It has been argued that Latimer’s views on the Eucharist have much in common with those of Cranmer and Ridley (Stone, 1909: II, 199).  Latimer himself in his disputation with Smith at Oxford in April, 1554 admits that Cranmer’s writings (i.e. Defence and Answer) “hath especially confirmed my judgment herein.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 265).  It seems however that Latimer’s views are less in line with the suggestion of moderate realism expressed by Ridley (see Case Study 1.3).  He seems to express a view where the Eucharist is a reminder of Christ’s work and an augmentation to faith, although he says that the Eucharist is more than a bare sign.  The following extracts from his writings and disputations will be used to show his position in relation to the Eucharist.

In a sermon preached in 1552 Latimer speaks of the spiritual nature of the eating and the drinking in the Eucharist.  He says:

“ … we shall eat Him, in what manner and form, namely, spiritually, to our great comfort, so that whoever eateth the mystical bread and drinketh the mystical wine worthily according to the ordinance of Christ, he receiveth surely the very body and blood of Christ spiritually, … To be short: whoever believeth in Christ putteth his hope, trust, and confidence in Him, he eateth and drinketh Him; for the spiritual eating is the right eating to everlasting life, not corporal eating, … it is a spiritual eating that feedeth our souls … It was ordained for our help, to help our memory withal, to put us in mind of the great goodness of God in redeeming us from everlasting death by the blood of our Saviour Christ, yea, and to signify unto us that His body and blood is our meat and drink for our souls, to feed them to everlasting life … To the intent that we might better keep it in memory, and to remedy this our slothfulness, our Saviour hath ordained this His Supper for us, whereby we should remember his great goodness, His bitter passion and death, and so strengthen our faith, so that He instituted this Supper for our sake, to make us to keep in fresh memory His inestimable benefits … Our Saviour, knowing our weakness and forgetfulness, ordained this Supper to the augmentation of our faith, and to put us in remembrance of His benefits.” (Latimer, Sermons, edn. Corrie 1844: 457-460). 

Latimer’s comments here do not follow the type of moderate realism we find in Ridley.  He is also more insistent upon the Supper as an aid to memory and augmentation of faith in a much more Reformed manner than Ridley.

Latimer and Ridley while imprisoned in 1556 held a conference in which Latimer commented on the Roman mass, transubstantiation and oblation.  He stated:

“I have read over of late the New Testament three or four times deliberately; yet can find there neither the popish consecration, nor yet Transubstantiation, not their oblation, nor their adoration, which be the very sinews and marrow-bones of the Mass.” (Latimer, in Works of Ridley, edn. Christmas, 1841: 112).

At the disputation and examination at Oxford held between April, 1554 and October, 1555, Latimer was questioned about his views on the Eucharist (Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 250-293).  He also submitted a Protestation refuting the three propositions put to him as well as Cranmer and Ridley (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 251-262).  In relation to the first proposition (that there is really naturally the very body and blood of Christ present under the bread and wine) Latimer rejected it and stated:

“That there is none other presence of Christ required than a spiritual presence; and this presence is sufficient for a christian man, as the presence by which we both abide in Christ, and Christ in us, to the obtaining of eternal life, … And the same presence may be called a real presence, because to the faithful believer there is the real, or spiritual presence of Christ: which thing I here rehearse, lest some sycophant or scorner should suppose me, with the anabaptist, to make nothing else of the sacrament but a bare and naked sign.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 252).

In regard to the second proposition (that after the consecration no substance of the bread and wine remains) Latimer rejected this also, saying it had “no stay nor ground of God’s holy word.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 250-252).  Referring to the third proposition (that in the mass there is a lively sacrifice, propitiatory for the quick and the dead) he rejected it as well, suggesting that such an idea would “sow sedition against the offering which Christ himself offered for us in his own person [since] Christ his own self hath made a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and never again to be done.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 253).  Latimer argues that the one sacrifice of the cross was sufficient and that there should not be any sacrificing, except that “all men ought to offer their own bodies a quick sacrifice, holy and acceptable before.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 255).  Further he adds that, “the supper of the Lord was instituted to provoke us to thanksgiving, and to stir us up by preaching of the gospel and to remember his death till he cometh again.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 255-256).  In referring to the Scriptures, Latimer speaks of his opportunity to read them closely together with Cranmer, Ridley and Bradford, while they were in prison, and concludes that:

“ … we could find in the testament of Christ’s body and blood no other presence, but a spiritual presence; nor that the mass was any sacrifice for sins: but in that heavenly book it appeared that the sacrifice, which Christ Jesus our Redeemer did upon the cross, was perfect, holy, and good; that God, the heavenly Father, did require none other, nor that never again to be done; but was pacified with that only omnisufficient and most painful sacrifice of that sweet slain Lamb, Christ our Lord, for our sins.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 259).

Latimer concludes with an accusation of idolatry against the Roman mass, saying:

“You have changed the most holy communion into a wicked and horrible sacrifice of idolatry. … And where you should preach the benefit of Christ’s death to the people, you speak to the wall in a foreign tongue.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 261-262).

In the disputation and examination which followed his protestation, Latimer again spoke of the Eucharist.  The following passages are set out to represent his opinions.

When questioned by Tresham about the manner in which the flesh of the Son of Man is eaten (John 6) Latimer says:

“I answer (as Augustine understandeth) that Christ meant of the spiritual eating of his flesh. … Of his true flesh, spiritually to be eaten, in the supper, by faith and not corporally. … I say, Christ understood it not of the bodily mouth, but of the mouth of the spirit, mind, and heart. … 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.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 266-267).

