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]
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]
If he had ment of onely eating bread & drinkyng wyne, nothyng had bene more pleasaunt to the Capernaits, neyther would they haue forsaken hym. The flesh profiteth nothing, to them that doe so take it. For the Capernaits did imagine Christ to be geuen in such sort, as he liued: But Christe spake highe thinges: not that they shoulde haue hym as fleshe in the markette, but to consider his presence with the spirit vnder the fourmes, whereby it is geuen. As there is an alteration of bodies by courses, and times of ages, so there is no lesse varietie in eatyng of bodies.[Back to Top]
These thynges whyche I haue recyted briefly, maister Harpsfield did with many more
woordes set out: and herevpon maister Westondisputed agaynst hym.
VVest. Christes reall bodye is not in the Sacrament.
Ergo you are deceyued.
Harps. I denye the antecedent.
west. Iohn the. vi. Dico veritatem vobis. &c. I speake the truthe vnto you. It behoueth me that I goe awaye from you. For vnlesse I do depart, that comforter cannot come. &c.
Vpon this, I wyll make this argument.
Christ is so gone awaye as he dyd sende the holy ghost.
But the holy ghost dyd verely come into the worlde.
Ergo Chryste is verely gone.
Harps. He is verelye gone, and yet remayneth here.
west. Sayncte Augustine sayeth, that these woordes. Ego ero. &c. I wil be with you, euen to the ende of the worlde, are accomplyshed (secundum maiestatem,) accordyng to his maiestye: But (secūdū præsentiā carnis, non est hic,) by the presence of his fleshe he is not here. The church hath hym not in fleshe, but by beliefe.[Back to Top]
Harps. We muste diligently weyghe that there are two natures in Christ: the diuine nature, and mannes nature. The dyuine nature is of suche sort, that it cannot choose, but bee in all places. Mannes nature is not suche, that of force it muste be in all places, although it be in diuers, after a diuerse maner: so where that the Doctors doe entreate of his presence by maiestie, they doe it to commende the maiesty of the diuine nature, not to hinder vs of the natural presence here in the sacrament.[Back to Top]
west. He sayeth farther. Me autem non est semper habebitis, ye shall not haue me alwayes wyth you, is to be vnderstanded in the fleshe.
Harps. The presence of the fleshe is to bee considered, that he is not here as he was wont to liue in conuersation with them, to be seene, talked withall, or in suche sorte as a manne maye geue hym any thyng: after that sort he is not present.
VVest. But what saye you to this of saynct Augustine: Non est hic. He is not here?
Harps. I doe aunswere out of saint Augustine vppon Iohn, Tractatu. 25. vpon these wordes Non videbitis me. Vado ad panem. &c. I go to the father, ye shal not se me: that is, such as I now am. Therefore I dooe denye the maner of his presence.
west. I wyll ouerthrowe Saincte Austine wyth Sayncte Austine: who sayeth thys also: Quo modo quis possit tenere Christum? fidem mitte & tenuisti.
That is Howe maye a man holde Christe? put fayth vnto it, and thou haste hym.
So he sheweth, that by settyng our faith vnto it, we doe kepe Christ.
Harps. In dede no mā kepeth Chryst, vnlesse he beleue in him: but it is an other thynge to haue Christ mercifull, and fauorable vnto vs,