On the 18th of April, this venerable old man was brought out to dispute at eight o’clock, which began nearly in the same manner as the others, but mostly in English, as he stated his long disuse of Latin, and his unfitness for it. Mr. Smith, of Oriel College, with Dr. Cartwright, and Mr. Harpsfield, and others, by turns had snatches at him, and gave him bitter taunts. He escaped no hissings and scornful laughings, no more than they that went before him. He was very faint, and desired that he might not long tarry. He durst not drink for fear of vomiting. The disputation ended before eleven of the clock. Mr. Latimer was not suffered to read what he had, as he said, painfully written; but it was exhibited up, and the prolocutor read part thereof, and so proceeded unto the disputation.

The Preface of Weston unto the following Disputation.

Men and brethren, we are come together this day (by the help of God) to vanquish the strength of the arguments and dispersed opinions of adversaries, against the truth of the real presence of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. And therefore, you, father, if you have any thing to answer, I do admonish that you answer in short and few words.” Then said Dr. Latimer, “I pray you, good master prolocutor, do not exact that of me which is not in me; I have not these twenty years much used the Latin tongue :” and then Weston replied, Take your ease, father.” To this he replied, “I thank

“I thank you, sir, I am well; let me here protest my faith, for I am not able to dispute; and afterwards do your pleasure with me.”

The Protestation of Mr. Hugh Latimer, given up in writing to Dr. Weston.

The conclusions whereunto I must answer are these:

1. The first is, That in the sacrament of the altar, by the virtue of God’s word pronounced by the priest, there is really present the natural body of Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, under the kinds of the appearance of bread and wine; in like manner his blood.

2. The second is, That after consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine; nor any other substance but the substance of God and man.

3. The third is, That in the mass there is the lively sacrifice of the church, which is propitiable, as well for the sins of the quick, as of the dead.

Concerning the first conclusion, me thinketh it is set forth with certain new-found terms that be obscure, and do not sound according to the speech of the scripture. Howbeit, howsoever I understand it, this I do answer plainly, though not without peril; I answer, I say, that to the right celebration of the Lord’s supper there is no other presence of Christ required than a spiritual presence: and this presence is sufficient for a christian man, as a presence by which we abide in Christ, and Christ abideth in us, to the obtaining of eternal life, if we persevere. And the same presence may be called most fitly a real presence, that is, a presence presence not feigned, but a true and a faithful presence. Which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me, with the Anabaptists, to make nothing else of the sacrament but a naked and a bare sign. As for that which is feigned of many concerning the corporal presence, I, for my part, take it but for a papistical invention; therefore, think it utterly to be rejected.

Concerning the second conclusion, I dare be bold to say, that it hath no ground or stay

in God’s word, but is a thing invented and found out by man; and, therefore, to be taken as fond and false: and I had almost said, as the mother and nurse of other errors. It were good for my lords and masters of the transubstantiation, to take heed lest they conspire with the Nestorians, for I do not see how they can avoid it.

The third conclusion (as I do understand it) seemeth subtilly to sow sedition against the offering which Christ himself offered for us in his own proper person, according to that pithy place of Paul, Heb. i. where he saith, “That Christ his own self hath made purgation of our own sins.” And afterward, “That he might (saith he) be a merciful and faithful bishop, concerning those things which are to be done with God, for the taking away of our sins.” So that the expiation or taking away of our sins may be thought rather to depend on this, that Christ was an offering bishop, than that he was offered, were it not that he was offered of himself; and, therefore, it is needless, that he should be offered of any other, I will speak nothing of the wonderful presumption of man, to dare to attempt this thing without a manifest vocation, specially in that it tendeth to the overthrowing, and maketh fruitless (if not wholly, yet partly) of the cross of Christ; for truly it is no base or mean thing to offer Christ. And therefore worthily a man may say to my lords and masters the offerers, By what authority do ye this? and who gave you this authority? Where? When? A man cannot (saith the baptist) take any thing except it be given him from above; much less then may any man presume to usurp any honour, before he be thereto called. Again, If any man sin, (saith St. John,) we have, saith he, not a master or offerer at home, which can sacrifice for us at mass, but we have (saith he) an advocate, Jesus Christ, which once offered himself long ago; of which offering the efficacy and effect is perdurable for ever, so that it is needless to have such offerers.

