Richard Cox, the first Elizabethan bishop of Ely, was Edward VI's tutor and almoner from 1543-48. This reference is one clear indication that he was one of Foxe's sources for these tales of Edward's gifts and virtues.

The obvious bellicose intentions behind this line of study - it is necessary preparatory knowledge for invading France and Scotland - is passed over by Foxe.

I.e., during the ascendancy of the Duke of Somerset, 1548-49.

Sir John Cheke was Edward VI's tutor from 1549-53. This story probably came to Foxe from Cheke, but not directly, as Cheke had died in 1557. Cheke's close friend William Cecil may possibly have related this story to Foxe.

Foxe is slightly confused here. Cox was Edward's almoner (in charge of distributing the prince's alms or money for charity) while Edward was Prince of Wales, and not the Master of Requests (in charge of receiving petitions to the king). This reference is another indication, however, that Cox was the source for this material.

What follows, including the poem on Edward VI, is from Girolamo Cardano's Genitarum exempla. (I have consulted the version printed in Girolamo Cardano, Cl. Ptolemaei pelusiensis IIII de Astorum Iudiciis (Basel, 1554), pp.403 and 409-10). It is from a horoscope Cardano cast for Edward VI. It is an indication of the value Foxe placed on this testimony from an internationally respected figure, that he was able to overcome his distaste for astrology. (Note, however that Foxe does not mention that Cardano was an astrologer and that this description comes from a horoscope).

The material translated from the Rerum begins here and runs down to Foxe worrying that wealth and prosperity did more harm to the godly than persecution did.

Stephen Gardiner was imprisoned in the Tower from 30 June 1548 until 3 August 1553.

Note that Foxe restricts this to 'papists'; two radical Protestants, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, were burned during Edward VI's reign.

See 2 Kings 22-23. The comparison of Edward VI to Josiah seems to have been initiated by Archbishop Cranmer (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven, CT and London), pp. 364-5.

The plague Foxe is referring to is the reign of Mary Tudor.

I.e., conversation.

This is Joan Bocher, who was executed on 2 May 1550 for heresy regarding the divine and human natures.

Foxe rewrote his earlier mention of the execution of Joan Bocher in order to exculpate Edward VI of involvement in her death. In doing so, he placed the blame for this squarely on Cranmer and a number of scholars have objected that this was inaccurate. In his magisterial biography of Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch argues that this story may be an exaggeration but that, when Joan proved obdurate in her beliefs, Cranmer approved of her execution (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (New Haven, CT, 1996), pp. 475-6). It should be remembered that, while Foxe anticipated modern sentiments in deploring Joan's death, the overwhelming majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant, would have approved of her burning as a deserved penalty for her egregious heresies. Foxe appears to be saying that this story came from Edward VI's tutor John Cheke. If so, it was transmitted to Foxe through intermediaries (since Cheke died in 1557), further undermining its credibility.

This is one of the rare times when the account Foxe started with in the Rerum ended up being larger than what was printed in any of the editions of the Acts and Monuments. In the Rerum (on p. 201), Foxe gave the account of Thomas Dobbes, which was translated and reprinted in each edition of the Acts and Monuments. But Foxe also printed (on p. 202) brief accounts of the executions of two religious radicals, Joan Bocher and George van Parris, who were executed in 1550 and 1551. He also printed two stories condemning these executions. In the first story, John Rogers, who would become the first Marian martyr, was approached by an unnamed friend (generally assumed by scholars to be Foxe himself) and urged to intercede on behalf of Joan. When Rogers not only refused to intervene, but also defended burning as merciful, given the heinousness of heresy, his friend bitterly (and prophetically) told him that one day he might receive such gentle treatment himself (Rerum, p. 202). Foxe also included an account of Humphrey Middleton, another future Marian martyr, being accused of heresy by Cranmer during Edward VI's reign, and grimly prophesying that Cranmer would one day find himself in a similar position (Rerum, p. 202).

