the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament not by substance but by efficacy only."-"I mean both by substance and by efficacy," answered Cranmer: "Christ gave His Body in bread, the Body that was born and was crucified but He gave it by a figure, using figurative speech. Setting the figure aside, it was not formally His Body that He gave. He gave His death, His passion; and, in giving bread, the Sacrament of His passion. He took and gave His true, natural, and organical flesh, that wherein He suffered: and yet He feedeth us spiritually, and that flesh is received spiritually: for He took and gave not any wandering substance, but the certain substance of bread as a sacrament or sign thereof: and did so tropically, analogically, figuratively, as the Fathers say; changing the appellation, and calling the bread by the name of His flesh. We receive with the mouth the Sacrament but the thing and matter of the Sacrament we receive by faith. Inwardly we eat Christ's Body: outwardly we eat the Sacrament."* Chedsey was supported by Oglethorpe and Cole: but more effectively by Weston, who was a not unkindly, though occasionally bantering and humorous moderator, entirely on one side,

* The antagonistic positions are clearly exhibited in the following passage between Chedsey and Cranmer.

Chedsey-I will repeat the argument.

The flesh eateth Christ's Body, that the soul may be fed therewith. The soul is not fed with the sacrament but with Christ's Body.

Ergo, The flesh eateth the Body of Christ.

Cranmer :-The Sacrament is one thing; the matter of the Sacrament is another. Outwardly we receive the Sacrament; inwardly we eat the Body of Christ.

Chedsey:-I prove that we receive that outwardly wherewith the soul is fed. The soul is fed with the Body of Christ :

Ergo, We eat the Body of Christ outwardly.

The flesh eateth Christ His Body:

Ergo, The soul is fed therewith.

Cranmer :-The flesh, I say, eateth the Sacrament: it eateth not Christ's Body. Fox, or Cranmer's Works, p. 408.

and bound to be so by the terms that he had drawn, according to which they were not striving for the discovery of truth, but the conversion of a heretic. At one point he is said to have stretched forth his hand, and set on the people to clamour, filling the school with hissing and clapping, while the epithets of unlearned, unskilful, and impudent were hurled in their Latin equivalents against the meek respondent. The venerable Tresham, who disputed next, had but a short time, but he broke new ground: that the sequel of Cranmer's opinion would be that there was no further conjunction but a spiritual conjunction in receiving the Eucharist, though by his subtle answers Cranmer seemed to think otherwise. Against this sequel he alleged Bucer. "Your faith is in good case," said the Archbishop, "which leaneth upon Bucer."-"I bring Bucer," said Tresham, "because he is a man of your sort, and yet says that we are carnally united to Christ, whereas you think that we are only joined by faith and love."-"Christ was communicated to us not by faith only, but in very deed, when He was born of the Virgin."-" And what fellowship have we with Him in that point more than Jews or Turks have?" "We are made one with Him in baptism," was the reply, "and the unity in baptism is perfect."—"We are not made one in baptism with a perfect unity, but in the communion, by which we are made one carnally," answered Tresham. "The doctrine," replied Cranmer, "is not to be suffered in the Church, which teacheth that we be not joined to Christ by baptism."-"You grant only an union,” said Tresham, “not a carnal or natural union of the substance of flesh, by which we are joined more than spiritually. May you have given you a better mind, and return into the way of righteousness. "We come hither to dispute, not to pray," interposed the Prolocutor. "Is it not lawful to pray for them that err?" Tresham pleaded,

"It is not lawful yet; but proceed," answered the Prolocutor. Tresham however said but little more: and the disputation was pursued by the Prolocutor and Chedsey who charged Cranmer with falsifying some of the Fathers in his book on the Sacrament.*

Three hours had been spent in this combat ere the Vicechancellor of Cambridge, Doctor Young, entered the field, or took the pulpit of opponent. At sight of the high dignitary of the University of Gardiner, at sight of the compliant person who had formerly translated into Latin his own work on the Sacrament which in the last reign had roused the opposition of Gardiner,† a change

66

* There was a long wrangle about a passage cited by Cranmer from St. Hilary as to which see the note in the Park. Soc. Cranmer, Works 414. This part of the disputation is related by the writer of Bishop Cranmer's Recantacyons. Surgit Chedseus, quærit ab eo si librum quem in Eucharistiam ex omnium scriptorum auctoritatibus deprompsisse videri vellet, bona fide posteris prodidisset. Cum ille bona fide dixisset, tum Chedseus; 'Quomodo igitur illum Divi. Hilarii locum in quo scriptum erat; nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, sic turbasti, ut pro eo quod erat vere sub mysterio, tu reposueris vero sub mysterio, atque ita reddideris anglice, quasi non adverbium fuisset illud vere sed ad nomen mysterii additum? Ita ex vera sumptione sub mysterio, verum mysterium in sumptione fecisti.'-'Eo,' inquit Cranmerus, 'modo liber meus legit.'—'Atqui a quo,' inquit Chedseus, librario descriptus est liber tuus? Sunt enim in promptu hic plures, a Venetiis, Parisiis, Colonia, in quibus omnibus illud vere videmus relinqui.' Sed hic literulæ unius error videri poterat." p. 20. This was but an incident of the disputation; but this is all that this writer relates at full.

