Critical Apparatus for this Page
View an Image of this PageCattley Pratt ReferencesCommentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Person and Place Index  *  Close

'Emissene' or 'Emissenus' (1563; p. 955; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440

Bishop of Emesa (or Emissa), now Homs, from c. 340 - 359.

1464 [1440]

Queene Mary. Disputations of Doct. Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury at Oxford.

Cran. This is new learning: you shall neuer read this among the fathers.

Ched. But Ambrose sayeth so.

Cran. He calleth the bread and the cup a type or signe of the bloud of Christ, and of his benefite.

West. Ambrose vnderstandeth for a type of his benefit, that is, of redemption: not of the bloud of Christ, but of his passion. The cuppe is the type or signe of his death, seeing it is hys bloud.

MarginaliaAmbrose alleaged against Ambrose.Cran. He sayeth most plainely, that the cuppe is the type of Christes bloud.

Ched. As Christe is truely and really incarnate, so is
he truely and really in the Sacrament.
ri-But Christ is really and truely incarnate.
Ergo, the body of Christ is truely and really in the sa-

Cran. I deny the Maior.

Ched. I prooue the Maior out of Iustine in hys 2. 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..

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAunswere to the place of Iustinus.Cran. This place hath ben 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).

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 466, fn 1

"' Marcus Constantius' was the fictitious name under which Gardiner published his 'Confutatio Cavillationum,' etc. The following is his translation: 'Cibum illum, ex quo sanguis et carnes nostræ per mutationem nutriuntur, postquam per verbum precationis fuerit ab eodem benedictus, edocti sumus esse carnem et sanguinem illius Jesu, qui pro nobis fuit incarnatus.' Peter Martyr's complaint against it is, that the clause 'Ex quo, etc., nutriuntur,' is transposed, to avoid the inference which may be drawn from the original expression of Justin, ' that the bread and wine, after consecration as well as before, nourish our bodies by the ordinary process of digestion.'" - "Gardyner Confutat." object. 151; Peter Martyr, "De Eucharist." p. 311. Jenkyns, p. 60. - ED

[Back to Top]
Iustine meant nothing els, but that the bread which nourisheth vs, is called the body of Christ.

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

Cran. I deny your Maior.

Ched. The woordes of Iustine are thus to bee interpreated woord for woord.

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 carnesue nostræ per communionem nutriuntur, Marginalia* Mutationem.eiusdem Iesu qui caro factus est, carnem & sanguinem esse accepimus. That is to say.

[Back to Top]

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 meat * Marginalia* Of thankesgeuing.consecrated by the word of prayer, instituted of him, whereby our bloude and flesh are nourished by * cōmunion, Marginalia* the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus, which was made flesh.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAunswere.Cran. You haue translated it wel: But I deny your Maior. Thys is the sence of Iustine: that that breade is called the body of Christ, and yet of that sanctified meate our bodyes are nourished.

Ched. Nay, he sayeth of that sanctified meate, bothe oure bodies and soules are nourished.

Cran. He sayth not so: but he sayth that it nourisheth our ffesh and bloud: and howe can that nourish the soule, that nourisheth the flesh and bloud? Marginaliaαἷμα και σάρκες. I. Bloud and flesh.e.

Cole. It feedeth the body by the soule.

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

West. Heare then what Irenæus sayeth: MarginaliaIrenæus.Eum calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmauit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando & mixtus calix. & Fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur, & cōsistit carnis nostræ substantia. This is þe same cup which is a creature, hee confirmed to be hys body, by which hee increaseth oure bodyes. When both the cuppe mixed, and the breade broken, hathe ioyned to it the woorde of God, it is made the Sacrament of the body and bloude of Christe, of whych the substaunce of our fleshe is increased, and consisteth.

[Back to Top]

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

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

Cran. I deny your Argument. He calleth it the fleshe and bloud: for the Sacrament of the body and bloud, as Tertullian also sayth: MarginaliaIrenæus answered by Tertul.Nutritur corpus pane Symbolico, anima corpore Christi. That is, Our flesh is nourished wyth Symbolicall or sacramentall bread, but our soule is nourished wyth the body of Christ.

[Back to Top]

West. Looke what he sayeth more. Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei quæ est vita æterna, quæ sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur. li. 5. post duo folia a principio. MarginaliaIrenæus. lib. 5.That is: How doe they say, that the flesh can not receiue the gift of God that is eternall life, which is nourished wyth the bloud and body of Christe? That is in the 5. booke 2. leaues from the beginning.

[Back to Top]

Cran. The body is nourished both with the sacramēt, and with the body of Christ, with the sacrament to a temporall life: with the body of Christ to eternall life.

Ched. I cannot but be sorie when I see such a manifest lie

in your wrytings. For where you translate Iustine on this fashion: that the bread, water and wine, are not so to be taken in this sacrament, as common meates and drinks are wont to be takē of vs: but are meats chosen out peculiarly for this, namely for the geuing of thankes, and therefore be called of the Greekes Eucharistia, that is, Thankes geuinge, they are called moreouer the bloude and bodye of Christe (so haue you translated it): the wordes of Iustine are thus: MarginaliaNote that the Archb. here did not translate the words of Iustine, but onely gather the effect of his meaning.Wee are taughte that the meate consecrated by the worde of prayer, by the which our flesh and bloud is nourished by Communion, is the body & bloud of the same Iesus which was made fleshe. 

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]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaCranmer purgeth himselfe.Cran. I did not translate it worde for worde, but onely I gaue the meaning: and I goe nothing from his meaning.

