by your assertion, he that doth eat the flesh of Christ worthily, hath his fruit by

that.

Therefore the like doth follow of them both, and so there should be no difference between manna and this sacrament, by your reason. Harpsfield:-When it is said, that they which did eat manna are dead, it is to be understand that they did want the virtue of manna.

If M. Harpsfield do mean of bodily life, they which eat the

sacrament do die, as well as they which did eat the manna.

If he mean of spiritual life, neither be they all damned that did eat manna, nor all saved that do eat the sacrament. Wherefore the truth is, that neither the eating of manna

Cranmer :-They then which do eat either of bringeth death, nor the eating of the sacrament bringeth sal

them worthily, do live.

vation; but only the spiritual believing upon Christ's bodily passion, which only justifieth both them and us. And therefore, as the effect is spiritual, which Christ speaketh of in this chapter, so is the cause of that effect spiritual whereof he

meaneth; which is our spiritual believing in him, and not our bodily eating of him.

Harpsfield:-They do live, which do eat manna worthily, not by manna, but by the power of God given by it. The other, which do eat this sacrament, do live by the same. Cranmer :-Christ did not entreat of the cause, but the effect which followed: he doth not speak of the cause whereof the effect proceedeth.

Harpsfield:-I do say the effects are divers, life and death, which do follow the worthy and the unworthy eating thereof.

Cranmer :-Sithens you will needs have an addition to it, we must use both in manna and in the sacrament indifferently, either worthily or unworthily.

Christ spake absolutely of manna and of the supper; so that, after that absolute speaking of the supper, wicked men can in no wise eat the flesh of Christ, and drink

his blood.

Joan. Tract.

26.

Further, Augustine upon John, Tractat. xxvi. upon these words, Qui manducat, August. in &c. saith: "There is no such respect in common meats as in the Lord's body. For who that eateth other meats hath still hunger, and needeth to be satisfied daily: but he that doth eat the flesh of Christ, and drinketh his blood, doth live for ever." But you know wicked men not to do so:

Ergo, Wicked men do not receive.

Harpsfield:-St Augustine meaneth, that he who eateth Christ's flesh, &c., after a
certain manner, should live for ever. Wicked men do eat, but not after that manner.
Cranmer :-Only they which participate Christ, be of the mystical body:
But the evil men are not of the mystical body:

Therefore they do not participate Christ.

commended

Weston :-Your wonderful gentle behaviour and modesty, good Master D. Cranmer, D. Cranmer is worthy much commendation: and that I may not deprive you of your right and just for deserving, I give you most hearty thanks in mine own name, and in the name of all modesty. my brethren.

At which saying, all the doctors gently put off their caps*.

Harpsfield:-Negatur major.

Cranmer :-Probatur: Qui manna habuerunt, habuerunt vitam æternam :

Sed qui hoc sacramentum digne sumunt, non plus habent:

Ergo, Hoc sacramentum non plus valet quam manna in veteri testamento valebat.

Harpsfield :-Non habuerunt Israelitæ vitam æternam ex manna per se, aut ex ipso cibo, sed de gratia Dei propter fidem recipientium : nos autem ex corpore Christi habemus; quia, ut dixit Cyrillus, vivificam salutem ex ipso corpore Christi habemus : ideo fit, ut plus valeat hoc quam manna.

Cranmer :-Nihil interest quoad effectum :
Ergo, Non plus hoc valet quam alterum."—
MS. Public Library, Cambridge. Vide Jenkyns's
Cranmer, Tom. IV. p. 74.]

[3 Non ita est in hac esca, quam sustentandæ hujus temporalis vitæ causa sumimus. Nam qui eam non sumserit, non vivet: nec tamen qui eam sumserit vivet.... In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non ita est: nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam; et qui eam sumit, habet vitam, et hanc utique æternam...Cum enim cibo et potu id appetant homines, ut neque esuriant neque sitiant; hoc veraciter non præstat nisi iste cibus et potus, qui eos a quibus sumitur immortales et incorruptibiles facit.-August. in Joannem. Tractat. xxvi. de cap. vi. Tom. IX. p. 94. Ed. Paris. 1635.]

[ For the remainder of this Disputation, which was wholly between Weston and Harpsfield, see Foxe, Acts, &c. p. 1462. Ed. 1583.]

[Foxe, Acts, &c., 1684, Vol. III. p. 839.-See before, p. 414.]

THAT day wherein Doctor Cranmer, late bishop of Canterbury, answered in the divinity school at Oxford, there was alleged unto him by Doctor Weston, that he the said Cranmer, in his book of the Sacrament, falsely falsified the saying of the doctors, and specially the saying of Saint Hilary in these words, vero for vere, shewing a print or two thereof, to have defaced his doings therein: but Doctor Cranmer with a grave and fatherly sobriety answered, that the print of S. Hilary's works, whereout he took his notes, was verbatim according to his book, and that could his books testify if they were there to be seen: saying further, that he supposed D. Smith in that order rehearsed it in his book of the Sacrament; to the which D. Smith there present (though he were demanded the answer thereof) stood in silence, as canis mutus non valens latrare. But by and by D. Weston without shame, to shadow D. Smith's silence, spitely said to Cranmer, "Belike you took your learning out of Master D. Smith's book."

All this already is testified before.

It chanced at that present to be in the school one William Holcot, gentleman, then a sojourner in the University college: he hearing the same untruth, and remembering that he had amongst his books in his study the said book of Doctor Smith, at his return to his said study, desirous to see the truth therein, found it agreeable to the writing and affirmation of Doctor Cranmer. And the said Holcot, then and there better remembering himself, found amongst his books the book of Stephen Gardiner, intituled "The Devil's Sophistry:" in which book was the said saying of Hilary alleged by the said Stephen verbatim, both in Latin and English, according to Doctor Cranmer's confirmation. Then the said William Holcot, intending (for the manifest opening and trial of the truth therein) to have delivered the said Gardiner's book to Doctor Cranmer, brought it to Bocardo, the prison in Oxford, where Doctor Cranmer then remained; but there in the delivery thereof he was apprehended by the bailiffs, and by them brought before Doctor Weston and his colleagues (then at dinner at Corpus Christi college), who straightways laid treason to the charge of the said William Holcot for the maintenance of Cranmer in his naughtiness, as they called it.

A

DECLARATION'

OF THE

REVEREND FATHER IN CHRIST

THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

CONCERNING

THE UNTRUE REPORT AND SLANDER OF SOME, WHIch reported, THAT HE SHOULD SET UP AGAIN THE MASS

IN CANTERBURY2.

As the devil, Christ's ancient adversary, is a liar and the father of lying, even so he hath ever stirred up his servants and members to persecute Christ and his true word

[This Declaration is here published from the MS. in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 2. 2.15., which has been carefully collated for this edition. Dr Jenkyns, whose copy differs considerably from this, and agrees more nearly with the C.C.C.C. MS., states that he printed from the Emm. Coll. MS. but refers also to MSS. C.C.C.C. cv. p. 321. Harl. Collect. 417. Coverdale, Letters of

the Martyrs. Foxe, Acts, &c. vol. iii. p. 94. Cranmer's Answer, &c. edit. 1580. Strype, Cranmer, p. 305. Acta Disputationis Londinensis, &c., edita a Valerando Pollano, 1554. Burn. Ref. App. vol. ii. B. ii. No. 8.]

[ There can be no doubt that this Declaration was the "seditious bill" referred to in the following minute from the council book. On the 8th of

and religion, which lying he feareth not to do most earnestly at this present. For whereas a prince of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth, seeing the great abuses of the Latin mass, reformed some things therein in time; and after, our late sovereign lord Edward the Sixth took the same wholly away for the manifold errors and abuses thereof, and restored in the place thereof Christ's holy supper according to Christ's institution, and as the apostles in the primitive church used the same in the beginning: now goeth the devil about by lying to overthrow the Lord's holy supper again, and to restore his Latin satisfactory mass, a thing of his own invention and device. And to bring the same the more easily to pass, some of his inventors have abused the name of me, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, bruiting abroad that I have set up the mass again in Canterbury, and that I offered myself to say mass at the burial of our late sovereign prince king Edward the Sixth, and also that I offered myself to say mass before the queen's highness at Paul's church in London, and I wot not where. And although I have been well exercised these xx years in suffering and bearing evil bruits, reports, and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but have borne all things quietly; yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hinderance of God's truth, then are they in no wise tolerate or to be suffered. Wherefore this is to signify to the world, that it was not I that did set up the mass in Canterbury, but it was a false, flattering, and lying monk3, with a dozen of his blind adherents, which caused the mass to be set up there, and that without mine advice or counsel. Reddat illi Dominus in die illo. And as for offering myself to say mass before the queen's highness at Paul's, or in any other place, I never did it, as her grace well knoweth. But if her grace will give me leave, I will and by the might of God shall be ready at all times to prove against all that would say the contrary, that all that is said in the holy communion, set forth by the most innocent and godly prince, king Edward the Sixth, in his court of parliament, is conformable to that order that our Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed; which also his apostles and primitive church used many years: whereas the mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ's apostles nor the primitive church, but also is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth in it many horrible abuses. Whereabout though that many do maliciously report of Mr Peter Martyr, that he is a man of no learning, and therefore not to be credited; yet, if the queen's highness will grant it, I with the said Mr Peter, and other four or five which I will choose, will by God's grace take upon us to defend, that not only the common prayers of the church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, but also that all the doctrine and religion set forth by our sovereign lord king Edward the Sixth is more pure and according to God's word, than any other that hath been used in England these thousand years: so that God's word may be the judge, and that the reasons and proofs upon both parties may be set out in writing; to the intent that all the world may judge therein, and that no man shall start back from their writings. And where they boast of the faith of the church in the olden time these xv hundred years, we will join with them in this point, that that doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the church fifteen hundred years past. And we shall prove, that the order of the church set out in this realm by our said sovereign lord king Edward the Sixth, by act of parliament, is the same that was used fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they never be able to prove theirs.

