« 上一页继续 »
lexand. VII. Pont. Max. auctore Cæfare Raspono ejusdem Bafilice, Canonico. Romæ, 1656. p. 364, &c. And of the Miraculous Difference it Thewed when it was touched by Virgins and by Marryed Women ! See the Devotions of the Roman Church, p. 31. Where you will find other Authors Quoted, as Bollandus, A&t. Sanit. ad Jan. 1. de Præputio Chrifti, and Rivet. Apologia pro S. Maria Virgine : Lib. 1. c. xvii. Cardinal Tolet, in cap. ii. Luc. Annor. 31. and Salmeron, in Evang. Tom. 3. Tract. 36. And that though it is itill at Calcata, yet it is carry'd about at Podium with great Veneration upon the Feast of the Ascension. Salmeron in the place above Quoted tells out of the Legend of Facobus de Voragine, that the Blessed Virgin gave this Prepucium first to Mary Magdalen, and that it was brought afterwards by an Angel to Charles the Great at Aken, and how after it came to be laid up in the Lateran: Whence these Verses, Circumcisa Caro Chrifti, Sandalia Sacra, Atque vmbilici viget hic Præcisio chara. i
Put thus into English. Christ's foreskin and blest Sandals are kept here, And what was cut from off his Navel dear. I suppose they meant the Cutting of His Navel String. And His Sandals (though it is not said that He wore any, He is always Painted bare-foot) will come in here too for
lelf. Andry of the or
Latria, for the fame Reason which T. Againas gives for Latria as due to the Cross, (a) propter Membrorum Chrifti contactum, because it Touched the Body of Christ. Then all his Clothes must come in for the same Reason, and the Nails and Spear that pierced Him. And why not the Spittle that was thrown in His Face? For the Cross was as much bis Enemy (as far. as Wood could be) as any of the other, or the Spittle it felf. And I know not why the Crucifiers Ihould not be Admitted too, though they touched Him with a Hostile Mind, as fome have Sainted Judas, becanse he was án Instrument in our Redemption. For ther is no Stop in Superstition more than in other Arts.
But I must not forget my Friends the SchoolMen upon this Occasion, they Dispute, that the Foreskin being of the Intireness of the Body, it must have been Reunited to the Body of Christ upon His Resurrection, else that the Intirè Body did not Arise. (6) Suarez therefore Concludes, that the Body of Christ at the Resurrection had a Foreskin, and has now in Heaven. But what then will he do with that Foreskin, which is shewed in the Church here below ? He says, that the Foreskin belongs to the Intireness of the Body, non Formaliter, fed Materialiter, not Formally, but only Materially, and so the business is made up ! But he adds, that
» (a). Rar. 3. Qu. 2. Art. 4 in the Concluson. (6) Suar. in 3. Paso Qu. 54. Act. 4. Disp. 47. S. 1.
Innocent iii. did call in Question the Truth of this Foreskin upon Earth. Is it a Question then? And do the People still pay Latria to it? How comes this to be Suffered in the Church? In the Church that is Infallible! .. :
But several Parcels of the Blood of Christ Shed upon the Cross are likewise shewed, and (d) Cresy quotes Matth. Paris for a Signal Teftimony of it. - To this says(6) Aquinas, that whatever belongs to the Nature of an Humane Body was wholly in the Body of Christ when He drofe, as His Fless and Bones, and His Blood, and that intirely without any Dimia nution, otherwise (says he) it had not been a perfect Resurrection. And afterwards, (c) that all the Blood which flowed from the Body of Christ, Rose again in His Body. But as for that Biogd (says he) which is prejerved in some Churches for Re liques, it did not fion from Christ's Side, but is faid to have flowed Miraculously from a certain Image of Christ that was pierced. Yet the Peo. ple pay Latria to it, Grounded wholly upon a Legend! And Aquinas gives no further Alfurance of it, than that it was said. Is not this Worshipping in Faith! Whát Blood was that which came out of the Image? Was ic Christ's Blood? And how was it made fo? Was it Trans-fubftantiated, or was it Blood Mar terially, though not Formally? Or had it ona ly the Colour of Blood, the Accidents remaining without the Substance ? Vasquez comes
pretty (a) Ch. Hilt. l2. c. 13. (b) Part. 3. Qu. 34. Arric. 2. Responder dicendum. (c) Ibid. ad Tertium.
pretty near this when he says; (6) That no Portion of the Blood of Christ did remain on Earth under the form of Blood, but only under its Colour, amnissa Forma Sanguinis, having lost the Form of Blood. ; .
L. What is this Matter and Form with which they keep such a Stir ?::.....
G. They make three Constituting Principles in every thing, these they call Materia, For. ma, et Privatio. That is, the Matter of which any thing is made; the Form, which is wholly unknown to us; and the Want of that Form, for you must know that we must Want a thing, before we Have it !.. ...L. Trouble me no more with this Fargon.
I pin not my Faith upon Schoolmen.'. : G. Yet this Article of your Faith, that is, Trans-substantiation, it nothing else, as I have (I hope) made it plain. And I will shew you another Instance wherein you follow them too, and are grolly Milled by them, that is, the Distinction of Concomitanci..on · L. What is that? I know it nor.
(40.) G. I have before told of Several In, juries done to our Lord Christ, in Adding co His Commandments, and making to our felves Means of Grace which he has not Instituted. What I am to speak of now is an Era ror on the other hand, that is of Substracting
(6) In 3 par. Thomæ. Qu. 5. Artic. 2. Diip. 36, C, &. See also C. 4.
from his Institations, and the Means of Grace which He has Appointed. I mean in taking away the Cup from the Laity in the Holy Sacrament, Christ Instituted the Sacrament of His Body and Blood as an Effectual Means of Grace, calling it the Communion of His Body and Blood. Particularly of the Cup it is said, (a) The Cup of Blessing which we Bless, is it not the Commuinion of the Blood of Chrift? And that we all Pa'rtake of the Cup, according to several Manuscripts of your own Vulgar Latin, Omnes de uno Pane, et de uno Calice participamus. But that the Laity might not think themselves Deprived of this so Beneficial a Means of the Greatest Grace, the Schools have Invented a Distinction they call Concomitancy, whicli is, That in all Flesh there is some Blood goes along, or is Concomitant with it, so that whoever Eat the Fles partake also of the Blood.
L. And is not that True? .....
G. Really, My Lord, I know not. But I am sure it is a Nicety. For Flesh may be fo dryed that .no Blood shall appear in it, and in a Wafer there can be None, without having Recourleto Miracle. I think it is making too Bold, to throw off the Institution of Christ, upon such Imaginations of our own; which Imply that there was no need of the Inftitution of the Cup, for if it be not Necef
(2) 1 Cor. x. 16. 17.