truly and properly the nature of the Son is in the Father, and our nature is in Christ, so it is necessary that truly and properly the nature of the flesh of Christ be in us, when we receive the Eucharist.
Fifthly, it is proved from those other words of his, where, explaining that saying, As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, and he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me, he says thus: “This is the cause of our life, that we have Christ abiding through the flesh in us who are carnal, we being about to live through Him on that condition on which He lives through the Father. If therefore we live naturally according to the flesh through Him, that is, having obtained the nature of His flesh, how does He not naturally have the Father in Himself according to the Spirit, since He Himself lives through the Father?” And below he says: “The Son of God abides carnally in us through the Eucharist.” What, I ask, could be said more clearly than that Christ abides carnally, through His flesh, in us who are carnal? For if we ate the flesh of Christ by faith only, and not by the instrument of the body, He would not be in us who are carnal, that is, in us inasmuch as we consist of flesh, but would be in our mind and soul only; nor would He be in us through the flesh, but through faith and spirit; nor would He be carnally, but spiritually. Besides, the comparison of Hilary plainly convinces. For he says that the Son lives according to the spirit through the Father, because the life of the Father, which is spirit, is truly bestowed on the Son; in the same manner we live through Christ according to the flesh, because His flesh is truly communicated to us in the Sacrament.
Nor does the objection of Peter Martyr conclude, which he adduced from Hilary: namely that we are naturally one with Christ through the Eucharist in the same manner in which we are one among ourselves through faith, through regeneration, and through Baptism, and as we are one with Christ through honor. Now there are three things to be observed for the solution of this argument.
First, the aim of Hilary and the occasion of the whole disputation must be noted. He had objected to the Arians that passage: I and the Father are one, John 10; but the Arians had answered that those words are understood of unity of will and consent, not of unity of nature; and had adduced as examples those passages of Scripture: The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul, Acts 4; and: He that planteth and he that watereth are one, 1 Corinthians 3; and: That they also may be one in us, John 17. Hilary, therefore, that he might yield to the heretics in nothing, from those very passages adduced by the Arians proves that the Father and the Son are one naturally, and not by concord of wills alone: “From these very things,” he says, “which they use, they are to be refuted.” And first he teaches that the faithful are among themselves one heart and one soul, not by consent alone, but naturally; because they are one through faith, and through regeneration, and through Baptism, and consequently are so by the same nature of faith, and by the same nature of new regeneration and Baptism; for all are faithful, all sons of God, all baptized, even though perhaps they do not know one another, nor does one know what the other wills: “How,” he says, “do you not understand a natural unity in those who are one through the nature of one faith?” And he says the same of regeneration and Baptism which he said of faith. Then he teaches that that saying, He that planteth and he that watereth are one, 1 Corinthians 3, indicates also a natural unity; for those are one because they are ministers of the same Christ, and consequently are one through the nature of the same ministry. “And so,” he says, “those who are the same through the same thing are one by nature also, not only by will; because they too are made the same thing, and are ministers of the same thing and efficiency.” Finally he comes to the third passage from John 17: That they also may be one in us; and teaches that we are one with Christ naturally, because through the participation of the Eucharist the nature of the flesh of Christ is united to us; and here he has all those things which we expounded above.
Note secondly that it is one thing, with Hilary, that some things be one naturally; another, that one be in another naturally. For that some things be one naturally, it is enough if they truly partake of the nature of the very thing in which they are one; and in this manner he says that all the faithful are one naturally through faith, through regeneration, and through Baptism, because they partake of the nature of the same faith, the same regeneration, and the same Baptism; and likewise he says that all ministers are one naturally through the ministry, because they partake of the nature of the same ministry. But that one be in another naturally, it is not enough that they partake in any manner of the same nature; but it is necessary that the nature of one be truly in the other; and in this manner he says that the Son is in the Father through the divinity naturally, because the divine nature of the Son is truly in the Father; and likewise he says that Christ is in us through the flesh naturally, because the nature of His flesh is truly united to us through the Eucharist. And from these the whole objection of Peter Martyr, and Beza, and others, is almost solved. For Hilary does not speak in the same manner (as they falsely assumed) of the union through faith, or regeneration, or Baptism, and of the union through the Eucharist. For he does not say that Christ is in us through faith, or through Baptism, as he says He is through the Eucharist; nor does he say that of the faithful one is in another through faith, but that all are one through faith.