What meaneth Paul, when he saith, “They that serve at the altar are partakers of the altar?” and so addeth, “So the Lord hath ordained, that they that preach the gospel, should live of the gospel.” Whereas he should have said, The Lord hath ordained that they that sacrifice at mass, should live of there sacrificing, that there might be a living assigned to our sacrificers now, as was before Christ’s coming, to the Jewish priests. For now they have nothing to allege for their living, as they that be preachers have. So that it appeareth, that the sacrificing priesthood is changed by God’s ordinance into a preaching priesthood; and the sacrificing priesthood should cease utterly, saving inasmuch as all christian men are sacrificing priests.

The supper of the Lord was instituted to provoke us to thanksgiving for the offering, which the Lord himself did offer for us, much rather than that our offerers should do there as they do. “Feed (saith Peter) as much as ye may the flock of Christ:” nay, rather let us sacrifice as much as we may for the flock of Christ. If so be the matter be as men now make it, I can never wonder enough, that Peter would or could forget this office of sacrificing, which at this day is in such a price and estimation, that to feed is almost nothing with many. If thou cease from feeding the flock, how shalt thou be taken? Truly catholic enough. But if thou cease from sacrificing and massing, how will that be taken? At the least, I warrant thee, thou shalt be called an heretic.

And whence, I pray you, come these papistical judgments? Except perchance they think a man feedeth the flock in sacrificing for them and then what needeth there any learned pastors? For no man is so foolish, but soon may he learn to sacrifice and mass it.

Thus lo, I have taken the more pains to write, because I refused to dispute, in consideration of my debility thereunto; that all men may know, how that I have so done not without great pains, having not any man to help me, as I have never before been debarred to have. O sir, you may chance to live till you come to this age and weakness that I am of. I have spoken in my time before two kings more than once, two or three hours together, without interruption: But now, that I may speak the truth (by your leave) I could not be suffered to declare my mind before you, no, not by the space of a quarter of an hour, without snatches, revilings, checks, rebukes, taunts, such as I have not felt the like, in such an audience, all my life long. Surely it cannot be but an heinous offence that I have given. But what was it? Forsooth had spoken of the four marrow-bones of the mass. The which kind of speaking I never read to be a sin against the Holy Ghost.

I could not be allowed to shew what I meant by my metaphor: But, sir, now by your favour, I will tell your mastership what I mean. The first is, the popish consecration, which hath been called a God’s body-making. The second is, transubstantiation. The third is, massal oblation. The fourth, adoration.

The chief and principal portions, parts, and points, belonging or incident to the mass, and most esteemed and had in price in the same, I call the marrow-bones of the mass; which indeed you, by force, might, and violence, intrude in sound of words in some of the scripture, with racking and cramping, injuring and wronging the same; but else indeed, plain out of the scripture, as I am thoroughly persuaded, although in disputation I now could nothing do to persuade the same to others, being both unapt to study, and also to make a shew of my former study in such readiness as should be requisite to the same.

I have heard much talk of Mr. Doctor Weston to and fro in my time: but I never knew your person to my knowledge, till I came be-fore you as the queen’s majesty’s commissioner. I pray God send you so right judgment, as I perceive you have a great wit, great learning, with many other qualities. God give you grace ever well to use them, and ever to have in remembrance, that he that dwelleth on high, looketh on the low things on the earth; and that there is no council against the Lord; and also that this world hath been, and yet is, a tottering world. And yet again, that though we must obey the princes, yet that hath this limitation, namely, in the Lord. For whoso doth obey them against the Lord, they be most pernicious to them, and the greatest adversaries that they have; for they so procure God’s vengeance upon them, if God be the only ruler of things.

There be some so corrupt in mind, the truth being taken from them, that they think gain to be godliness; great learned men, and yet men of no learning, but of railing and raging about questions and strife of words. I call them men of no learning, because they know not Christ, how much else soever they know. And on this sort we are wont to call great learned clerks, being ignorant of Christ, unlearned men; for it is nothing but plain ignorance, to know any thing without Christ: whereas, whoso knoweth Christ, the same hath knowledge enough, although in other knowledge he be to seek. The apostle St. Paul confesseth of himself to the Corinthians, that he did know nothing but Jesus Christ crucified. Many men babble many things of Christ, which yet know not Christ; but, pretending Christ, do craftily colour and darken his glory. Depart from such men, saith the apostle St. Paul to Timothy.