All of these stories are an indication of the strength of Foxe's aversion to punishing heretics with death. Yet only the account of Thomas Dobbes was reprinted in the Acts and Monuments. (The executions of Joan Bocher and George van Parris are merely mentioned in the Acts and Monuments, see later in Book 9). Foxe was unwilling the surrender the moral high ground by admitting that his martyrs were persecutors themselves. And an admission that Protestants persecuted each other, only served to support the validity of Catholic charges of Protestant disunity. However, Foxe did add one short account to this section, that of John Hume. This, however, did not end in an execution and was thus fairly innocuous.

Most of Foxe's sources for these persecutions drew on his own experiences or on accounts from informants. However, Foxe's limited knowledge of the case of John Hume, was entirely based on the sparse entry on the case in Cranmer's register.

Thomas S. Freeman

These articles included beliefs that Foxe himself regarded as heretical, such as denial of Christ's human nature and denial of the Trinity. Foxe was reluctant to even rehearse such deviant theology.

Foxe first printed this account of Thomas Dobbe in the Rerum (p. 201), which means that he obtained this account during his exile. The account, which must have been received from a informant, is rather puzzling. Two of the individuals named (John Taylor and Roger Hutchinson) were prominent evangelicals and are very unlikely to have objected to Dobbe's wishing to marry. Perhaps there were other, more personal reasons, for Dobbe's bad relations with the other fellows. Perhaps Dobbe's religious beliefs were more radical than Foxe describes. In any case, it would seem there is more to this story.

Foxe probably obtained this brief account of John Hume from Archbishop Cranmer's register. It reads very much like an official account and Foxe makes it clear that his only source was some sort of document. Unfortunately, no such account survives in Cranmer's register. However, in the section of the register containing heresy trials (LPL, Cranmer Register, fos. 67r-79r), there are two missing folios (76r-77v). It is quite possible that the information on Hume was on one of these missing folios; in fact, the folios may have been sent to Foxe and never returned. No one (including Foxe), knows how this case turned out, but presumably no action was taken against Hume.

Henry VIII's will established a council of regency in order to govern during the minority of Edward VI. It excluded leaders of the conservative opposition: Stephen Gardiner, Edmund Bonner, and Thomas Howard II, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. On 31 January 1547, only three days following the death of King Henry, the council of regency elected Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, Lord Protector, a traditional assignment for the eldest uncle of a minor king. Seymour was created Duke of Somerset on 17 February at the same time that John Dudley became Earl of Warwick. Seymour had effected a coup d'état that enabled him to govern effectively as king and, in violation of the royal will, to replace the legitimate council of regency with a Privy council that he selected personally. Contrary to the tradition, this council did not unite in support of ensuing religious reforms. Protector Somerset acted without consulting councilors, sometimes falsifying records to suit his purposes. His overbearing circumvention of the Privy council contributed to the eventual alienation of almost all of his original supporters. Hoak, King's Council, pp. 167, 177-79, 189-90, and passim.

John King

Injunction 1.

I.e., 'creature'. Injunction 2 orders clerics at least on a quarterly basis preach in favor of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone and against superstitious works including veneration of religious images and relics or pilgrimages to shrines containing them. The sermons on faith and good works in the Book of Homilies (see Injunction 32), almost certainly composed by Archbishop Cranmer, reinforce the forthright Protestant provisions of this article.

Injunction 3 cautiously endorses iconoclastic destruction of images 'abused' by pilgrimages, offerings, or censings. It permits employment of images as objects of 'remembraunce, whereby, men may be admonished, of the holy liues and conuersacion of theim, that the saide Images do represent: whiche Images, if thei do abuse for any other intent, thei commit Ydolatrye in the same, to the great daungier of their soules' (a3v). Taken in conjunction with Injunction 28, this provision renders apparent the iconoclastic thrust of official policy.

Injunction 3 forbids the burning of candles except for two on the high altar. This apparently simple alteration resulted in a radical change in the appearance of churches where, in accordance with the 1538 Royal Injunctions, candles had continued to flicker before roods (oversize crucifixes above chancel screens) and sepulchers. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, p. 451.

Injunction 4 represents an early, albeit radical, step in the introduction of a new vernacular worship service.

Injunction 5.

Injunction 6.