Harps. You remember, touching Iustine, to whom this Apologie was wrytten, namelye to an Heathen man. The Heathen thought that the Christians came to the Churche to worship breade. Iustine aunsweareth, that we come not to common bread, but as to. &c. as is sayd afore. Weigh the place wel, it is right worthy to be noted: Our flesh is nourished: according to mutation.

[Back to Top]

In eating the sacrament no bread is considered but onely the true body of Christ.
De consecra. Dist. 2. Quia.
Cran. We ought not to consider the bare bread: but whosoeuer commeth to the Sacrament, eateth the true body of Christe.

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.

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 467, fn 5

See Cranmer's translation of Emissene, vol. ii. p. 323; also the original, among the authorities in the Appendix: from a comparison of which it will appear that the charge of corruption was unfounded. See Jenkyns. - ED.

for in stead of cibis satiandus, that is, to be filled with meat: you haue set cibis satiandus spiritualibus: that is, to be filled with spirituall meates.

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 woordes: 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 altar to be filled with spiritual meats: looke in faith to the holy body and bloud of thy God: maruell at his honour: worthely touch him.

[Back to Top]

Cran. Thys booke hath not that 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 467, fn 6

The original fully justifies Cranmer's assertion; it is strange that Weston, in the very act of charging another with false quotation, should himself be so audacious as to substitute "merito continge" for "mente continge." See Jenkyns. - ED.

MarginaliaCranmer charged with false translating.West. Also you haue falsified this place by euill translating Honora corpus Dei tui. i. Honour the bodye of thy God. You haue translated it: Honora eum qui est Deus tuus. i. Honoure him which is thy God. Whereas Emissenus hath not [honor him] but [honor the body of thy God.]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaCranmer purgeth himselfe.Cran. I haue so translated him, and yet no les truely, then not without a weightye cause, for els it shoulde not haue bene wythout daunger, if I had translated it thus: Honour the body of thy God: because of certain, that according to the errour of the Anthropomorphites, dreamed that God had a body.

[Back to Top]

West. Nay you most of all, haue brought the people into þt errour, whyche so longe haue taught that he sitteth at the right hande of God the father: and counted me for an hereticke because I preached þt God had no right hande. Then I will appose you in the very Articles of your faith.

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

But God the Father hath no right hand:

Ergo, Where is Christ now?

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

West. Now then take this Argument.

Whersoeuer Gods authority is, there is Christes body,

But Gods authoritie is in euery place:

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

MarginaliaD. Cranmer charged with mistrāslating Duns.Moreouer you haue also corrupted Duns.

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

West. For you haue omitted secundum apparentiam. 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 468, fn 1

This is not true; but the accuracy of his translation is rather doubtful. See Jenkyns, note, page 64. - ED.

i. as it appeareth. Where his wordes are these: Et si quæras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli, cum verba Scripturæ possint saluari secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem, secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo. &c. That is: And if you demaunde why the Churche did chuse thys so harde an vnderstanding of thys Article, where as the woordes of scripture may be salued after an easie & true vnderstanding (as appeareth) of thys article, &c.

[Back to Top]

Cran. It is not so.

MarginaliaD. Cranmer chalenged for setting forth the Catechisme in the name of the Conuocation.West. Also you haue set foorthe a Cathechisme 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 468, fn 2

See a note of Jenkyns upon this subject. - ED.

Appendix:The title of the little volume alluded to is, "Catechismus brevis, Christianæ disciplinæ summam continens, omnibus Ludimagistris auth. Regiâ commendatus: huic Catechismo adjuncti sunt Articuli de quibus in ultima Synodo Londinensi A. D. 1552, &c. &c. 8vo. Lond. 1553." This Catechism is generally considered to be the production of Poynet, bishop of Winchester. Strype, however, says, "It was certainly writ by Alexander Noel, as I find by comparing Noel's Catechism and this together." See the matter again referred to in Cranmer's Disputation at Oxford, p. 468 of this volume, and in Ridley's Disputation, p. 487. The following passage of a letter from Sir John Cheke to Bullinger, dated Greenwich, June 7th, 1553 (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 71), decides the point of the authorship: "Besides this, he [Edward VI.] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the Catechism of John Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles of the Synod of London." Weston evidently alludes to the latter part of the title-page, respecting the Articles. This book was printed in Latin by Wolfe, and in English by Day, at the same time. Copies "are very rare. They could only be circulated from May 20th to July 6th, of 1553. During the reign of Mary all that fell into the hands of the various commissioners, visitors, and bishops, were burnt. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature, mentions this work (vol. iii. 22), and says of it, ' it is a very rare little book, concerning which Heylin very truly says, that it is so hard to come by, that scarce one scholar in five hundred hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand has ever seen it.'" (See more in Dr. Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 6, Cambridge, 1829.) There are copies of it in the Public Library at Cambridge, and elsewhere; and the Parker Society has reprinted it among the "Documents of Edward VI." Dr. Lamb thinks that the publication of neither part can be said to have had the sanction of Convocation, strictly speaking. Dr. Cardwell ("Acta Synodalia") disputes Dr. Lamb's view, and thinks that the Articles had.

[Back to Top]
in the name of the Synode of London, and yet there be 50, whych witnessing that they were of the number of the Conuocation, neuer heard one worde of this Catechisme.

MarginaliaD. Cranmer purgeth himselfe concerning the CatechismeCran. I was ignorant of the setting too of that title: and as soone as I had knowledge therof, I did not like it. Therefore when I complained therof to the Councel, it was answered me by them, that the boke was so entituled, because it was set foorth in the time of the Conuocation.

[Back to Top]

West. Moreouer, you haue in Duns translated in Romana Ecclesia, pro Ecclesia Catholica. i. In the Churche of Rome, for the Catholicke Church.

Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield