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 WestonThomas CranmerWilliam Chedsey
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
Thomas Cranmer

(1489 - 1556)

Archbishop of Canterbury (1533 - 1553) [Fasti; DNB; MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, 1996]. Martyr

Foxe records the life, condemnation and death of Cranmer. 1563, pp. 1470-1503, 1570, pp. 2032-71, 1576, pp. 1752-82, 1583, pp. 1859-90.

Foxe records Cranmer's formative years and early career. His mother was Agnes Hatfield. Cranmer read the works of Faber, Erasmus and Luther. 1563, pp. 1470-71, 1570, pp. 2032-33, 1576, pp. 1752-53, 1583, pp. 1859-60.

Cranmer was asked by Dr Capon to be a founding fellow of Wolsey's college. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2035, 1576, p. 1753, 1583, p. 1860.

Alexander Seton and Edward Foxe lodged with Cressey while Thomas Cranmer was there and dined with him. The following day Henry VIII called Seton and Foxe to him to discuss his marriage. They then sent for Cranmer. 1570, p. 2033, 1576, p. 1755, 1583, p. 1860.

Cranmer was sent as Henry VIII's ambassador to the emperor. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2035, 1576, p. 1753, 1583, p. 1860.

He was made archbishop of Canterbury. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2035, 1576, p. 1753, 1583, p. 1860.

Cranmer was asked by Henry VIII to search the scriptures for a case for his divorce from Catherine of Arragon. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2033, 1576, p. 1754, 1583, p. 1860.

Henry VIII asked the earl of Wiltshire to allow Cranmer to stay at his house in Durham. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2033, 1576, p. 1755, 1583, p. 1861.

Cranmer went to Mr Cressey's house at Waltham Abbey during the summer plague season. Cranmer's wife was a relative of Cressey. 1570, p. 2033 1576, p. 1754, 1583, p. 1860.

Henry VIII called Seton and Foxe to him to discuss his marriage. They then sent for Cranmer. 1570, p. 2033, 1576, p. 1755, 1583, p. 1860.

The pope's authority was discussed at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, where it was concluded that Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Arragon was not legal, and the pope's authority was denounced. Cranmer, the earl of Wiltshire, Stokesley, Carne and Benet were then sent before the pope to deliver these conclusions. 1563, p. 1472, 1570, p. 2033, 1576, p. 1755, 1583, p. 1861. [1563 has the commission as consisting of: Bonner, Winchester, Sampson, Repps, Goodricke, Latimer, Shaxton, and Barlow.]

[Back to Top]

Cranmer met with Cornelius Agrippa. 1570, p. 2035, 1576, p. 1754, 1583, p. 1861.

Cromwell was sent with Norfolk and Suffolk to dine with Cranmer at Lambeth. 1570, p. 2036, 1576, p. 1756, 1583, p. 1862.

Chersey, a grocer in the city of London, had a kinsman who was a priest and who spent more time in the alehouse than his church. This priest spoke against Cranmer in the alehouse one day. 1570, p. 2036, 1576, p. 1756, 1583, p. 1863.

The priest was sent to the Fleet. Cromwell forgot about him and eventually sent him to Cranmer. Cranmer in time spoke to the priest and set him free. 1570, pp. 2036-38, 1576, pp. 1756-57, 1583, pp. 1863-64.

Cranmer investigated the case of a woman accused of committing adultery. 1563, pp. 1477-78, 1576, pp. 1570-71.

Cranmer sent a token via W. P. [William Porrege] to a woman falsely accused of adultery, asking for forgiveness for the treatment she received while in custody. 1563, p. 1478, 1576, p. 1751.

Lord Wryosley wept at the bedside of King Henry VIII and saved the life of Mary, Henry and Catherine's daughter. 1563, p. 1478.

Thomas Seymour spoke against Cranmer to the king, which he later regretted. 1570, p. 2039, 1576, p. 1758, 1583, p. 1865.

Richard Neville, noting that Sir Thomas Seymour was hoping to see Cranmer, brought him to the archbishop at dinner. 1570, p. 2039, 1576, p. 1758, 1583, p. 1865.

After Cromwell was apprehended, bishops Heath and Skip forsook Cranmer and stood against him. 1570, p. 2040, 1576, p. 1759, 1583, pp. 1865-66.

Winchester and others tried to take Cranmer out of the king's favour. 1570, p. 2040, 1576, p. 1759, 1583, p. 1866.

The king sent Sir Anthony Denny to commit Cranmer to the Tower. 1570, p. 2040, 1576, p. 1759, 1583, p. 1866.

Cranmer spoke with the king. 1570, p. 2040, 1576, p. 1759, 1583, p. 1866.

Buttes, the king's physician, spoke to the king about the fact that Cranmer was being forced to wait like a lackey to come into council. 1570, p. 2041, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1866.

The king and the council made their peace with Cranmer. 1570, p. 2041, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1867.

Sir John Gostwicke accused Cranmer of heresy before parliament, citing his sermons at Sandwich and his lectures at Canterbury as evidence. 1570, p. 2041, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1867.

Prebendaries and justices of Kent accused Cranmer of heresy. 1570, p. 2042, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1867.

Articles were put to Henry VIII against Cranmer. Henry VIII told Cranmer what these articles were. 1570, p. 2042, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1867.

