All of the glosses in this section are in 1563 and 1583 only. It seems probable that 1583 was (carefully) composed with a copy of 1563 to hand. The comprehensive nature here and later of the 1563 glosses can be compared to the much more barren pages that follow for much of the rest of Book 10. Many of the glosses point to the three terms of a syllogism. Many others give patristic and historical references. Some of the glosses summarise the points of an argument. The arguments and the glosses are centred around the unnecessary nature of the mass given the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and the content of scripture.
Foxe mounts attacks on the catholic eucharistic rite from the margin here. His attacks combine his belief that the mass at one level was nothing more than absurd playacting (and therefore to be mocked) with the recognition that as such it constituted a terrible insult to God (and was therefore to be condemned and scorned). One way in which the marginal glosses insinuate the emptiness of the mass is by comments which emphasise the contingency of various ritual actions. Thus, Foxe asks why so many as five crosses are used at this stage, the implication being that there is no good reason why fewer or more might not be used: comments such as this help to establish Foxe's view of the mass as a free-floating tradition, ungrounded in scripture and subject to the willful alterations of men. Elsewhere Foxe notes that no good reason is given for a particular ritual action. Actions divorced from their professed purpose can be characterised ironically as playacting, and Foxe exploits this possiblilty, using the term 'mumming' at one point; he also mentions 'fond trickes and iuggling gestures. One gloss points to the falseness of the emotion displayed by the priest with the sarcastic comment 'Down greate harte'. Foxe comments that the priest's actions towards the host are motivated by the fact that it would soon be 'his God'. Other glosses support the case against such actions by showing how the rite deviates from scripture and constitutes a denial of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Thus, Foxe attacks the rite for not including prayer for one's enemies and the lack of scriptural sanction for the priest taking the sacrament alone.
The strongest point Foxe makes against the mass is that it takes away the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Foxe describes a reference to the merits of the saints as leaving Christ 'defaced'; the word 'defaced' is used again; attacks the blessing of the host and insists on the unique nature of the sacrifice of Christ. Other types of gloss help to buttress these ideas, as with those glosses which give worldly motives for the mass, thereby confirming its base preoccupations and attacking its claims to spiritual purpose, as in the gloss 'That metall clinketh well'. Another set of glosses make clear Foxe's view that the only good religious action is one which edifies and educates Christians (called at one point 'scholers of his [God's] heauenly schoole', where God is called a 'scholemaister'), hence his comment at the point in the rite where the priest speaks inaudibly, 'Least the people be edified'.
Much of the second half of Foxe's demolition of the mass is concerned with stressing the contingency of the various bits of the mass by describing the long historical process through which different elements were added. The margins are filled with patristic, liturgical, historical, conciliar and canonical references. These indicate that Foxe has done his research on this crucial matter and also help to convey the impression that the mass is an untidy melange of different traditions and snippets. It is doubtless for polemical effect that the very last reference refers to transubstantiation, emphasising the doctrine's relative novelty. As with the previous section, only 1563 and 1583 include this material, and it would seem that 1583 has followed 1563 closely in the glosses.
Many of the references concern the changes in religious practice and to the priesthood enjoined by Mary; the language is neutral for the most part (see 'Prouision for priestes which renounce their wiues' and the eight glosses following), even to the point of using the term 'Catholicke' ('Prouision for Catholicke scholemaisters'), a term it is surprising to see Foxe relinquishing to the other side. A series of glosses in all editions ('Ecclesiasticall lawes of K. Henry renued', 'The kinges authoritie geueth place to the popes authoritie', and 'The supremacy of the king repealed') are more charged, marking the transition between the king's authority and the pope's (thus combining nostalgia for the dead king(s) and hostility to the papal incursion). A 1563 reference to 'sacramentaries' ('Sacramentaries excluded from ecclesiasticall promotions') is later dropped, perhaps because it concedes too much to the anti-protestant language of catholics.
