MarginaliaAn. 1554. Aprill.Christes body?

Ergo, the flesh eateth the body of Christ.

Cran. The Sacramēt is one thyng, the matter of the Sacramēt is an other. Outwardly we receiue the Sacrament: inwardly we eate the body of Christ.

Ched. I proue that we receiue that outwardly, wherwith the soule is fed.

MarginaliaConsequence.The soule is fed with the body of Christ.

Ergo, we eate the body of Christ outwardly.

MarginaliaConsequence.The flesh eateth Christ hys body.

Ergo, the soule is fed therwith.

MarginaliaAunswere.Cran. The flesh (I say) eateth the Sacrament. It eateth not Christes body. For Tertullian speaketh of the Sacrament: and the place hath not [inde] thereof, but [de deo] of God.

Ched. What say ye to Phoceus saying: They which receiue the body with impure hands, are giltie of the Lordes bloud, as Iudas was.

West. That which foloweth in Tertullian, doth take away your shift, where as he sayth: Non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quos opera coniungit. i. They can not bee separated in reward, whom one worke ioyneth together.

But manducation is the worke or labour Ergo. &c.

MarginaliaAs the body and soule are ioyned in the worke of Baptisme, so are they ioyned in the Cōmunion of the Lords supper. For as the flesh is washed with water that the soule may be purged spiritually: so our body eateth the out ward Sacrament, that the soule may be fed of God.☞ To the Maior of which Argument thus it may bee aunswered: expoundyng the saying of Tertullian, vna opera coniungit sed non idem operandi modus. Agayne, opera here in Tertullian may be taken for temptations & afflictions.

Cran. Your authoritie (I suppose) is taken out of the booke, De resurrectione carnis. i. of the resurrectiō of the flesh: and the meanyng therof is this. MarginaliaAunswere to Tertullian De resurrect.Tertullian goeth about there to proue that the flesh shall ryse agayne, because it is ioyned together in one worke with the soule. Through Baptisme in this world the body is washed, and the soule is washed: the body outwardly, the soule inwardly: the worke is one. In this worke they are ioyned. And he speaketh of signes.

West. He speaketh of eatyng in a signe.

Ergo, the reward is in a signe.

Cran. They are coupled in one worke, namely in the Sacrament.

West. There are two workes:

Ergo, there are two rewardes.

If the worke be in a figure:

Ergo, the reward is in a figure.

Cran. He speaketh not of ij. workes. Two workes are but one worke. And yet hee sayth not, quos vna opera coniungit. i. whom one worke ioyneth together, but opera. i. a worke: as in baptisme the soule and body are ioyned in vnderstandyng.

West. The flesh and soule shall haue one and the selfe same reward, because they haue one worke.

Cran. Because they be ioyned together in one worke.

MarginaliaD. Tressham disputeth.Tres. For as much as the reuerend Doctours here haue impugned and ouerthrowen your assertion and your aunsweres sufficiently: I will fal to an other matter, not altogether impertinent to the purpose, and that in few wordes, agaynst a certaine sequele of your opinion. The sequele is this: that betwene vs and Christ there is no farther coniunction, whyles we receyue the Eucharist, then a coniunction of the mynd, or a spirituall coniunction, wherby we are vnited and knit vnto Christ through fayth and loue. As for the presence of Christ, concernyng the substaunce, that you vtterly de-

ny. Wherupon in very deede you leaue but a spirituall vnion and ioynyng together of mynd. Howbeit you would seeme to thinke otherwise by your subtile aunsweres. But I will declare by manifest testimonies of the fathers, that this your sequele, which you accompt so sure, is farre wyde from the truth. And I will begyn with S. Hillary, who is both an auncient and a learned author. For, disputyng agaynst the Arrians, octauo de Trinitate, he saith that this was their opinion: that the Father & the Sonne are conioyned only through vnity of will. Wherupon Arrius hym selfe, when Scripture was alledged agaynst hym, did (as you do now) elude the right meanyng of it by his false interpretatiōs. But the Catholicke Church hath alwayes beleued and euer maintayned, that Christ is one with the father in nature, and not by consent of will onely. To the proofe wherof, when the Catholickes vouched this testimony of Iohn: Pater & ego vnum sumus. i. The father and I are one: The Arrians aunswered that [vnum sumus] was to be vnderstand by the assent of theyr wils & the agreement of their myndes, not by vnitie of their natures. Thus it happeneth now a dayes, where men do doubt of the Sacrament. But Hillary goyng on, and prouyng the naturall coniunction betwene the father and the sonne, a fortiori, questioneth with his aduersaries after this maner: MarginaliaHillary.I demaunde of thē now, which will needes haue the vnitie of will onely betwene þ^e father & the sonne, whether Christ be now in vs truly by nature, or onely by the agreemēt of wylles? If (sayth he) the word be incarnate in very deede, & we receiue at the Lordes table the word made flesh, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally, who beyng borne man, hath both taken the nature of our flesh vpon him that is now inseparable, and hath also myngled the nature of his owne flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the Sacramēt of his flesh, to be communicated vnto vs. Thus much hath Hillary. MarginaliaConiunction betwene Christ and vs.Wherupon I aske of you this question, how Christ dwelleth now in vs? accordyng to fayth, or accordyng to nature?

MarginaliaAnswere to Hillary.Cran. I say that Christ dwelleth verely in vs carnally and naturally, for that he hath taken of the Virgin our flesh vpon him, and because he hath communicated his nature vnto vs.

MarginaliaBucer cōtra Abrincensem alleaged by Tressham.Tres. Bucer contra Abrincensē referreth these words onely to the Eucharist, saying: Christ doth exhibite all this vnto vs in his holy Supper, and according to the holy fathers (sayth he) Christ lyueth thereby in vs, not onely by fayth and loue as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally. Wherefore he is not absent, neither are we ioyned to Christ onely by a spirituall vnion, (as you suppose) but also by a corporall and carnall vnion.

Cran. I know that M. Bucer was a learned mā. But your faith is in good case, which leaneth vpon Bucer.

Tres. I do not bring Bucer as a Patron of our fayth, but because he is a man of your sorte, and yet bringeth this place of Hillarie for that vnion which we haue by the Sacrament, and confesseth that by it we are carnally vnited to Christ, where as you thinke that we are ioyned by it, onely through fayth and loue.

MarginaliaChrist cōmunicated and vnited to vs by byrth, by vnitie of the Church, by the communion, by Baptisme, by fayth.Cran. I say that Christ was communicated vnto vs, not onely by fayth, but in very deede also when he was borne of the Virgin. We haue fellowship with Christ, when we are vnited in the vnity of the Church, when we are made flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones: and so we are vnited in þ^e Communion, in Baptisme, and in fayth.

Tres. I pray you, what fellowship haue we w^t Christ, in that he is made man? Are not the Turkes & Iewes therein ioyned with him? For they are men as we are, and are ioyned with him in mās nature, in that he was borne of a woman: I speake now of a more nere vnitie. We are made one wyth Christ by the communion, in a perfect vnitie.

Cran. *Marginalia* We are vnited to Christ by the cōmunion, so as we are by Baptisme. We are made so, I graunt: but we are made so