bloude of the same Iesus, whiche was made flesh.  

Commentary     Close

Chedsey's quotation from Justin (1563, p. 954-55) - 'We doe teache that Jesus, by whom our fleshe and bloude is ... the same Jesus incarnate' - was altered in the next edition to read: 'We are taught that the meate, consecrated ... the same Jesus made flesh' (1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440). Possibly this is a correction of an inadequate translation.

[Back to Top]

Cran. You haue translated it well: But I deny your maior. This is the sense of Iustine: that that bread is called the body of Christe: & yet that of that sanctifyed meate oure bodyes are nourished.

Ched. Nay he sayth, that of that sanctified meate, bothe oure bodyes and soules are nouryshed.

Cran. He sayeth not so: but he sayeth that it nourisheth our fleshe and bloude: and howe can that nourysh the soule, that nourysheth the fleshe and bloude?

Cole. It fedeth the body by the soule.

Cran. Speake vprightly mā. Can þ^t which is receyued by the soule, and the spirite, bee called the meate of the body?

west. Heare therefore what Ireneus saith: Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmauit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando et mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, sit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostræ substantia. That is: the same cup whiche is a creature, he confirmed to bee hys body, by whiche he encreaseth our bodyes. When bothe the cup myxed, and the bread broken, hath ioyned to it the worde of god, it is made the sacrament of the bodye & bloude of Christ, of whiche the substance of our fleshe is increased, and consisteth.

The substaunce of oure fleshe is increased by the body and bloude of Christ.

Ergo our body is nourished by the body and bloud of Christ.

Cran. I denye youre argument. He calleth it the fleshe and bloud, for the sacrament of the body and bloude, as Tertullian also sayeth. Nutritur corpus pane symbolico, anima corpore Christi.

Our flesh is nouryshed with the symbolicall bread: but our soule with the body of Christ.

VVest. Looke what he sayeth more. Quomodo carnem negāt capacem esse donationis dei, quæ est vita æterna, quæ sanguine & corpore christi nutritur. Lib. 5. post duo folia à principio.

That is. Howe doe they say, that the flesh cannot receyue the gyft of god, that is eternal lyfe, which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ. This is in the v. booke, twoo leaues from the begynnyng.

Cran. The body is nouryshed both with þ^e sacrament, and with the body of Christ: with þ^e sacrament, to a temporal lyfe, with the bodye of Christ, to eternall lyfe.

Ched. I cannot chuse but be sory, when I see suche a manifest lye in your wrytynges. For where you translate Iustine on this fashion: That the Bread, Water, and Wyne, are not so to bee taken, in this sacrament, as common meates and drinkes are wont to be taken of vs: but are meates chosen oute peculiarlye for this, namely for the geuing of thanks: And therefore be called of the Grekes Eucharistia, that is, thankes geuing: they are called more ouer the bloude and body of Christe. So haue you translated it, where the wordes of Iustine are thus: We doe teache that Iesus, by whom

our fleshe and bloude is nourished, by chaungyng, after he is consecrated by the prayer of his woorde, to be the bodye and bloude of the same Iesus incarnate.

Cran. I dyd not translate it word for word, but onely I gaue the meanyng; and I goe nothing from his meanyng.

Harps. Your maystership remēbreth, touchynge Iustine, to whome this apologye was wrytten, namely to an heathen man. The heathen thought that the Christians came to the Churche, to worshyp bread. Iustin answereth, that we come not to common bread, but as to &c. as is sayde afore. Weigh the place well, it is ryght worthy to bee noted,: Our flesh is nourished, accordyng to mutation.

Cran. We ought not to consyder the bare bread: but whosoeuer cōmeth to the sacramēt, eateth the true body of Christ.

VVest. You haue corrupted Emissenus  

Commentary     Close

'Emissene' or 'Emissenus' (1563, p. 955; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440) is Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa (or Emissa), now Homs, from c.340 - 359.

Cran. I haue not corrupted it: for it is so in the decrees.

west. You haue corrupted an other place of Emissenus. For you haue omitted these words Mirare, cum reuerendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiādus ascēdis: sacrum dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honorem mirare, merito continge. &c.

That is, maruell thou when thou commest vp to the reuerend alter to be fylled with spirituall meates, looke to fayth to the holy body and bloude of thy god, maruayl at hys honour, worthely touche hym.

Cran. This booke hath not that.

VVest. Also you haue falsifyed this place by euyll translatyng. Honora corpus dei tui. Honor the body of thy god. You haue translated it. Honora eum qui est deus tuus. Honour him whiche is thy god. Whereas Emissenus hath not (honour hym) but (honour the body of thy God.)

Cran. I haue so translated him, and yet no lesse truly, then not without a weyghty cause: for els it should not haue bene without daunger, if I had translated it thus. Honor the body of thy God: because of certayne, that, accordyng to the errour of Anthropomorphits, dremed that god had a body.

west. Nay you moste of all, haue brought þ^e people into that errour, whiche so longe haue taught that he sitteth at the ryght hand of god the father: and counted me for an heretyke, because I preached that god had no ryght hande. Then I wyll oppose you in the verye artycles of your fayth.

Christe sitteth at the ryght hande of God the Father.

But God the Father hath no ryght hande.

Ergo, where is Christ now?

Cran. I am not so ignoraunt a Nouice, in the articles of my fayth, but that I vnderstand that to sytte at the ryght hande of god, dothe