Note thirdly that unity through honor, in Hilary, is the same as unity through the Eucharist; for, explaining that saying of the same chapter 17 of John, The glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them, he says that the honor which the Son has from the Father, the same Son gave to us, because He brought it about that we should be one with Him, as He Himself is one with the Father; and that we might be one with Him, he says He did through the mystery of the Eucharist, through which He truly abides in us through His flesh. And so the whole objection of the adversaries is solved; for they did not understand what it was, in Hilary, to be made one through honor. And of Hilary thus far.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
* CAPUT XI Testimonium S. Hilarii. ■ Beatus Hilarius aequalis Athanasii fuit : hos enim duos eximios doctores simul Domi¬ nus excitavit, ut fidem contra Arianos defen¬ derent, ille in Oriente, hic in Occidente. Is igitur sicaitin viii. lib. de Trinitat. : <' Si enim vere Yerbum caro factum est, et nos vere V er- bum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quo¬ modo non naturaliter manere in nobis existi¬ mandus est? » Et infra : «De veritate carnis, et sanguinis non est relictus ambigendi lo¬ cus ; nunc enim, et ipsius Domini professione, et fide nostra vere caro est, et vere sanguis est, etc. » Ad lisec duobus modis adversarii respon¬ dent : neque habent ipsi praeterea locum ullum, quem ex Hilario proferant. Calvinus in ultima admonitione ad Westphalum, con¬ tendit Hilarium hyperbolice loqui. Sed re¬ fellitur facillime ex ipso Hilario, qui quasi praevidisset, quod Calvinus dicturus erat, in eodem ipso loco affirmat se loqui proprie, et simpliciter ; sic enim ait : « Non est humano, aut saeculi sensu in Dei rebus loquendum, neque per violentam, aut impudentem prae¬ dicationem coelestium dictorum sanitati , alienae, atque impiae intclligcntiae extor¬ quenda perversitas est. Quae scripta sunt legamus, et qua? legimus intelligamus , et tunc perfectae fidei officio fungemur. De na¬ turali enim in nobis Christi veritate, quae dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stulte atque impie dicimus; ipse enim ait : Caro mea vere est esca, etc. » Yides ut Hilarius dicat, se nihil asserere humano aut sseculi sensu, sed solum id, quod Scriptura ipsa recte in¬ tellecta docet. Praeterea cum Hilarius dispu¬ tet adversus Ariano^, et ex naturali unione Christi nobiscum per sacramentum Eucha¬ ristiae, concludat naturalem unionem inter Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, si hyperbo¬ lice loquiturde naturali unione Christi nobis¬ cum, oportebit etiam ut loquatur hyperbo¬ lice de unione Patris, et Filii, ex quo seque¬ tur cum aut Arianum fuisse, aut certe impe¬ rite causam fidei defendisse : neque enim Ariani negassent naturalem unionem inter Patrem, et Filium hyperbolice. Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , par. 4. Theodorus Beza in Dialogo Cyclope contra Heshusium, et Petrus Boquinus in lib. de Ccena Domini contra eumdem, respon¬ dent, Hilarium, cum is ait nos vere sumere in Eucharistia carnem Domini, intelligere de sumptione spirituali, qua? fit per fidem; cum autem ait, naturaliter Christum nobiscum uniri, intelligere de unione, qua? facta est in Incarnatione. Christus enim nobiscum natu¬ raliter unitus est, quia naturam nostra? car¬ nis assumpsit. Addit Petrus Martyr, naturalem unionem apud Hilarium non esse realem commixtio¬ nem naturarum, sed esse unionem aliquam majorem, quam sit unio voluntatum, opponit enim ille unionem naturalem unioni per con¬ sensum solius voluntatis, quam Ariani in Patre et Filio ponebant. Hanc autem unio¬ nem naturalem, id est, majorem, quam solius voluntatis cum Christo habemus, ex senten¬ tia Petri Martyris, tum