VVest Theodorete also in his seconde Dialogue of these kyndes of bread & wyne, saieth: Nec naturam egrediuntur, manent etiam in sua substantia. i. They go not out of their owne nature, but they tary in their owne substaunce.
Harp. They are vnderstanded to bee of the same substaunce wherein they are turned.
West. But what say you by this? Manent in priori substātia. They remain in their former substāce
Harp. Symbola manent: The outwarde signes do tary.
West. But what is ment here by this word Symbolum?
Harp. The outwarde forme or shape onely of the nature.
West. Then you can not call them a substaunce.
Harp. Yes syr: euery thing hathe a certayne substaunce in his kynde.
West. That is true: but accidentes are not substaunces in their kynde.
Harp. Sunt quid in suo genere. Of this they contended muche.
West. Chrisostome ad Cæsarium Monachum, sayeth. Sicut antequam consecratur, panis est: sic postquā consecratur, liberatus est ab appellatione panis, donatus est appellatione corporis dominici, cum natura remanet. That is: Lyke as before it is consecrated, it is bread: So after it is consecrated, it is deliuered from the name of bread, & is endued with the name of the Lordes body, where as the nature doth remaine.[Back to Top]
Harp. Where reade you this place I praye you?
West. Here in Peter Martyr I finde it: I haue his booke in my hande.
Harp. The Autor shalbe of more credite, before that I make so muche of hym, as to frame an aunswere vnto it.
West. In deede I knowe not well where he findeth it: but Gelasius sayeth: that the nature of bread and wyne doo tary.
Harp. What was that Gelasius?
West. A Byshop of Rome.
Harp. Then he allowed the Masse.
West. Yea: and often tymes sayd it: and purgatorie also he allowed, and so prayer for the dead, reliques, and inuocation to sainctes.
Harp. Belike then he ment nothing against transubstantiation.
West. It doth appeare so in dede: but Orygen vpō Math. the xv. chap. sayth: that the materiall bread doth tarie, and is conueyghed in to the pryuie, and is eaten of wormes.
Harp. Tushe, tushe, this place appertaynes vnto holy bread.
West. What? dothe it appertaine to holye bread?
Harp. Yea vnto holy bread.
West. By what meanes can you shew how this myraculouse worke, bryngeth Christ into the sacrament?
Harp. By þe scriptures I proue that, whiche sayeth: Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body.
West. It doth reioyce all vs, not a litle, that you haue so well maintayned the sounde doctrine of the sacrament of the altar, wherein you haue faithfully cleaued to the Catholycke churche, as an onely staye of our religion, by the whiche meanes you haue proued your selfe mete to be authorised further towardes the practising of the scripture. And here I do opēly wytnes, that I do throughly consente with you: and haue for disputatiō sake only, brought these argumētes against you, which you haue ryght learnedly satisfied: and now all thinges beyng done, after our forme and maner, we wyll end this disputation, saying: In oppositum est sacra theologia. In oppositum est. &c.[Back to Top]
In the 1563 edition, Foxe followed the Oxford disputations with a remarkable summary of all the arguments in the debate. First came a statement claiming that Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer were not defeated in the debate by flaws in their logic or their theology but, if they appeared to be overcome, it was because the debate was controlled by their adversaries; in Foxe's words - paraphrasing Weston's claim that 'vicit veritas' - 'vicit non veritas, sed potestatas' (see textual variant 67 and 1563, p. 991). The opening sentences of this statement would be reprinted in subsequent editions, the rest of it was omitted, and a new transitional sentence was added (textual variant 66).[Back to Top]
In the edition of 1563, Foxe went on to present a summary of his theology of the Sacrament (p. 992), followed by a diagram (which Foxe calls a table) illustrating it (pp. 993-94). These were never reprinted by Foxe. This was followed by a series of summaries of the major arguments advanced against Cranmer (1563, p. 995). Ridley (1563, pp. 995-96), Latimer (1563, p. 996) and Cranmer, during Harpsfield's disputation (1563, p. 996). Foxe followed this with his own answer to each argument (1563, pp. 997-99). Foxe did not ever reprint these summaries and answers. Finally, almost as an afterthought, Foxe printed a letter from Mary to the mayor, alderman and inhabitants of Oxford, ordering them to keep Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer in custody during the disputations (1563, p. 999) (It is unknown from where Foxe obtained this document; he did no work in the Oxford municipal archive, and he certainly would not have had time to search before the publication of the 1563 edition. A copy of the letter was probably placed with the official transcript of the disputations). This letter, as well as a brief note which followed it noting the condemnation of the three bishops (1563, p. 999), was also never reprinted.[Back to Top]
This section is another demonstration of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the Oxford disputations as a means of proselytisation and propaganda. Together with the section on the canon of the mass, the dispute in Convocation in 1553 and Jane Grey's dialogue with Feckenham, this is part of the attack on the mass which is the theme of Book 10.[Back to Top]
Why then did Foxe omit this material (except for a few introductory sentences which were retained) from the editions after 1563? One reason which led to much of the material which appeared in the 1563 edition being omitted was the press for space and the need to conserve paper in the subsequent editions. But, unlike the canon of the mass, this material was never restored, even in the edition of 1583. Foxe may also have felt that this digest impeded the flow of his narrative and that he could achieve the same results through other means. One strategy was the reorganisation of material. By moving material appearing in the 1563 edition (such as Ridley's protestations concerning the conduct of the disputations and the first informant's description of the condemnation of the three bishops, to follow the account of the disputations) it was possible for Foxe point out both the unfairness of the debate and the condemnation of Ridley, Cranmer and Latimer, without repetition. More importantly, he was able to make the same points in marginal notes, without the obtrusive apparatus of appendices and diagrams.[Back to Top]
T Hus ye haue harde in these forsayde disputations, about the holy supper of the Lorde, the reasons and argumentes of the Doctors, the answeres and resolutions of the byshoppes, and the triūphe of the Prolocutor, triumphing before the victorie: with vicit veritas: who rather in my mynd should haue exclamed: vicit potestas, As it happeneth alwayes vbi pars maior vincit meliorem. For els if potestas had not helped the Prolocutor more then veritas, there had been a small victoria. But so it is, where iudgementes be partiall, and parties be addicted, there all thinges turne to victory, thoughe it be neuer so meane and simple. But contrariwyse all partialitie set apart, if censure should be geuen vpon these disputations with vpright and indifferent iudgement, weying with the argumentes of the one syde, the aunsweres of the other, we shall perceiue victory there falsly bragged, where no victory was. If in these disputations it had so been, that the distinction of the aunsweres, had been wypt away or remoued by the Opposers, or if the argumentes of the Opponentes side had been so strong, that they could not be dissolued of the aunswerer, than would I confesse victorie gotten. But seing now all the argumentes brought against the byshops, to be taken away by a playne distinction, of really, spiritually, and sacramētally: and againe this distinction of theirs so to stande in force, that the contrary argumentes of the other part, were not able to infringe the same, therfore we must saye, as is sayde, Vicit non veritas, sed potestas.[Back to Top]
And for the readers sake, to make the matter more largely and euidently to appere concerning the distinction made of the bishoppes in this disputacion, wher by they did both repeale the arguments obiected and manfully maintayne the veritye, here haue we as in a briefe summe or table expreßed as well there arguments, as the distinctions and aunsweres of the other part to the same.[Back to Top]