Critical Apparatus for this Page
View an Image of this PageCommentary on the GlossesCattley Pratt ReferencesCommentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Hugh WestonJohn Harpsfield
 
Person and Place Index  *  Close
Hugh Weston

(1505? - 1558)

Dean of Westminster (1553 - 1556). Archdeacon of Colchester (1554 - 1558). Dean of Windsor (1556 - 1557) [Fasti]. Prolocutor of the Lower House [Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (Yale, 1996), pp. 563-68].

Hugh Weston was appointed Prolocutor of the 1553 Convocation, over which he presided and during which he disputed with Philpot and Aylmer (1563, pp. 906-16; 1570, pp. 1571-78; 1576, pp. 1340-47; and 1583, p. 1410-17).

According to a story related to Sir Thomas White (and printed by Foxe), Sir Thomas Wyatt declared from the scaffold that Elizabeth and Edward Courtenay were innocent of any involvement in his treason. Weston, who was on the scaffold, cried out to the crowd that Wyatt had confessed otherwise before the Privy Council. Allegedly White, on hearing a report of the incident, denounced Weston as a knave (1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1355; and 1583, p. 1425).

[Back to Top]

Weston was prolocutor (technically Weston was prolocutor of the lower house of convocation) and head of a delegation sent to dispute with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer (see MacColloch, Cranmer, p. 563) at the Oxford Disputations (1563, pp. 932 and 936; 1570, p. 1591; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1428).

He received the doctors sent from Cambridge to the disputation (1563, p. 936; 1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

He presided over the Oxford disputations of 1554 (1563, pp. 936-85; 1570, pp. 1592-1627; 1576, pp. 1358-88; 1583, pp. 1429-59).

[NB: A brief account of the entire disputations, which mentions Weston throughout, is given on 1563, pp. 933-35; part of this brief account listing the disputants with Ridley was reprinted in 1570, p. 1606; 1576, p. 1371; and 1583, p. 1441).

Weston presided over John Harpsfield's disputation for his D.D. on 19 April 1554. Weston debated with both Cranmer and Harpsfield (1563, pp. 986-91; 1570, pp. 1627-32; 1576, pp. 1389-92; 1583, pp. 1459-63).

Weston presided over the commissioners at the condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer on 20 April 1554 (1563, pp. 935-36; 1570, pp. 1632-33; 1576, p. 1393; 1583, pp. 1463-64).

Weston received a letter from Ridley of 23 April 1554, protesting that he had broken his promise to allow Ridley to examine a copy of the record of his disputation and also protesting the conduct of the disputation and demanding that Weston show Ridley's written answers to the propositions disputed to the Upper House of Convocation. Weston refused to deliver the letter and also a letter of protest which Cranmer had written to the Privy Council over the Disputations (Ridley's letter - included as part of Ridley's account of the disputation - is printed in 1563, p. 977, but Cranmer's letter and Weston's refusal to deliver the letters are not in this edition (see 1570, p. 1633; 1576, pp. 1393-94; 1583, p. 1464).

[Back to Top]

Weston received Mary at Westminster Abbey for her coronation on 1 October 1553 (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1466).

He preached at Paul's Cross on 20 October 1553, exhorting his auditors to pray for souls in purgatory, denouncing the communion table as an oyster board and denouncing Cranmer's recent catechism (1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1396; 1583, p. 1466).

He attended the execution of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, (according to Foxe) against the Duke's wishes. Also (according to Foxe) Weston was heckled by the crowd (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1397; 1583, pp. 1467-68).

He participated, together with Gilbert Bourne and Frances Mallet, in an effort to persuade Walter Mantell to recant (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1398; 1583, p. 1468).

When Sir Thomas Wyatt at his execution cleared Elizabeth and the Earl of Devon of involvement in his rebellion, Weston declared that this contradicted what Wyatt had earlier told the Privy Council. Wyatt retorted that what he said now was true (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469).