In a striking reversal of the 1543 withdrawal of permission for Bible reading by commoners (see n. 41, below), Injunction 7 mandates provision of chained copies of the Great Bible and the two-volume English translation of Erasmus's Paraphrases of the New Testament (1548-49; STC 2854-2854.7) for public reading by members of the laity.

Injunction 8.

Injunction 9.

Injunctions 10-11.

Injunction 12.

Injunction 14.

Injunction 15.

Injunction 20 is designed to eliminate ignorance of the New Testament on the part of clerics.

In requiring the reading of passages from the Old and New Testaments in vernacular translation, Injunction 21 represents the starting point in a radical departure from the Latin service that survived England's 1534 schism from the Church of Rome. Readings from the Great Bible in conjunction with those from the forthcoming Book of Homilies (Injunction 32) and Book of Common Prayer (forthcoming in 1549) would comprise a wholly new church service in the English language. King, English Reformation Literature, pp. 123-38.

Injunction 23. The 1544 Litany was the first component in the vernacular worship service contained in the Book of Common Prayer (forthcoming in 1549).

Injunction 24.

Injunction 25.

Injunction 26.

Supporters of Edward VI praised him as a New Josiah on the ground that the boy king who purged Israel of idolatrous images and shrines (2 Kings 22-23) provided a precedent for pursuing a legally dubious policy of religious reform during the minority of King Edward. King, Tudor Royal Iconography, pp. 93-94, 160; Aston, King's Bedpost, pp. 26-36.

Although Injunction 27 mandates strict observance of ecclesiastical ceremonies, it anticipates the forthcoming abrogation of many elements in the traditional service by denying that ceremonies discharge any soteriological function.

Injunction 28 gives official sanction to the iconoclastic destruction of shrines and religious images and to shrines that constitute objects of veneration, including those in stained glass windows.

Injunction 29.

Acknowledging the existence of an inadequate supply of learned clerics, Injunction 32 enjoins unlicensed preachers to read officially authorized sermons in Certain sermons, or homilies, appoynted by the kynges maiestie, to be declared and redde. Its initial publication on 31 July 1547 coincided with that of the Royal Injunctions. The King's Printer, Richard Grafton, or his associate, Edward Whitchurch, published eleven editions of the Book of Homilies during 1547 (STC 13638.5-13641.9). Various hands contributed twelve sermons on a range of topics (e.g., exhortations on original sin, against whoredom and adultery, and against strife and contention). It is a virtual certainty that Archbishop Cranmer composed the homilies on Bible reading, salvation, faith, and works, which expound the core Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone and the concomitant position that good works lack efficacy in themselves and possess no validity if they are not grounded in faith. King, English Reformation Literature, pp. 131-34.; MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 372-75.

Foxe advises the reader to consult page 684 of the first edition of the Book of Martyrs in order to consult a more expansive paraphrase of Injunctions 13, 16-19, 22, 30-31, and 33-34.

Possibly a mistaken reference to 5 Rich. II, stat. 2, c. 2 (1382); Statutes of the Realm, 9 vols. in 10 (London: George Ayre and Andrew Strahan, 1810-22), 2.25-26.

2 Hen. V, stat. 1, c. 7 (1414). Statutes, 2.181-84.

Act for the Punishment of Heresy, 1534 (25 Hen. VIII, c.14; Statutes, 3.454-55.

Act Abolishing Diversity in Opinions, also known as the Act of Six Articles, 1539 (31 Hen. VIII, c. 14); Statutes, 3.739-43. This notorious legislation ordained that individuals who denied the doctrine of transubstantiation were to be burnt alive. It also imposed stringent penalties for violation of official policy in favor of administration of communion in one kind, clerical celibacy, the binding nature of vows of chastity or widowhood, celebration of private Masses, and auricular confession.

I.e., thirty-fourth year.

Act for the Advancement of True Religion and for the Abolishment of the Contrary, 1543 (34 Hen. VIII, c. 1; Statutes, 3.894-97

De haeretico comburendo ('Concerning the heretic who is to be burned'), 1401. 2 Hen. IV, c. 15; Statutes, 2.125-28. This notorious legislation ordained that those who translated or owned translations of the Bible would be burnt at the stake.

A Bill Concerning the Six Articles, 1544 (35 Hen. VIII, c. 5; Statutes, 3.960-62).

Act of Repeal, 1547 (1 Edw. VI, c. 12); Statutes, 4.i.18-22.

Exiled preachers who now returned included John Hooper and William Turner, both of whom received appointment as chaplains to Protector Somerset, Miles Coverdale, and others.

Protestants rejected the practice of denying wine to members of the laity on the ground that it was a non-biblical practice that did not come into general use until the twelfth century.

In conjunction with the endorsement of iconoclastic destruction of 'abused' religious images, the systematic abolition of ecclesiastical ceremonies on appropriate feast days eradicated the highly affective experience of late medieval worship. King, English Reformation Literature, pp. 150-51.

Foxe's attack on Bonner for dissimulation is typical.

Edmund Bonner.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'This letter of the council is in the Bonner Register, folio 110, and the Westminster, folio 268'.

Stephen Gardiner disputed the legality of pursuing ecclesiastical reformation during a royal minority. Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 57-58.

Injunctions 3 and 28 had spurred iconoclastic attack on images 'abused' and rightly 'used'. Phillips, Reformation of Images, pp. 89-90.

On the ground that contention concerning religious images has resulted from the ambiguous wording of the prohibition against 'abused' images in Injunction 3, the Privy council takes the further step of endorsing iconoclastic destruction of all religious images.

I.e., 1548.

Latin for 'mandate' or 'order'.

The King's Printer, Richard Grafton, published four editions of The order of the communion on 8 March 1548 (STC 16456.5-16458.5). Consisting of an English translation of the part of the Mass in which members of the laity received communion, it was a forerunner of the vernacular service introduced in the Book of Common Prayer (1549). See MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 384-86.

Beginning in May 1547, the royal visitation of all English bishoprics represented the opening move toward the introduction of changes in religion. It was the first action of this kind since Thomas Cromwell's vice-gerency over the Church of England. The six parties of commissioners were packed with evangelical sympathizers. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer, pp. 369-70.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'These letters missiue from the Council are given at folio 112 of the Bonner Register, and folio 269 of the Westminster'.

Dehort: to exhort against taking action.

Foxe paraphrases the Royal Injunctions of Edward VI. The King's Printer, Richard Grafton, published Iniunccions geuen by the Kynges Maiestie in seven separate editions on 31 July 1547 (STC 10087.5-10091). In addition to reaffirming the Royal Injunctions of 1538, these injunctions advance in a firmly Protestant direction.

The Act for Submission of the Clergy (1534), Act of Supremacy (1534), and related legislation.

Reformers opposed celebration of the Masses by priests who communicated alone because of their sacrificial nature, the exclusion of laity, and the absence of the communal character of 'true' communion. Davies, Worship and Theology, vol. 1, p. 141.

John King

During the five months following its issuance in March 1549, the first Book of Common Prayer was published in ten editions by the King's Printer, Richard Grafton, and his associate, Edward Whitchurch. John Oswen published two more in Shrewsbury (STC 16267-76). In retaining the Mass and much of the use of Sarum (the medieval rite employed at Salisbury), this prayer book was a compromise document overseen by Thomas Cranmer to allay opposition by conservatives. It did take the radical step of completing the introducing a new church service wholly in the English language.

I.e., 'which'.

The Act of Uniformity, 1548 (2 Edw. VI, c. 1; Statutes, 4.i.37-39).

Cattley/Pratt, V, 721, fn 1: 'For these Acts, see "Actes made in the session of this present parliament, holden the 4th Nov. in the second year of Edward VI. cap. 1 fol. 2. Lond. fol. 1553."'

Stephen Gardiner was among those who were denied pardon.

The Act of Uniformity ordered the new service into use on Pentecost or Whitsunday (9 June 1549) in a symbolic recreation of the advent of the Christian church at the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4). King, English Reformation Literature, p. 151.

Despite support from the House of Commons and Lower House of Convocation, the House of Lords had succeeded until now in holding up legislation that abrogated the requirement that clerics remain celibate. MacCulloch, Boy King, p. 77.

The outbreak on 12 July of a rebellion in Norfolk led by Robert Kett supplies the immediate context for this letter of 23 July from Edward VI to Edmund Bonner, which reproves him for negligence in assuring conformity to the Book of Common Prayer within the diocese of London.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 843: 'This letter of Bonner to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's is in the Bonner Register, folio 219 verso'.

Foxe's attack on Bonner for dissimulation is typical.

The outcome of Kett's Rebellion was uncertain until 27 August 1549, when it was suppressed by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick.

Bonner ignored Edward VI's order that he preach against rebellion and in favor of the king's authority to proceed with ecclesiastical reform and failed to call for obedience to the king. In his sermon on 24 August, the bishop instead reaffirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation. For this offense he was remanded to Marshalsea Prison and deprived of episcopal office. ODNB.

Cattley/Pratt, V, 844: 'These Private Injunctions will be found in the Bonner Register, folio 220 verso'.

Double great (i.e., a feast day of the highest order).

Edmund Bonner. He wrote this letter to the Dean and members of the Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral barely two weeks after the imposition of the Book of Common Prayer on 9 June had triggered the Western Rebellion, in which the populace of Cornwall and Devon rose up in resistance to the new prayer book and ecclesiastical reforms promulgated under Protector Somerset.

John King

Cattley/Pratt, V, 844: 'This letter from the king and his council to Bonner is at folio 219 of Bonner's Register.

Bishop Edmund Bonner of London was the first to express his dissent from the Royal Visitation of August 1547. Bonner had been translated to London from Hereford in 1540, and had served Henry VIII as a diplomat. He was a committed supporter of the Royal Supremacy, but also an upholder of the conservative Act of Six Articles. When the Royal Commissioners entered his diocese he received them with a protestation that he would observe the Injunctions only 'if they be not contrary and repugnant to God's law and the Statutes and Ordinances of this church…'. This was construed as contumacy, and he was brought before the Council and committed to the Fleet. He protested that his words had been misconstrued, and submitted. For the next two years Bonner conducted himself acceptably in the eyes of the Council, even taking steps to ensure that the First Prayer Book was observed and used when it came into force in June 1549. However, he became increasingly concerned by the spread of radical preaching within his diocese, and by the appearance of extremist pamphlets. Consequently he took no action against Catholic non-conformity, and this worried the Council, particularly given what was happening in the West Country at that time. In August 1549 they sent for Bonner again and required him to preach a sermon at Paul's Cross upon certain articles which were prescribed to him.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

A version of the 'Certaine injunctions' survives as a draft among the State Papers (SP10/8, nos.36 and 37. In the Calendar (ed. C.S. Knighton, 1992) it is noted that a part was printed by Foxe. The sermon was duly preached, but John Hooper and William Latimer, who had probably been briefed for the purpose, denounced him for having failed to address the specified issues satisfactorily. A Commission was then issued for his examination, which survives on the Patent Rolls as TNA C65/825, m.29d. (Cal. Pat., Edward VI, III, p.166). A draft of the Commission is TNA SP10/8, no.57 (which is also noted as printed by Foxe) and a version of the questions to be put to the bishop is SP10/8, no.58. There is a note in Bonner's register (GL MS 9531/12, pt 1, f.175d) of institutions conducted by Cranmer sede vacante 'per deprivatione Edmundi Bonner nuper episcopi', and the full proceedings are set out in the register (ff.222d-234), which was clearly Foxe's source. For a brief summary of Bonner's troubles (based on Foxe) see W.K. Jordan, Edward VI; the Young King (London, 1968), pp.216-8. The bishop was committed to the Marshalsea on 20 September 1549, and deprived on the 1 October. He remained in prison until Mary's accession, in spite of several appeals. The 'precept or decre' abolishing the books of the Latin rite, was also set out as a proclamation on the 25 December 1549. (P.L. Hughes and J.F. Larkin, Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, (1964) p.485.

