BCCCAP00000000000000000000835

302 IGNATIUS BRADY Christ shed in his Passion remained on earth » 63 • William's position was already determined by what he had written less than a year before: the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist must be given greater veneration than the Blood Christ left on earth; the former is to receive latria, the latter hyperdulia, since it is not united to the Godhead. Nor is it unbecoming (dissonum) that some of Christ's Blood has remained on earth, since Francis de Mayronis says that the glorified Body does not need as much blood as did the non– glorified Body on earth 6 1, while it is a sign of Christ's love for us that he is with us in so many ways even to the end of time. Hence many churches display such relics; for example, the royal palace of Paris. Or we can say it is possible that all the Blood was reassumed by Christ when he arose and yet that some portion of it is not united to him in some place, a thing possible to God, as for example if I were to be wholly in Niort and my feet only in Dinan 65 • Our scholastic does not seem to have remained long in Paris as magister regens. Conditions in the great convent were anything but peaceful, and rather downright scandalous. The masters were often subject to indignities and even injuries at the hands of certain uncontrollable students. If William perhaps was not manhandled, he was at least unjustly accused by some of them at the court of the conservator of privileges at the University, and may well have 63 Chartul. IV, n.2634 (p.682-683). The Chartularium adds an interesting appendix, a Bull of Nicholas V in answer to the petition of the La Rochelle friars, in which the Pontiff interprets the relic to blood from the miraculous image of the Savior in Beirut, Syria, which, when profaned or crucified by some Jews in 787, had emitted copious amounts of blood (Chartul., n.2635, p.683-684; cf. also Bull.Franc. n.s. I, n.1304). O< In view of the controversy of 1462, we may be permitted to cite more than just this reference. In IV Sent., d.8, a.l, de Mayronis touches several questions on the Precious Blood: « .. .in triduo vere potuit per communicationem ydiomatum dici Dei filius sepultus: sed si divinitas fuisset unita sanguini eodem modo remansisset in terra: et ita certe fuisset verum dicere in triduo: Dei filius est in cruce, Dei filius expansus est in terra: quod non conceditur, nee tenetur a sanctis. Quarta difficultas: quare potius fuit in corpore quam in sanguine. Dico quad sanguis non est principalis pars corporis. Corpus autem pertinet ad integritatem nature specifice; alias autem partes que non pertinent ad integritatem nature specifice non oportet esse unitas ... - Quarta difficultas: si post resurrectionem aliquid de sanguine remansit in terra. Dicunt aliqui quad non, imo est periculosum dicere remansit, et ita de reliquiis que dicuntur esse de sanguine Christi non est tutum. Sed dico quod non est necessarium de quacumque parte sanguinis quad ipsam resumpserit, sicut nee lachrimas, quia non fuit necessarium tantum de sanguine in corpore glorioso sicut in corpore mortali, quad indiget ipso pro alimento corporis; unde potest dici quod non totum resumpsit » (Preclarissimum illuminati doct. Fran. de Mayronis in quattuor sententiarum scriptum seu conflatwn ... Venetiis 1520, f.19ld). 65 Jn IV Sent., d.8, a.l, f.240b. See also William's answer to a difficulty in In III Sent., d.22, a.3: « Prima difficultas: quomodo potest verificari illud dictum Anselmi [more correctly, Augustini!]: Quad Christus semel assumpsit nunquam dimisit. Dicendum... non de partibus minus principalibus, cuiusmodi est rasio unguium aut aliquid sanguinis eius, quad in ali– quibus locis reperitur » (f.199d).