Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Confutation of Winchester against Cranmer.

2. Winchester saith, that Christ called bread his body, when he said, “This is my body!." And in the Devil's Sophistry. Others say contraryo.

Winchester saith, that “bread is my body," is as much as to say, “ bread is made my body.” And so he taketh est for fit'. Others say that est is taken there substantively, that is to say, only for “is,” and not for “ is mades."

Winchester saith, that “Christ is present in the sacrament carnally and corporally, after the same signification that he is in heaven."

3. Winchester saith also, that when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body which hath both form and quantity?. Smith saith, that Christ's body in the sacrament hath not its proper form and quantity, fol. 106. And the contrary he saith, fol. 1058.

4. Winchester saith, we believe simply that Christ is naturally and corporally in the sacrament without drawing away his accidents, or adding". Smith saith, we say that Christ's body is in the sacrament against nature, with all its qualities and accidents''.

5. Winchester saith, that God's works be all seemliness without confusion, although he cannot locally distinguish Christ's head from his feet, nor his legs from his arms". Others say, that Christ's head and feet, and other parts, be not indeed locally distinct in the sacrament, but be so confounded, that wheresoever one is, there be all the rest.

6. Winchester saith, that Christ's body is in the sacra

[ P. 257, 1. 27, (vol. iii. p. 369.)
* And in the Devil's Sophistry, fol. 27.
3 See Smith, fol. 53.
4 P. 295, 1. 35, (vol. iii. p. 425.) Confutation.
5 Marc. Anton. fol. 171, fac. 2.
• P. 141, 1. 6, (vol. iï. p. 213.) Confutation.
? P. 71, 1. 37, (vol. iii. p. 132.)

Chedsey in disputatione cum Petro Mart.
9 P. 353, 1. 1, (vol. ü. p. 502.)
10 Fol. 105.
11 P. 70, 1. 27, (vol. iii. p. 115.) Confutation. Ed.]

8

ment sensibly, naturally, carnally, and corporally". Others say contrary').

7. Others say, that Christ's feet in the sacrament be there where his head is. Winchester saith, that whosoever saith so, may be called mad“.

8. Others say, that corporally Christ goeth into the mouth or stomach, and no furthers. He saith contrary 16.

9. Winchester saith, that Christ dwelleth corporally in him that receiveth the sacrament worthily, so long as he remaineth a member of Christ". Others say contraryl8.

10. Winchester saith, that no creature can eat the body of Christ, but only man". Others say clean contrary: Thomas, Hoc derogat, inquit, veritati corporis Christi. Perin”, in his sermon of the Sacrament: “ What inconvenience is it, though the impassible body lie in the mouth or maw of the beast,” &c. Magister Sententiarum, qui dicit corpus Christi posse a mure manducari aut a bruto, is condemned”.

11. Winchester saith, that an unrepentant sinner, receiving the sacrament, hath not Christ's body nor spirit within him. Smith saith, that he hath Christ's body and spirit within him".

12. Winchester saith, that of the figure it may not be said, “ Adore it, worship it;" and that it is not to be adored

[^ P. 159, 1. 9, (vol. iii. p. 240.) Confutation,
13 Smith, fol. 39.
14 P. 61, 1. 34, (vol. iii. p. 115.) Confutation.

15 Bonaventura, Hugo, Innocent, 3, lib. iv. cap. 15. Glos. de consecrat. dist. 2, cap. “tribus”, et in glos. “non iste”. Thom. Parte 3, quæst. 80, art. 3. “Tamdiu manet dum est in digestione.” Smith, fol. 64.

16 P. 52, 1. 36, (vol. iii. p. 99.) Confutation.
» P. 53, 1. 1; p. 56, 1. 31, (vol. iii. p. 106.) Confutation.
18 Smith, fol. 64.
19 P. 66, 1. 30, (vol. Üï. p. 123.) Confutation.
20 Part 3, q. 8, art. 3.

A “Three godly and notable Sermons, by W. Peryn. Imprynted by Nicolas Hyll;" 8vo. London. 1546. See Dibdin's Typographical Antiquities, 4. 230.

» “A mouse may eat Christ's body," saith the Master of the Sentences. “A mouse cannot eat it,” saith Winchester.

33 P. 225, 1. 36, (vol. iii. p. 328.)
* Fol. 136. “Within him," that is, within his soul. En.]

[ocr errors]

which the bodily eye seeth': Docetur populus non adorare quod vident oculis corporis. Smith saith contrary”.

13. Winchester saith, that reason will agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation well enough. Smith saith that transubstantiation is against reason and natural operation'.

14. Others say, that worms in the sacrament be. gendered of accidents : Ex speciebus sacramentalibus generentur dermes'. Winchester saith, that they be wrong borne in hand to say soo.

15. Winchester saith, that the accidents of bread and wine do mould, sour, and wax vinegar? But he answereth so confusedly, that the reader cannot understand him, be he never so attentive. Smith saith, “ Thus I

say,

that the consecrated wine turneth not into vinegar, nor the consecrated bread mouldeth, nor engendereth worms, nor is burned, nor receiveth into it any poison, as long as Christ's body and blood are under the forms of them, which do abide there so long as the natural qualities and properties of bread and wine tarry there in their natural disposition and condition ; and the bread and wine might be naturally there, if they had not been changed into Christ's body and blood, and also as long as the host and consecrated wine are apt to be received of man, and no longer, but go and depart thence by God's power, as it pleaseth him; and then a new substance is made of God, which turneth into vinegar, engendereth worms, mouldeth, is burned, feedeth rats and mice, receiveth poison," &c.

