|
|
KEY Commentary Side Textual Bibliographic Scriptural
|
|
hateth and can doo no miracles to further it / But to hindre
it / as he doeth with you. Reade the stories of youre popis
and cardenales / & se whether the deuell hath not holpe
them vn to their hie dignities. And loke whether youre holy
bysshopes come any other wyse vn to their promocions / then
by seruinge the deuell / in settinge all christendome at variaunce / in
sheddynge bloude / in bringynge the comen wealth to
tyranny and in teachinge christen princes to rule moare
cruelly then did euer any hethen / contrary vn to the
doctrine of christe.
|
|
|
And as for the turkes and sarasenes that ye
speake of / I answere
that they were christen once / at the lest waye
for the most parte. And be cause they had no loue vn to the
trouth to liue ther aftir as ye haue not / God did send
them false miracles to carye them out of the right waye as
ye be. And as for the Iewes / whi they byde out / is only
because they haue sett vpp their awne rightewesnesse / as
ye haue / and therfore can not admitte the rightewesnesse that is in Christes bloude / as ye can not and as ye haue for sworne
it.
|
178/11
the host ys no
sacryfyce. Cf. CWM 6/1.353/30. Tyndale contests the idea of
Eucharist as sacrifice and proposes a "representative " view
of the Lord's Supper for stirring memory and inciting
repentant faith. For other references to sacraments, esp. the Eucharist,
cf. 63/31, 15o/9nn. (JW)
178/12
signe and
memoriall. For More's opposition to Tyndale's
sacramentarianism, cf. CWM 8/1.301/24–25.
|
|
And when he saith / in that they haue miracles and the
heretikes
none / it is a sure signe that they be the true
church and the heretikes not. Had ye gods word with youre
miracles and the heretikes doctrine were with out / then it
were true. But now because ye haue miracles with out gods
worde / to confirme youre false imaginacions / and they
which ye call heretikes haue Gods word confermed with
miracles / fyve hundred yeares to gether / it is a sure
|
178/20
eatynge of the
host. Frequency of reception of the Eucharist by the
laity had diminished to the minimal communion at Easter as legislated by
Lateran IV in 1215 or at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost as encouraged
by local synods. Aquinas argues that, although the paschal lamb was
eaten once a year, manna had been eaten daily (Summa III, Q. 80, Art. 10, Reply to Obj. 2).
178/20–21
drinkynge of the
cuppe. Perhaps in compensation for the withdrawal of the cup
from the laity during the 12c, the host and chalice were elevated after
the consecration for all to see from the late 12c (Rubin 70–72, 55). The
followers of Jan Hus urged the restoration of the cup to the laity, but
this practice was rejected by the Council of Constance in
1415, considered but not accepted by the Council of Basel in
1433, requested again at the Diet of Augsburg
in 1530 and 1548, and at the Council of Trent in 1562. Reception from
the cup was allowed in certain Roman dioceses of Central
Europe in 1564 and to the whole Roman
Church after Vatican II. For Constance and Basel, cf. Karl August Fink in
Jedin and Dolan
4.456, 476; for Augsburg, cf. Erwin Iserloh in Jedin and Dolan 5.262, 291; for
Trent, cf. Hubert Jedin in Jedin and Dolan
5.491, 497.
|