Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the GlossesCommentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1631 [1593]

Queene Mary. Disputation appoynted at Oxforde, touching the Sacrament.

Marginalia1554. Aprill.foure times, and touching þe first article he asked what they ment by these termes verum & naturale. i. true and naturall. Do you not meane, sayth he, corpus organicum. i. a sensible body? Some aunswered, Idem quod natus est ex virgine. i. the same that was borne of the Virgin: & so confusedly, some said one thing some an other. MarginaliaThe articles denyed by the Archb.Then the bishop of Canterbury denied it vtterly: and when he had looked vpon the other two, he sayd they were all false, & agaynst Gods holy word: And therfore would not he agree, he sayd, in that vnitie with them. Which done the Prolocutour first willyng hym to write his minde of them that night, MarginaliaScarborough warning geuen to Cranmer to dispute.sayd moreouer, that he should dispute in them, and caused a copye of the Articles to be deliuered him, assignyng hym to aunswere thereunto on Monday next: and so charged the Maior with him agayne, to be had to Bocardo, where he was kept before: offeryng moreouer vnto him, to name what bookes hee would occupy, and he should haue them brought vnto him. The Archbyshop was greatly commēded of euery body for his modesty: In somuch, that some Maisters of Arte were seene to weepe for him, which in iudgement were contrary to hym. 

Commentary  *  Close

For Cranmer's exchange with Weston on 14 April, Foxe, in the 1570 edition, selected passages from the two accounts, weaving them skilfully together, see (textual transposition 7, textual variant 37, textual transposition 8, textual variant 38, textual transposition 9, textual variant 40 and textual transposition 10. Foxe selected those passages which supplied the most detail or were the most favourable to the three bishops. Thus, for example, the first informant's account gave fuller versions of Cranmer's answers and described, at some length, the favourable impression made on the spectators, but included the second informant's description of Cranmer's defiant refusal to sit and Weston's promise that Cranmer would be allowed access to books in preparation for the disputation.

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaD. Ridley brought in.Then was Doct. Ridley brought in, who hearyng the Articles read vnto him, aunswered without any delay, saying: MarginaliaAunswere of Byshop Ridley to the Articles.they were all false, and sayd further, that they sprang out of a bitter and sowre roote. His aunsweres were sharpe, witty, and very learned. Thē dyd they lay to his charge a Sermon that he made when he was Byshop of Rochester, wherin (they sayd) he spake with the transubstantiation. MarginaliaB. Ridley falsely reported for his sermō. He denyed it vtterly, & asked whether they could bring out any that heard him, which would say and affirme with them þe same. They could bryng no proofe of it at all. After that he was asked of one whether he desired not my Lord Chauncellor that now is, to sticke to the Masse, & other thynges? He sayd, that my Lord would say no such thynges or wordes of hym: for if he did, he reported not the truth of him.

[Back to Top]

Thē he was asked whether he would dispute or no? He aunswered: that as long as God gaue him life, he should not onely haue his heart, but also his mouth and penne to defende his truth: but he required tyme and bookes. They sayd he could not, MarginaliaB. Ridley appoynted to dispute next day after the Archb.and that he should dispute on Thursday, and till that tyme he should haue bookes. He sayd it was not reason þt he might not haue his own bookes, & time also to looke for his disputatiōs. Then gaue they hym the Articles, and bad him write hys minde of them that night, & so did they commaund the Maior to haue hym from whence he came. 

Commentary  *  Close

Foxe relied entirely on the first informant's account for Ridley's interview with Weston on 14 April (see textual variant 41). The first informant's account was far more detailed about this exchange and, in particular, did justice to Ridley's acerbic wit in answering Weston.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaMaister Latimer brought in.Last of all came in Maister Latimer in lyke sorte, with a kerchiefe and two or three cappes on his head, hys spectacles hangyng by a stryng at hys breast, and a staffe in his hand, and was set in a chaire: for so was he suffered by the Prolocutor. And after hys deniall of the Articles, whē he had Wednesday appointed for disputation, he alledged age, sickenes, disuse, and lacke of bokes, saying, that he was almost as meete to dispute as to be a Captaine of Callice: but he would (he sayd) declare hys mynde either by writing or by word, & would stand to all that they coulde lay vppon his backe: complainyng moreouer that he was permitted to haue neither penne, nor yncke, nor yet any booke, but onely the new Testament there in his hand MarginaliaMaister Latymer could not finde the Masse in all the new Testamēt.which, hee sayd, he had read ouer vij. tymes deliberatly, and yet could not finde the Masse in it, neither the MarginaliaWhat he meaneth by the marybones of the Masse, read after in hys protestation geuen in wryting to the Prolocutour.marybones nor sinewes of the same. At which wordes the Commissioners were not a litle offēded, and Doct. Weston sayd, that he would make hym graunt, that it had both marybones & sinewes in þe new Testamēt. To whom M. Latymer sayd againe: that will you neuer do Maister Doctour: and so forthwith they put hym to silence, so that where he was desirous to tell what he ment by those termes, he could not be suffered. There was a very great preasse and throng of people: and one of the