A commission was sent to Kent to find out the truth about Cranmer's beliefs and the charges of heresy against him. The commission members were Dr Belhouse, Chauncellor Cox and Hussey the registrar. 1570, p. 2042, 1576, p. 1761, 1583, p. 1867.

Cranmer's secretary wrote to Buttes and Denny asking for Dr Lee to join the commission, lest nothing be learned by the commission. 1570, p. 2042, 1576, p. 1761, 1583, p. 1868.

A conspiracy against Cranmer was discovered through some letters that were found, including one by the suffragen of Dover and one by Barbar, a civilian maintained in Cranmer's household as a counsellor in matters of law. 1570, p. 2042, 1576, p. 1761, 1583, p. 1868.

Cranmer spoke with Dover and Barber. Barber said that hanging was too good for villains. They asked for Cranmer's forgiveness. 1570, pp. 2042-43, 1576, p. 1760, 1583, p. 1868.

Cranmer was confirmed in his reformist beliefs after a conference with Ridley. 1570, p. 2045, 1576, p. 1763, 1583, p. 1870.

Cranmer's wife is mentioned as a niece to the wife of Osiander. Cranmer was married while acting as the king's ambassador to Charles the emperor. 1563, p. 1478, 1570, p. 2045, 1576, p. 1763, 1583, p. 1870.

Cranmer was opposed to the writings of Gardiner. 1570, p. 2045, 1576, p. 1763, 1583, p. 1870.

Rowland Taylor left Cranmer's household to become rector of Hadleigh (1563, p. 1065; 1570, p. 1693; 1576, p. 1495; 1583, p. 1519). [Actually Taylor was Cranmer's chaplain.]

Cranmer commanded Rowland Taylor to make Robert Drakes a deacon. 1563, p. 1505, 1570, p. 2074, 1576, p. 1788, 1583, p. 1895.

In the third year of Edward's reign Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley admitted Robert Drakes to minister the sacraments. 1563, p. 1505, 1570, p. 2074, 1576, p. 1788, 1583, p. 1895.

Foxe states that at his death Edward VI bequeathed the throne to Lady Jane. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, p. 2045, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1870.

Cranmer refused to swear allegience to Lady Jane. 1563, p. 1471, 1570, pp. 2045-46, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1870.

The dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk were executed for their support of Lady Jane. 1563, p. 1474 [recte 1472], 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1871.

Lady Jane and her husband were beheaded. 1563, p. 1474 [recte 1472], 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1871.

Foxe states that those who were blinded with ignorance or malice thought Peter Martyr not a learned man. 1563, p. 1474 [recte 1472].

A mass was said at Canterbury by Thornden after the death of Edward VI. 1563, p. 1474 [recte 1472], 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1871.

Scory, bishop of Rochester, visited Cranmer. He took a copy of Cranmer's writings about the rumour that he had said the mass (when Thornden had in fact said it) and had it published. Cranmer was commanded to appear before the council and bring an inventory of his goods. 1563, p. 1479, 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1764, 1583, p. 1871.

[Back to Top]

Heath questioned Cranmer about his bill against the mass. 1570, p. 2047, 1576, pp. 1764-65, 1583, p. 1871.

Cranmer was examined by Brookes, Martyn and Story. 1563, pp. 1479-83, 1570, pp. 2046-47, 1576, p. 1764-65, 1583, p. 1871.

Cranmer was accused of conspiring with John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. 1563, p. 1483, 1570, p. 2058, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

Thomas Cranmer met with Peter Martyr, about 5 September 1553, in London, to discuss a projected disputation where they would defend the Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer was then arrested (1563, p. 905; 1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1339; and 1583, p. 1497 [recte 1409]).

On 13 September Cranmer was ordered to appear before the privy council. On 14 September he was charged by the privy council with treason and spreading seditious libels and was committed to the Tower (1583, p. 1410).

He was a signatory to a letter from the privy council to Princess Mary, dated 9 July 1553, declaring that she was illegitimate and that Jane Grey was Edward VI's true heir (1570, p. 1568; 1576, p. 1337; 1583, pp. 1406-7).

He was cited to appear before the queen's commissioners on 27 August 1553 (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1395; and 1583, p. 1465).

Rumoured to have celebrated a mass at Canterbury, Cranmer issued a denial or 'purgation' of the rumours on 7 September 1553 (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1395; and 1583, p. 1465).

Cranmer was examined by Bonner and Ely and condemned on 12 September 1553 (seven days before the condemnation of Ridley and Latimer). 1563, pp. 1491-92, 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

He was committed to the Tower on 14 September 1553 (1570, p. 1466; 1576, p. 1395; and 1583, p. 1466).

A rumor spread that Cranmer had recanted his protestant conviction and allowed a mass to be celebrated at Canterbury; he issued a printed denial of this. In the denial, he offered to defend his religious beliefs in open debate together with Peter Martyr. Cranmer was imprisoned and arraigned for treason but ultimately pardoned. He was still charged with heresy (1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418).

[Back to Top]

He was examined by Weston and the other members of the catholic delegation to the Oxford disputations on Saturday 14 April 1554 (1563, pp. 932 and 937; 1570, pp. 1592-93; 1576, p. 1935 [recte 1359]; and 1583, p. 1429).

[NB: There is a summary of Cranmer's disputation on Monday 16 April 1554 which was printed in its entirety only in 1563, p. 933.]