September, 1553, "Thomas archbishop of Canterbury appeared before the lords, as he was the day before appointed. After long and serious debating of his offence by the whole board, it was thought convenient that as well for the treason committed by him against the queen's majesty, as for the aggravating of the same his offence, by spreading about seditious bills moving tumults to the disquietness of the present state, he should be committed to the tower, there to remain and be referred to justice, or further ordered as shall stand with the queen's pleasure."-Extracts from the Proceedings of the Privy Council, printed in Archæologia,

vol. xviii. p. 175. According to Foxe, the Declaration was circulated in London on the 7th of September; according to Burnet's Latin copy, it was "lecta publice in vico mercatorum ab amico qui clam autographum surripuerat, 5 Septemb. anno Dom. 1553." Jenkyns.]

[3" Whom the archbishop afterward named to be Thornton." Foxe, Acts, &c. 1st edit. p. 1478.] [This report had been circulated, and contradicted by Cranmer two years before. See Answer to Gardiner, p. 195, and Answer to Smith, p. 373, of this volume.]

[Many copies of the foregoing Declaration were hastily written out and dispersed abroad. Foxe states that every scrivener's shop almost was occupied in writing and copying it out (see p. xxi. of the present volume); which accounts for numerous small variations. Strype (p. 436) states that it was sent by Grindal to Foxe, and gives it more nearly to the form in which it appears in the Acts and Monuments, and which is here subjoined from p. 1395, of the edition of 1576.]

A PURGATION OF

THOMAS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,

AGAYNST CERTAINE SCLAUNDERS FALSELY RAYSED UPON HYM.

Foxe, Acts,

p. 1395.

As the devil, Christ's ancient adversary, is a liar and the father of lies, even so hath he stirred up &c. ed. 1576. his servants and members to persecute Christ and his true word and religion with lying; which he ceaseth not to do most earnestly at this present time. For whereas the prince of famous memory, king Henry the eight, seeing the great abuses of the Latin mass, reformed some things therein in his lifetime; and after our late sovereign lord king Edward VI. took the same whole away for the manifold and great errors and abuses of the same, and restored in the place thereof Christ's holy supper according to Christ's own institution, and as the apostles used the same in the primitive church: the devil goeth about now by lying to overthrow the Lord's holy supper again, and to restore his Latin satisfactory mass, a thing of his own invention and devise. And to bring the same more easily to pass, some have abused the name of me, Thomas archbishop of Canterbury, bruiting abroad that I have set up the mass again at Canterbury, and that I offered to say mass at the burial of our late sovereign prince king Edward the VI., and that I offered also to say mass before the queen's highness, and at Paul's church, and I wot not where. And although I have been well exercised these xx years to suffer and bear evil reports and lies, and have not been much grieved thereat, but have borne all things quietly; yet when untrue reports and lies turn to the hinderance of God's truth, they are in no wise to be suffered. Wherefore these be to signify unto the world, that it was not I that did set up the mass at Canterbury, but it was a false flattering, lying, and dissembling monk, which caused mass to be set up there without mine advice or counsel. Reddat illi Dominus in die illo.

And as for offering myself to say mass before the queen's highness, or in any other place, I never did it, as her grace well knoweth. But if her grace will give me leave, I shall be ready to prove against all that will say the contrary, that all that is contained in the holy communion set out by the most innocent and godly prince king Edward the VI., in his high court of parliament, is conformable to that order which our Saviour Christ did both observe and command to be observed, and which his apostles and primitive church used many years: whereas the mass in many things not only hath no foundation of Christ, his apostles, nor the primitive church, but is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth many horrible abuses in it. And although many, either unlearned or malicious, do report, that M. Peter Martyr is unlearned, yet, if the queen's highness will grant thereunto, I with the said M. Peter Martyr, and other four or five which I shall choose, will by God's grace take upon us to defend, not only the common prayers of the church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, but also all the doctrine and religion set out by our said sovereign lord king Edward the VI., to be more pure and according to God's word, than any other that hath been used in England these 1000 years: so that God's word may be judge, and that the reasons and proofs of both parties may be set out in writing; to the intent, as well that all the world may examine and judge thereon, as that no man shall start back from his writing. And where they boast of the faith that hath been in the church these 1500 years, we will join with them in this point, and that the same doctrine and usage is to be followed, which was in the church 1500 years past. And we shall prove, that the order of the church set out at this present in this realm by act of parliament, is the same that was used in the church 1500 years past, and so shall they be never able to prove theirs.

INDEX.

(The asterisks denote the paging of the Latin Version of the Defence.)