[Back to Top]

Bedles swounded by reason thereof, & was caried into the Vestry. After this, bryngyng home the Prolocutor first, the Cābridge men, videlicet: D. Yong Vicechaūcellor, Seton, Glin, Atkinson, Scot, Watson, Sedgewicke, went to þe Crosse Inne to supper. And this was on Saterday beyng the 14. day of Aprill. 

Commentary  *  Close

For the account of Latimer's interview with Weston on 14 April, Foxe interwove elements from the accounts of both informants. The vivid description of Latimer's appearance was taken from the second informant (textual transposition 11), while the equivalent passages in the first account, which described Latimer as feeble, aged and speaking in a low voice, were omitted (textual variant 42). Foxe then added a phrase, in neither informant's account, to the 1570 edition, making it clear that Latimer denied the three articles which were to be disputed (textual variant 43). Foxe then briefly followed the second informant's account of Latimer's interview (textual transposition 12) - this was in order to quote a sarcastic remark Latimer made to Weston - before returning to the first account (textual variant 43). (At this point, the two informants' accounts are admittedly almost identical; the belief that Foxe was following the first account is largely derived from textual variant 44. Foxe returned to the second informant's account for the conclusion of Latimer's interview (see textual transposition 13 and textual variant 45). Foxe also added a sentence, in the 1570 edition, clarifying the date (textual variant 46).

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAprill. 15.On Sonday after, M. Harpsfield preached at S. Maries the Vniuersitie Church, at ix. of the clocke, where were diuers of the Doctors of the Vniuersitie in their robes and placed accordyngly. After the Sermon they went all to dyner to Magdalene Colledge, and there had a great dyner. They supped at Lincolne Colledge with the Prolocutor: whether Doct. Cranmer sent aunswere of hys mynde vpon the Articles, in writyng.

[Back to Top]

On Monday (beyng the MarginaliaAprill. 16.16. of Aprill) Maister Say, and M. White Notaryes, went about in the mornyng to the Colledges, to gette MarginaliaSubscription.subscriptions to the Articles. And about viij. of the clocke the Prolocutor with all the Doctors and the Vicechauncellour mette together at Exceter Colledge, & so they went into the Scholes: and when the Vicechauncellour, the Prolocutour and Doctours were placed, and foure appointed to be Marginalia4. Exceptores argumentorū.Exceptores argumentorū, set at a Table in the myddest, and foure Notaryes sittyng with them, MarginaliaCranmer set in the Respondents place.D. Cranmer came to the Aunswerers place, the Maior & Aldermen sittyng by hym, MarginaliaD. Cranmer closed in by the Mayor and Aldermen for running away.and so the disputation began to be set a worke by þe Prolocutor with a short Præludium. Doct. Chedsey begā to argue first: and, ere he left, the Prolocutour diuers tymes, D. Tresham, Oglethorpe, Marshall Vicechauncellor, Pye, Cole, and Harpsfield did interrupt & presse hym with theyr Argumentes, MarginaliaDisputers agaynst the Archbyshop.so that euery man sayd somewhat, as the Prolocutour woulde suffer disorderly, sometyme in Latin, sometyme in English, so that three houres of the tyme was spent, ere the Vicechauncellour of Cambridge began: who was also interrupted as before. Hee began with three or foure questions suttely. Here the Bedles had prouided drinke, MarginaliaThe Archbyshop offered drinke.and offered the Aunswerer: but he refused with thākes. The Prolocutour offered hym, if he would make water or otherwise ease himselfe, he shoulde. Thus the disputation continued vntill almost two of the clocke, with this applausiō Audientium: vicit veritas. Then were all þe argumentes (written by the foure appoynted) deliuered into the hand of Maister Say, Register. MarginaliaD. Cranmer after disputation returned agayne to Bocardo.And as for the prisoner, he was had away by the Maior: And the Doctours dyned together at the Vniuersitie Colledge. 

Commentary  *  Close

Foxe returned to the second account for the events of 15 April and the morning of 16 April (see textual transposition 14 and textual transposition 15), making two deletions from this account. The first (textual variant 47), seems to have been made to conceal the fact that the catholic disputants in the debate listened to the Bible being read to them during dinner; the second (textual variant 48), probably to eliminate what even Foxe considered to be irrelevant detail. Much of the remaining relatively short narration of the Oxford disputation in the first informant's account was omitted (textual variant 49), as Foxe had, even in the edition of 1563, much more detailed accounts of the remaining disputations.