It is not out of the way to remember what St. Augustine saith. The place where, I now well remember not, except it be against the epistle of Petilian: “Whosoever (saith he) teacheth any thing necessarily to be believed, which is not contained in the Old and New Testament, the same is accursed.” Oh! beware of this curse, if you be wise. I am much deceived, if Basilius have not such like words: “Whosoever (saith he) is besides the holy scripture, if the same be taught as necessary to be believed, that is sin.” Oh, therefore, take heed of this sin!

There be some that speak many false things, more probable, and more like to the truth, than the truth itself. Therefore, Paul giveth a watch-word: “Let no man (saith he) deceive you with probability and persuasions of words.” But what mean you, saith one, by this talk so far from the matter? Well, I hope, good masters, you will suffer an old man a little to the child, and to speak one thing twice play Lord God! you have changed the most holy communion into a private action; and you deny to the laity the Lord’s cup, contrary to Christ’s commandment: and you do blemish the annunciation of the Lord’s death till he come: For you have changed the common prayer, called the divine service, with the administration of the sacraments, from the vulgar and known language into a strange tongue, contrary to the will of the Lord revealed in his word. God open the door of your heart, to see the things you should see herein! I would as feign obey my sovereign as any in this realm; but in these things I can never do it with an upright conscience. God be merciful unto us. Amen.”

Weston began with observing, “then refuse you to dispute? Will you here then subscribe?” when Latimer answered, “No, good master, I pray be good to an old man. You may, if it please God, be once old, as I am: you may come to this age, and to this debility.” Then said Weston, “Ye said upon Saturday last, that ye could not find the mass nor the marrow-bones thereof in your book; but we will find a mass in that book:” but he replied, “No, good Mr. Doctor, ye cannot.” Weston asked, “What find you then there?” and Latimer answered, “Forsooth a communion I find there.” Then Weston asked, “Which communion, the first or the last?” when Latimer replied, “I find no great diversity in them; they are one supper of the Lord; but I like the last very well.” Weston then observed, “The first was naught belike;” when Latimer rejoined, “I do not well remember wherein they differ;” when Weston smartly retorted, “Then cake bread, and loaf bread are all one with you. Ye call it the supper of the Lord, but you are deceived in that; for they had done the supper before, and, therefore, the scripture saith, After they had supped. For ye know, that St. Paul findeth fault with the Corinthians, for that some of them were drunken at this supper; and ye know no man can be drunken at your communion.” Latimer then said, “The first was called [CENA JUDAICA] the Jewish supper, when they did eat the paschal lamb together; the other was called [CENA DOMINICA] the Lord’s supper.” Weston then said, “That is false; for Chrysostom denicth that. And St. Ambrose, in cap. 10. prioris ad Corinthios, saith, that the mystery of the sacrament, given as they were at supper, is not the supper of the Lord.’ And Gregory Nazianzen saith the same, ‘Again he kept the holy feast of passover with his disciples in the diningchamber, after the supper, and one day before his passion. But we keep it both in the churches and houses of prayer, both before the supper, and also after the resurrection.’ And that first supper was called dyár: can you tell what that is?” When Latimer said, “I understand no Greek. Yet I think it meaneth charity.” Then said Weston, “Will you have all things done that Christ did then? Why, then must the priest be hanged on the the morrow? And where find you, I pray, that a woman should receive the sacrament ?” Then Latimer replied, “Will you give me leave to turn to my book? I find it in the 11th chapter to the Corinthians. I trow these be his words, PROBET AUTEM SEIPSUM HOMO, &C. I pray you, good master, what gender is homo?” and Weston answered, “Marry, the common gender.” Cole said, “It is in the Greek, i d’vgw;” and Harpsfield, “It is ävng, that is, VIR.” But Latimer said, “It is in my book of Erasmus’s translation, PROBET SEIPSUM HOMO;” when Fecknam remarked, “It is PROBET SEIPSUM, indeed, and therefore it importeth the masculine gender;” and Latimer replied, “What then? I trow, when the woman touched Christ, he said, QUIS TETIGIT ME? SCIO QUOD ALIQUIS ME TETIGIT; that is, Who touched me? I know that some man touched me.”