An interesting difference occurs between 1563 and later editions over the English exiles, with 1563 emphasising divine providence and the later editions being more factual and neutral ('The great care & prouidence of God for his people' (1563); 'Englishmen fled out of the realm for religion' and 'The number of English exiles well neare 800. persons' (later editions)). Many of the glosses point to twists in the attempt by Gardiner and others to implicate Elizabeth in the Wyatt rebellion ('Lady Elizabeth and Lord Courtney vpon suspicion of Syr Thom. Wyats rising committed to the Tower', 'A poynt of practise of Ste. Gardiner agaynst the Lady Elizabeth', 'D. Weston against the Lady Elizabeth'); others imply the untruthfulness of Elizabeth's enemies, who were prone to tell 'tales' in the star chamber ('Cut prentise in Londō bronght before Ste. Gardiner', 'Ste. Gardiners tale in the starre chamber agaynst the Lady Elizabeth', 'The Lord Shandoys false report in the starre chamber, agaynst Lady Elizabeth and Lord Courtney'). The Lord Mayor's disdain for Weston is pointed to ('The Lord Mayors iudgement of D. Weston'): this was perhaps part of a wider attempt to encourage the hostility of London to Mary's reforms and reign. The approval by parliament of the queen's marriage is played down as the 'mention' of it ('Mention of the Quenes mariage in the Parlament'), perhaps reflecting Foxe's sensitivity about the complicity of parliament in Mary's reign.
There are two aspects to be noted: the change in Mary's style (all editions) and Bonner's praise of priests. The softening of the sarcasm against Bonner after 1563 can be seen by comparing the glosses 'Hyghe reasons of Bōner why the order of priestes is to be honored aboue Angels and kinges' (1563) and 'The profound exhortation of B. Boner in the Conuocation' (later editions); perhaps this was linked in with the sharpening of the criticism against him because of his ill temper and base appetites which appear in later passages: this case does not provide the opportunity for that type of criticism.
A large number of glosses ('Vnitie, Antiquitie, Vniuersalitie' and ten following) appear in all editions, and concern Ridley's successful answer to Fecknam, taking his own categories of unity, antiquity and universality and refashioning them in a suitably protestant way, together with an exposition of 'hoc est' (see also 'The place of Saint Cyprian expounded' for another example of Ridley expounding). For an example of Ridley's view being given authoritative status by a marginal gloss, see 'The doctrine of the Sacrament not new'. A 1563 gloss which seems to be mocking the poor logic of the catholics was later dropped, possibly because it was rather obscurely phrased ('Ergo ther is no substance of bread in the sacrament'). The veil drawn over the connection between the catechism and Cranmer after 1563 ('Bishop of Caunterburys boke' (1563); 'The booke of Catechisme' (later editions)) is perhaps significant in the light of concerns about the Prayer Book.
Many of this section's glosses are concerned with the preparations for and early skirmishes in the Oxford disputations. Some of the glosses malign the papists, and Foxe seems quick to highlight the pomp (and the pride implicit in it) of the papists ('The Doctors in theyr scarlet robes', and 'Procession in Oxford. The aray of the solemne procession'). For other attacks on the papists, see 'A grace for Articles', 'A grace for the Cambridge Doctours to dispute agaynst Cranmer, Ridley & Latimer', 'D. Cranmer closed in by the Mayor and Aldermen for running away'.
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.
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.
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.
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').
In the initial stages, the glosses are less adversarial than in much of the Cranmer section because Ridley leaps in more forcefully and dictates the agenda for a time; the glosses mostly respect and emphasize his divisions and offer commentary on procedure and clarification. Once disputation itself begins, the glosses return to a more familiar pattern, with many logical points (e.g. 'A rule of Logike for confirmation of the argument' (1563), '* The rule of Logicke is this A propositione de tertio adiacente, ad eam quæ est de secundo, cum verbo recto significante existentiam, valet consequentia affirmatiue &c', 'This argument holdeth after the same rule as did the other before', 'This argument is not formall in the 2. figure').
As with Cranmer, there is one example of Foxe correcting Ridley (in this case clarifiying a point about the beneficiaries of the promise in bread and wine, '* No promise made to bread & wine, as they be common bread and common wine, but as they be sanctified & made sacramēts of the Lords body and bloud, they are not now called bread nor wine, haue a promise annexed to them, or rather (to say the trueth) annexed to the receauers of thē'). Several definitions of obscure terms are in all editions ('Anthropophagi, are a kinde of brutishe people that feed on mens flesh', 'Anagogicall sense is that which hath a high and misticall vnderstanding that lyeth abstruse & profound vnder the externall letter'). A feature emerging for the first time in this section is the taunting of the martyrs' tormentors with their embarrassing past actions ('D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes', 'But where were these Iudges in K. Edwardes tyme', 'D. Weston in K. Edwards dayes subscribed' and 'The Iudges * geue an vntrue verdite: for D. Cranmer meaning by the Counsell, spake no word of Ridley'). It may be that Foxe simply took the opportunity as it arose, but it may also be that the margin's accusations partly served to distract the reader from Ridley's cautious response to the question of his involvement in setting forth the catechism.