A prayer Weston made for the safe delivery of a child by Queen Mary is printed in 1563, p. 1015 (Latin and English versions); 1570, p. 1653; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, pp. 1480-81 (English only).

Foxe calls Weston a man whom 'all good and godly men worthily despise' and prints Laurence Saunders' account of Weston's attempting to persuade Nicholas Grimald and Saunders to recant. 1563, pp. 1041-42; 1570, p. 1667; 1576, p. 1422; 1583, p. 1496.

Weston was reported by Hooper to have obtained a commission in May 1554 to establish a disputation, despite its illegality. 1570, p. 1687; 1576, p. 1440; 1583, p. 1513.

On 21 March 1555 Bradford talked with Dr Weston, after being told of Weston's intention to visit via the earl of Derby's servant (when master Collier, Warden of Manchester had come to dinner at the Counter). 1576, p.1536. Bradford and Westo spoke to each other in the presence of Master Collier, the earl of Derby's servant, the subdean of Westminster, the keeper (Master Clayden), and others. 1570, 1799-80, 1576, pp.1536-7, 1583, pp.1619-20.

[Back to Top]

On 25 February, at about 5pm, Master Weston visited Bradford and asked to speak with him in private. When the two men were alone, Weston thanked Bradford for his writings to him and then produced the work that Bradford had sent him. It was entitled, 'Certayne reasons againste Transubstantiation gathered by John Bradforde, and geuen to Doctour weston and others'. 1563, p. 1212. They discussed transubstantiation. 1563, pp. 1211-12, 1570, pp. 1801-2. [In 1570 this meeting is dated as the afternoon of 28 March].

[Back to Top]

On 25 February (1563) or 28 March (1570 onwards) Weston told John Bradford of Grimald's recantation. 1563, p. 1212, 1570, p. 1801, 1576, p. 1538., 1583, p. 1621.

Bradford's reasons against transubstantiation were given to Weston and others. 1563, pp. 1211-12, 1570, pp. 1800-1, 1576, pp. 1537-38, 1583, pp. 1620-21.

On 5 April, at 2pm, Weston went to visit Bradford in the Counter. Weston had not visited him earlier due to ill health and also because he had been busy withstanding monks from entering Westminster. He also thought that Pendleton would be coming to see him. Weston told Bradford that the pope was dead and that Weston had petitioned the queen and so thought that death would not come to Bradford soon. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, pp. 1538-39, 1583, pp. 1621-22.

[Back to Top]

As Weston left Bradford on 5 April, he set for Master Weale. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, p. 1539, 1583, p. 1622.

After Weston left Bradford on 5 April, the keeper, Master Claydon, and Steven Bech came to Bradford and spoke unkindly to Bradford even though they had hitherto appeared to be friendly to him. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, pp. 1538-39, 1583, pp. 1621-22.

Weston was one of the audience at the re-examination of Ridley and Latimer and interjected a question. 1563, p. 1363; 1570, p. 1926, 1576, p. 1652, 1583, p. 1761.

Philpot's eleventh examination, on St Andrew's day, was before Durham, Chichester, Bath, Bonner, the prolocutor, Christopherson, Chadsey, Morgan of Oxford, Hussey of the Arches, Weston, John Harpsfield, Cosin, and Johnson. 1563, pp. 1425-34, 1570, pp. 1986-92, 1576, pp. 1710-15, 1583, pp. 1817-22.

Cranmer was condemned by Weston and others of the university. He was committed to the mayors and sherriffs of Oxford. 1570, p. 2047, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

Hugh Weston displeased Pole for being willing to give up his deanery.

Weston was caught committing adultery and appealed to Rome for clemency.

He died after Queen Mary. 1563, p. 1707, 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1992, 1583, p. 2102.

 
Person and Place Index  *  Close
John Harpsfield

(1516 - 1578)

Chaplain to Bishop Bonner. Archdeacon of London (1554 - 1559); dean of Norwich (1558 - 1559). Brother of Nicholas Harpsfield. [DNB; Fasti]

Harpsfield preached a sermon at the commencement of the 1553 convocation (1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1340; and 1583, p. 1410).