Upon this Weston vauntingly said, “I will be at host with you anon. When Christ was at supper, none were with him but his apostles only; therefore, he meant no woman, if you will have his institution kept.” But Latimer said, “In the twelve apostles was represented the whole church, in which you will grant both men and women to be;” when Weston said, “So, through the whole heretical translated Bible ye never make mention of priest, till ye come to the putting of Christ to death. Where find you then, that a priest or minister (a minstrel I may call him well enough) should do it of necessity?” To this Latimer replied, “A minister is a more fit name for that office; for the name of a priest importeth a sacrifice.” Then Weston said, “Well, remember that ye cannot find that a woman may receive by scripture. Mr. Opponent, fall to it.” On this Smith observed, “Because I perceive, that this charge is laid upon my neck to dispute with you: to the end that the same may go forward after a right manner and order, I will propose three questions, so as they are put forth unto me. And first, I ask this question of you, although the same indeed ought not to be called in question: but such is the condition of the church, that it is always vexed of the wicked sort. I ask, I say, whether Christ’s body be really in the sacrament ?” Then said Latimer, “I trust I have obtained of Mr. Prolocutor, that no man shall exact that thing of me, which is not in me. And I am sorry, that this worshipful audience should be deceived of their expectation for my sake. I have given up my

mind in writing to Mr. Prolocutor.” Then said Smith, “Whatsoever you have given up, it shall be registered among the acts.” Latimer then added, “Disputation requireth a good memory; my memory is gone clean, and marvelously weakened, and never the better, I wist, for the prison.” On this Weston asked, “How long have you been in prison?” when he answered, “This three-quarters of this year;” and Weston replied, “And I was in prison six years;” to which Latimer observed, “The more pity, sir.” Then Weston again asked, “How long have you been of this opinion?” and he answered, “It is not long, sir, that I have been of this opinion.”

When Weston continued, “The time has been, when you said mass full devoutly:” he said, “Yea, I cry God mercy heartily for it.” Again Weston asked, “Where learn you this new fangleness?” and Latimer answered, “I have long sought for the truth in this matter of the sacrament, and have not been of this mind past seven years; and my lord of Canterbury’s book hath especially confirmed my judgment herein. If I could remember all therein contained, I would not fear to answer any man in this matter.” But Tresham said, “There are in that book six hundred errors.” Weston also said, “You were once a Lutheran;” but Latimer said, “No, I was a papist : for I never could perceive, how Luther could defend his opinion without transubstantiation. The Tygurines once did write a book against Luther, and I oft desired God, that he might live so long to make them answer.” Weston said, “Luther, in his book, DE PRIVATA MASSA, said, That the devil reasoned with him, and persuaded him, that the mass was not good, fol. 14. CONTIGIT ME, &c. Whereof it may appear, that Luther said mass, and the devil dissuaded him from it.” Then said Latimer, “I do not take in hand here to defend Luther’s sayings or doings. If he were here, he would defend himself well enough, I trow. I told you before, that I am not meet for disputations. I pray you read mine answer, wherein I have declared my faith.”

But Weston then asked, “Do you believe this as you have written;” and, on Latimer’s saying, “Yea, sir,” he added, “Then have you no faith;” to which Latimer replied, “Then would I be sorry, sir.” Then Tresham said, “It is written, Except you shall eat the flesh of the you do feign, it had been an easy matter for him to have said, You shall not eat my flesh with your mouth, but the sacrament of my flesh; that is to say, Ye shall receive with your mouth not the thing itself, but the figure of the thing, and thus he might have satisfied them but so he said not, but continued in the truth of his words, as he was wont. There

Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.’ Which, when the Capernaites and many of Christ’s disciples heard, they said, This is a hard saying, &c. Now, that the truth may the better appear, here I ask of you, Whether Christ, speaking these words, did mean of his flesh to be eaten with the mouth, or of the spiritual eating of the same?” To this Latimer said, “I answer (as Augus-fore, Christ meant the self-same thing that the

