15 September 2015 A.D. John Jewel’s “Apology”—conflicts in Romanism: Scotists & Thomists, Albertus Pighius & Cajetanus? Thomas dissents from Lombardus
15 September
2015 A.D. John Jewel’s “Apology”—conflicts in Romanism:
Scotists & Thomists, Albertus Pighius & Cajetanus? Thomas
dissents from Lombardus, Scotus from Thomas, Occamus from Scotus, Alliacensis
from Occamus? And why do the Nominals disagree from the Reals? p.61-63
Jewel, John. “The Apology of the Church of England.”
Project Gutenberg. 5 Aug 2006. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17678/17678-h/17678-h.htm.
Accessed 1 Aug 2015.
But, good God, what manner of fellows be these which
blame us for disagreeing? And do all they themselves, ween you, agree
well together? Is every one of them fully resolved what to follow?
Hath there been no strifes, no debates, no quarrels among them at no
time? Why then do the Scotists and the Thomists, about that they call meritum
congrui and meritum condigni, no better agree together? Why
agree they no better among themselves concerning original sin in the Blessed
Virgin? concerning a solemn vow and a single vow? Why say the canonists,
that auricular confession is appointed by the positive law of man: and the
schoolmen contrariwise, that it is appointed by the law of God? Why doth
Albertus Pighius dissent from Cajetanus? Why doth Thomas dissent from
Lombardus, Scotus from Thomas, Occamus from Scotus, Alliacensis [ed. 1564
Alliensis] from Occamus? And why do the Nominals disagree from the
Reals? And yet say I nothing of so many diversities of friars and monks;
how some of them put a great holiness in eating of fish, and some in eating of
herbs; some in wearing of shoes, and some in wearing of
sandals; some in going in a linen garment, and some in a woollen; some of them
called white, some black; some being shaven broad, and some narrow: some
stalking abroad upon pattens, some barefooted; some girt, and some
ungirt. They ought, I wiss, to remember, how there be some of their own
company which say, that the body of Christ is in His Supper naturally:
contrary, other some of the self-same company deny it to be so. Again,
that there be other of them, which say, the body of Christ in the Holy
Communion “is rent and torn with our teeth:” and some again that deny the
same. Some also of them there be, which write that the body of Christ is quantum
in the Eucharistia; that is to say, hath his perfect quantity in the Sacrament;
some other again say nay. That there be others of them which say Christ
did consecrate with a certain Divine power: some, that he did the same with His
blessing: some again that say, He did it with uttering five solemn chosen
words: and some, with rehearsing the same words afterward again. Some
will have it, that, when Christ did speak those five words, the material
wheaten bread was pointed by this demonstrative pronoun hoc: some had
rather have, that a certain vagum individuum, as they term it, was meant
thereby. Again, others there be that say dogs and mice
may truly and in very deed eat the body of Christ; and others again there be
that steadfastly deny it. There be others, which say, that the very
accidents of bread and wine may nourish: others again there be which say, how
that the substance of bread doth return again. What need I say
more? It were overlong and tedious to reckon up all things. So very
uncertain, and full of controversies, is yet the whole form of these men’s
religion and doctrine, even amongst themselves, from whence it did first spring
and begin. For hardly at any time do they well agree between themselves:
except it be peradventure as, in times past, the Pharisees and Sadducees; or as
Herod and Pilate did accord against Christ.
Comments
Post a Comment