He sparred with Philpot in the debates at the 1553 convocation. (See 1563, pp. 909, 912 and 914-15; 1570, pp. 1573-74 and 1576-78; 1576, pp. 1342 and 1345-46 and 1583, pp. 1412 and 1416-17).

He was one of the catholic disputants at the Oxford disputations of 1554; he debated with Cranmer and Ridley (1563, pp. 932-34, 938, 955, 967-69 and 978; 1570, pp. 1591-93 and 1605-6; 1576, pp. 1358-59 and 1370-71; 1583, pp. 1428, 1430 and 1440-41).

Harpsfield disputed on the eucharist for his D.D. on 19 April 1554; Cranmer disputed with him (1563, pp. 986-91; 1570, pp. 1627-32; 1576, pp. 1389-92; 1583, pp. 1459-63).

He gave a Latin oration in St Paul's before King Philip (1570, p. 1643; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1473).

He witnessed Bonner's burning Tomkins' hand with a candle, and he urged Bonner to cease the torture (1570, pp. 1710-11; 1576, p. 1460; 1583, p.1534).

Together with William Chedsey and John Feckenham, Harpsfield attempted to persuade John Hooper to recant after his condemnation on 29 January 1555. The attempt was unsuccessful but it caused false rumors of Hooper's recantation to spread (1563, p. 1057; 1570, p. 1680; 1576, p. 1434; 1583, p. 1507).

Harpsfield witnessed the degradation of John Rogers and John Hooper on 4 February 1555 (1563, p. 1058; 1570, p. 1681; 1576, p. 1435; 1583, p. 1508).

He was one of those who presided over the examination of Thomas Tomkins on 9 February 1555 (1570, p. 1712; 1576, p. 1461; 1583, p. 1535).

Harpsfield was one of those who examined Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed on 18 February 1555 (1563, p. 1104). Bonner ordered him to deliver a rebuttal to the confession of faith of Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed (1563, p. 1107; 1570, p. 1719; 1576, p. 1468; 1583, p. 1541).

He conversed with Thomas Hawkes in June 1554, arguing the necessity of infant baptism. 1563, pp. 1151-52;1570, pp. 1760-61; 1576, p. 1551 [recte 1503]; 1583, pp. 1587-88

He escorted Thomas Hawkes to the Gatehouse at Westminster on 1 July 1554. 1563, p. 1156; 1570, p. 1765;1576, p. 1765; 1583, p. 1590

John Harpsfield conferred with the bishop of Durham about John Bradford. 1563, p. 1191, 1570, p. 1787, 1576, p. 1526, 1583, p. 1609.

On 16 February 1555 John Harpsfield and two others went to see Bradford in prison, to defend the line of bishops in the catholic church. Bradford refuted the argument. 1563, pp. 1202-03, 1570, pp. 1792-93, 1576, pp. 1530-31, 1583, pp. 1614-15.

Smith was examined by Bonner and Harpsfield, among others, met with Harwood in the garden, and was re-examined. Smith was then left in the garden until Harwood was examined, after which Smith was examined again. 1563, pp. 1252-55, 1570, pp. 1870-72, 1576, pp. 1601-03, 1583, pp. 1691-92.

Robert Smith was examined by John Dee, Harpsfield and Bonner on eucharistic doctrine. 1563, p. 1252, 1570, p. 1870, 1576, p. 1601, 1583, p. 1691.

Philpot's fourth examination was in John Harpsfield's house before Bonner, Bath, Worcester and Gloucester. 1563, pp. 1393-98, 1570, pp. 1965-68, 1576, pp. 1692-95, 1583, pp. 1799-1803.

[In a letter that was never delivered] Green told Philpot of his presentment on 17 November before Bonner and two bishops, Master Dean, Roper, Welch, John Harpsfield, and two or three others. Dr Dale, Master George Mordant and Master Dee were also there. 1563, p. 1460, 1570, p. 2023, 1576, p. 1744, 1583, p. 1852.

[Back to Top]

Philpot's eighth examination was before Bonner, John Harpsfield, St David's, Mordant and others. 1563, pp. 1419-20, 1570, pp. 1982-83, 1576, pp. 1705-06, 1583, p. 1814.

During Philpot's ninth examination, Bonner called for John Harpsfield, who attended the session to examine Philpot, and Chadsey, who had however left for Westminster. 1563, pp. 1420-24, 1570, pp. 1983-85, 1576, pp. 1707-09, 1583, pp. 1815-16.

Philpot's eleventh examination, on St Andrew's day, was before Durham, Chichester, Bath, Bonner, the prolocutor, Christopherson, Chadsey, Morgan of Oxford, Hussey of the Arches, Weston, John Harpsfield, Cosin, and Johnson. 1563, pp. 1425-34, 1570, pp. 1986-92, 1576, pp. 1710-15, 1583, pp. 1817-22.

Later on the day of his thirteenth examination, Philpot spoke with John Harpsfield, Bonner and Chadsey. 1570, pp. 1996-97, 1576, p. 1719, 1583, pp. 1823-24.

John Harpsfield urged Thomas Whittle to recant and composed a bill of submission for Whittle to sign. 1563, pp. 1454-55, 1570, p. 2017, 1576, p. 1737, 1583, pp. 1845-46.

John Harpsfield wrote a letter to Bonner about Whittle's suscription. It mentioned one of Penbroke's men who wanted license to erect a school. Harpsfield hoped for Penbroke's sake that it be requested, and he and M Johnson (Register) were working to that effect. 1563, pp. 1455-56, 1570, pp. 2017-18, 1576, p. 1738, 1583, pp. 1846-47. [In all editions after 1563, the heading incorrectly gives the author of the letter as Nicholas Harpsfield.]

[Back to Top]

Robert Farrer talked with Laurence Sheriff in the Rose tavern and suggested to Sheriff that Elizabeth had been involved in Wyatt's rebellion. Sheriff complained to Bonner about Farrer before Mordaunt, Sir John Baker, Darbyshire, Story, Harpsfield, and others. 1570, p. 2296, 1576, p. 1988, 1583, p. 2097.

[Back to Top]

Bonner sent Thomas Hinshaw before John Harpsfield and Henry Cole. 1563, p. 1690, 1570, p. 2242, 1576, p. 1937, 1583, p. 2043.

Bonner attended evensong with John Harpsfield prior to causing several boys to be beaten in 1558. 1563, p. 1692, 1570, p. 2264, 1576, p. 1955, 1583, p. 2061.

Bonner and Harpsfield laughed at and mocked Edward Benet for his beliefs. 1576, p. 1968 [incorrectly numbered 1632], 1583, p. 2075.

Harpsfield was committed to the Fleet after the death of Mary. 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1992, 1583, p. 2102.

1483 [1459]

Queene Mary. Disputation of Maister Latimer at Oxford. Harpsfield disputeth to be made Doctour.

MarginaliaAnno 1554. Aprill.the Sacramentall bread, is called a Propitiation, because it is a Sacrament of the Propitiation. What is your vocation?

Weston. My vocation is at this tyme to dispute, otherwise I am a Priest, and my vocation is to offer.

Lat. Where haue you that authorttie geuen you to offer?

West. Hoc facite, MarginaliaFacere, for sacrificare, with D. Weston. Do this, for facite in that place is taken for offerte, that is, offer you.

Lat. Is Facere nothing but sacrificare to sacrifice? Why then no man must receiue the sacrament but priestes onely: for there may none offer but priests.

Ergo, there may none receiue but priests.

West. Your argument is to be denied.

Lat. Did Christ then offer himselfe at his supper?