tine understandeth) that Christ meant of the spiritual eating of his flesh;” when Tresham asked, “Of what flesh meant Christ, his true flesh, or no?” and Latimer answered, “Of his true flesh, spiritually to be eaten in the supper by faith, and not corporally.” Then Tresham asked, “Of what flesh meant the Capernaites?” and he answered, “Of his true flesh also, but to be eaten with the mouth.” Tresham then replied, “They, as ye confess, did mean his true flesh to be eaten with the mouth. And Christ also (as I shall prove) did speak of the receiving of his flesh with the mouth; therefore, they both did understand it of the cating of one thing, which is done by the mouth of the body.” But Latimer said, “I say, Christ understood it not of the bodily mouth, but of the mouth of the spirit, mind, and heart;” when Tresham replied, “I prove the contrary, that Christ understandeth it of the eating with the bodily mouth. For whereas custom is a right good mistress and interpreter of things, and whereas the acts put in practice by Christ, do certainly declare those things which he first spake, Christ’s deeds in his supper, where he gave his body to be taken with the mouth, together with the custom which hath been ever since that time, of that eating which is done with the mouth, doth evidently infer, that Christ did understand his words, here cited of me out of the sixth of John, of the eating with the mouth.” But Latimer said, “He gave not his body to be received with the mouth, but he gave the sacrament of his body to be received with the mouth: he gave the sacrament to the mouth, his body to the mind.” Tresham then replied, “But my reason doth conclude, That Christ spake concerning his flesh to be received with the corporal mouth: for otherwise (which God forbid) he had been a deceiver, and had been offensive to the Capernaites and his disciples, if he had not meant in this point as they thought he meant: for, if he had thought as

Capernaites did,-I mean concerning the thing itself to be received with the mouth, videlicet, that his true flesh is truly to be eaten with the mouth. Moreover, forasmuch as you do expound for [CORPUS CHRISTI] the body of Christ, [SACRAMENTUM CORPORIS CHRISTI] the sacra ment of the body of Christ, and hereby do suppose, that we obtain but a spiritual union, or union of the mind between us and Christ, plain it is, that you are deceived in this thing, and do err from the mind of the fathers: for they affirm by plain and express words, that we are corporally and carnally joined together. And these be the words of Hilary, ‘Therefore, if Christ did truly take the flesh of our body upon him, and the same man be Christ indeed, which was born of Mary; then we also do receive under a mystery the flesh of his body indeed, and thereby shall become one, because the Father is in him, and he in us. How is the unity of will affirmed, when a natural propriety by the sacrament is a perfect sacrament of unity?’ Thus far hath Hilary. Lo here you see how manifestly these words confound your assertion. To be short, I myself have heard you preaching at Greenwich before King Henry VIII., where you did openly affirm, That no christian man ought to doubt of the true and real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, forasmuch as he had the word of scripture on his side, [videlicet] Hoc. EST CORPUS MEUM, This is my body: whereby he might be confirmed. But now there is the same truth: the word of scripture hath the self-same thing which it then had. Therefore, why do you deny at this present that, whereof it was not lawful once to doubt before, when you taught it ?”

Then said Latimer,” Will you give me leave to speak ?” when Tresham said, “Speak Latin, I pray you, for ye can do it, if ye list, properly enough.” But Latimer said, “I cannot speak Latin so long and so largely. Mr. Prolocutor hath given me leave to speak English.

And as for the words of Hilary, I think they make not so much for you. But he that shall answer the doctors had not need to be in my case, but should have them in readiness, and know their purpose. Melancthon saith, If the doctors had foreseen, that they should have been so taken in this controversy, they would have written more plainly.” Then Smith said, “I will reduce the words of Hilary into the form of a syllogism.-Such as is the unity of our flesh with Christ’s flesh, such (yea greater) is the unity of Christ with the Father: But the unity of Christ’s flesh with ours is true and substantial; therefore, the unity of Christ with the Father is truc and substantial.” To this Latimer replied, “I understand you not.” Then Seaton said, “I know your learning well enough, and how subtle ye be; I will use a few words with you, and that out of Cyprian, DE CŒNA DOMINI. The Old Testament doth forbid the drinking of blood; the New Testament doth command the drinking and tasting of blood; but where doth it command the drinking of blood.” To which Latimer answered, “In these words, Drink ye all of this.” Seaton replied, “Then we drink true blood;” which Latimer admitted, “but spiritually; and this is enough.” But Seaton said, “Nay, the Old and New Testament in this do differ; for the one doth command, the other doth forbid, to drink blood;” which Latimer admitted to be “true, as touching the matter, but not as touching the manner of the thing.” Seaton rejoined, “Then there is no difference between the drinking of blood in the New Testament, and that of the Old; for they also drink spiritually;” and Latimer replied, “And we drink spiritually also, but a more precious blood.” Then said Weston, “Augustine upon the 45th Psalm saith, Drink boldly the blood which ye have poured out;’ therefore, it is blood.”

Then said Latimer, “I never denied it, nor ever will I go from it, but that we drink the very blood of Christ indeed, but spiritually; for the same Augustine saith, Believe, and thou hast eaten.” But Weston said, “Nay, to believe, is not to drink or eat. You will not say, I pledge you, when I say, I believe in God.” Then Latimer replied, “Is not [MANDUCARE] to eat, in your learning, put for [CREDERE] to believe?” Then Weston remarked, “I remember my lord-chancellor demanded of Mr.

Hooper these questions, Whether [EDERE] to eat, were [CREDERE] to believe, and [ALTARE] an altar, were Christ in all the scripture, &c. And he answered, Yea. Then said my lordchancellor, Why then [HABEMUS ALTARE DE QUO NON LICET EDERE,] that is, We have an altar, of which it is not lawful to eat, is as much as to say, [HABEMUS CHRIstum, in quo NON LICET CREDERE,] We have a Christ, in whom we may not believe.” Then said Tresham, “Believe that thou hast eaten, is spoken of the spiritual eating;” which Latimer also affirmed; and Weston added, “We are commanded to drink blood in the new law; therefore, it is very blood:” but said Latimer, “We drink blood, so as appertaineth to us to drink to our comfort, in sacramental wine. We drink blood sacramentally; he gave us his blood to drink spiritually; he went about to shew, that as certainly as we drink wine, so certainly we drink his blood spiritually.” To this Weston observed, “Do you not seem to be a papist, which do bring in new words, not found in scripture? Where find you that [SACRAMENTALITER] sacramentally, in God’s book?” when Latimer said, “It is necessarily gathered upon scripture.” But said Weston, “The Old Testament doth forbid the tasting of blood, but the New doth command it;” which Latimer allowed, though not as touching the thing, but as touching the manner thereof.” On this Weston said, “Hear, ye people, this is the argument: That which was forbidden in the Old Testament, is commanded in the New: To drink blood was forbidden in the Old Testament, and commanded in the New.”

This argument, because the major thereof is not universal, is not formal, and may well be retorted against Weston thus: “No natural or moral thing, forbidden materially in the Old Testament, is commanded in the New: To drink man’s natural blood, is forbidden materially in the Old Testament; therefore, to drink man’s natural blood materially, is not commanded in the New.”

Latimer again said, “It is commanded spiritually to be drank; I grant it is blood drank in the New Testament, but we receive it spiritually.” Then said Pye, “It was not forbidden spiritually in the old law;” and Latimer added, “The substance of blood is drank, but not in one manner;” to which Pye said,

“It doth not require the same manner of drinking.” “But said Latimer, “It is the same thing, not the same manner. I have no more to say.”

Upon this Weston cited the place of Chrysostom, of Judas’s treason: “O the madness of Judas! He made bargain with the Jews for thirty pence to sell Christ, and Christ offered him his blood which he sold.”

Lat. I grant he offered to Judas his blood which he sold, but in a sacrament.

West. Because ye can defend your doctors no better, ye shall see what worshipful men ye hang upon, and one that hath been of your mind shall dispute with you. Mr. Cartwright, I pray you dispute.

I Cart. Reverend father, because it is given me in commandment to dispute with you, will do it gladly. But first understand, ere we go any farther, that I was in the same error that you are in: but I am sorry for it, and do confess myself have erred; I acknowledge mine offence, and I wish, and desire God, that you may also repent with me.

Lat. Will you give me leave to tell what hath caused Mr. Doctor here to recant? It is PŒNA LEGIS, the pain of the law, which hath brought you back, and converted you and many more: the which letteth many to confess God. And this is a great argument; there are few here can dissolve it.

Cart. This is not my case; but I will make you this short argument, by which I was converted from mine errors :-If the true body of Christ be not really in the sacrament, all the whole church hath erred from the apostles’ time: But Christ would not suffer his church to err; therefore, it is the true body of Christ.