16. Winchester saith, “Every yea' containeth a 'nay? in it naturally: so as whosoever saith, this is bread, saith it is no wine. For in the rule of common reason the grant of one substance is the denial of another. And therefore reason hath these conclusions thoroughly; whatsoever is bread [P. 178, 1. 40; p.339,1.32, (vol. iï. p. 269;) Marc. Anton. fol. 136, fac. 2. 2 Fol. 145, fac. 2. 3 P. 264, 1. 47, (vol. iii. p. 382.) Confutation. 4 Fol. 60, 5 Thom. par. 3, q. 77, art. 5.

P. 355, 1. 3, (vol. iii. p. 505.) Confutation. ? P. 265, 1. 11;. p. 355, l. 8, (vol. iii. p. 182.) Confutation, et Marc. Ant. fol. 168, fac. 1.

8 Fol. 64, and fol. 105. Ed.]

6

is no wine ; whatsoever is wine, is no milk; and so forth.” So Christ saying, This is my body, saith, It is no bread". Smith saith, that a boy which hath only learned sophistry, will not dispute so fondly.

17. Others say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory by the devotion of the priest and of them for whom it is offered, and not by the thing that is offered". Winchester saith otherwise".

18. Winchester saith, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for the reconciliation of mankind unto the favour of God 3. Smith saith, " What is it to offer Christ's body and blood at mass, to purchase thereby everlasting life, if the mass be not a sacrifice to pacify God's wrath from sin, and to obtain his mercy!4?" Where he saith further, “ Priests do offer for our salvation to get heaven, and to avoid hell."

Matters wherein Bishop GARDINER varieth from himself.

Contradiction.

“ The body of Christ in the sacrament is not made of First pro

position. bread, but is made present of bread 15."

“Of bread is made the body of Christ 16."

“The Catholic faith hath from the beginning confessed truly Christ's intent to make bread his body 17.”

“And of many breads is made one body of Christ 18."

“ And faith sheweth me, that bread is the body of Christ, that is to say, made the body of Christ''."

“ Christ gave that he made of bread." “Christ spake plainly, “This is my body, making de- Second pro

position. monstration of the bread, when he said, “This is

21 79

my body?

[° P. 256, 1. 38; p. 265, 1. 5, (vol. iii. p. 369.)

10 Fol. 77.

11 Thom. par. 3, 9, 79, art. 5. 12 P. 80, 1. 43, (vol. iii. p. 150.) Confutation. 13 P. 437, 1. 1, (vol. iii. p. 543.) 14 Fol. 24, 148, 164. 15 P. 76, 1. 6, (vol. iii. p. 145, 303.) Confutation. 16 P. 344, 1. 8, (vol. iii. p. 488.) 17 P. 26, 1. 40, (vol. iii. p. 72.) Confutation. 18 P. 144, 1. 23, (vol. iii. p. 217.) Confutation. 19 P. 295, 1. 30, (vol. üi. p. 425.) Confutation. 20 P. 257, 1.50, (vol. üi. p. 371.) 91 In the Devil's Sophistry, 27. Ed.]

[ocr errors]

Contradiction.

Third proposition.

[ocr errors]

position.

“ The demonstration, this,' may be referred to the invisible substance."

“ The verb “is’ was of his body and of his blood, and not of the bread and wine."

Illis verbis, `Hoc est corpus meum,' substantia corporis significatur, nec de pane quicquam intelligitur, quando corpus de substantia sua, non aliena, prædicetur. 6. When Christ said, “This is my body,' the truth of the literal sense

hath an absurdity in carnal reason." Contra- “ What can be more evidently spoken of the presence diction.

of Christ's natural body and blood in the most blessed sacrament of the altar, than is in these words, “This is my

body?!” Fourth pro

“ Where the body of Christ is, there is whole Christ, God and Man; and when we speak of Christ's body, we must understand a true body, which hath both form and quantityo.

“And he is present in the sacrament, as he is in heaven?.?

“We believe simply the substance of Christ's body to be in the sacrament, without drawing away of the accidents, or adding®.”

“Christ is not present in the sacrament after the manner of quantity, but under the form and quantities of bread and wineo.”

“In such as receive the sacrament worthily, Christ dwelleth corporally, and naturally, and carnally."

“ The manner of Christ's being in the sacrament is not diction.

corporal, not carnal, not natural, not sensible, not perceptible, but only spiritual"."

Contradiction.

Fifth pro. position.

Contra

3

[' P. 106, 1. 42, (vol. iii. p. 178.) Confutation.
· P. 251, 1. 8, (vol. iii. p. 364.)

Mar. Anton. fol. 24, fac. 2.
* P. 138, 1. 19, (vol. ii. p. 210.) Confutation.
• In the Devil's Sophistry, fol. 51.
6 P.71, 1.47, (vol. iii. p. 132.) Mar. Anton. object. 77. Smith, fol. 105.
· P. 141, 1. 6, (vol. iii. p. 213, &c.) Confutation.

P. 353, 1. 1, (vol. iii. p. 502.) Confutation. 9 P. 71, 1. 50; p. 90, 1. 43, (vol. iü. p. 132.) 10 P. 166, 1. 19; p. 173, 1. 54; p. 191, 1. 47, (vol. iii. pp. 251, 262, 287.) 11 P. 159, 1. 17; p. 197, 1. 32, (vol. iii. pp. 241, 295.) Confutation. Ed.]

8

« PoprzedniaDalej »