Cranmer disputed with the catholic doctors on 16 April 1554 (1563, pp. 938-56; 1570, pp. 1593-1606; 1576, pp. 1360-70; and 1583, pp. 1430-41).

He disputed with John Harpsfield on the nature of the eucharist as part of Harpsfield's obtaining his D.D. on 19 April 1554 (1563, pp 987-90; 1570, pp. 1629-31; 1576, pp. 1390-91; and 1583, pp. 1460-62).

Cranmer wrote to the privy council on 23 April 1554, protesting at the way in which the Oxford disputations were conducted. Weston opened the letter and refused to deliver it (1570, p. 1633; 1576, p. 1394; and 1583, p. 1464).

The queen's letter ordering Cranmer to be held in the custody of the mayor and bailiffs of Oxford during the disputation is printed in 1563, p. 999.

A new commission was sent to Rome for the restoration of the pope's authority to allow the condemnation of Cranmer. Those sent were: James Brookes, Martyn and Story . 1570, p. 2047, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

He was summoned, together with Ridley and Latimer, before Weston and the commissioners on 20 April 1554. He refused to recant his opinions and denied Weston's claim that he had been defeated in the disputation, claiming that the questions and challenges flew at him without order or giving him time to answer. He was condemned and taken to Bocardo (1563, pp. 935-36; 1570, pp. 1632-33; 1576, p. 1393; and 1583, pp. 1463-64).

[Back to Top]

Bullinger sent commendations to Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer in a letter to John Hooper dated 10 October 1554. 1570, pp. 1692-93; 1576, pp. 1444-45; 1583, p. 1518.

Laurence Saunders sent a letter to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer. 1563, pp. 1042-43; 1570, pp. 1667-68; 1576, pp. 1422-23; 1583, pp. 1496-97.

John Bradford sent a letter to Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. 1570, p. 1815 1576, p. 1551, 1583, p. 1634.

Rowland Taylor wrote a letter to Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer when they were prisoners in Oxford. 1570, p. 2072; 1576, p. 1787; 1583, p. 1893.

Ridley was converted through reading Bertram's Book of the Sacrament, and confirmed in his beliefs through conference with Cranmer and Peter Martyr. 1563, p. 1285, 1570, p. 1895 1576, p. 1623, 1583, p. 1717.

Grindal wrote to Ridley from his exile in Frankfort, to which letter Ridley replied. He mentioned his imprisonment with Cranmer, Latimer and Bradford. 1570, pp. 1901-02, 1576, p. 1628-30, 1583, pp. 1729-30.

Foxe records Ridley's lamentation for a change in religion, in which he made reference to Latimer, Lever, Bradford and Knox, as well as Cranmer and their part in the duke of Somerset's cause. 1570, pp. 1945-50, 1576, pp. 1670-78, 1583, pp. 1778-84.

Ridley hoped to see Cranmer before his death, but Cranmer was with Friar Soto. 1570, p. 1936, 1576, p. 1661, 1583, p. 1769.

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

On 21 April 1554, Cranmer was compelled to observe, from Bocardo, a procession in which Weston carried the sacrament and four doctors carried the canopy over Weston (1563, p. 936; 1570, p. 1633; 1576, p. 1393; and 1583, pp. 1463-64).

A ten-foot high scaffold was set up in St Mary's church at the east end for Brookes to represent the pope, from which Cranmer was condemned. 1563, p. , 1570, p. 2047 , 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

Foxe records Martyn's oration against Cranmer. 1570, pp. 2049-50, 1576, pp. 1767-68, 1583, p. 1874.

Cranmer's profession of his faith was spoken in St Mary's church before those who condemned him. 1570, pp. 2050-52, 1576, pp. 1768-69, 1583, pp. 1874-75.

Foxe records Story's oration against Cranmer. 1576, pp. 1769-70, 1583, pp. 1875-76.

Foxe records Brookes' oration against Cranmer. 1570, pp. 2054-56, 1576, pp. 1772-73, 1583, pp. 1878-79.

There was a talk between Martyn and Cranmer. 1570, pp. 2052-53, 1576, pp. 1770-72, 1583, pp. 1876-77.

Foxe records interrogatories and answers. 1570, p. 2054, 1576, p. 1772, 1583, pp. 1877-78.

The witnesses against Cranmer were Dr Marshall, commissary and dean of Christ's Church; Dr Smith, under commissary; Dr Tresham; Dr Crooke, London; Mr Curtop; Mr Warde; Mr Serles. 1570, p. 2056, 1576, p. 1772, 1583, p. 1879.

Story said that they were true witnesses, as they swore allegience to the pope. Cranmer was sent to Gloucester by Story. 1570, p. 2056, 1576, p. 1773, 1583, p. 1879.

Foxe records Cranmer's full answer to Brookes' oration against him. 1570, pp. 2057-58., 1576, pp. 1774-75, 1583, pp. 1880-81.

Cranmer stated that he was ambassador in Germany when Warham died. 1570, p. 2058, 1576, p. 1774, 1583, p. 1880.

Cranmer met with Dr Oliver and other civil lawyers to discuss the pope's authority. 1570, p. 2058, 1576, p. 1775, 1583, p. 1881.

Martyn had demanded to know who Cranmer thought was supreme head of the church of England. 1570, p. 2058, 1576, p. 1775, 1583, p. 1881.

A commission was sent from the pope regarding the sentencing of Cranmer. 1563, pp. 1490-91.