This section includes a portion of the 1563 text which is unusually well annotated. This spate of marginalia occurs largely around pp. 961-62 (from the gloss '3'), and does not seem to be focussed on a particular subject (it straddles Ridley's response to the second and third propositions). Many of the references on p. 962 are (unnecessarily, to judge from later practice) repeated pointers to Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. They give the impression of an uncertain experiment in adding marginalia in this early version, which may be compared with the grounding of much of the later annotation in the layout and other features of 1563.
As with Cranmer's disputation, several of the glosses offer comments on the sacrament. The gloss 'The Analogie of the sacramēt is the similitude and likenes whiche they haue with the thinges they represent' gives a definition of the analogy of the sacraments, once again emphasising their representative function; the glosses 'The true presence of Christes body in the Supper not denyed' and 'The fayth & confession of D. Ridley in affirming the true presēce in the Sacrament' point to a discussion of the true presence, and to Ridley's belief in it; the gloss 'Christes abode in heauen is no let for him to appeare on earth when he will, but whether he wil, that must be proued. Againe it is one thing to appeare on earth, an other still in the Sacrament, and to be present the same time with his body in heauen, whē he is bodely present in earth' once again points the reader back to the sacramental significance of the discussion of Christ's presence in heaven: these cases are less a matter of comment than of making clear to a less learned reader what was familiar to the disputants. There is a group of references which emphasise the singleness of Christ's sacrifice ('One Christ but not one body, nor after on bodely substance in all places'; 'One Christ and one sacrifice in all places, and how: to wit, christ by veritie the sacrifice by, signification' and 'How one christ is offered in many places at once'): this relates to the implicit opposition between protestant and catholic, the former recognizing the all-sufficiency of a single sacrifice, the latter misled by carnality to endless, unintentionally parodic re-enactments. This also links to the rules of polemical engagement: the importance of presenting oneself as a defender of what is holy and truthful was paramount in mounting these attacks, and the implication that the central rite of the catholic church was a continuous performance of ingratitude and disdain for Christ gave license for just anger.
The gloss 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua' is a Latin transcript of insults translated in the text; the point of the translation would seem to be to leave the reader in no doubt of the vehemence of the precise terms employed: once again, a contrast is drawn between the moderate and the railing protagonists. See also 'Sacrifice called vnbloudy is nothing els but a representation of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ' and 'D. Weston bloweth vp the triumph' (attacking Weston's arrogance). For examples of 1583 being less well produced than earlier editions, see the glosses 'Christes appearing on the earth sometime, taketh not away his residēce in heauen. How christ appeared in earth', 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua', 'Of this Catechisme read before pag. 1357'. The gloss 'The protestantes falsely belyed to teach nothing but a figure in the sacrament' uses 'protestantes', a word not in the text, but perhaps more acceptable (or at least accepted) by 1570.
Foxe seems keen here to compensate for and justify Latimer's relatively quiet performance. He seeks to construct a venerable Latimer whose past achievements preaching before kings place him beyond the criticism of 'rusticall diuines' ('M. Latimer found more audience with kinges & Princes, then with rusticall diuines'), an impression emphasised by the glosses dealing with his moderate and perceptive admonishment of Weston (e.g. 'The iudgement of M. Latimer of D. Weston', 'Pride of D. Weston priuily touched'). (The sense of participation in an unfolding historical-providential drama conveyed in these glosses is added to by the reference to Weston's early death: 'But God saw it good that Westō neuer came to his age'.)