MarginaliaIf Christ offered himselfe at the Supper, and the next day vpon the Crosse, then was Christ twise offered.Pye. Yea, he offred himselfe for the whole world.

Latimer. Then if this worde (Facite) Do ye, signifie Sacrificate, Sacrifice ye, it followeth, (as I sayd) that none but Priestes onely ought to receiue the Sacrament, to whom it is onely lawfull to sacrifice: and where find you that, I pray you?

West. Fourty yeare agone, whether could you haue gone to haue found your doctrine?

Lat. The more cause we haue to thanke God, that hath now sent the light into the world.

MarginaliaWestōs rayling.West. The light? Nay lite and lewd Preachers: for you could not tell what you might haue: Ye altered & changed so often your communions and altars, and all for this one end, to spoile and rob the Church.

Latimer. These things pertayne nothyng to mee. I must not aunswere for other mens deedes, but onely for myne owne.

West. Well, M. Latimer, this is our entent, to wyll you well, and to exhort you to come to your selfe, and remember that without Noes Arke, there is no health. 

Commentary  *  Close

Weston's phrase 'without Noes Arke, there is no health' (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459) is a reference to the common medieval image of the church as Noah's ark. Weston is saying that there is no salvation outside the church. In fact, since Weston's remark was almost certainly made in Latin, 'health' is probably a misleading translation of 'salvus', which also means salvation.

[Back to Top]
Remember what they haue bene that were the beginners of your doctrine, none but a few flying Apostataes, 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Addenda, ref. page 510, line 17 from the bottom

{Cattley/Pratt alters 'flying Apostataes' to 'fletyng apostates' in the text.} The meaning or derivation given to "flete" in the notes to Prompt. Parv., "Anglo-Saxon fleotan, fluctuare," seems to show this reading to be preferable to "flying," which is adopted in all editions after 1563; agreeing as it does also so well with the remarks following. In the Festyvall, fol. cvii. recto, ed. 1528, we have: "So was Peter so stedfast after, that neyther for wele nor wo he never fletered."

[Back to Top]
runnyng out of Germany for feare of the fagot. Remember what they haue bene which haue set forth the same in this Realme: A sort of flyngbraines and light heads, which were neuer constant in any one thyng, as it was to be seene in the turnyng of the Table, where lyke a sort of Apes, they coulde not tell which way to turne their tailes, MarginaliaD. Westons Apes haue tayles. looking one day West, and another day East, one that way, and an other this way. They will be lyke (they say) to the Apostles, they wyll haue no Churches. A houell is good enough for them. MarginaliaBlasphemous lyes of D. Westō sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ.They come to the Communion with no reuerence. They get them a Tankard, and one sayth, I drinke, and I am thankfull: the more ioy of thee, sayth another. And in them was it true that Hyllary sayth: Annuas & mēstruas de deo fides facimus. id est, We make euery yere and euery month a fayth. A runnagate Scot 
Commentary  *  Close

The 'runnagate Scot' to whom Weston refers (in 1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459) is Alexander Alane (or Alesius) who translated portions of the first Edwardian prayer book.

 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 510, fn 4

Alexander Ales, or Alesius, who translated the first Liturgy of Edward VI. into Latin. See Dr. Watkins' note in his Life of Latimer, prefixed to his Sermons (London, 1824), p. ciii. - ED.

did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament: by whose procurement that heresie was put into the last Cōmunion booke: so much preuayled that one mans authoritie at that tyme. MarginaliaWho be these or where be they M. Oblocutor, that will be lyke the Apostles that will haue no Churches that be runnagates. out of Germany that get them tancardes? that make monthly faythes? that worship not Christ in all his Sacramentes? Speake truth mā and shame the deuill. You neuer agreed with the Tygurines or Germaines, or with the Churche, or with your selfe. Your stubbornnesse commeth of a vayne glory, which is to no purpose: for it will do you no good when a fagot is in your beard. And we see all by your owne confession, how little cause you haue to be stubborn, for your learning is in feoffers hold. The Queenes Grace is mercifull, if ye will turne.

[Back to Top]

Lat. You shall haue no hope in me to turne, I pray for the Queene daily euen from the bottome of my hart, that she may turne from this religion.

West. Here you all see the weakenes of heresie against the truth: he denieth all truth, and all the old fathers.

HEre all good Readers maye see how this glorious Prolocutor triumpheth: 

Commentary  *  Close

In the edition of 1563 Foxe added descriptions of the beginning of Latimer's disputation (1563, p. 978; 1570, p. 1622; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1454) and the conclusion (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1389; 1583, p. 1459); these almost certainly came from another eyewitness.

but whether he hath the victorye or no, that I suppose they haue not yet, neyther heard nor seene. And geue that he had the victory, yet what great meruayle was it, disputyng as hee dyd, Non sine suo Theseo: 
Commentary  *  Close

Foxe added a classical tag - 'non sine suo Theseo' - to the conclusion of Latimer's disputation (1563 p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1388; 1583, p. 1459).

 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 511, fn 1

"Ο�?κ ἄνευ Θησέως, i.e. "Haud absque Theseo;" cum significamus rem alieno auxilio confici: - refertur hoc adagium a Plutarcho in ejus vita, ¶ 28." Erasmi adagiorum. Chil. i. cent. 5, p. 167. Basil, 1540. - ED.

that is, not without his tipplyng cuppe standing at his elbow all the time of his disputation, not without a priuy notyng and smilyng of them that beheld the matter, but specially at that tyme, when Doctour Ridley disputyng with one of the Opponentes, the sayd Prolocutor tooke the cuppe, and holding it in hys hand, sayd to the Opponent: MarginaliaVrge hoc quoth Weston, with his berepot.Vrge hoc. vrge hoc: Nam hoc facit pro nobis. In which wordes as he mooued no little matter of laughter to the beholders thereof: so I thought here also not to leaue the same vnmentioned, somwhat also to delight the Reader withal, after his tedious wearines in reading the story therof.

[Back to Top]
¶ To the Reader. 
Commentary  *  Close

In the 1570 edition, Foxe also added a concluding note to the formal disputations, addressed to the reader, emphasising how arbitrary, disorganised and unfair they were to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer (see textual variant 64). He also printed, in full, a quotation from Cyprian which had been discussed during the debate (see textual variant 63).

[Back to Top]

And thus hast thou (louyng Reader) the whole action and stage of this Doctourly disputation shewed foorth vnto thee, against these three woorthy Confessours and Martyrs of the Lorde, wherein thou mayest behold the disordered vsage of the Vniuersitie men, the vnmannerly manner of the Schoole, the rude tumult of the multitude, the fiercenes and interruption of the Doctors, the full pith and ground of all their argumēts, the censures of the Iudges, the railyng language of the Oblocutor, with his blast of triumph in the latter ende, being both the actor, the moderator, and also Iudge himselfe. And what maruell then if the courage of this victorious Conquerour, hauyng the lawe in his owne handes, to doe and say what him listed, would say for himself, Vicit veritas, although he sayd neuer a true word, nor made neuer a true conclusion almost in al that disputation.

[Back to Top]

It followed furthermore after disputation of these three dayes being ended, that M. Harpsfield the next day after, which was  

Commentary on the Glosses  *  Close
Harpsfield's 'Forme'