+ I have given some account of Cranmer's controversy with Gardiner on the Eucharist: Vol. III. 227, 269, 271, huj. oper. Cranmer's first work, the Defence of the true and Catholic Doctrine, was published in 1550: and was translated into Latin by Young, and so published, only so far back from this time as 1553. Cranmer might well feel some indignation at seeing the man oppose him on the Sacrament ¡who had so recently translated him on the Sacrament. Cranmer's work was republished in 1557 at Emden with a preface by Cheke. This has led the Parker editor of Cranmer into a confusion. He says "the translation is supposed to have been made by Cheke, but is attributed by Strype to Young" (Cranmer's Works, note on title-page of reprint of the Latin). Strype (Cranm. Bk. ii, ch. 25) rightly assigns the translation to Young and the preface to the Emden edition to Cheke. As to Young, he must have been

was perceptible in the temper of Cranmer. Young began by essaying the Socratic or ironical method: putting several interrogations which seemed distant, but tended to a common point. "That is a sophistical cavillation," exclaimed Cranmer, significantly using the designation that he had given to Gardiner's tract against him on the Sacrament: Go plainly to work: there is some deceit in these questions: you seek subtleness: leave your crafty fetches." As Young proceeded, "Oh how many crafts are there in this argument," cried Cranmer, "they are very fallacies"! And again, "O glorious words! You are too full of words." Pie followed Young: Chedsey returned: Cole ensued: but Weston was continual: and at length overwhelmed the respondent with charges, not perhaps altogether unfounded, of corrupting old authors in his books on the Eucharist. "You have corrupted Justin.""I only gave the meaning, not translating word for word."-"You have corrupted Emisenus" "I have not "You have corrupted Emisenus in another place"-"I cannot find it"-"You have corrupted Emisenus in a third place"-"I did as you say to avoid an old heresy."-"You have corrupted Duns Scotus"-"That is a great offence, I promise you"-"You have set forth a Catechism in the name of the synod of London, which never went near the synod of London."-"That was not my doing, nor liked it I."*"You have corrupted Duns again, making him say the Church of Rome, where he said the Catholic

peculiarly obnoxious, for he had just received a deluge of promotions for changing his opinions. He had been made master of Pembroke when Ridley was deprived, canon of Ely when Parker was cast out, rector of Stretham in Ely, and Vice-chancellor of Cambridge. Cooper's Ath. Cant. i. 428.

* I have gone fully into the matter of that Catechism, Vol. III. p. 513 -518 of this work. Comp. p. 74 and 92 of this volume.

Church."-" Because he meant the Church of Rome, not the Catholic Church."-" You have corrupted St. Thomas by mistranslation, by insertion, and by omission. And thus ye see, brethren, the truth invincible, ye see the deceit of heretics. Therefore cry all together, Vincit veritas"! So was the assembly dismissed, having continued to two of the clock. The exultant doctors went together to dinner at University College: the respondent was led by the mayor and the billmen back to prison.

In Ridley, whose turn came the next morning, April 17, the Commissioners and their chief found a more persistent though not more constant adversary. Ridley yielded less to dictation than Cranmer, rallying himself more fiercely against interference, getting more of his own way, and he has received more of the applause of his own side. With him the Prolocutor opened the school in a brief preface, laying down again his favourite position that they were not moving the verity of the received opinion, but rather asking the leave and liberty of the Church to permit it to be called into controversy, so that error might be purged away. The office of principal opponent he assigned to Doctor Smith: who began by referring to the judgment or decision that Ridley had expressed on the previous Saturday as to the three Articles proposed: with which he declared himself ill satisfied. The bishop thereupon addressed the Commissioners in a long preamble or protestation, demanding permission to add or alter thereafter with the aid of books concerning all his answers, as he might see fit. He was granted some days, down to the end of the week, and what books he might wish, to add and alter as he would. He then demanded to have his own notaries: and was told to elect the same that Cranmer had the day before: one of whom, it may be noted, was Jewel. He professed