To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
ANother opinion is,* 1.1 That the baptisme of Iohn was as a certain Sacrament of the old law: so taught the Master of Sent. in the place forecited, and many of the Schoole∣men:
and Saint Thomas himselfe; but he did iustly afterwards recant, and teach the contrary, 3. part q. 38 art. 1. Whereupon Saint Thomas well saith that the baptisme of Iohn pertained not to the old law, but to the new rather, as a certaine preparation to Christs baptisme. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113.
SOme Schoolemen hold,* 1.2 that the Apostles did in diuers fashions minister the Sacrament of confir∣mation; and that in the first times, because the holy Ghost visibly descended, then they vsed no annoin∣ting, but meere imposition of hands: After that, vn∣ction came in vse, &c. And if you obiect that the A∣postles could not institute the matter of a sacrament, they answere; that they receiued that commaunde∣ment from Christ, that they should one while vse im∣position of hands, another while Chrisme, as they should thinke most conuenient: This answere is not vnlikely: and Saint Thomas is not fare off from it [3. p q. 72. art. 1.] and perhaps hither might be drawne the testimonies of the Florentine Councell, and of Inno∣centius, &c But the other answer (me thinks) is more probable of Thomas Waldensis, and Hugo de Sancto vi∣ctore; who say, that the annointing with Chrisme, and laying on of hands, is all one; for he that anoints, layes on his hand. This answere is the likelier. Bel∣larmine in his B. of confirmation, c. 9. p. 185.
IT is a question among our Diuines,* 1.3 whether Balme be required in Chrisme, as vpon the neces∣sity of the Sacrament, or only on necessity of the pre∣cept. All the old Diuines and Lawyers, hold Balme required vpon the necessity of the Sacrament; so as the Sacrament is voyde, if it be administred without it: But the latter Diuines Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franc. a Victoria, &c. hold, that balme is not required as to the essence of the Sacrament, but yet necessari∣ly to be used by the commandement of God. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 9. pag. 190.
OF the Catholikes there is onely Richardus Arma∣chanus, which thinkes,* 1.4 that the office of confir∣ming is common both to Bishops, and Presbiters: and from him Tho. Waldensis thinkes that Wickliffe drew his heresie. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 197.
AMongst our Catholike diuines there is a questi∣on,* 1.5 whether at least by dispensation a Presbiter
may conferre this Sacrament: for Saint Bonauenture, Durand, Adrian, vpon 4. dist. 7. say, it cannot be com∣mitted to Priests. But Saint Tho mas, and all his Schollers, and many other Diuines, as Richardus, Pa∣ludanus, Marsilius, and others; and all Canonists teach the contrary: and indeede it is the truer, that these last affirme. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 197.
IT is questioned,* 1.6 whether those things which are spoken of Christ, in the forme of bread and wine be spoken of him truly, and properly, or by some Trope: Some thinke them truely and properly spoken, as the same thing should be truely and properly spoken of the bread, if bread were there. Their reason is, be∣cause they thinke that the Vnion of Christ with the accidents of bread, is eyther personall, or very like to it; and therefore that there is a communication of properties betwixt Christ, and those accidents, &c. But the common opinion of Diuines teach the con∣trary. Bellar. of the sacram. of the Eucharist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 28▪
ALmost all Catholikes will haue the wordes of Iohn 6. vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist,* 1.7
or of the Sacramentall eating of Christs bo∣dy in the Eucharist: but there are some few, who (the better to disproue the Hussites and Lutherans) hold, that this Chapter medleth not with any Sacra¦mental eating of Christs body, or drinking his blood, of which sort are Gabriel, Nicholas, Cusanus, Thomas Caietanus, Ruardus Tapper, Iohannes Hesselius, and Cornelius Iansenius. All other Catholikes (whom Nicholas Saunders in his booke of the sixth of Iohn citeth) with great consent teach, that this Chapter intreateth of the Sacramentall eating of Christ: which doubtlesse is most true. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 5. pag. 41.
THe Catholikes doe not agree in the manner of explicating, what is properly meant,* 1.8 by this pronoune Hoc or Hic, This, in the words of conse∣cration: (This is my body) And there are two more famous opinions: One, that this pronoune (Hoc, This) signifies the body of Christ, confuted in this place of Bellarmine by two arguments. The other opinion is of Saint Thomas [3. p.d. 78. art. 2.] and vp∣pon 1. Cor. 11. that the pronoune (Hoc, This) doth not precisely signifie the bread, or the body, but in common, that substance which is vnder these forms; yet so as the signification doth properly pertaine to the formes; that so the sense should be, Not, This, that is, These formes are my body: but thus, vnder
these formes is my body, as it was of old expounded by Guitmundus, l. 2. Bellarmine ibid. c. 11. p. 83.
* 1.9SOme Catholikes hold, that a body may be local∣ly in two places at once; for (say they) if one place may hold two bodies, so as neither the places are di∣uided, nor the bodies confounded (as it was done in Christs comming forth of the graue) then one body may fill two places, &c. But some others, and a∣mongst them Saint Thomas thinkes that one body cannot be totally in two places. His reason, by the leaue of so great a Doctor, is not found. Bellarm. l. 3 of the Eucharist, c. 3. p. 291.
* 1.10THere were two particular opinions, and both false and erroneous, deuised in the Schooles, for the vnfolding the greatnesse of this mystery: One of Durandus [vpon 4. dist. 10. &c.] who held it probable, that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Eu∣charist, without magnitude or quantity: and he vsed those arguments to this purpose, which now are ta∣ken vp by the Sacramentaries. Another opinion was of some auncient Diuines, which Albertus with∣out any name reports, and confutes; which after∣wards
Occam [vpon 4. q. 4.] followed; who say, that there is in the Sacrament, the very magnitude or quantity of the body of Christ, which yet, they thinke cannot be distinguished from the substance: but they adde, that all parts doe so runne into other, that there is no shape in the body of Christ nor any distinction and order of the parts of the body.
But the common opinion of the Schooles and Church is, that in the Eucharist there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bignesse, and all other acci∣dents, &c. And besides, that the parts and members of Christs body, doe not one runne into another, but are so distinguished, and disposed among themselues, as they haue both order and shape agreeable to an humane body: so teach Albertus, S. Thomas, Bonauen∣ture, Richardus, Scotus, and others vpon (4. dist. 10. or 13.) and Alexander (3. p. q. 10. in 7.) &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 301.
Altera opinio est.
Prior est aliquo∣rum Scholasti∣corum &c.
Respon. Quaesti∣onem esse inter Theologos.
Ex Catholicis solus est &c.
Est quidem in∣ter Catholicos quaestio &c.
Sed existit hes loco, &c.
Porro Catholici fere omnes, &c.
Nota secundo Catholicos, &c.
Quidam tamen Catholici, &c.
Primum est, du∣as opiniones fal∣sas &c.