In a departure from the earlier disputations, the beginning of this section consists of a dialogue between catholics, with Harpsfield being presented with various heretical opinions to refute. Thus, the points are all against Foxe: the moment that catholic truth is vindicated is seen as the end of the debate; Foxe wages a campaign from the margins, sniping at logic ('This aunswere doth not satisfie the argument for the conclusion speaketh of a bodyly absence, the aunswere speaketh of a spirituall remayning', '* The argument holdeth a proportione'), emphasising the unity of Christ (with its links to the singleness of his sacrifice) at the gloss '* What maner so euer ye giue to the body, if the substanciall body be here in deede, it cannot be auoyded, but eyther it must needes be false that S. Aug. sayth. Non est hic, or els Christ must haue 2. bodyes in 2. places together present here after one maner, & in heauē after an other maner' and the admission he sees in Harpsfield's speech at the gloss 'Note what Harpsfield here holdeth, that the body of Christ is not present in the Sacrament, but onely to them that receiue him worthely' of the importance of worthy receiving of the sacrament (which he later throws back at Harpsfield in another gloss: 'Harpsfield seemed a little before to note the contrary, where he sayd: that the flesh of Christ to them that receaue him not worthely is not present pag. 1401').

[Back to Top]

Once Cranmer is introduced, the marginal glosses seek to convey the impression of arid scholastic confusion which is stronger here than previously. Perhaps this is because of the difference between structure and the occasion: earlier on, the sense of plucky martyrs set against growling interrogators predominated, but the yoking together of Harpsfield's 'forme' and the investigation of Cranmer makes it propitious to emphasise the confusion of the situation. Hence the portrayal of the examiners present as 'Rabines' ('The Rabines could not agree among themselues'), which both picks up on an earlier reapplication to catholics of a Judaizing insult of the protestants by Harpsfield ('* No, but those Iewes, sticking so much to the old custome and face of theyr Church, & not seeking for knowledge, by ignorance of the Scriptures were deceiued & so be you'), and links up with the mockery of the gloss 'The Doctours in a doubt'. These references are closely followed by jibes at the scholastic arguments of the doctors ('M. Ward in the misty cloudes of dunses quiddities' and 'Aristotle must helpe to tell vs how Christ is in the Sacrament'). Although glosses to the earlier disputations emphasise the figurative, tropical aspects of scripture and thus provide an implicit critique of pursuing a scholastic path of enquiry, this is the strongest explicit criticism, and can be seen as part of a shift in the focus of Foxe's attack. It also perhaps helps to defend Foxe's subjects against the charge of doctrinal variety within their ranks. Foxe had given an energetic defence of Luther during Latimer's disputation: the associations between the singleness of Christ's sacrifice and the singleness of the Christian truth adhered to by the martyrs relied upon the unity of the martyrs' doctrine. For mistakes/inaccuracies across editions, see the glosses 'Aprill. 19' and 'Aprill. 1. The iudgement of M. Harpsfield for the best way to vnderstād the Scriptures' (1576 and 1583), 'Aprill. 19' (1570), 'Harpsfield seemed a little before to note the contrary, where he sayd: that the flesh of Christ to them that receaue him not worthely is not present pag. 1401' (1576 and 1583) and 'Harpsfield seemed a litle before to note the contrary, where he sayd: that the flesh of Christ to them that receaue hym not worthely, is not present. pag. 1628' (1570).

[Back to Top]
MarginaliaAprill. 19.the xix. of Aprill, should dispute for his forme, to be made Doctor. To the which disputation the Archb. of Cant. was brought forth, and permitted among the rest to vtter an argument or two, in defence of his cause. As in sequele hereof may appeare.

[Back to Top]
Dispuration of Maister Harpesfield Bacheler of Diuinitie, aunswering for his forme to be made Doctour. 
Commentary  *  Close
Block 21: John Harpsfield's doctorial disputation

Following the formal disputations, Cranmer was invited to participate in the disputations held as part of John Harpsfield's receiving his D.D. Foxe included this disputation for two reasons: firstly, the debate was on the eucharist and, secondly, Cranmer did much better in it than he had done in his formal disputation.