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

And thus much concernyng the generall order and maner of these disputations, with such circumstaunces as there happened, and thynges there done, as well before the disputations, and in the preparation therof, as also in the tyme of their disputing. Now foloweth to inferre and declare the Orations, Argumentes, and Aūsweres, vsed and brought forth in the sayd disputatiōs on both partes.

[Back to Top]
¶ The Argumentes, reasons, and allegations vsed in this disputation. 
Commentary  *  Close
Block 18: Cranmer's disputation

All three of the disputations had been described in the Rerum. Yet it is indicative of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the disputations that even before he returned to England, he had tried to obtain further information on them. In the first half of 1559, Foxe wrote to Francis Russell, the Earl of Bedford, stating that he had heard that the earl possessed a record of the disputations and asking the earl to send a copy to him at Basel, 'since by these collected copies a more certain, trustworthy narrative of the event may be produced' (BL Harley MS 417, fol. 120r). On his return to England, Foxe continued to pursue additional records of the disputation. In late 1562 or early 1563, Foxe wrote to Bishop Grindal, stating that he had just discovered in Bonner's records that an official account of the disputations, with the seal of Oxford University and the subscriptions of the notaries, was exhibited in Convocation. Foxe requested Grindal's help in obtaining this record (BL Additional MS 19400, fol. 97r). This official account survives (BL Harley MS 3642); it is almost certain that Foxe did consult it and it could usefully be compared with Foxe's text.

[Back to Top]

Each account of each of three disputations was based on different sources. Since Foxe stated, regarding his account of Cranmer's disputation, that he 'receyved it out of the Notaries booke' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1364; 1583, p. 1435), his account was based on one of the five notarial copies of the disputation. Judging by the account's favourable tone to Cranmer (e.g., its characterisation of Cranmer's 'mild voice' and the criticism of Weston for inciting the 'rude people' to heckle and boo Cranmer on 1563, p. 946; 1570, p. 1598; 1576, p. 1346; 1583, p. 1434), it was probably the account written by one of the two protestant notaries, John Jewel or Gilbert Mounson.

[Back to Top]

It is noteworthy that the passages cited above are not in the Rerum version of Cranmer's disputation (Rerum, pp. 640-68). During their exile, Grindal had written to Foxe stating that he had obtained a copy of Cranmer's account of his disputation written in the archbishop's own hand, as well as a notary's account of the disputation (BL Harley, 417, vol 119r). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is apparently based on a notary's account, since Foxe stated that it came 'ex ipso notoriarum archetypo' (Rerum, p. 659); presumably this was the notary's account which Grindal had acquired. (Strangely, Foxe does not seem to have had access in the Rerum to the account Cranmer had written). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is not only somewhat briefer than the 1563 version, it has some odd gaps throughout. The most likely explanation is that Foxe started with a notary's account in the Rerum (and his getting such an account at that period, probably from Grindal, also suggests that it was one of the protestant versions) and had nothing beyond this single source for Cranmer's disputation. In the 1563 edition, a number of different accounts of Cranmer's disputation appear to have been collated. (This is also indicated by Foxe's printing an alternative version of one of Chedsey's arguments which he declared he found 'in some other copies' [1563, p. 943; 1570, p. 1596; 1576, p. 1362; 1583, p. 1432; this alternate argument is not in the Rerum]). What is particularly significant, however, is that Foxe did not translate the Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation but replaced it with a new account. (There is a portion of Cranmer's disputation in Foxe's papers [BL Harley MS 422, fols. 44r-45v], as well as two independent versions of Cranmer's disputation, one in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 340, and one in CUL MS Kk.5. 14).

[Back to Top]

 

Commentary on the Glosses  *  Close
Cranmer

This section is fairly representative of the rest of the disputations in its marginalia. Many of the glosses mark points of conflict and arguments, often with forms of textual privileging present in the 1563 edition which later became glosses (e.g. 'The contents of Cranmers explication geuen vp in writing', 'Argument', 'Aunswere', and 'D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes'). From 1570 onwards 'Articles' appears in the margin in several places, with the numbers of the articles incorporated in the text; in 1563 the numbers are in the margin. The later method offers a clearer guide for a reader seeking the scholastic bones of the debate.

[Back to Top]

All texts use alternative fonts for the articles ('Articles', '1', and 'Argument'). In several places the editions from 1570 onwards use glosses where the 1563 edition indents the corresponding piece of text (e.g. 'How Christ is really present'; 'Argument') or uses a different font (e.g. '1. Cor. 11'; 'Iohn. 1.'). The glosses provide more explicit signposting.