Thirlby and Bonner came to Cranmer with a new commission on 14 February 1556. 1570, pp. 2058-59, 1576, pp. 177576, 1583, pp. 1881-82.

Cranmer appealed. 1570, pp. 2059-61, 1576, pp. 1776-77, 1583, pp. 1882-83.

Cranmer's appeal was put to the bishop of Ely. 1570, p. 2062, 1576, p. 1777, 1583, p. 1883.

Bullinger sent commendations to Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer in a letter to John Hooper dated 10 October 1554 (1570, pp. 1692-93; 1576, pp. 1444-45; 1583, p. 1518).

Cranmer received a letter from Ridley, together with copies of Ridley's account of the disputation, and news about recent developments (1570, pp. 1633-34; 1576, p. 1394; and 1583, pp. 1464-65; not in LM).

Foxe mentions Cranmer's condemnation and disputation in 1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469.

Laurence Saunders sent a letter to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer (1563, pp. 1042-43; 1570, pp. 1667-68; 1576, pp. 1422-23; 1583, pp. 1496-97).

Cranmer was degraded. 1563, p. 1493.

Cranmer recanted. 1563, pp. 1497-98, 1570, p. 2062, 1576, pp. 1778-80, 1583, p. 1884.

Witnesses to Cranmer's recantation were Henry Sydall and Friar John de villa Garcina. 1570, pp. 2062-63, 1576, p. 1780, 1583, p. 1884.

Lord Williams, Thomas Bridges and Sir John Bourne arrived in Oxford, prior to Cranmer's martyrdom. 1570, p. 2063, 1576, p. 1780, 1583, p. 1885.

Cole was secretly asked to prepare a funeral sermon. 1570, p. 2063, 1576, p. 1780, 1583, p. 1885.

The deaths of Northumberland and Thomas More are referred to in the description of the death of Cranmer. 1570, p. 2064, 1576, p. 1781, 1583, p. 1885.

Foxe records Cranmer's prayer. 1570, pp. 2064-65, 1576, p. 1780, 1583, p. 1886.

Cranmer was pulled from the pulpit. 1570, p. 2065, 1576, p. 1781, 1583, p. 1887.

Cole preached a sermon prior to the martyrdom of Cranmer. 1570, p. 2065, 1576, p. 1781, 1583, pp. 1885-86.

Thomas Cranmer was burned. 1570, p. 2066, 1576, p. 1782, 1583, pp. 1887-88.

Cranmer's letters. 1563, pp. 1483-84, 1489, 1492-93, 1570, pp. 2067-72, 1576, pp. 1782-86, 1583, pp. 1889-93.

Henry VIII directed Cranmer and Cromwell (and others, including Stokesly) to examine John Frith. 1583, pp. 2126-27.

Buswell, a priest, spoke to Edward Benet whilst they were imprisoned together and gave him a copy of Cranmer's recantation. 1570, p. 2279, 1576, p. 1968 [incorrectly numbered 1632], 1583, p. 2075.

Foxe includes a copy of the Pope's commission to proceed against Cranmer. 1583, p. 2132.

During his examination Weston and Smith challenged Cranmer over his book of the sacrament. 1583, p. 2135.

William Holcroft was charged with treason by Cole and Geffre for supporting Cranmer. 1583, p. 2135.

Person and Place Index  *  Close
William Chedsey

(1510 - 1574?)

Of Somersetshire. Chaplain to Bishop Bonner. Archdeacon of Middlesex (1554 - 1559). President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford (1558 - 1559). [DNB; Fasti; Foster]

After the death of Edward VI Chedsey recanted and mutated his doctrine to his own purpose, as in his dispute with Peter Martyr.

Chedsey preached at Paul's Cross on 27 August 1553 (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1465).

He argued with John Philpot in defence of transubstantiation in the 1553 convocation (1563, pp. 910-11; 1570, pp. 1574-75; 1576, p. 1342-3; and 1583, pp. 1413-14).

He was one of the catholic disputants in the Oxford disputations of 1554. He debated with Cranmer on the morning of Monday 16 April (1563, pp. 932-33, 939-43, 946-48, 951 and 954-55; 1570, pp. 1594-96, 1599-1600, 1602 and 1604-5; 1576, pp 1360-62, 1364-65, 1367 and 1369-70; 1583, pp. 1430-32, 1435-1436, 1437 and 1439-40).

[Back to Top]

When Chedsey addressed the lord mayor of London, he mentioned two letters- one from the queen and another from the privy council. The council letter was about procession and prayer at the agreement of peace between England and France. The signatories were: Francis Shrewsberye, Penbroke, Thomas Cheyny, William Peter, Thomas Wharton and Richard Southwell. Foxe suggests that he had seen the letter. 1563, p. 1217.

[Back to Top]

He published a declaration at Paul's Cross in May 1555. 1563, p. , 1570, p. , 1576, p. , 1583, p. .

Chedsey tried to persuade Hooper to recant after his condemnation on 29 January 1555. He was unsuccessful but false rumors circulated that Hooper had recanted. 1563, p. 1057; 1570, p. 1680; 1576, p. 1434; 1583, p. 1507.

He witnessed Bishop Bonner's burning Thomas Tomkins' hand with a candle. 1570, p. 1710; 1576, p. 1460; 1583, p. 1534.

In late June 1554, Chedsey discussed vernacular services and the adoration of the cross with Thomas Hawkes. The next day Chedsey preached in Bonner's chapel, extolling the saving power of the eucharist. 1563, pp. 1154-55; 1570, pp. 1763-64; 1576, p. 1506; 1583, p. 1589

Philpot's sixth examination was before the Lord Chamberlain to Queen Mary, Ferrars, Lord Rich, Lord St John, Lord Windsor, Lord Shandoys, Sir John Bridges, Chadsey and Bonner. 1563, pp. 1405-12, 1570, pp. 1972-78, 1576, pp. 1698-1702, 1583, pp. 1805-10.

Philpot's seventh examination on 19 November 1555 was before Bonner, Rochester, chancellor of Lichfield, Chadsey and John Dee. 1563, pp. 1412-16, 1570, pp. 1978-80, 1576, pp. 1702-05, 1583, pp. 1810-12.

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.

Philpot spoke with Worcester, Wright and Chadsey later the same day as his twelfth examination. 1570, pp. 1993-94, 1576, p. 1717, 1583, pp. 1823-24.

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.

The last examination of Philpot was on 16 December 1555 before Bonner and other bishops, including York, Chichester, Bath, John Harpsfield, Chadsey, Bonner, into which entered William Garret, knight, the lord mayor and the sheriff (Thomas Leigh) of London and Sir Martin Bowes, knight. 1563, p. 1441, 1570, pp. 1997-98, 1576, p. 1719, 1583, p. 1827.

[Back to Top]

Chedsey testified in the presence of Master Moseley and the lieutenant of the Tower that Bartlett Green had denied transubstantiation. 1563, p. 1460, 1570, p. 2023, 1576, p. 1744, 1583, p. 1852.

A declaration was made at Paul's Cross by William Chedsey at Bonner's commandment. 1563, p. 1217.

Benold was examined before Chedsey, John Kingston, John Boswell, the two bailiffs of Colchester (Robert Brown and Robert Mainard) and several others on 23 June 1557. 1563, p. 1610, 1570, p. 2202, 1576, p. 1900, 1583, p. 2008.

Elizabeth Folkes was examined before Chedsey, John Kingston, John Boswell, the two bailiffs of Colchester (Robert Brown and Robert Mainard) and several others on 23 June 1557. Chedsey wept when the sentence of condemnation was read against her. 1563, p. 1610, 1570, p. 2202, 1576, p. 1900, 1583, p. 2008.

[Back to Top]

When Alexander Wimshurst arrived at St Paul's, he saw Chedsey, his old acquaintance at Oxford, and said to him that he would rather be examined by Martin than by anyone else. 1570, p. 2276, 1576, p. 1965, 1583, p. 2072.

William Wood was examined by Chedsey, Kenall and Robinson on 19 October 1554 in St Nicholas's church, Rochester. 1570, p. 2281, 1576, pp. 1969-70, 1583, p. 2077.

Chedsey was committed to the Fleet after the death of Mary. 1563, p. 1707, 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1992, 1583, p. 2101.

He sent a letter to Bonner dated 21 April 1558 [BL, Ms. Harley 416, fos.74r-v. Foxe describes the letter on 1570, p. 2301 et seq.]

[Foxe frequently refers to him as 'Chadsey'.]

1454 [1430]

Queene Mary. Disputation of Doct. Cranmer in Oxford touching the sacrament.

MarginaliaAnno 1554. AprillHe sayd, that my Lord would say no such things or words of him: for if he did, he reported not the truth of him.

Then he was asked whether he woulde dispute or no? He answered: that as long as god gaue him life, he should not onely haue his hart, but also his mouth & penne to defend his truth: but he required time and bookes. They sayd he could not, MarginaliaB. Ridley appointed to dispute next day after the Archb.and that he should dispute on Thursday, and till that time he shoulde haue bookes. He sayde it was not reason that he might not haue his owne bookes, and time also to looke for his disputations. Then gaue they him the articles, & bad him write his mind of them that night, & so did they commaunde the Maior to haue him from whence he came. 

Commentary  *  Close

Foxe relied entirely on the first informant's account for Ridley's interview with Weston on 14 April (see textual variant 41). The first informant's account was far more detailed about this exchange and, in particular, did justice to Ridley's acerbic wit in answering Weston.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Latimer brought in. Last of all came in M. Latimer in like sort, with a kerchiefe, & 2. or 3. cappes on his head, his spectacles hanging by a stringe at his brest, and a staffe in his hande, and was set in a chayre: for so was he suffered by the Prolocutour. And after his deniall of the articles, when he had wednesday appoynted for disputation, he alledged age, sickenesse, disuse & lack of bookes, saying that he was almost as meet to dispute as to be a captyane of Calice: but he woulde (he sayd) declare his minde either by writing or by word, and would stand to all that they coulde lay vpon his backe: cōplayning moreouer that he was permitted to haue neither pen, nor incke, nor yet any booke, but onely the new testament there in his hand, which he sayd, he had read ouer 7. times deliberately, & yet could not find the masse in it, MarginaliaM. Latimer could not finde the Masse in all the new Testament. neither the marowbones nor sinewes of the same. At whyche words the Commissioners were not a litle offended, & D. Weston sayd, that he woulde make him graunt, that it had both marowbones MarginaliaWhat he meaneth by the marybones of the Masse, read after in his protestation geuen in writing to the Prolocutor.& sinewes in the new Testament. To whom M. Latimer sayd agayne: that you will neuer doe M. Doct. and so forthwith they put him to scilence, so that where he was desirous to tell what he ment by those termes, he could not be suffred: there was a very great prease and throng of people: and one of the Bedles swounded by reason therof, and was caryed into the Vestry. After this, bringing home the Prolocutor first, the Cambridge men, videlicet: D. Yong Vicechauncellour, Seton, Glin, Atkinson, Scotte, Watson, Sedgewicke, went to the Crosse Inne to supper. And this was on Saterday being the 14. day of Aprill.  

