Marginalia1554. Aprill.Cran. I denie the Maior.

Ched. I proue the Maior out of Iustine in his second Apologie: MarginaliaIustinus Apolog. 2.ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν: οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι᾿ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι..

MarginaliaAnswere to the place of Iustinus.Cran. This place hath bene falsified by Marcus Constantius.  

Commentary     Close

'Marcus Constantius' (see 1563, p. 954; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1369; 1583, p. 1440) was Stephen Gardiner's nom de plume when writing the Confutatio cavallationum quibus Eucharistiae sacramentum ab impiis Capharnatis impeti solet (Paris, 1552).

Ched. To the argument. As Christ is truely and naturally incarnate. &c. vt supra.

Cran. I deny your Maior.

Ched. The wordes of Iustine are thus to be interpreted word for word.

Quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factus Iesus Christus Saluator noster, carnem habuit & sanguinem pro salute nostra: sic & cibum illum consecratum per sermonem precationis ab ipso institutæ, quo sanguis carnes nostræ per *Marginalia* Mutationem. cōmunionem nutriuntur, eiusdem Iesu qui caro factus est, carnem & sanguinem esse accepimus. That is to say:

As by the worde of God, Iesus Christ our Sauiour being made flesh, had both flesh and bloud for our saluation: so we are taught, that the meate *Marginalia* Of thankesgeuing. consecrated by the word of prayer, instituted of him, wherby our bloud and flesh are nourished by *Marginalia* Mutation. cōmunion, is the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus, which was made flesh.

MarginaliaAunswere.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 Christ: and yet of that sanctified meate our bodyes are nourished.

Ched. Nay he saith, that of that sanctified meate, both our bodyes and soules are nourished.

Cran. He sayth not so: but he sayth that it nourisheth our Marginaliaαἷμα καὶ σάρκες. i. Bloud and flesh.flesh and bloud: and how cā that nourish the soule, that nourisheth the flesh and bloud?

Cole. It fedeth the body by the soule.

Cran. Speake vprightly. Can that which is receyued by the soule and the spirite, be called the meate of the body?

West. Heare then what Irenæus sayth: MarginaliaIrenaus.Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus cōfirmauit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando & mixtus calix, & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostræ substantia. That is: The same cup which is a creature, he confirmed to be his body, by which he encreaseth our bodyes. When both the cup mixed, and the bread broken hath ioyned to it the word of God, it is made the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, of which the sustaunce of our flesh is increased, and consisteth.

MarginaliaArgument.The substaunce of our flesh is increased by the body and bloud of Christ:

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

Cran. I deny your Argument. He calleth it the flesh and bloud, for the Sacramēt of the body and bloud, as Tertullian also sayth: MarginaliaIrenæus aunswered by Tertull.Nutritur corpus pane symbolico, anima corpore Christi. That is: Our flesh is nourished with the symbolicall or Sacramētall bread, but our soule is nourished with the body of Christ.

West. Looke what he sayth more. MarginaliaIrenæus Lib. 5.Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei quæ est vita æterna, quæ sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? Lib. 5. post duo folia à principio. That is: How do they say, that the flesh cā not receyue the gift of God that is eternall lyfe, which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ? This is in the 5. booke, two leaues from the begynnyng.

MarginaliaThe body is nouryshed with the Sacrament to temporall life: with the body of Christ to eternall life.Cran. The body is nourished both with the Sacrament, and with the body of Christ: with the Sacramēt, to a temporal life; with the body of Christ, to eternal lyfe.

Ched. I can not but be sory when I see such a manifest lye in your writynges. For where you trans-

late Iustine on this fashion:MarginaliaNote that the Archbyshop here dyd not translate the wordes of Iustine, but onely gather the effect of hys meaning. that the bread, water, and wyne are not so to be taken in this Sacramēt, as common meates and drinkes are wont to be taken of vs: but are meates chosen out peculiarly for this, namely for the geuyng of thankes, and therfore be called of the Grekes Eucharistia, that is, thankes geuyng: they are called moreouer the bloude and body of Christ (so haue you translated it): the wordes of Iustine are thus: We are taught that the meate consecrated by the worde of prayer, by the which our flesh and bloud is nourished by communion, is the body and bloud of the same Iesus which 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]

MarginaliaCranmer purgeth hym selfe.Cran. I dyd not translate it word for word, but onely I gaue the meanyng: and I go nothyng from hys meanyng.

Harps. You remember, touchyng Iustine, to whom this Apologie was writen, namely to an heathen man. The heathen thought that the Christians came to the Church to worship bread. Iustine aunswereth, that we come not to commō bread, but as to. &c. as is said afore. Wey the place wel, it is right worthy to be noted: Our flesh is nourished: accordyng to mutation.

MarginaliaIn eating the Sacrament no bread is considered but onely the true body of Christ.Cran. We ought not to consider the bare bread: but who soeuer commeth to the Sacrament, eateth the true body of Christ.

West. 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 wordes: MarginaliaDe consecrat. Dist. 2. Quia.Mirare cum reuerendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis: 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 in faith to the holy body & bloud of thy God: maruell at his honour: worthely touch hym.

Cran. This booke hath not that.

MarginaliaCranmer charged with false translating.West. Also you haue falsified this place by euil translatyng: Honora corpus Dei tui. i. Honour the body of thy God. You haue trāslated it: Honora eum qui est Deus tuus. i. Honour hym which is thy God. Wheras Emissenus hath not [honour hym] but [honour the body of thy God].

MarginaliaCranmer purgeth hym selfe.Cran. I haue so translated hym, and yet no lesse truly, thē not without a weighty cause: for els it should not haue bene without daūger, if I had translated it thus: Honor the body of thy God: because of certayne, that, accordyng to the errour of the Anthropomorphites, dreamed that God had a body.

West. Nay you most of all, haue brought the people in to that errour, which so long haue taught that he sitteth at the right hand of God the father: and counted me for an hereticke, because I preached that God had no right hand. Then I wyll oppose you in the very Articles of your fayth.

MarginaliaArgument.Christ sitteth at the ryght hand of God the Father.

But God the Father hath no ryght hand:

Ergo, where is Christ now?

Cran. I am not so ignoraunt a Nouice in the Articles of my fayth, but that I vnderstand, MarginaliaThe ryght hand of God what it signifieth.that to sit at the right hand of God, doth signifie to be equall in the glory of the Father.

West. Now then take this Argument.

Where soeuer Gods authoritie is, there is Christes body.

But Gods authoritie is in euery place:

Ergo, what letteth the body of Christ to be in euery place?

MarginaliaCranmer charged with mistranslating Duns.Moreouer you haue also corrupted Duns.

Cran. That is a great offence, I promise you.

West. For you haue omitted secundū apparentiā. i.