[Back to Top]

Logical points and objections to Cranmer's interlocutors abound (e.g. 'D. Westons argument denyed: we eate the true body of Christ: Ergo we eate it with our mouth' and the next gloss, 'An other false argumēt wherein the 3. figure the Minor is a negatiue', 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall', and '* The forme of this argument which he repeateth, stood better before: for the fourme of this connexion answereth to none of the three figures of Sillogismes'), including one gloss which implicitly criticizes Cranmer himself for missing a logical error of his opponent ('Doct. Cranmer might haue foūd fault with this argument as well as with his latin being made in no moode or figure'). There are also several definitions of school terms present in all editions (e.g. 'Organicall is called that which is a perfect body, hauing all the members and partes complete belonging vnto the same' and 'Disparata, is a Schoole terme, meaning diuers substances being so sondred in nature, that one can neuer be sayd to be the other'). Along with logical points there are some (though fewer) grammatical criticisms of the interlocutors ('D. Weston speaketh truer then he wisse', 'D. Oglethorp breaketh Priscians head & speaketh false latin'). Perhaps to be linked to these are glosses which emphasize the rhetorical and figurative nature of scriptural discourse ('How the doctours doe take the speach of Christ. Tropical. Figuratiue. Anagogicall. Allegoricall', 'Tropes may be vsed in mens testaments, why not?'): on one level, these simply show the greater intellectual sophistication of Cranmer and his brand of humanist analysis, but at another level they also connect with the central matter at hand: the sacrament, and what is meant by the real presence. Many of the glosses are concerned with this issue. While Cranmer seems to have been paying close attention to the specific questions of scriptural and patristic interpretation under discussion, Foxe's glosses often lead things back to a wider perspective and the fundamental opposition between protestant and catholic views of the sacrament.

[Back to Top]

Foxe distinguishes the protestant emphasis on the mystery of the sacrament and its proper reception ('What is meant by eating the misticall bread') from the more grossly physical catholic version: hence his gloss in response to Weston's point that we receive Christ's body by the mouth, 'A grosse saying'; see also 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall' 'God cannot be touched'). Two lengthy glosses are concerned with what 'naturally' might have to do with all this. The first ('* The Papistes by this one word [naturally] confound themselues ... Wherefore it remayneth that the naturall vniting to Christes body commeth not by the bodely eating of the Sacrament vnto our body, but to our soule, & so shall redounde at length vnto our bodyes') again criticises the papists for imagining that we eat Christ's body in a physical sense in the sacrament, as this would imply that perfection was conveyed to our sinful selves in the sacrament (which helps to show a connection between sacramental theology and the question of justification), while the second ('* Christ not after his manhod but after his diuine nature liueth naturally by his father ... and so onely the bodyes of the faythfull doe lyue by eating the bodye of Christe naturally, in particypatyng the naturall propertyes of the bodye of Christe') makes the point that only the faithful live by the sacrament, rather than anyone who receives it: a pastoral distinction of fundamental significance. The distinction created between a protestant reliance on faith and a spiritual understanding of the sacrament and a debased, gross catholic eating obviously has a polemical utility and should be connected to the many logical objections to papist arguments as part of a concerted effort to show the Romish rule of appetite over reason. Along with these insinuations, there are some more direct attacks in the margins as in the glosses 'Westō falsifieth the wordes of Chrysostome' and 'Vnreuerend wordes vsed in the Schoole agaynst Doctor Cranmer'. Several glosses show the relative failings of the 1583 edition in the accuracy of its references and the positioning of its glosses ('Easy. 53' and two glosses following, 'Heb. 9', 'Heb. 17', '* Alloiosis rerū & symbolorū').

[Back to Top]
MarginaliaAprill. 16.ON Monday, Doct. Weston, withall the residue of the visitours, Censors, & Opponentes: repairyng to the Diuinitie Schole, ech one enstalled them selues in theyr places. Doct. Cranmer with a route of rusty Bylles was brought thether, and set in the aunsweres place, with the Maior and Aldermen sittyng by hym. Where Doct. Weston Prolocutour, apparelled in a Scarlet gowne, (after the custome of the Vniuersitie) began the disputation, with this Oration. Hys wordes in Latine, as he spake them were these.

[Back to Top]

Conuenistis hodie fratres, profligaturi detestandam illam hæresin de veritate corporis Christi in Sacramento. &c. that is: MarginaliaD. Weston speaketh truer then he wiste.Ye are assembled hether (brethren) this day, to confound that detestable heresie of the veritie of the body of Christ in the Sacramēt. &c.

At
KKKk.ij.
Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield