Marginalia1554. Aprill.Lati. It is in my booke of Erasmus translation, Probet seipsum homo.  

Commentary     Close

There was an omission in the Rerum account. Latimer's comment 'It is in my booke of Erasmus translation, Probet se ipsum homo' (1563, p. 981; 1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1385; 1583, p. 1456; this is not in Rerum, p. 690). This omission was probably inadvertent.

Feck. It is probet seipsum in deede: and therefore it importeth the Masculine gender.

Lat. What then? I trowe when the woman touched Christ, he sayd: Quis tetigit me? Scio quod aliquis me tetigit: That is: Who touched me? I know that some man touched me.

West. I wyll be at host with you anone. MarginaliaArgument.When Christ was at his supper, none were wyth hym, but hys Apostles onely.

Ergo, he meant no woman, if you wil haue this institution kept.

Lat. MarginaliaThe Apostles represented the whole church.In the twelue Apostles was represented the whole Churche, in which you wyll graunt both men and women to be.

West. So through the whole hereticall translated Bible, ye neuer make mention of Priest, tyll ye come to the puttyng of Christ to death. Where find you then that a priest or minister, (MarginaliaWeston scorneth the name of Minister.a minstrel I may call hym well enough) should do it of necessitie?

Lat. MarginaliaThe name of Minister more fit thē the name of Priest.A Minister is a more fit name for that office: for the name of a Priest importeth a sacrifice.

West. Well, remember that ye can not find that a woman may receiue, by scripture. Maister Opponent, fal to it.

Smith. Because I perceiue that this charge is laide vpon my necke, to dispute with you: to the ende that the same may goe forward after a right manner & order, I will propose three questions, so as they are put forth vnto me. And first I aske this question of you, although the same in dede ought not to be called in question: But such is the condition of the Churche, that it is alwayes vexed of the wicked sort. I aske (I say) whether Christes body be really in the sacrament.

Lat. I trust I haue obteined of M. Prolocutour, that no man shall exact that thing of me, which is not in me. And I am sory that this worshipful audience should be deceiued of their expectation for my sake. I haue geuen vp my mynd in writing to M. Prolocutor.

Smyth. What so euer ye haue geuē vp, it shall be registred among the Actes.

Lat. MarginaliaM. Latimer modestly maketh hym selfe vnable to dispute.Disputation requireth a good memorie: Ast abolita est mihi memoria, My memory is gone cleane, and marueylously weakened, and neuer the better I wis for the prison.

West. How long haue ye bene in prison?

Lat. These three quarters of this yeare.

West. And I was in prison sixe yeares.

Lat. The more pitie sir.

West. How long haue you bene of this opinion?

Lat. It is not long sir that I haue ben of this opinion.  

Commentary     Close

In later editions, Latimer states, 'It is not long, Syr, since I have bene of this opinion' (1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456); in 1563 (p 981) he says, 'It is long, Syr, since I have bene of this opinion'. (The 1563 version was clearly in error for the Rerum reads: 'Non valde diu, a bone').

[Back to Top]

West. The tyme hath bene when you sayd masse full deuoutly.  

Commentary     Close

In the edition of 1563, Weston says, 'Ye have sayde masse at Grenewyche full devoutely' (1563, p. 981), while in later editions this is rendered: 'The tyme hath bene when you sayd Masse full devoutly' (1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456). (Rerum, p. 690, does not mention Greenwich in its translation of the remark).

[Back to Top]

Lat. Yea, I cry God mercy hartily for it. MarginaliaThen they hist and clapt their handes at hym.

West. Where learned you this newe fanglenes?

Lat. I haue long sought for the truth in this matter of the sacrament, and haue not bene of this mynde past seuen yeares: and MarginaliaMaister Latymer confirmed by Doct. Crāmers booke.my Lord of Canterbury his booke  

Commentary     Close

The text Latimer repeatedly cited as 'Cranmer's book' was Thomas Cranmer, A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ (STC 6000-6002).

Tres. There are in that booke sixe hundred errours.

West. You were once a Lutheran.

Lat. MarginaliaThe zeale of Maister Latymer sometimes in Popery agaynst the Tygurines.No, I was a Papist: For I neuer could perceyue how Luther could defend his opinion without transubstantiation. The Tygurines once did write a booke agaynst Luther: and I oft desired God, that he myght lyue so long to make them answere.

West. Luther in his booke De priuata Missa, said, that the deuyl reasoned with hym, & perswaded hym that the masse was not good,  

Commentary     Close

Weston, in alleging that Luther declared the devil taught him that the mass was evil (1563, p. 981; 1570, p. 1624; 1576, p. 1386; 1583, p. 1456), was repeating a charge levelled at Luther by Johannes Cochlaeus and repeated by such leading polemicists as Fredericus Staphylus, Stanislaus Hosius and Nicholas Harpsfield. It was based on Luther's declaring, in the work cited by Weston, that the devil tempted him to despair by charging him with hypocrisy in performing the mass even though he did not believe in transubstantiation.

[Back to Top]

Lat. I do not take in hande here to defend Luthers sayinges or doings. If he were here he would defend hym selfe wel enough I trow. I told you before that I am not meet for disputations. I pray you reade myne answere, wherin I haue declared my fayth.

West. Do you beleue this, as ye haue written?

Lat. Yea sir.

West. Then haue you no faith.

Lat. Then would I be sory sir.

MarginaliaHere Tresham began to dispute in Latin. Tres. It is written Iohn. 6. Except ye shall eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, ye shall haue no life in you. Which when the Capernaites & many of Christes discipls heard, they said: This is a hard saying. &c. Now that the truth may the better appeare, here I aske of you, whether Christ speakyng these wordes, did meane of his

fleshe to be eaten with the mouth, or of the spirituall eatyng of the same?

Lat. I aunswere (as Augustine vnderstandeth) that Christ meant of the spiritual eating of his flesh.

Tres. Of what flesh meant Christ, his true flesh, or no?

Lat. Of his true flesh, spiritually to be eaten in the supper by fayth, and not corporally.

Tres. Of what flesh ment the Capernaites?

Lat. Of his true fleshe also: but to be eaten with the mouth.

Tres. MarginaliaDoctour Treshās argument without forme or mode, concluding affirmatiuely in the 2. figure.They (as ye confesse) did meane his true flesh, to be taken with the mouth. And Christ also (as I shall proue) dyd speake of the receiuyng of his flesh with the mouth.

Ergo, they both did vnderstande it of the eating of one thing, which is done by the mouth of the body.

Lat. I say, Christ vnderstood it not of the bodily mouth: but of the mouth of the spirite, mynd, and hart.

Tres. I proue the contrarye: that Christ vnderstandeth it of the eating with the bodyly mouth. MarginaliaDoctour Tresham flyeth to custome.For where as custome is a right good maistresse & interpreter of things, and wher as the acts put in practise by Christ, do certainly declare those thinges which he first spake: Christes deedes in his supper, wher he gaue his body to be takē with þ^e mouth, together with the custome which hath bene euer since that tyme, of that eating which is don with the mouth, doth euidētly infer that Christ did vnderstand his wordes here cited of me out of the sixt of Iohn of the eatyng w^t the mouth.

Lat. He gaue not his body to be receyued with þ^e mouth, but he gaue the sacrament of his bodye to be receiued with the mouth: MarginaliaThe sacrament geuen to the mouth the body to fayth.he gaue the sacrament to the mouth, his body to the mynd.

Tresh. But my reason doth conclude, that Christ spake cōcernyng his flesh to be receiued with the corporal mouth: for otherwise (which God forbid) he had bene a deceyuer, and had bene offensiue to the Capernaites and his disciples, if he had not meant in this poynt, as they thought he meant: For if he had thought as you doo faine, it had bene an easie matter for hym to haue saide: *Marginalia* And what doth Christ els meane by these wordes, where he sayth: My vvordes be spirite and lyfe: the flesh profiteth nothing? You shall not eate my fleshe with your mouth, but the sacrament of my flesh: that is to say, ye shal receiue with your mouth, not the thing it selfe, but a figure of the thing, and thus he might haue satisfied them: but so he saide not, but continued in the truth of his wordes, as he was wont: Therfore Christ ment the selfe same thyng, that the Capernaites dyd, I meane concernyng the thing it selfe to be receiued with the mouth: videlicet, that his true flesh is truely to be eaten with the mouth. Moreouer, for as much as you do expoūd for (corpus Christi) the body of Christ (Sacramentum corporis Christi) the acrament of the body of Christ, and hereby do suppost that we obteine but a spiritual vnion or vnion of the mynde betweene vs and Christ, plaine it is that you are deceiued in this thing, and do erre from the mynd of the Fathers: for they affirme by playne and expresse words, that we are corporally & carnally ioyned together. And these be the words of Hillarie. Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, nos quoque verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, et per hæc vnum erimus, quia pater in eo est, et ille in nobis. Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectè Sacramentum sit vnitatis? i. Therfore if Christ dyd truely take the flesh of our bodye vppon hym, and the same man be Christe in deede whiche was borne of Marye, then we also doo receyue vnder a mysterie, the fleshe of his body in deede, and thereby shall become one, because the father is in hym, and he is in vs. How is the vnitie of wyll affirmed, when a naturall proprietie, by the Sacrament is a perfect sacrament of vnity?

Thus farre hath Hyllarie. Loe here you see howe manifestly these woordes confounde your assertion. MarginaliaM. Latymer charged to preach the contrary doctrine before the King at Grenewich.I my selfe haue heard you preachyng at Grenwiche, before king Henry the eight, where you dyd openly affirme, that no Christian man ought to doubt of the true and reall presence of Christes bodye in the Sacrament, for as much as he had the woorde of Scripture on his side, (videlicet: Hoc est corpus meum: This is my bodye, whereby he might be confirmed. But nowe there is the same truthe: the word of Scripture hath the selfe same thing which it then had. Therefore why do you denie at this present, that wherof it was not lawfull once to doubt before when you taught it?

Lat. Wyl you geue me leaue to speake?

Tresh. Speake Latine I pray you: for ye can doo it, if ye list, promptly enough.

Lat. I can not speake Latin, so long & so largely: master Prolocutour hath geuen me leaue to speak Englishe: And as for the wordes of Hyllarie, I thinke they make not so much for you. But he that shall answere the Doctours,