Chapter 39: Hilary's Arguments Against the Arians
Honorius, the Bishop of Rome, decreed that the Eucharist should be kept and added that honor and reverence should be done to it when carried about. If this had been done before his time, such a decree would have been unnecessary. Briefly, we affirm that this sacrament, as stated before, has no force or efficacy except when exercised and received, similar to all other sacraments.
Chapter 39:
Hilary's Arguments Against the Arians Hilary is objected against us. He had great controversies with the Arians, who argued that the relationship between the Father and the Son was only a matter of will. Against these, Hilary said: "I demand of you whether between us and Christ there is a union by nature or by will?" The Arians referenced the place where Christ prayed that we might be one with Him as He is with the Father. In John 17, it is written: "Even as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us."
The heretics added that we have no union with Christ except by will, implying the same for the Son and the Father. Hilary needed to show that we are naturally united with Christ to conclude that the Son is naturally joined to the Father. His proof was that if the Word of God truly took on human nature, He naturally communicates in His flesh with us, and we remain in Him because He has our nature. Similarly, in the Lord's Supper, if we truly receive His flesh, we participate naturally with Him, and He truly dwells in us. Thus, Hilary argued from the truth of the Sacraments, which we do not deny.
Hilary did not contend that the flesh of Christ is hidden under the accidents in this Sacrament; he only affirmed that we are truly joined to the flesh of
Christ in communicating. Consider that the same father, just before these words about the Eucharist, said the same about Baptism: by it, we are joined to Christ and one another, not only in unity of will but also in unity of nature. This would imply Transubstantiation for Baptism if the same logic were applied.
Chrysostom also uses arguments from Sacraments. In the 83rd Homily on Matthew, he said that these signs of the Lord Jesus both bridle and silence the heretics. For they often ask, "How did Christ suffer?" We respond that if Christ did not have true flesh, these signs are in vain, rightly silencing the Manichees, Marcionites, and other such sects.
Leo and Emisenus Regarding Leo the Bishop of Rome, there is no need for much concern. In the cited sentence, he affirms a mystical distribution and a spiritual sustenance, saying that we pass into the flesh of Christ as He took on our flesh. They also cite Emisenus, whose words are read in "De
Consecratione," distinct. 1. There, he says, "Touch with your mind, and with the hand of your heart, take hold of the body of Christ," affirming that we eat the body of the Lord spiritually.
Further, he, like other fathers, urges our transformation into Christ, which, as we see, occurs without Transubstantiation. Some may wonder why we often oppose the transformation of ourselves against the transformation the fathers seem to affirm in the signs, imagining a greater union between Christ and the signs than between us and Christ. We argue that our point is stronger because it moves from the greater to the lesser by a negative. The union of Christ with communicants is greater than with the signs. If Transubstantiation is not required for us, it is even less required for the signs.