[Back to Top]

As with Latimer's disputation, Foxe's version of this disputation remained essentially unchanged from the Rerum to the 1583 edition. In this case, however, Foxe seems to have been relying solely on notes taken by an eyewitness to the debate. (Passages in the text indicating that it was based on notes from an eyewitness are 'wherunto maister Ward ... as it is thought he spake them' (1563, p. 988; 1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461)). The comments, such as the claim that Ward based his argument on Duns Scotus but not on Scripture (1563, p. 988; 1570, p. 1629; 1576, p. 1390; 1583, p. 1461), indicate that this note-taker was protestant in sympathy. (This is also likely because these notes reached Foxe during his exile). The Rerum account of the disputation (Rerum, pp. 997 [recte 697]-704) was translated accurately in 1563, pp. 986-991.

[Back to Top]

Harpesfield. MarginaliaAprill. 1. The iudgement of M. Harpsfield for the best way to vnderstād the Scriptures.I Am not ignoraunt what a weighty matter it is, to entreat of the whole order and trade of the scriptures: and most hard it is to, in the great contention of Religion, to shew the ready way, whereby the scriptures may be best vnderstanded. For the oftē reading of them doth not bring the true vnderstanding of them. What other thing is there then? Verily this is the redy way, not to folow our owne heads and senses, MarginaliaIf Master Harpsfield had willed vs to submit our sences to the holy ghost he had sayd much better.but to geue ouer our iudgement vnto the holy catholike Church, who hath had of olde yeres the truth, and alwayes deliuered the same to their posteritie: but if the often readyng of scriptures, and neuer so paynefull comparing of places should bring the true vnderstandyng, then diuers heretikes might preuaile euen agaynst whole generall Councels. The Marginalia* No, but those Iewes, sticking so much to the old custome and face of theyr Church, & not seeking for knowledge, by ignorance of the Scriptures were deceiued & so be you.* Iewes did greatly brag of the knowledge of the law, and of the Sauiour that they waited for. But what auailed it them? Notwithstanding, I know right well, that diuers places of the scripture doe much warne vs of the often reading of the same, and what fruit doth therby follow: as Scrutamini, &c. Search the scriptures: for they do beare witnesse of me, &c. Lex Domini, &c. The law of the Lord is pure, able to turne soules. And that saying of S. Paule: Omnis Scriptura, &c. All Scripture inspired from aboue, doth make that a man may bee instructed to all good workes. Howbeit, doth the lawe of the Iewes conuert their soules? are they by reading instructed to euery good worke? The letter of the old Testament, is the same that we haue.

[Back to Top]

The heretikes also haue euer had the same scriptures which we haue that be Catholikes. But they are serued as Tantalus that the Poetes do speake of, who in the plentye of thynges to eate and drinke, is sayd to bee oppressed with hunger and thirst. The swifter that men do seeke the Scriptures without the Catholike church, the deeper they fall, and fynde hell for their labour. Saint Cyprian neuer swaruing from the Catholike Church, saith: He that doth not acknowledge the Church to bee his mother, shall not haue God to be his father. Therefore it is true Diuinitie, to bee wise with the Church, where Christ sayeth: Nisi manducaueritis, &c. Vnlesse ye eate my fleshe, and drinke my bloud, ye haue no lyfe in you.

[Back to Top]

If he had meant onely of eating bread, and drinkyng wyne, nothyng had bene more pleasaunt to the Capernaites, neither would they haue forsaken hym. The fleshe profiteth nothing to them that doe so take it. For the Capernaites did imagine Christ to be geuen in such sorte as he lyued. But Christ spake high thinges: not that they should haue hym as fleshe in the market, but to consider his presence with the spirite, Marginalia* Vnder the formes that is, vnder the properties of bread & wine & so all this is true.* vnder the formes whereby it is geuen. As there is an alteration of bodies by courses and tymes of ages, so there is no lesse MarginaliaIn the materiall eating of mās body there is no varietye: for to eate mans flesh eyther vnder accidences or not accidēces both is agaynst the Scripture & agaynst nature.* varietie in eatyng of bodies.

[Back to Top]

These things which I haue recited briefly. M. Harpsfield did with many more wordes set out: and hereupon D. Weston disputed against hym.

West. Christes real body is not in the sacrament:

Ergo, you are deceyued.

Harps.
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