Commentary  *  Close

For the account of Latimer's interview with Weston on 14 April, Foxe interwove elements from the accounts of both informants. The vivid description of Latimer's appearance was taken from the second informant (textual transposition 11), while the equivalent passages in the first account, which described Latimer as feeble, aged and speaking in a low voice, were omitted (textual variant 42). Foxe then added a phrase, in neither informant's account, to the 1570 edition, making it clear that Latimer denied the three articles which were to be disputed (textual variant 43). Foxe then briefly followed the second informant's account of Latimer's interview (textual transposition 12) - this was in order to quote a sarcastic remark Latimer made to Weston - before returning to the first account (textual variant 43). (At this point, the two informants' accounts are admittedly almost identical; the belief that Foxe was following the first account is largely derived from textual variant 44. Foxe returned to the second informant's account for the conclusion of Latimer's interview (see textual transposition 13 and textual variant 45). Foxe also added a sentence, in the 1570 edition, clarifying the date (textual variant 46).

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAprill. 15. On Sonday after, M. Harpsfielde preached at Saynt Maries the Vniuersity Churche, at 9. of the clocke, where were diuers of the Doctors of the Vniuersity in theyr robes and placed accordingly. After the Sermō the went all to dinner to Magdalen Colledge, & there had a great dinner.  

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 443, line 15 from the bottom

The edition of 1563 adds, "the byble being red at a deske in the myddle of the Hall by a scholer with a verye loude voyce, grace after diner likewyse sayde, with an antempe [anthem] in pricksong." Two lines lower, for "whither Dr." that edition reads "and Dr.;" and four lines lower, "at eight or soon after."

[Back to Top]
They supped at Lincolne Colledge with the Prolocutor: whether Doct. Cranmer sent answere of his mynde vpon the Articles, in writing. 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 443, line 14 from the bottom

This was according to previous arrangement: see the note next but one preceding this. The first Explication, given by Foxe at p. 445, is evidently that which Cranmer delivered in on Sunday night; for the official report only adverts to two answers to the articles as given by Cranmer in writing:and the MS. in the Cambridge Library (MSS. Kk. 5. 14) and Foxe's Latin account (Ed. Bas. 1559, p. 641, which professes to follow "ipsum notariorum archetypum") only mentions one paper as delivered during the Disputation: the answer of Sunday, as given in the Cambridge MS., contains some expressions not to be found in either of the "Explications."

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAprill. 16.On Monday (being the 16. of Aprill) Mayster Say, & M. White Notaryes, wente aboute in the morning to the Colledges, to gette subscriptions to the Articles. MarginaliaSubscriptiō. And about viij. of the clocke the Prolocutour wyth all the Doctours and the Vicechauncellour mette together at Exeter Colledge, and so they went 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 443: Appendix, ref. page 443, line 9 from the bottom

The first edition reads, "went to Exeter college, besyde the scholes, and there taryed in the garden a quarter of an hower for the Vicechauncellor, and then they went.'

into the schooles: and when the Vicechauncellour, the Prolocutour, and Doctours were placed, Marginalia4. Exceptores Argumentorum.and foure appoynted to be Exceptores Argumentorum, set a table in the middest, and foure Notaryes sitting with them, MarginaliaCranmer set in the Respondents place.D. Cranmer came to the Answerers place, the Maior and Aldermen sitting by him, MarginaliaD. Cranmer closed in by the Mayor and Aldermen for running away. and so the disputation began to be set a worke by the Prolocutor with a short Præludium. MarginaliaDisputers agaynst the Archb. Doctor Chedsey began to argue first: and ere he left, the Prolocutour diuers times, Doctor Tresham, Oglethorpe, Marshal Vicechauncellor, 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 443, bottom

Dr. William Tresham had been commissary according to Neve and Wood from 1532 to 1546, and vice-chancellor the latter part of 1550, and a considerable part of 1551. Richard Martiall was made vice-chancellor Oct. 3d, 1552: "Absentis vices gerebat Dr. Tresham." (Wood.) Martiall was reappointed 1553, but Walter Wryght is mentioned as such April 4th, and Dr. Tresham (who was about that time prisoner in the Fleet) as commissary Nov. 6th. John Warner was nominated as vice-chancellor by Martiall April 15th, 1554, and soon after admitted. (Wood.) It is plain, therefore, that Tresham ought here to have been called "commissary," especially as Martiall is called "vice-chancellor" at p. 443.

