Marginalia1554. Aprill.nem facit corporis & sanguinis Domini, manifestat quòd non sit simplex homo qui sacrificatur, sed ipse Dominus omniū factor, tanquam per hæc quidem ipsos perterrefaciens.

That is.

Where as he saith: Is gilty of the body and bloud: this he declareth, that lyke as Iudas betrayed him, & the Iews were fierce & spiteful against him: so do they dishonour him which receyue his holy body with their impure hands, and as the Iewes did hold him then, do now receiue hym with vnpure mouthes. And where as he often maketh mention of the body and bloud of the Lord, he declareth that it is not simply man that is sacrificed, but euen the Lord hymselfe, beyng the maker of all thinges, hereby (as it were) making them afraid.

Ergo, (as it is hereby gathered) the body of Christ is touched with the handes.

Cranmer. You vouch two authors against me vppon sondry thynges. First I must aunswer Tertullian, and then the other.

Ched. They tend both to one meaning.

MarginaliaAunswere to Tertullianus.Cran. Vnto Tertullian I answer (because our disputation is wandring and vncertaine) that he calleth that þ^e flesh which is the sacrament.  

Commentary     Close

Foxe also reworded a statement Cranmer made: 'unto Tertulliane I aunswere (for as much as the disputation is uncertain, what he calleth fleshe and what he calleth the Sacrament)' (1563, p. 947). This became: 'unto Tertullaine I aunswer (because our disputation is wandryng and uncertayne) that he calleth the flesh which is the Sacrament' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1365; 1583, p. 1435). This transforms an observation that Tertullian's Eucharistic formulas were ambiguous into an affirmation by Cranmer that Tertullian called the sacrament the flesh.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaD. Weston vrgeth hym with the wordes of Tertullian.West. Sticke to those wordes of Tertullian: Corpus vescitur vt anima saginetur. i. The body eateth that the soule may be fed.

Ched. The fleshe eateth the body of Christ, that the soule may be fed therwith.

West. Here you see two kyndes of foode: of the soule and of the body.

Ched. He sayeth, that not onely the soule but the flesh is also fedde.

Cran. The soule is fedde with the body of Christ, the body with the sacrament.

Ched. Is the soule fed with the body of Christ & not with the sacrament?

Cran. Read that which followeth, and you shall perceyue that by thinges externall, an operation internall is vnderstand. MarginaliaInwardly we eate the body: outwardly the SacramentInwardly we eate Christes body: and outwardly we eate the sacrament. So one thing is done outwardly, an other inwardly &. Like as in Baptisme the externall element wherby the body is washed, is one: so the internall thyng wherby the soule is clensed is an other.

Ched. The soule is fed by that which the body eateth.

But the soule is fed by the flesh of Christ:

Ergo, the body eateth the flesh of Christ.

Cran. We eate not one thing outwardly and inwardly. Inwardly we eate Christes body: outwardly we eate the sacrament.

Ched. I will repeat the Argument.

*Marginalia* The forme of this argument which he repeateth, stoode better before: for the fourme of this connexiō aunswereth to none of the three figures of Sillogismes The flesh eateth Christes body, that the soule may be fed therwith.

The soule is not fed with the sacrament, but with christes body.

Ergo, the flesh eateth the body of Christ.

Cran. The sacrament is one thing, the matter of the sacrament is another. Outwardly we receiue the sacrament: inwardly we eate the body of Christ.

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

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

Ergo, we eate the body of Christ outwardly.

MarginaliaCōsequence.The flesh eateth Christ his 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] therof, but [de deo] of God.

Ched. What say ye to Phoceus saying: They which receiue the body with impure handes, are gilty of the Lords bloud, as Iudas was.

West. That which foloweth in Tertullian doth take away your shift, where as he saith: Non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quos opera coniungit. i. They cannot be 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 Communication of the Lords supper. For vvith vvater as the flesh is washed with water that the soule may be purged spiritually, so our body eateth the outward Sacrament that the soule may be fed of God.☞ To the Maior of which Argument thus it may be answered: expounding the saying of Tertullian, vna opera coniungit, sed non idem operādi modus. Agayne, opera here in Tertullian may be taken for tēptations and afflictions.

MarginaliaAunswere to Terullian De ressurect.Cran. Your authoritye (I suppose) is taken out of the booke, De resurrectione carnis. i. of the resurrectiō of the flesh: and þ^e meanyng therof is this. Tertullian goeth about there to proue that the fleshe shall ryse againe, because it is ioyned together in one woorke with the soule. Through Baptisme in this world the body is washed, and the soule is washed: þ^e body outwardly the soule inwardly: the worke is one, In thys worke they are ioyned. And hee speaketh of signes.

West. He speaketh of eatyng in a signe.

Ergo, the reward is in a signe.

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

West. There are two workes:

Ergo, there are two rewardes.

If the woorke 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 he sayth not, quos vna opera coniungit. i. whom one worke ioyneth together, but opera. i. a worke: as in Baptisme the soule and the body are ioyned in vnderstandyng.

West. The fleshe 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. Tresham disputeth.Tres, For as much as the reuerend Doctors here haue impugned, and ouerthrowen your assertion & your aunsweres sufficiently: I will fall to an other matter, not altogether impertinent to the purpose, and that in fewe woordes, agaynst a certayne sequele of your opinion. The sequele is this: that betwene vs and Christ there is no farther coniunctiō, whiles we receiue the Eucharist, then a coniunctiō of the mynde, 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 deny, Wherupon in very deede you leaue but a spirituall vnion and ioyning together of mynd. Howbeit you would seeme to thinke otherwise by your subtile aūswers, But I will declare by manifest testimonies of the fathers þ^t this your sequele, which you accompt so sure is far wyde from the truth. And I wyll begyn with S. Hillary, who is both an auncient and a learned author. For disputyng agaynst the Arrians, octauo de Trinitate, hee sayth that this was their opinion: that the Father and the Sonne are conioyned onely through vnity of wil. Wherupon Arrius hym selfe, when scripture was alledged agaynst him, dyd (as you do now) elude the right meanyng of it by his false interpretations, But the Catholycke Church hath alwayes beleued and euer mayntayned, that Christ is one with the father in nature, and not by consent of will only. To þ^e proofe whereof 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 bee vnderstand by the assent of their wyls and agreement of their myndes, not by vnitye of their natures. Thus it happeneth now a daies, 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 demaund of thē now which will needes haue the vnitie of will onelye betwene the father and the sonne, whether Christ be now in vs truely by nature, or onely by the agreement of wylles? If (sayth he) the worde be incarnate in very deede, and we receaue at the Lordes table the word made fleshe, how then is he to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally, who beyng borne man, hath both taken the nature of our fleshe vpon him that is now inseparable, and hath also myngled the nature of his owne flesh vnto the nature of eternitie vnder the sacrament of his fleshe, to bee communicated vnto vs. Thus much hath Hillary, Whereupon I aske of you thys question, MarginaliaConiunction betwene Christ and vs.how Christ dwelleth now in vs? according to faith or according to nature?

MarginaliaAunswere to Hillary.Cran. I say that Christ dwelleth verely in vs carnally and nyturally, for that he hath taken of the Virgin our flesh vp on him, & because he hath cōmunicated his nature vnto vs,

MarginaliaBucer contra Abrincensem alleaged by Tresham.Tres. Bucer contra Abrincensem referreth these wordes onely to the Eucharist, saying: Christ doth exhibite al this vnto vs in his holy supper, and accordyng to þ^e holy fathers (sayth he) Christ liueth thereby in vs, not onely by fayth and loue as absent, but naturally, corporally, and carnally.