This protective impulse is expressed in other ways. The large amount of comment from the glosses ('By that reason the new & old testamēt should not differ, but should be contrary one frō the other, which cannot be true in naturall or morall precepts', 'Edere in some places is taken for credere: but that in all places it is so taken it followeth not', 'This place of the Hebrewes alluded to the old Sacrifice of the Iewes, who in the feast of propitiation the 10. day, vsed to cary the flesh of the sacrifice out of the tents to be burned on an Altar with out, because none of thē which serued in the Tabernacle should eate thereof: only the bloud was caryed by the high Priest into the holy place') objecting to the arguments of the interlocutors was perhaps provoked by Latimer's somewhat nondisputacious bearing at this stage. The typological contrast between the moderate martyr and his railing opponents is drawn once more: compare the presentation of Weston and Latimer in the glosses 'Weston scorneth the name of Minister' and 'M. Latimer modestly maketh himselfe vnable to dispute': 'scorneth' against 'modestly'. Foxe seems somewhat more willing to vent spleen in this section, especially towards the end ('Shameles railyng and blasphemous lyes of D. Weston sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' (1570), 'A shamefull railing and blasphemous lyes' (1563), 'Who be these, or where be they M. Oblocutor, that will be like the Apostles? that will haue no churches? that be runnagates out of Germany? that gette thē tankards? that make monethly faithes? that worship not Chrst in al hys Sacramētes? Speake truth man, and shame the deuil. If ye know any such, bring them forth: if ye know none, what aleth you thus to take on where ye haue no cause?' (1570), 'Vrge hoc quoth Weston, with his berepot', 'Blasphemous lyes of D. Westō sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' and 'D. Westons Apes haue tayles' (1583); again this was perhaps due to a desire to reinforce the resistance offered by Latimer and also genuine anger at the treatment of an old man. Weston seems to be a particular focus for Foxe's ire. The 1570 gloss 'There you misse I wis' contains an insult that Foxe later dropped: this would suggest that he was careful to consider the likely effect of the tone of his critical remarks.
The gloss concerned with Luther ('In that booke the deuill doth not dissuade him so much from saying Masse, as to bring him to desperation for saying Masse, such temptatiōs many times happen to good men') shows Foxe's energetic affection for him. The gloss 'Obedience to Princes hath his limitation' offers a stark formulation of the limits of princely power: it is perhaps surprising that Foxe did not make explicit that only the commands of God come before those of princes. There are some corrections of grammar and logic (see 'Weston opposed in his grammer', 'D. Treshams argument without forme or mode, concluding affirmatiuely in the 2. figure', 'Facere, for sacrificare, with D. Weston'). One gloss which departs from Latimer's point emphasises the singularity of Christ's sacrifice ('If Christ offered himselfe at the Supper, and the next day vpon the Crosse, then was Christ twise offered'). There seems to be a subtle point in the gloss 'Cartwright returning to his olde error agayne', which admits of two readings depending on one's confessional allegiance; there is a similar ambiguity at the gloss 'How the body of Christ is shewed vs vpon the earth', a gloss turning Weston's formulation against him. For mistakes following the usual trend of 1583 not matching earlier editions, see the glosses 'August. in Psal. 31. Chrisost De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1583) and 'August. in Psal. 38. Chrysost. De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1576).
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').
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).
This is the unusually heavily (for 1563) annotated passage detailing objections to the arguments of the papists, along with summaries of those arguments; this passage is not in the corresponding places of the subsequent editions. Most of the marginalia help with the general task of breaking down the previous text into the bare bones of argument. Prior to the large tranche of dates and numbers which serve to this effect are some glosses which perhaps seek to set out the basic terms of debate and the distinctions worth making ('The body of Christe present. Eaten. Vnited', 'Really spiritually Sacramentally'). The gloss '2 Papa est lupus rapax. One substāce affirmed of an other denominatiuely' appears to contain a gratuitous insult (Papa est lupus rapax) unjustified by the textual content: this sort of thing was dropped in later editions. The gloss 'Chedsey taken with falsifieng of Iustines wordes' attacks Chedsey for falsifying a patristic source.
This is a section consisting of letters written by Cranmer and Ridley and connecting text around the time of their separation and condemnation. Many of the glosses follow the texts in objecting to the conduct of the proceedings: haste, unfairness, unkept promises are all noted ('B. Ridleyes report of the misorder of this disputation', 'D. Ridley could not be suffered to read forth his protestation', 'Papistes haue small conscience in performing promises', 'The Archb. not suffered to aunswere fully to any argument' and 'Hast made in condemning the Archb. and hys fellowes'). The ill behaviour of the papists is also alluded to ('Tauntes and reuilinges vsed in this disputation'). Foxe's predilection for binaries is also in evidence: The gloss 'No veritie but glory sought for in this disputation' picks up on Ridley's contrast between the supposed object of the disputation (verity) and its actual one (glory), while the gloss reporting the condemnation of the three martyrs ('D. Cranmer Bishop Ridley and M. Latimer condemned') is immediately followed by one claiming that 'Weston geueth sentence against himselfe', thus showing the contrast between true and apparent guilt. Many of the glosses are factual, which is unsurprising given the transition from disputation to narrative that this passage marks (e.g. 'The Archb. and his fellow prisoners separated', 'Disputation in Cambridge intended'). For variations and errors between editions, see the gloss 'The 3. prisoners at Oxford called before the Commissioners. Aprill. 20.' (1570 more clearly positioned than later), 'Aprill. 13' (a mistake in all editions), and 'Disputation in Cambridge intēded, wherof read hereafter pag. 1639' (only 1570 bothers to give a reference).
The glosses here are less directly adversarial than they were during the disputations. Many of them describe political events, others deal with arraignments, imprisonments and pardons. The move from the debating chamber has not stopped Foxe's willingness to criticise procedure, though now it is illegality rather than indecorum that he attacks; it is perhaps significant that shortly after the account of the repeal of Edward VI's laws, Foxe reports and highlights the case of a Canterbury priest who repented saying Mass: the implication is perhaps that beyond the law, conscience must be heard. The shift to narrative also encourages Foxe to emphasize some providential signs in the glosses, as with the strange sights preceding Phillip's arrival and the satisfactorily horrible death of the 'murtherer' Thornton. This may be contrasted with the noble and godly death of Suffolk, whose virtuous deportment is cued by a series of glosses. It is worth noting that the last gloss contains further and more accurate information than the text, yet it was not edited into the main text after 1570. Other glosses provide examples of errors.
Mantell's apology is a profession of faith which is also a short narrative of interrogation, with a combination of scriptural references and pointers to argument dominating. There is focus on an admission by Bourne that the Mass was a communion, and other glosses make the point that Mantell was not stubborn but constant; the glosses do not mention his particular concern that the Queen should realise this. Glosses also show a discrepancy in dates between editions, and a reference that was dropped after the 1570 edition.
This section is a narrative passage, and the glosses are mainly dates and references to events of a political and judicial kind. Other glosses however suggest a surreptitious, irreverent strain to the response of London protestants to the new regime.
Many of the glosses in the section dealing with the preachers' concerns and conditions reflect the procedural objections which emerged from the Oxford disputations. Most of the glosses in the section containing the confession of the preachers are simply guides to the points made. The emphasis that the motive for this confession was 'quiet of conscience' not 'curiositie' ties in with the obstinacy/constancy contrast in the glosses to Mantell's apology earlier. There are two glosses pointing to exhortations to obedience: Foxe was clearly anxious to distance martyrdom from resistance.
Foxe attempts to develop some points against Phillip in the margin, noting his arrival with sword drawn and the deliverance of the keys of Southampton to him which suggests conquest and (in 'deliuered') reluctance. 1563 has an unusually large number of glosses at the beginning of this section.
Glosses in this section concentrate on political events detailing Phillip's progress and the forward march of the counter-reformation. Foxe uses the glosses to make relatively subtle attacks on the catholics: in contrast to the disputations, where the glosses often gave room to an adversarial voice, here narrative is used to shape events to favour a protestant interpretation. Thus glosses report the removal of English arms for Spanish at Windsor, linking this to Phillip's name, without mentioning the quick reversal of this change, or the fact that Phillip did not order the change, apparent from the text. Winchester is accused of not being able to abide 'Verbum Dei. The precision of the formulation is noteworthy: Foxe does not directly accuse him of hating scripture, but lets the ambiguity between what he reports (Winchester's anger at an image of Henry VIII holding Verbum Dei) and what he implies (Gardiner hates the Bible) go unresolved.
A harsher note is sounded in calling the rood at St. Paul's Bonner's 'God'. The difference in tone is probably partly due to the fact that Bonner's violent temperament made him an easier target for opprobium; furthermore, it was polemically valuable to link the passionate lack of self-control Bonner later exhibits with the antichristian sensuality of idolatry. Frivolity and self-indulgence are also pointed to on the civic level with the reference to 'vayne pageants', although the Old Testament resonances of the self-indulgence of Israel are applicable.