[Back to Top]
Pye, Cole, & Harpsfield did interrupt and presse him with theyr Argumentes, so that euery manne sayde somewhat, as the Prolocutour woulde suffer disorderly, sometime in Latine, sometime in Englishe, 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 444, line 3

The official report states that the Disputation was previously arranged to take place "scholastico more, atque concisis argumentis, et sermone Latino." The Cambridge MS. represents Cole as first departing from the rule. Cranmer complained of the character of the Disputation to the Council; his letter is given at p. 533 of this volume: see also Ridley's complaint at p. 532; the letter of certain preachers, &c. at p. 550; and Hooper's letter at p. 664.

[Back to Top]
so that three houres of the time was spent, ere the Vicechancellour 
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 444, line 5

The edition of 1563 here says, "of Cambridge began: and Dr. Scotte could not be suffered to dispute. The Vicechauncellor of Cambridge also was interrupted as before."

of Cambridge began: who also was interrupted as before. He beganne with three or foure questions subtlely. MarginaliaThe Archb. offered drinke.Here the Bedles had prouided drinke, and offered the Aunswerer: but he refused with thankes. The Prolocutor offered him, if he would make water or otherwise ease himselfe, he should. Thus the disputation continued vntill amost two of the clocke, with this applausion Audientium: vicit veritas. Then were all the Argumentes (written by the foure appointed) deliuered into the hand of Mayster Say, Register. MarginaliaD. Cranmer after disputation returned agayne to Bocardo.And as for the prisoner, he was had away by the Maior: And the Doctors dyned together at the Vniuersity Colledge. 
Commentary  *  Close

Foxe returned to the second account for the events of 15 April and the morning of 16 April (see textual transposition 14 and textual transposition 15), making two deletions from this account. The first (textual variant 47), seems to have been made to conceal the fact that the catholic disputants in the debate listened to the Bible being read to them during dinner; the second (textual variant 48), probably to eliminate what even Foxe considered to be irrelevant detail. Much of the remaining relatively short narration of the Oxford disputation in the first informant's account was omitted (textual variant 49), as Foxe had, even in the edition of 1563, much more detailed accounts of the remaining disputations.

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

And thus much concerning the generall order and maner of these disputations, with such circūstaunces as there happened, and thinges there done, as well before the disputations, and in the preparation therof, as also in þe tyme of theyr disputing. Now foloweth to inferre and declare þe Orations, Arguments, and aunsweres, vsed and brought forth in the sayd disputations on both partes.

[Back to Top]
The Argumentes, reasons, and allegations vsed in this disputation. 
Commentary  *  Close
Block 18: Cranmer's disputation

All three of the disputations had been described in the Rerum. Yet it is indicative of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the disputations that even before he returned to England, he had tried to obtain further information on them. In the first half of 1559, Foxe wrote to Francis Russell, the Earl of Bedford, stating that he had heard that the earl possessed a record of the disputations and asking the earl to send a copy to him at Basel, 'since by these collected copies a more certain, trustworthy narrative of the event may be produced' (BL Harley MS 417, fol. 120r). On his return to England, Foxe continued to pursue additional records of the disputation. In late 1562 or early 1563, Foxe wrote to Bishop Grindal, stating that he had just discovered in Bonner's records that an official account of the disputations, with the seal of Oxford University and the subscriptions of the notaries, was exhibited in Convocation. Foxe requested Grindal's help in obtaining this record (BL Additional MS 19400, fol. 97r). This official account survives (BL Harley MS 3642); it is almost certain that Foxe did consult it and it could usefully be compared with Foxe's text.

[Back to Top]

Each account of each of three disputations was based on different sources. Since Foxe stated, regarding his account of Cranmer's disputation, that he 'receyved it out of the Notaries booke' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1364; 1583, p. 1435), his account was based on one of the five notarial copies of the disputation. Judging by the account's favourable tone to Cranmer (e.g., its characterisation of Cranmer's 'mild voice' and the criticism of Weston for inciting the 'rude people' to heckle and boo Cranmer on 1563, p. 946; 1570, p. 1598; 1576, p. 1346; 1583, p. 1434), it was probably the account written by one of the two protestant notaries, John Jewel or Gilbert Mounson.

[Back to Top]

It is noteworthy that the passages cited above are not in the Rerum version of Cranmer's disputation (Rerum, pp. 640-68). During their exile, Grindal had written to Foxe stating that he had obtained a copy of Cranmer's account of his disputation written in the archbishop's own hand, as well as a notary's account of the disputation (BL Harley, 417, vol 119r). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is apparently based on a notary's account, since Foxe stated that it came 'ex ipso notoriarum archetypo' (Rerum, p. 659); presumably this was the notary's account which Grindal had acquired. (Strangely, Foxe does not seem to have had access in the Rerum to the account Cranmer had written). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is not only somewhat briefer than the 1563 version, it has some odd gaps throughout. The most likely explanation is that Foxe started with a notary's account in the Rerum (and his getting such an account at that period, probably from Grindal, also suggests that it was one of the protestant versions) and had nothing beyond this single source for Cranmer's disputation. In the 1563 edition, a number of different accounts of Cranmer's disputation appear to have been collated. (This is also indicated by Foxe's printing an alternative version of one of Chedsey's arguments which he declared he found 'in some other copies' [1563, p. 943; 1570, p. 1596; 1576, p. 1362; 1583, p. 1432; this alternate argument is not in the Rerum]). What is particularly significant, however, is that Foxe did not translate the Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation but replaced it with a new account. (There is a portion of Cranmer's disputation in Foxe's papers [BL Harley MS 422, fols. 44r-45v], as well as two independent versions of Cranmer's disputation, one in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 340, and one in CUL MS Kk.5. 14).