This is coming closer to the idea of instantiation, but not as close as Ridley comes.  It is more difficult here to isolate any universal, unless we understand it as ‘true flesh’ with the instantiations being corporal and sacramental.  The corporal flesh is clearly not in the sacrament but ‘true flesh’, distinguished here from corporal body, is said to be eaten spiritually in the supper.

In reference to the drinking of the blood of Christ, Latimer says when questioned:

“The substance of blood is drunk; but not in one manner.  It is the same thing, not the same manner.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 271).

Here he is pointing to one drinking, but distinguishing two manners, that is, corporal and sacramental drinking.  It seems crucial however that he maintains that it is the same ‘substance of blood’ in both.  This seems to be a clearer indication of two instantiations (manners of drinking) of the one universal, that is, the blood of Christ.  The word ‘manner’ seems here to stand for instantiation, in that there are two instantiations, the real blood of Christ and the wine of the Eucharist.  The instantiations are different but they both seemingly instantiate the same substance or universal.  The word substance, it could be argued, stands here for universal in that the communicant receives Christ.  For Latimer however, sacrament is for the mouth and the body is for the mind.  This suggests a separation of particulars and is indicative of nominalism.  There appears to be a mixture of philosophical concepts used in this description of drinking.

When questioned by Cartwright, Latimer speaks of adoration of the sacrament, but maintains it is a spiritual adoration.  He says:

“We do worship Christ in the heavens, and we do worship him in the sacrament; but the massing worship is not to be used.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 273). 

This seems to be a distinction between immoderate realism (what Latimer calls ‘the massing worship’) and moderate realism (what Latimer suggests is heavenly worship and sacramental worship).  It seems that for Latimer, sacramental worship has none of the corporal aspects found in immoderate realism.

Latimer continues this theme, suggesting different instantiations, when he refers to the writing of Cyril, who said, ‘Christ dwelleth in us corporally’ (Cyril in Joh. Lib. x.c.13).  Latimer, in agreement with and acknowledging Cranmer (Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 54, 55, 93ff), argues that:

“ … he [Christ] dwelleth in us both corporally and spiritually, according to his meaning: spiritually by faith, and corporally by taking our flesh upon him.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 272). 

Latimer’s argument, as does Cranmer’s, hangs on the idea that Cyril was suggesting Christ dwelt corporally in us, not the bread.  The dwelling of Christ in the bread was therefore a spiritual dwelling.  Latimer again seems to be using an argument of instantiation, whereby the universal, Christ, is instantiated both corporally and spiritually.

Questioned again by Weston, Latimer calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice.  He says:

“I do say, that the holy communion beareth the name of sacrifice, because it is a sacrifice memorative.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 275).

He also allows that the Lord’s Table may be called an altar on the witness of many ancient doctors (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 275-276) but says that even if it is so called, “there is no propitiatory sacrifice.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 276).  Crucially though he distinguishes between ‘a propitiatory sacrifice’ and ‘a sacrament of the propitiation’ by saying:

“I have but one word to say: panis sacramentalis, the sacramental bread, is called a propitiation, because it is a sacrament of the propitiation.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 276). 

Once again this is an argument which can be explained in terms of instantiation.  There is a universal, Christ, and this universal has been instantiated in a corporal way in the historic sacrifice, but now it is instantiated in a spiritual (as opposed to corporal) way in the sacrament.  Both the corporal and the spiritual are instantiations of the universal.  ‘Propitiatory sacrifice’ means the historic sacrifice and ‘sacrament of the propitiation’ means eucharistic sacrifice.  All this seems to suggest that Latimer is using a realist argument here in relation to both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist and at the same time maintaining his protest against any immoderate realist notions.

On 30 September, 1555 Latimer appeared before the Queen’s Commissioners at Oxford once again.  In relation to the propositions set down for disputation he made the following statements.  To the first proposition he said:

“I do not deny, my lord, that in the sacrament, by spirit and grace, is the very body and blood of Christ; because that every man, be receiving bodily that bread and wine, spiritually receiveth the body and blood of Christ, and is made partaker thereby of the merits of Christ’s passion.  But I deny that the body and blood of Christ is in such sort in the sacrament, as you have it [corporally].” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 285).

In relation to the second proposition Latimer said:

“There is, my lord, a change in the bread and wine, and such a change as no power but the omnipotency of God can make, in that that which before was bread should now have the dignity to exhibit Christ’s body; and yet the bread is still bread, and the wine still wine.  For the change is not in nature, but in the dignity; because now that which was common bread, it is now no more common bread, neither ought it to be so taken, but as holy bread, sanctified by God’s word.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 286).

In relation to the third proposition Latimer said:

“ … Christ made one perfect sacrifice for all the whole world; neither can any man offer him again, neither can any priest offer up Christ again for the sins of man, which he took away by offering himself once for all (as St Paul saith) upon the cross; neither is there any propitiation for our sins, saving his cross only.” (Latimer, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, edn Corrie, 1845: 287).

Latimer’s theology of the Eucharist is clearly an expression of Reformed doctrine in it condemnation of corporal notions of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist and in the denial of transubstantiation.  At the same time however Latimer’s arguments are suggestive of a muted moderate realism in relation to the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.