quia, ut diximus, Christus naturam nostram assumpsit; tum quia nos per fidem in Sacramento carnem ejus vere sumimus. Probat vero idem Petrus Martyr, Hilarium non loqui de reali natura¬ rum commixtione, cum dicit, Christum no¬ biscum uniri naturaliter per Eucharistiam, quia Hilarius quinque uniones ponit natura¬ les. Primo enim dicit omnes fideles esse unum naturaliter , quia per fidem sunt unum. Se¬ cundo dicit, nos esse unum naturaliter, quia 88 LIBER T. sumus unum per regenerationem. Tei lio di¬ cit, nos esse unum naturaliter, quia sumus unum per sacramentum Baptismi. Quarto dicit, nos esse unum cum Pati e, et Filio per honorem nobis a Christo communicatum. Quinto dicit, nos esse unum cum Christo na¬ turaliter per Eucharistiam. Sicut ergo unio¬ nes illae per fidem, per regenerationem, per Baptismum, per honorem dicuntur natura¬ les, quia includunt aliquid praeter consensum voluntatis, licet non includant naturarum commixtionem : ita etiam unio qua Christo conjungimur, dum per fidem carnem ejus apprehendimus, dici potest naturalis, licet non includat realera unionem carnis Domini cum nostra. Haec ille. At refelli possunt haec adversariorum fig¬ menta ex ipso Ililario multis modis. Primo ex illis verbis : « Nos vere Verbum carnem cibo Dominico suminus ». Quod enim ait (cibo Dominico) cogit ut intelligamus de man¬ ducatione corporali, non de sola spirituali, ut ipsi volunt ; nam cibus Dominicus, omnium consensu , est Eucharistia. Vult igitur Hi¬ larius nos, dum Eucharistiam percipimus, in illa, et per illam, vere carnem Domini sumere. Secundo ex illis verbis : « De naturali in nobis Christi veritate, quse dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stulte, atque impie dicimus». Hsec enim verba indicant, mysterium Eucha¬ ristiae tale esse, ut paradoxum stultissimum videri possit, nisi a Deo proponeretur. At Christum sola fide manducari, et esse in nobis co tantum modo, quo sunt coi ter a, quse ani¬ mo apprehenduntur; neque paradoxum, ne¬ que stultum aliquid videri potest, etiamsi id non diceretur a Deo. Vere autem stulti ha¬ beri possemus, si absque Dei verbo crede¬ remus, veram Christi carnem ore corporali manducari : nam id semper infideles stultis¬ simum paradoxum aestimarunt, ut notum est de Averroe, et de aliis. Tertio ex illis verbis : « De veritate carnis et sanguinis non est relictus ajnbigendi locus ; nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione, et fide nostra vere caro est, et vere sanguis est». Et mox : « An hoc veritas non est? contingat plane his verum non esse, qui Chri¬ stum Jesum verum esse Deum negant » . Haic verba non possunt accipi, nisi uno ex his tri¬ bus modis. Aut enim vult Hilarius dicere, veram carnem Christum assumpsisse ; aut veram carnem fide manducari in Sacra¬ mento; aut veram carnem reipsa et ore cor¬ poris sumi, cum sumitur Eucharistia. Prima intelligentia , quam amplectuntur Beza, et Boquinus, et forte Petrus Martyr, non est ad mentem Hilarii. Nam non disserit eo loco de Incarnatione, sed de Eucharistia; neque dis¬ putat contra Manichaeos, qui negabant Chri¬ stum habere veram carnem, sed contra Aria- nos, qui negabant divinitatem Christi, non carnem. Praeterea paulo ante dixerat de ve¬ ritate Christi in nobis, « nisi ab eo discimus, ctc. », et attulerat illam Scripturam : Caro mea vere est cibus (i), ut probaret Christi carnem nobis naturaliter uniri : post illa au¬ tem verba immediate subjungit : « De veri¬ tate carnis, et sanguinis non est relictus am¬ bigendi locus »; et quai sequuntur. Loquitur igitur de veritate carnis nobis communicatae, non veritate carnis assumptae. Denique illa probatio, qua probat Hilarius non posse am¬ bigi de veritate carnis Domini, quia Christus, qui dixit : Caro mea vere est cibus , vere Deus est; apertissime indicat eum loqui de veritate carnis in Eucharistia, non de Incarnatione. Nam non recte probatur, Christum habere veram carnem, quia idem Christus Deus est, vel quia dixit : Caro mea vere est cibus . At rectissime probatur in Eucharistia esse veram carnem Domini, quia Christus Deus est, qui dixit, carnem suam esse cibum nostrum : cum enim Deus sit, potuit praestare quod dicebat. Secunda intelligentia coincidit cum prima. Nihil enim aliud est veram carnem fide manducare, nisi credere Christum ha¬ bere veram carnem, et in ea carne vere esse mortuum pro nobis. Neque ad hoc proban¬ dum oportebat adducere argumentum ex divinitate Christi id asserentis : non enim difficile est (posito mysterio Incarnationis) veram carnem fide manducari. Remanet igitur tertia intelligentia, quse sine dubita¬ tione est ad mentem Hilarii. Quarto, probatur ex co, quod Hilarius ssc- pissime repetit, Christum naturaliter esse in nobis per sumptionem Eucharistise. Nam apud Hilarium, unum esse in alio naturali¬ ter, est naturam unius vere in altero esse, ut patet ex multis locis, sed maxime ex illis verbis, quse habentur in eadem pagina : « Cur gradum quemdam, atque -ordinem consu¬ mamini unitatis exposuit, nisi ut cum ille in Patre per naturam divinitatis esset, nos con- (1) Joan. Vf, 50. CAPUT XIT. tra in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, et ille rursus in nobis per Sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur ? » Ubi docet, Filium esse in Patre naturaliter, quia natura Filii vere est in Patre, cum sit una utriusque natura : item nos esse in Christo naturaliter, quia vere naturam nostram sibi Deus univit per mysterium Incarnationis. Denique Chri¬ stum naturaliter esse in nobis, quando su¬ mimus Eucharistiam, quia naturam carnis suce nobis unit. Sicut igitur vere, et proprie natura Filii est in Patre, et natura nostra est in Christo ; ita necesse est vere, et proprie natura carnis Christi sit in nobis, quando Eucharistiam sumimus. Quinto, probatur ex illis aliis verbis ejus, ubi explicans illud : Sicut misit me vivens Pater , et ego vivo propter Patrem, et qui manducat meam carnem, et ipse vivet propter me , sic ait : « Iltec vero vita; nostrae causa est, quod in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus, victuris nobis per eum ea conditione, qua vivit ille per Patrem. Si ergo nos naturaliter, secundum ' carnem per eum vivimus, id est, naturam carnis suee adepti, quomodo non naturaliter secundum Spiritum in se Patrem habeat, cum vivat ipse per Patrem ? » Et infra dicit : « Filium Dei carnaliter in nobis manere per Eucharistiam ». Quid potuit, quaeso, clarius dici, quam in nobis carnalibus Christum per carnem suam carnaliter manere? Si enim fide tantum, et non corporis instrumento Christi carnem manducaremus, non esset in nobis carnalibus, id est, in nobis, quatenus carne constamus, sed esset in mente, et ani¬ mo nostro tantum ; neque esset in nobis per carnem, sed per fidem, et spiritum, neque esset carnaliter, sed spiritualiter. Praeterea comparatio Kilarii aperte convincit. Ipse enim dicit, Filium secundum spiritum vivere propter Patrem, quia vita Patris, quae spi¬ ritus est, vere tribuitur Filio : ex eodem modo nos vivere propter Christum secundum car¬ nem, quia vere caro ejus nobis in Sacra¬ mento communicatur. Neque objectio Petri Martyris concludit, quam ex Ililario ille afferebat : quod vide¬ licet eo modo simus naturtiliter unum cum Christo per Eucharistiam, sicut sumus inter nos unum per fidem, per regenerationem, et per Baptismum ; et sicut sumus unum cum 89 Christo per honorem. Sunt autem tria obser¬ vanda pro hujus argumenti solutione. Primo, notandus est scopus Hilarii, et occasio totius disputationis. Objecerat ille Arianis eum locum : Ego et Pater unum sumus, Joan. x ; sed responderant Ariani in- telligi ea verba de unitate voluntatis, et con¬ sensus, non de unitate natura; ; et attulerant in exemplum illa Scripturae loca : Multitu¬ dinis credentium erat cor unum , et anima una , Actor, iv. Et : Qui plantat, et qui rigat unum sunt, I. Corinth. m. Et : Et ipsi unum sint in nobis , Joan, xvn (1). Hilarius igitur, ut nulla in re cedat haereticis, ex istis ipsis locis ab Arianis allatis, probat Patrem, et Filium esse unum naturaliter, et non sola concordia vo¬ luntatum : « Ex his, inquit, ipsis, quibus utuntur, refellendi sunt. » Ac primum docet, fideles inter se esse unum cor, ct unam ani¬ mam, non solo consensu, sed naturaliter; quia sunt unum per fidem, ct per regenera¬ tionem, et per Baptismum, ac proinde sunt per eamdem fidei naturam , et per eamdem naturam novae regenerationis, et Bap ismi : omnes enim sunt fideles, omnes Filii Dei, omnes baptizati, etiamsi forte inter se non noverint, nec sciat unus quid alter velit : « Quomodo, inquit, non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt ». Et idem dicit de regene¬ ratione, et Baptismo, quod de fide dixit. Deinde docet illud : Qui plantat, et qui rigat, unum sunt, I Corinth. m. indicare etiam na¬ turalem unitatem : sunt enim illi unum, quia sunt ministri ejusdem Christi, et proinde unum sunt per naturam ejusdem ministerii. <( Itaque, inquit, qui per rem eamdem idem sunt, natura etiam unum sunt, non tantum voluntate ; quia et ipsi res eadem effecti sunt, et ejusdem rei atque efficientia; sunt mini¬ stri ». Denique venit ad tertium locum ex Joan. xvn : Ut et illi unum sint in nobis ; et docet nos esse unum cum Christo naturali¬ ter, quia per Eucharistiae participationem unitur nobis carnis Christi natura, et hic habet illa omnia, quae supra exposuimus. Nota secundo, aliud esse apud Hilarium, aliqua esse unum naturaliter; aliud autem, unum esse in alio naturaliter. Nam ut ali¬ qua sint unum naturaliter, satis est, si vere participent naturam ipsius rei, in qua sunt unum : et hoc modo dicit ipse, omnes fideles (1) Joan. X, 30: Act. IV, 32; I Cor. HI. 8 ; Joan. XVII, 21 . t 00 UBER II. osse unum naturaliter per fidem, per rege¬ nerationem, et per Bapt sinum , quia parti¬ cipant naturam ejusdem fidei, ejusdem rege¬ nerationis, et ejusdem Baptismi : et simi¬ liter dicit omnes ministros esse unum natu¬ raliter per ministerium , quia participant ejusdem ministerii naturam. Sed ut unum sit in alio naturaliter non satis est, ut parti¬ cipent quomodocumque eamdem naturam ; sed necesse est, ut natura unius vero sit in alio ; et hoc modo dicit Filium esse in Patre per divinitatem naturaliter, quia natura di¬ vina Filii, vere est in Patre : et similiter dicit, Christum esse in nobis per carnem na¬ turaliter, quia natura carnis ejus nobis vero unitur per Eucharistiam. Atque ex his sol¬ vitur fere tota objectio Petri Martyris, et Bezai, et aliorum. Non enim eodem modo loquitur Hilarius (ut illi falso assumebant) de unione per fidem, seu regenerationem, vel Baptismum ; et de unione per Euchari¬ stiam. Nam non dicit, Christum esse in nobis per fidem, vel per Baptismum, sicut dicit esse per Eucharistiam, neque dicit ex fide¬ libus unum esse in alio per fidem ; sed omnes esse unum per fidem. Nota tertio, unitatem per honorem apud Hilarium eamdem esse cum unitate per Eu¬ charistiam, nam explicans illud ejusdem capitis xvii, Joannis: Ego claritatem, quam dedisti mihi, dedi eis; dicit honorem, quem Filius habet a Patre, dedisse eumdem Filium nobis, quia fecit ut essemus unum cum illo, sicut ipse est unum cum Patre ; ut autem unum essemus cum illo, dicit eum fecisse per mysterium Eucharistico, per quod ipse in nobis per carnem suam vere manet. Atque ita solvitur tota objectio adversariorum: non enim ipsi intellexerunt, quid esset apud Hila¬ rium, fieri unum per honorem. Ac de Hilario hactenus.