[Back to Top]


Commentary on the Glosses  *  Close

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.

[Back to Top]

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.

[Back to Top]

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.

[Back to Top]

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').

[Back to Top]
MarginaliaAprill. 16. ON Monday D. Weston, withall the residue of the Visitours, Censors, and Opponētes: repayring to þe Diuinity schole, eche one enstalled themselues in theyr places. D. Cranmer with a route of rusty bils was brought thyther, and set in the aunsweres places, with the Maior & Aldermen sitting by him. Where D. Weston Prolocutor, apparelled in a skarlet gowne (after the custome of the Vniuersity) began the disputatiō, with this Oratiō. His wordes in latin as he spake them were these.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaD. Weston speaketh truer then he wisse. Conuenistis hodie fratres profligaturi detestandam illam hæresin de veritate corporis Christi in Sacramento. &c. that is: Ye are assembled hither (brethrē) this day, to confound the detestable heresy of the verity of the body of Christ in the sacrament. &c. At which wordes thus pronounced of þe Prolocutor vnwares, diuers of the learned men there present, considering and well weying the wordes by him vttered, burst out into a great laughter as though euen in the entraunce of the disputations, he had bewrayed himselfe and his Religion, that termed the opinion of the verity of christes body in the Sacrament a detestable heresye. The rest of his Oration tended all to this effect, that it was not lawfull by Gods word to call these questions into cōtrouersy: for such as doubted of the wordes of Christ, myghte well be thought to doubte both of the trueth and power of God. Whereunto Doctor Cranmer desiring licence, aunswered in this wise.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaD. Cranmers aunswere to the preface.We are assembled (sayth he) to discusse 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Addenda, ref. page 444, line 5 from the bottom

The first edition for "to discuss," has, "to unfolde the plytes and wrinckles of," &c.

these doubtfull controuersies, 
Commentary  *  Close

In 1563 (p. 939), Foxe wrote that Cranmer addressed those present, stating that they were assembled 'to vnfold the plytes and wrinkles of these doubtefull controversyes'. In later editions this became 'to discusse these doubtefulle controversies' (1570, p. 1594; 1576, p. 1360; 1583, p. 1430). Clearly, Foxe changed Cranmer's words to make them more dignified and lofty.

[Back to Top]
and to lay them open before the eyes of the world: whereof ye thinke it vnlawfull to dispute. It is in deed no reason (saith he) that we should dispute of þt which is determined vpon, before the trueth be tryed. But if these questions be not called in controuersy, surely mine answer then is looked for in vayne. This was the summe and effect of his auswere: and this done, he prepared himselfe to disputations.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaD. Chadsey.Then Chedsey the first Opponent began in this wyse to dispute.

Reuerend M. Doctor, these 3. conclusions are put forth vnto vs at this present to dispute vpon.

MarginaliaArticles. 1 In the Sacrament of the aultar is the naturall body of Christe, conceiued of the Virgine Mary, and also his bloud present really vnder the formes of bread & wine, by vertue of Gods word pronounced by the priest.

2 There remayneth no substaunce of breade and wyne after the consecration, nor any other substaunc, but the substaunce of God and man.

3 The liuely sacrifice of the Church is in the Masse, propitiatory as well for the quicke as the dead.

These be the conclusions propounded, wherupon this our present controuersye doth rest. Nowe to the ende wee might not doubt how you take the same, you haue already geuen vp vnto vs your opinion therof. 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 445, line 15

"Ad nos transmisisti," Lat. Ed. p. 640. The account in the Latin edition breaks off at the next line, "disagreeth from the catholic," and proceeds at once with the Explication at the bottom of this page, "In the assertions," &c. The intermediate passage in the English editions is plainly only another version of the argument in next page, following the first Explication and introducing the second. The Latin of the first Explication is printed in the Latin edition and in Jenkyns.

[Back to Top]
I terme it your opinion, in that it disagreeth from the catholicke. Wherefore thus I argue.

Ched. Your opinion differeth from the scripture.

Ergo, you are deceiued.

Cranmer. I deny the antecedent.

Ched. MarginaliaArgument.Christ when he instituted his last supper, spake to his Disciples: Take, eate, this is my body, which shall be geuen for you.

But his true body was geuen for vs:

Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament.

☞ The right forme of this Argument is thus to be framed.

MarginaliaArgument. Da- The same which was geuē for vs, is in þe sacrament.
ri- But his true body was geuen for vs:
j. Ergo, his true body is in the sacrament.

Cran. MarginaliaAunswere. How Christes body is present in his Sacramēt.His true body is truely present to them that truelye receiue him: but spiritually. And so is it taken after a spirituall sort. For when he sayd: This is my body, it is all one as if he had sayde, this is the breaking of my body, this is the sheding of my bloud. As oft as you shal do this, it shal put you in remembraunce of the breaking of my body, and the sheding of my bloud: that as truely as you receiue this sacrament, so truly shal you receiue the benefite promised by receiuing the same worthely.

[Back to Top]

Ched. MarginaliaArgument of the authority of the Church.Your opinion differeth from the church, which saith that the true body is in the sacrament.

Ergo your opinion therin is false.

Cran. MarginaliaAunswere.I say and agree with the Church, that the bodye of Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the Passion of Christ is effectuall.

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.
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.
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield