A04474:2262
A reply unto M. Hardinges answerA replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare
A reply unto M. Hardinges answer by perusing whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weak, and unstable grounds of the Romaine religion, which of late hath been accounted Catholic. By John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury.A replie vnto M. Hardinges ansvveare by perusinge whereof the discrete, and diligent reader may easily see, the weake, and vnstable groundes of the Romaine religion, whiche of late hath beene accompted Catholique. By Iohn Iewel Bishoppe of Sarisburie.
Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the sign of the Black Oliphant, by Henry Wykes, Anno. 1565Imprinted at London : In Fleetestreate, at the signe of the Blacke Oliphante, by Henry VVykes, Anno. 1565
Article 6 › The B. of Salisbury.Article 6 › The B. of Sarisburie.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The B. of Salisbury.
The B. of Sarisburie.
Yes undoubtedly, we acknowledge, the Body of Christ to be the Body of the Son of God, and therefore the Body of very God. Yet nevertheless we know, and M. Harding also ought to know, that the same Body of Christ is a Creature, and therefore no God. And surely, if M. Harding had well considered the Principles of his own Doctrine, he might soon have found out the folly of this reason. For Albertus Magnus his own Doctor is full against him. Thus he writeth,1 Corpus Christi non est in pluribus locis ratione Unionis, sed ratione Consecrationis, quia Consecratur in pluribus locis. The Body of Christ is not in many places by mean of the Union, it hath with the Godhead, but by mean of the Consecration, because it is Consecrate in many places. Thus Albertus wrote of Christs Body, contrary to M. Hardinges meaning, notwithstanding he was not ignorant, whose Body it was.
Yes vndoubtedly, we acknowledge, the Bodie of Christe to be the Bodie of the Sonne of God, and therefore the Bodie of very God. Yet neuerthelesse we know, and M. Hardinge also ought to knowe, that the same Bodie of Christe is a Creature, and therfore no God. And surely, if M. Hardinge had wel considered the Principles of his owne Doctrine, he might soone haue founde out the folie of this reason. For Albertus Magnus his owne Doctoure is ful against him. Thus he writeth,1 Corpus Christi non est in pluribus locis ratione Vnionis, sed ratione Consecrationis, quia Consecratur in pluribus locis. The Bodie of Christe is not in many places by meane of the Vnion, it hath with the Godhead, but by meane of the Consecration, bicause it is Consecrate in many places. Thus Albertus wrote of Christes Bodie, contrary to M. Hardinges meaninge, notwithstandinge he was not ignorant, whose Bodie it was.
- 1