Political events predominate here. Foxe has to decide what titles to give the competing queens at crucial moments. The glosses 'Queene Iane proclamed at London' and 'Comparisō betweene young king Edward & young Lady Iane' may be examined: the first notes the proclaiming of 'Queene Iane' while the second, by pointing to a passage concerned with her upbringing and therefore using 'Lady Iane', allows the transition back to Lady Jane for the rest of the section (except for 'Bishop Ridley preacheth in Queene Maryes time' which recalls Ridley preaching in Queen Jane's time) without having to say anything explicit about legitimacy.
Another interesting titular contrast comes at the gloss 'Breach of promise in Queene Mary': immediately before this is a gloss in all editions, 'The Lady Mary promiseth faithfully that she would not alter religion'. The contrast between 'Lady' and 'Queen' appears to suggest a willingness to promise anything to gain power followed by indifference to promises.
Another contrast between Jane and Mary can be found in the glosses: while 'Two things feared in Queene Mary' points to two things feared from Mary, 'Comparisō betweene young king Edward & young Lady Iane' points to a favourable comparison between Jane and King Edward. Two glosses do not appear after 1563. Perhaps the reference to the king's will in the gloss 'Lady Iane made heire by þe kings will' was too sensitive a point with Elizabeth to risk retaining the gloss. Another to be removed was 'Tokēs that quene Mary wold not kepe touch with the Suffolke menne' which considers the executions of various protestant nobles as 'tokens' that Mary would not 'kepe touch with the Suffolke men': perhaps this was later removed as ceding too much to the popular will (the Northern Uprising of 1569 may have heightened Foxe's awareness of the sensitivity of rebellion). Foxe's glosses report but do not comment upon Northumberland's recantation ('The Duke of Northumberlād condemned to dye', 'The Duke of Northumberland reuoketh his religion' and 'The Duke of Northūberland beheaded',) although the juxtaposition of the confessions and deaths of two protestant gentlemen, 'Syr Iohn Gates and Sir Thomas Palmer confessing their fayth were beheaded', was perhaps designed to offer contrast.
As with Harpsfield's disputation, Foxe is keen to correct what he sees as popish errors: for example, the historical point about the doctrine of the natural presence. The anger follows the pattern of ostensible provocation by an attack on the godly (preachers in this case). The glosses concerned with Bonner's visitation are relatively restrained in their criticism: the reported actions of the bishop were presumably damning enough. Foxe marks the itinerary, and twice mentions his 'behauiour', priming the reader to focus on his conduct. Other glosses list his insulting and violent behaviour, making clear the rank and status of those abused to compound the sense of disorderly proceeding. The glosses suggest Bonner was both vicious and ridiculous: he goes in a 'pelting chase' which suggests a lack of self-control and is easily put down by Sir Thomas Josselin . Glosses note the discrepancies between editions that follow the usual pattern of 1583 being less accurate than earlier editions; also noted are examples of a mistake in 1570 corrected in later editions.
The glosses encourage the reader's sympathies in a protestant direction. The phrase 'theyr Roode' emphasises the human institution of the rood as object and devotional focus, recalling the earlier reference to the rood as Bonner's God. At one level critical of popish religion as appealing to the immature instincts of the people a literal (mis)reading is permitted: the rood as a rood (not only a badly made one) drove children away. The fact that the Gloss, with its implication that the roodmaker may have deliberately spoiled his work on reformed principles, was dropped after 1570 perhaps provides an example of the kind of unsubstantiated claim Foxe came to regret and exclude.
The differences between the glosses in 1563 and later editions concerning Bonner's mandate are instructive: 1563 has the gloss 'Pharisaicall zeale', while later editions focus on the scandal of the erasure of scripture, and suggest a perverse belief that scripture encourages vice on Bonner's part. The shift is between an implication of hypocrisy to one of a crazed, vicious sensibility: the latter fits in much better with the portrayal of Bonner in the glosses and text previously, and shows Foxe adjusting his imputations to suit the target. An error occurs between glosses in 1583 and 1570; 1570 is correct, later editions wrong.
The glosses here show Foxe refocussing his attack on Pole, as he did earlier on Bonner. The 1563 and 1570 editions have different glosses linking Pole with avarice and (in the case of 1570) other vices; these were later dropped, and the main emphasis was on Pole as a persecutor of consciences. Foxe also uses the glosses to demonstrate Pole's involvement in a nexus of papal and imperial allegiances, drawing out some amusing images of Pole as a papal messenger/housebreaker jangling the power of the keys in the lock of English law. A clearer focus on Pole in his political and persecutory role rather than on his personal failings dominates after 1570. There are several references to earlier parts of the book in response to Pole's historical arguments: in all cases 1583 fails to give a reference, unlike 1570 and 1576.
A comparison of Glosses points up a problem Foxe faces here. In the latter gloss it is easy for Foxe to argue against Pole that the nobility were not keen on the return of papal power, but in the former he has to satisfy himself with suggesting that the professed repentance of the Lords and Commons was only skin deep. As with the disruptions in London, the implication of discontent beneath the surface was useful, although in this case there was the danger of portraying the nobility as hypocritical: that Foxe was willing to risk this shows the strong desire to work against the idea of catholic loyalty in the nobility (perhaps a particular fear after the 1569 rebellion). Foxe also adds a procedural thrust, noting that the pope's absolution had to come via the monarchs. The historic moment of absolution is subverted by glosses which contrast the pope's absolution with Christ's. The repeated accusation of flattery hurled at Pole continues the portrayal of him as the consummate politician begun in the previous section.
As occurs with other sections of text containing the words of the catholic enemy, these glosses contest and subvert the text. Thus Gardiner's 'dreaming' sermon is mocked with the implication that it is ungrounded in reason and a product of fancy. There are also examples of reworked points from the text. The finishing of Gardiner's Latin sentence in a derogatory way is unusually stark and unfounded in its criticism. The ongoing campaign to deride failed catholic prophecies continues .
The glosses help to hammer home the point that Providence cheated the ungodly of their wish for a child for Mary, on occasion in quite harsh, mocking terms. The glosses also seek to reverse the charge of heresy. There is a marked stridency in the tone, demonstrating Foxe's sensitivity to the charge of heresy being levelled at protestants. There is a reference only to be found in 1570 and an example of the 1583 compositors being more alert in detecting a mistake than they appear usually to have been.
The glosses serve to encourage the image of a small, true church suffering under age-old papal tyranny and taking refuge in mutual comfort. Two glosses containing the term 'persecution' link the ancient sufferings with the inauguration of the most recent set in Bow churchyard: Hooper's encouragement to his flock that the church is often suffering becomes a warning to Foxe's readers. The pastoral focus of Hooper's letter is made clear. It is perhaps significant that part of a gloss referring to the addressees of the letter is dropped after 1570, as this may reflect a recognition by Foxe that the potential of the letter as a source of comfort in times of trouble went beyond its immediate, historical context.
The frequent description of the martyrs-to-be as 'Preachers' or 'persecuted Preachers' points up the perversity of their destruction, given the essential importance of their defining function. The book ends with two procedural objections and a (perhaps symbolic) reference to Acts. An example of a mistake in 1570 being corrected occursin later editions
The root of the changes in the will of Mary is emphasized ('Q. Mary beginneth to set forth her popish religion. Religion here grounded vppon the Queenes will'), but Gardiner's place behind one of the changes is also mentioned in the margin ('Here was the head of Winchester'.) The lack of any prompting from within the text for this gloss was perhaps suggestive of the half-hidden forces at work behind Mary's basic desire for a catholic restoration. Most of the other glosses point out what was banned, and regret the fact. All editions give the date (August 18).
Unsurprisingly, the margin points up the story of Bourne being rescued from an ugly crowd by Bradford and Rogers ('M. Iohn Bradford appeaseth the people' and 'Bradford, and Rogers garded the preacher'). The variation in terminology at the glosses 'Cranmer offereth to defend the doctrine of the boke of cōmōpraier' (1563) and 'Cranmer offereth to defend the doctrine of the seruice booke in english' (1570 and 1576) is possibly suggestive of changing views on the part of Foxe and his contemporaries about Cranmer's liturgy.
Foxe capitalises on Moreman's mistakes in this section, as with the glosses 'Moreman affirmeth that Christ did eate his owne body' and 'Moreman denieth the Sacrament to haue a promise of remission of sinnes annexed vnto it'. Moreman is perhaps meant to be thought of as arrogant as well as stupid, as is suggested by the formulation ('Moremans aunswere to S. Paul'): this formulation is sometimes used in later disputations to describe protestant responses to patristic authors, but never scriptural ones: its use here suggests presumptuousness.
The term 'shift' is very often used to describe the intellectual moves of the papists ('Moremans shift is ouer throwen' and 'Philpots replication to Moremans shift'; 'Moreman desireth a day to imagine some crafty shift', 'M. Watson for a bare shift putteth the fault in the Printer', 'Watson is driuē to a shamefull shift, to deny the author when he cannot aunswer'). Many of the references in this section can be found in all editions, reflecting the relatively lively state of the 1563 margin for this section. As with later disputations, there are procedural complaints, such as 'Weston woulde know whether they were sufficiently answered, when he and his had answered no argument'; see also, 'D. Weston contrary to his owne wordes' (all editions), 'Pye and westō roūd together' (1563 only). Also highlighted are the threatening and bullying of Philpot, as when he was commanded to be silent and threatened with prison ('Philpot is commaunded to silēce note this geare' and 'Philpot is threatened to prison. A good solutiō for all his arguments')(1563); see also 'Weston is offended. Philpots replycation aunswered by commaunding him to silence' (all editions). Also interesting in this context is the gloss 'Weston rayleth against Philpot, to be a madde man': Weston is guilty of that which he sees in Philpot, as suggested by the term 'rayleth'. An example running counter to trends observed elsewhere is the use of the term 'alleaged' by a protestant ('The wordes of Theodoretus alleaged').
A great many of the glosses simply point out who is speaking. Perhaps because the text covers the material more briefly than is the case for the Oxford disputations, the glosses do not consider the issues in quite the depth that occurs later, nor do they have as many syllogisms or contentious theological or patristic questions to wrestle with or point out. A gloss highlighting Philpot's intention to use plain English ('Philpot speaketh playne Englysh') was dropped after 1563.
The wording and close linking of reform to the queen can be seen in the glosses 'Good Byshops displaced' and 'Popish Prelates intruded by Q. Mary'. These are contrasting glosses: the 'displaced' (a word which suggests fault if not illegality) good bishops and the 'intruded' (roughness of dealing, but, again, no illegality suggested by this term) popish prelates.
Foxe seems to have been especially concerned to defend the Wyatt rebels against Mary's account of their intentions ('Demaundes pretended to be sent from M. Wyat and hys company to Queene Mary' and 'How he pretended the spoyle of theyr goodes it appeareth in that he comming to Southwarke, did hurt neither man, woman, nor childe, neyther in body nor in a penny of their goodes'). The later dropping of the gloss 'Duke of Suffolke forsooke Quene Mary' (1563) is a possible example of Foxe striving to discredit Mary without explicitly speaking against her.
The glosses here help to fashion Jane as a martyr or pseudo-martyr. As a sufferer for the truth and a letter-writer, her efforts are characterised in ways which ally them with those of later martyrs; thus ('Lady Iane comfortably taketh her trouble'), and feels bold enough to offer reproof to a priest who has fallen from the faith ('A sharpe letter or exhortation of the Lady Iane to M. Harding') as well as spiritual encouragement to her father and sister ('This Parenthesis includeth with a praier, a priuy admonition to her father that he fall not from his religion' and 'So liue to dye, that by death you may liue'). The glosses also support her spirited defence of faith against Fecknam, mainly by simply pointing to the matters affirmed ('Faith onely iustifieth', 'Good workes necessary in a christian, yet do they not profite to saluation', etc.), but on one occasion Foxe does offer a more logically focussed summary of what she says than is directly warranted by the content ('Christ had power to turne the bread into his body, is no argumēt to proue that he did so'). Also relevant is a gloss which points to her steady and devout conduct in the face of death ('The wordes and behauiour of the Lady Iane vppon the Scaffold'). The gloss 'A wonderfull example vpon Morgan the Iudge who gaue sentence agaynst the Lady Iane' adds to the implicit sense of injustice by highlighting the providential visitation of a judge who convicted Jane.