Lat. The Popish church hath erred, and doth err. I think for the space of six or seven hundred years, there was no mention made of any eating but spiritually: for, before these five hundred years, the church did ever confess a spiritual manducation. But the Romish church begat the error of transubstantiation. My Lord of Canterbury’s book handleth that very well, and by him I could answer you, if I had him.

Cart. Linus and all the rest do confess the body of Christ to be in the sacrament; and St. Augustine also upon the 99th Psalm, upon this place, “Worship his footstool,” &c. granteth, that it is to be worshipped.

Lat. We do worship Christ in the heavens, and we do worship him in the sacrament: but the massing worship is not to be used.

Smith. Do you think that Cyril was of the ancient church?

Lat. I do think so.

Smith. He saith, That Christ dwelleth in us corporally: These be Cyril’s words of the mystical benediction.

Lat. That [CORPORALLY] hath another understanding than you do grossly take it. Cyril saith, That Christ dwelleth corporally in us, but he saith not, that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread. Which dwelling of Christ in us, is as our dwelling is also in Christ, not local or corporal, but spiritual and heavenly. Corporally, therefore, is to be taken in the same sense as St. Paul saith the fulness of divinity to dwell in Christ corporally, that is, not lightly nor accidentally, but perfectly and substantially, with all his virtue and power, &c. And so dwelleth Christ corporally in us also.

Smith. Here Smith repeateth these words of Cyril: “By the communicating of the body of Christ, Christ dwelleth in us corporally.”

Lat. The solution of this is in my Lord of Canterbury’s book.

Smith. Cyril was a papist; and yet these be his words:”Christ dwelleth in us corporally:” But you say, he dwelleth in us spiritually.

Lat. I say both, that he dwelleth in us both corporally and spiritually, according to his meaning: spiritually by faith, and corporally by taking our flesh upon him. For I remember I have read this in my Lord of Canterbury’s book.

West. Because your learning is let out to farm, and shut up in my Lord of Canterbury’s book, I will recite unto you a place of St. Ambrose, DE APPARATIONE AD MISSAM, where he saith, “We see the chief priest coming unto us, and offering blood, &c.” Likewise both Augustine, in the 38th Psalm, and Chrysostom, concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, tom. 3. say, NON SOLUM HOMINES, &C.

Lat. I am not ashamed to acknowledge mine ignorance, and these testimonies are more than I can bear away.

West. Then you must leave some behind you for lack of carriage.

Lat. But of Chrysostom, he hath many figu rative speeches and emphatical locutions in many places; as in that which you have now recited: But he saith not, For the quick and the dead; he taketh the celebration for the sacrifice.

West. You shall hear Chrysostom again, upon the ninth chapter of the Acts, QUID DICIS? HOSTIA IN MANIBUS SACERDOTIS, &c., He doth not call it a cup of wine.

Lat. Ye have mine answer there with you in a paper; and yet he calleth it not a propitiatory sacrifice.

West. You shall hear it to be so: and I bring another place of Chrysostom, out of the same treatise, Non temere ab Apostolis EST INSTITUTUM, &C.

Lat. He is too precious a thing for us to offer; he offereth himself.

West. Here in another place of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch, and also to the Philippians, he saith, “There should be a memory and sacrifice for the dead.”

Lat. I do say, that the holy communion. beareth the name of a sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice memorative.

West. How say you to the sacrifice of the dead?

Lat. I say that it needeth not, and it booteth not.

West. Augustine, in his Enchiridion, saith, “We must not deny that the souls of the dead are relieved by the devotion of their friends which are living, when the sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them.” Where he proveth the verity of Christ’s body, and prayeth for the dead. And it is said, that the same Augustine said mass for his mother.

Lat. But that mass was not like yours, which thing doth manifestly appear in his writings, which are against it in every place. And Augustine is a reasonable man; he requireth to be believed no farther than he bringeth scripture for his proof, and agreeth with God’s word.

West. In the same place he proveth a propitiatory sacrifice, and that upon an altar, and no oyster-board.

Lat. It is the Lord’s table, and no oysterboard. It may be called an altar; and so the doctors call it in many places: but there is no propitiatory sacrifice, but only Christ. The doctors might be deceived in some points, though not in all things; I believe them, when they say well.

Cole. Is it not a shame for an old man to lie? You say you are of the old fathers’ faith, where they say well, and yet ye are not.

Lat. I am of their faith, when they say well. I refer myself to my Lord of Canturbury’s book wholly herein.

Smith. Then are not you of Chrysostom’s faith, nor of St. Augustine’s faith.

Lat. I have said, when they say well, and bring scripture for them, I am of their faith; and farther Augustine requireth not to be believed.

West. Origen, Hom. 13, upon Leviticus.

Lat. I have but one word to say, The sacramental bread is called a propitiation, because it is a sacrament of the propitiation. What is your vocation?

West. My vocation is, at this time, to dispute; otherwise I am a priest, and my vocation is, to offer.

Lat. Where have you your authority given you to offer?

West. HOC FACITE, Do this: for FACITE in that place is taken for OFFERTE, that is, offer

you.

Lat. Is FACERE nothing but SACRIFICARE, to sacrifice? Why, then no man must receive the sacrament but priests only: For there may none other offer but priests; therefore, there may none receive but priests.

West. Your argument is to be denied.

Lat. Did Christ then offer himself at his supper?

Pye. Yea, he offered himself for the whole world.

Lat. Then, if this word [FACITE,] do ye, signify [SACRIFICARE,] sacrifice ye, it followeth, as said, that none but priests only ought to re-. ceive the sacrament, to whom it is only lawful to sacrifice: And where find you that, I pray you?

West. Forty years agon whither could you have gone to have found your doctrine?

Lat. The more cause we have to thank God, that hath now sent the light into the world.

West. The light? Nay, light and lewd preachers; for you could not tell what you might have. Ye altered and changed so often your communions and altars, and all for this one end, to spoil and rob the church.

Lat. These things pertain nothing to me; I must not answer other men’s deeds, but only for mine own.

After this Weston addressed him as follows: “Well, Mr. Latimer, this is our intent, to will you well, and to exhort you to come to yourself, and remember, that without Noah’s ark there is no health. Remember what they have been that were the beginners of your doctrine; none but a few flying apostates, running out of Germany for fear of the faggot. Remember what they have been, which have set forth the same in this realm: A sort of flying brains and light heads, which were never constant in any one thing, as it was to be seen in the turning of the table, where, like a sort of apes, they could not tell which way to turn their tails, looking one day west, and another day east; one that way, and another this way. They will be like (they say) to the apostles, they will have no churches; a hovel is good enough for them. They come to the communion with no reverence. They get them a tankard, and one saith, I drink, and I am thankful; the more joy of thee, saith another. And in them was it true that Hilary saith, “We make every year and every month a faith.” A runnagate Scot did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last communion-book; so much prevailed that one man’s authority at that time. You never agreed with the Tygurines or Germans, or with the church, or with yourself. Your stubbornness cometh of vainglory, which is to no purpose; for it will do you no good, when a faggot is in your beard. And we say all, by your own confession, how little cause you have to be stubborn; for your learning is in feoffors hold. The Queen’s grace is merciful, if ye will turn.

Lat. You shall have no hope in me to turn. I pray for the queen daily, even from the bottom of my heart, that she may turn from this religion.

West. Here you all see the weakness of heresy against the truth: He denieth all truth, and all the old fathers.

Here all good readers may see how this glorious prolocutor triumpheth; but whether he hath victory or no, that I suppose they have yet neither heard nor seen. And grant that he had the victory, yet what great marvel was it, disputing as he did, NoNSINE SUO THESEO, that is, not without his tippling cup standing at his elbow all the time of his disputation; not without a privy noting and smiling of them that beheld the matter; but especially at that time, when Dr. Ridley, disputing with one of the opponents, the said prolocutor took the cup, and holding it in his hand, said to the opponent, URGE HOC, URGE HOC, NAM HOC FACIT PRO NOBIS. In which words, as he moved the beholders thereof to laughter, so I thought it proper to mention here, to delight the reader withal, after his tedious weariness in reading the story thereof.

Thus ended the disputation with Latimer; in which, as in various parts of the preceding ones, their railing and blasphemous language is manifest; and, except in his insolent expression of the “oyster-board,” in none so conspicuous as in the last address. But “he could say what he pleased, having the law in his own hands, although he said never a true word, nor never made a true conclusion, almost in all that disputation.”