signifye to bee equall in the glorye of his Father.
Nowe therefore take this argument.
Wheresoeuer Goddes authoritie is, there is Christes body,
But gods authoritie is in euery place.
Ergo what letteth the body of Christ to be in euery place?
Moreouer you haue also corrupted Duns.
Cran. That is a great offence I promyse you.
west. For you haue omitted secūdū apparētiā as it appeareth as where his woordes are these: Et si quæras quare voluit ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli, cum verba scripturæ possit saluari secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem, secumdum apparentiam, de hoc articulo.[Back to Top]
That is. And yf you demaunde why the Church did chuse, this so harde vnderstandyng of this article, wher as the wordes of scripture may be salued after an easy & truer vnderstandyng, as appeareth, of this article.
Cran. It is not so.
VVest. Also you haue set foorth a Catechisme, in the name of the Synode of London, and yet there be. 50. whiche witnessyng þe they were of the number of that Conuocation, neuer heard one worde of this Catechisme.
Cran. I was ignoraunt of the setting to of that title: and assoone as I had knowlege ther of, I dyd not lyke it. Therefore when I complayned thereof to the Counsell, it was aunswered me by them, that the booke was so intituled, because it was sette foorth in tyme of the Conuocation.
VVest. Moreouer, you haue in Duns translated in Romana ecclesia pro ecclesia catholica, in the churche of Rome, for the Catholyke churche.
Cran. Yea, but he ment the Romish church.
VVest. Moreouer, you haue depraued saint Thomas: namely where he hath these words. In quantum vero est sacrificiū, habet vim satisfactiuam. Sed in satisfactione attenditur magis affectio offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Vnde dominus dicit apud Lucā de vidua, quæ obtulit duo æra, quod plus omnibus misit. Quamuis ergo hæc oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiet ad satisfaciendum pro omni pœna: tamen sit satisfactoria illis, pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus secundum quantitatem suæ deuotionis, & non pro tota pœna.[Back to Top]
That is. Inasmuche as it is a sacrifice, it hathe the power of satisfaction. But in satisfactiō, the affection of the offerer is more to be weyghed, than the quantity of the oblation. Whereof the Lorde sayde in Lukes Gospell, of the wydowe whiche offered two mites, that she caste in more then they all. Therefore, although this oblation, of the quantitie of it selfe wyll suffyce to satisfye for all payne: yet it is made satisfactory to them, for whō it is offered, or to the offerers, accordyng to the quantity of theyr deuotion, and not for all the payne.[Back to Top]
You haue thus turned it: Quod sacrificium sacerdotis habet vim satisfactiuam. &c.
That is: that the sacrifice of the priest hath power of satisfaction. &c. And therfore in this place you haue chopped in this woorde (Sacerdotis) of Prieste, whereas in the translation of all the newe testament, you haue not set it, but where Christ
was put to death. And agayne, where Saynct Thomas hath: (pro omni pœna,) for all payne, your booke omytteth many thynges there.
Thus you see (brethren) the truth stedfaste and inuincible: you see also the crafte and deceyte of Heretikes: the truthe maye bee pressed, but it cannot bee oppressed. Therefore crye altogether.
☞ The truthe ouercommeth.
In the Rerum, Foxe's account of Ridley's disputation was based on a single version of Ridley's own narrative of his disputation (Rerum, pp. 660-95). One again, Grindal had obtained a copy of Ridley's account of his disputation in the Bishop's own hand (BL Harley 417, fol. 119r) and once again, it does not seem to have been available to Foxe for the Rerum. In the Actes and Monuments, Foxe continued to rely on this narrative, but he had multiple versions of it. There are a number of different versions of Ridley's narrative which survive in Foxe's papers: BL Lansdowne MS 389, fols. 118r-124v and 130r-134v; ECL MS 262, fols. 3r-15v and 17v-25v; BL Harley MS 422, fols. 54r-58v and (in Latin) fols. 68r-83v. The number of these copies is testimony to Foxe's zeal in obtaining as much material on the Oxford disputations as he could gather; he obtained one copy from Grindal (see 1570, p. 1901).[Back to Top]
As with Cranmer's disputation, the 1563 version of Ridley's disputation has sections of text which are not in the Rerum; almost certainly because Foxe's single copy of Ridley's narrative was defective and also because Foxe had multiple versions on which to draw for the 1563 edition.
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').[Back to Top]
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.[Back to Top]
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.[Back to Top]
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.[Back to Top]
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.[Back to Top]
The Sorbonicall clamours whiche at Paris (when Popery most reygned) I in tymes past haue seen, myght bee worthely thought (in comparison of this Thrasonicall ostentatiō) to haue had muche modestye. Howe be it, it was not to be wondred at, for that they which should ther haue bene Moderatours, and Ouerseers of others, and whiche should haue geuen a good example in wordes and grauitie &c. as Paul sayeth: It is not to be wondred at (I saye), in that these, of all others, gaue worst example, and did (as it were) blow the trumpet to other, to raile rage, rore, and cry out By reason wherof, good Christian Reader, it is very manifest, that they neuer sought for any truthe or veritye, but alonely for the glory of the world, and a Thrasonicall or braggyng victory. But least by the innumerable railinges, and conuitious tauntes, wherewith I was throughly thrust at, and as muche as in them laye ouerthrowne, our cause, yea, rather gods cause, and his churches should be euyll spoken of, and slaundred to the world, by the false examples of our disputations, and so the veritye it self susteyne some dammage, & reproche, I haue thought it my duety to wryte my aunsweres, that whosoeuer is desirous to knowe them, and the truthe withall, maye by this perceaue as well those thyngs, which wer chiefly obiected, as that which was aunswered of me to euery of them.[Back to Top]
Howbeit (good Reader) I confesse this to be moste true, that it is impossible to set foorth either al that was (God knoweth) tumultuously spoken, and lyke as of mad men obiected of so many, whiche spake often times huddle, so that one coulde not well heare an other, eyther all that was aunswered of me briefly, to suche, and so diuers Opponents. Moreouer, a great part of the tyme appointed for the disputations, was vaynly spent in moste contumelious rebukes, and more then theatricall, or stage playe exibilations, or hissynges, clappyng of handes, and[Back to Top]