The campaign against altars followed naturally from the abolition of the mass in the Prayer Book of 1549. One of the standard methods of evasion practiced by conservative clergy was to continue the use of traditional altars for the administration of the communion, where, by speaking the words of the rite sotto voce, they could persuade their congregations (and perhaps themselves) that nothing had changed. Cranmer' s campaign was preluded by a sede vacante visitation of Norwich diocese following the resignation of William Rugge in January 1550. This was conducted by Rowland Tayor and William Wakefield, and one of their principal targets was the survival of 'massing'. Cranmer then took advantage of a similar vacancy in London, where Bonner had been deprived on the 1st October 1549 and Nicholas Ridley was not translated from Rochester until 1st April 1550. Thereafter Ridley took up the campaign with enthusiasm. (See Diarmaid MacCulloch,. Tudor Church Militant, 1999, pp.96-9)

David Loades
University of Sheffield

The Council letter instructing the removal of Altars is not in the Privy Council Register. It must have been in the Letter Book (now lost) to which Foxe was given privileged access. The order to call in and destroy all Latin service books (1576, 1583) was a proclamation issued on 25 December 1549, and printed in P.L.Hughes and J.F. Larkin, Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, p.485. Hughes and Larkin printed it from Edward Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church (1844), I, p.85. The 'reasons why the Lordes boorde should rather be after the forme of a table…' may be Foxe's own compilation. It does not correspond to any other document found.

Mary's campaign of overt resistance to the protestant policies of the Protector' s government began with the introduction of the 1549 Prayer Book at Whitsun in that year, a day upon which she caused mass to be celebrated with exceptional splendour in her chapel at Kenninghall. On 16 June the Council wrote to her a restrained letter 'giving her advice to be conformable and obedient to the observation of his Majesty's laws…', which provoked the response given here. Mary based her resistance on two points: firstly that her father's settlement should not be changed while her brother was a minor, because the Royal Supremacy was vested in him personally, and secondly that her conscience could not accept the validity of 'a late law of your own making', which called in question the whole authority of a minority government. For a discussion of these issues, see D. Loades, Mary Tudor: A Life (1989), pp.145-6. Mary's position was supported and exploited throughout by the Imperial ambassadors, first Francois Van der Delft and later Jehan Scheyfve, whose aim was to cause the maximum embarrassment to the English government, short of an outright breakdown of diplomatic relations. At the change-over of ambassadors in July 1551, Mary planned to escape to the continent, and then changed her mind (D.L. Loades, Mary Tudor (, pp.153-5). The most disturbing letter from the King was that of 24 January 1550, wherein he makes it clear that he is personally supportive of the policies which she has been attributing to his council. Her reply of 3 February makes the extent of her disquiet plain.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

Although a number of letters from the council to Mary, and vice versa, survive in the State Papers and among the Harleian MSS, these are not among them, and the originals appear to be lost. The Council's latter of advice to the princess 'that the mass should not be used' survives as MS Harley 6195, f.5. A note of the instructions issued to Dr,.Hopton appears in the Council Register (Acts, II, pp.291-2), but the note is brief and it is not certain that this document is being referred to. The original of this does not appear to survive. The instruction given to the Lord Chancellor (Richard Rich), Sir Anthony Wingfield and Sir William Paget on 24 August 1551, does appear in the Council Register, together with their report. (Acts, III, pp.333, 336, 347), which is full and circumstantial, but which was not used by Foxe.

Stephen Gardiner's troubles with the Council sprang from the same root as Bonner's - an unwillingness to accept the changes of direction in religion which Cranmer was trying to introduce. Edward Vaughn was Captain of Portsmouth, and in the spring of 1547 it came to the bishop's attention that there had been an outbreak of iconoclasm in the town, and that this 'containeth an enterprise to subvert religion'. Gardiner subsequently preached in the town. There are accounts of this episode in Jordan, Edward VI: the Young King (London, 1968), p.155; James Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), p.150; and Glyn Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic (Oxfrod, 1990), pp.255-6. In 1547 Gardiner was regarded as the principal champion of conservative values, and was also incarcerated in the Fleet for his opposition to the Injunctions. His delaying and evasive tactics during the autumn of 1547 were masterly, but ineffective. Having been forced into a show of conformity, he was released on the 20th February 1548, and retuned to his diocese (Redworth, In Defence of the Church Catholic, pp.255-69). This whole exchange was drastically reduced after the 1563 edition

David Loades
University of Sheffield

Gardiner's letter to Edward Vaughan was printed by Foxe from a lost original, and reprinted by James Muller (Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), pp.272-6). The letter to Somerset of 28 February [1547] is similarly printed by Muller, citing Foxe as his source (pp.264-7). The same is true of his letter of 21 May, although Muller notes (p.276) that 'a sixteenth century copy of the last twelve lines is in BL, Add.MS 28,571, f.21'. Muller identifies no MS source for the letter of 6 June (pp.286-295), again quoting Foxe as his source. The letters of 10 June and 'after 12 June' concerning the homilies, are similarly reprinted by Muller from Foxe (pp.296-7, 297-8). When Gardiner wrote again to Somerset from the Fleet in October 1547, Foxe edited the version which he had in front of him. About 40% of the original survives in BL Harley MS 417, fols 84-9 (one of Foxe's manuscripts) and most of the rest in a sixteenth century copy (BL Cotton MS Vespasian D.XVIII, ff.138-45). Foxe edited a good deal out of the original, but is the only source for the last paragraph, which does not appear in the other versions. The letter which follows, whish is not dated, but which Muller ascribes to the 27 October, is again known only from Foxe's version (pp.402-10). Muller's order of printing thereafter differs from Foxe's. That appearing on pages 746-7 is dated by Muller to the 20 November, and appears on pp.419-23, while that appearing on p.748, and tentatively dated 'shortly after 4th November' appears on p.410. In each case, Foxe is used as the source, although in respect of the letter appearing on pp.748-9, it is noted that the first twelve lines can also be found in BL Add.MS 28,571, f.14. The 'certaine additions' and the 'summe and conclusyon' appear to be Foxe's own composition. The letter to Nicholas Ridley, criticising a sermon which he had preached at court, which appear here on pp.751-4, is placed by Muller in its correct chronological place (February 1547), and appears on pp.255-63. Foxe is once again the only source. The originals of Somerset's side of the correspondence do not appear to have survived at all, and no scholar has so far collected the Protector's letters. John Strype in his Ecclesiastical Memorials (London, 1809 edition), 2, p.785, prints a version of Gardiner's letter to the Protector concerning the Book of Homilies, taken from BL Cotton MSS Vespasian D. XVIII, f.139, with the comment 'I remit the reader for the rest of this letter to Winchester's ninth letter in Foxe's Acts, the former part of the letter which is now exposed to view having been by him ommitted'. Partial drafts of the same letter are to be found in Harleian MS 417, ff.8 and 9, and these appear to have been Foxe's source.

The 'copie of a writte or evidence' which appears in the 1570 edition (p.1521) may be an edited version of a Council letter, or it may be Foxe's own work.

The original of the 'Articles and imposicions ministered…' (1563, p.755) can be found in BL Harleian MS 304, no.13, where it is described as 'written for the use of the Right honourable and my singular good lord, my Lord Archbishop of York's Grace '[Robert Holgate]. The remaining proceedings against Gardiner, including the 'sentence definitive' and the 'circumstances of the Counsayles proceedings….(p.766) are taken from a unknown source. They do not appear either in Gardiner's Register (edited for the Canterbury and York Society by H. Chitty, volume 37, 1930) or in Cranmer's register. The accounts of Gardiner's troubles given by James Muller Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), pp.161-216; Glyn Redworth (In Defence of the Church Catholic (Oxford, 1990), pp.248-81) and W.K. Jordan Edward VI: The Threshold of Power (London, 1970), pp. 243-5) are based mainly on Foxe. The whole story was drastically reduced in 1576 and 1583.

David Loades
University of Sheffield

In early November 1551, John Redman, the first master of Trinity College, Cambridge, died. One reason why his death attracted attention was the reputation of the deceased. Redman was a leading theologian (he had been Lady Margaret professor there) who was admired both for his character and his learning. A Catholic humanist, Redman had accepted the Royal Supremacy, and had a foot in both the evangelical and conservative camps. (For an overview of Redman's life and career see Ashley Null, 'John Redman, the Gentle Ambler' in Westminster Abbey Reformed, 1540-1640, ed. C. S. Knighton and Richard Mortimer (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 38-74). Another reason for the notoriety of Redman's death was that he invited leading Cambridge theologians to his deathbed to discuss contentious religious issues. One of those present was Foxe's close friend Alexander Nowell.

In December 1551, A reporte of Maister Doctor Redman's answeres (London, 1551), STC 20827, was printed. This work claimed that Redman died embracing justification by faith and rejecting the Real Presence. The Reporte was printed by William Seres, a printer under Cecil's patronage, from accounts of Redman's death in Cecil's possession. The Reporte was thus an attempt by Edwardian propagandists to claim that a theologian respected by religious conservatives agreed with them on key doctrinal issues. Under Mary, the Catholics struck back. Cuthbert Tunstall had Redman's treatise, De justificatione, printed. It was a work of Redman's which did not accept justification by faith, written in Henry VIII's reign. And Thomas Smyth printed an edition of Redman's Complaint of Grace, a work critical of major Edwardian religious reforms. In printing his account of Redman's deathbed conversations, Foxe - almost certainly encouraged by Cecil and possibly Nowell as well - was, in a real sense, responding to these Marian ripostes. And he did so, even though he was visibly uneasy with aspects of Redman's theology. Redman's conversations were of little interest to already convinced Protestants, but they could be quite useful in winning over wavering Catholics. Foxe's willingness to print his account of Redman is a reminder of the extent to which he intended the Acts and Monuments as a device for inducing Catholics to convert.

In 1563, Foxe used two sources. The first was the Reporte, which he reprinted word-for-word. The second was a letter from John Young, who had been present at Redman's deathbed, to John Cheke, describing what had transpired. Young was master of St. John's College and was arguably the leading Catholic theologian in Marian Cambridge. Foxe claimed that he was working from the original letter in Young's handwriting. (It is worth noting that Young, although he lived until 1582, never repudiated the letter). Foxe almost certainly obtained this letter from Cecil, who inherited Cheke's papers and books. In the first edition, Foxe printed Young's letter in the original Latin and also provided a translation. In the second edition, Foxe retained the translation but discarded the Latin text of the letter. He also altered the order of the materials reprinted from the Reporte, now printing Redman's conversation with Wilkes before Redman's conversation with Nowell. But the only substantive additions Foxe made to his account of Redman in 1570 were two brief introductions to the account of Redman's deathbed and to Young's letter to Cheke. The version of the account of Redman printed in 1570 was replicated exactly in subsequent editions.

Thomas S. Freeman

A Leet was originally a manorial, subsequently a district, court.

Redman is saying that is that after the Act of Six Articles was passed in 1539, local courts were assigned to investigate accusations of disbelief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

'Capernaite' is a prejorative term for anyone who held an overly-carnal understanding of Christ's Real Presence in the sacramental bread and wine. The term is based on John 6: 52.

'truly'.

This sounds like a rejection of the Real Presence, but it is not necessarily so. Thomas Aquinas had maintained much the same thing, arguing that Christ was only present in the Sacrament under the species of bread and wine, but his actual location was in heaven.

Gabriel Biel (c. 1410-1495), arguably the pre-eminent theologian of the late fifteenth-century.

Tertullian was a major patristic writer and theologian.

Irenaeus was an early patristic writer and theologian.

In this account, Redman is expressing doubts about the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and Wilkes is trying to persuade him otherwise. Other memories of Redman's deathbed conversations differ. For a discussion of Redman's beliefs on the Sacrament see Ashley Null, 'John Redman, the Gentle Ambler' in Westminster Abbey Reformed, 1540-1640, ed. C. S. Knighton and Richard Mortimer (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 64-70.

I.e., Ellis Lomas.

This is an exaggeration; Redman was by no means a convinced evangelical. He was, instead, a Catholic humanist who was sceptical of papal supremacy and receptive to some Protestant teachings.

This, if accurately reported, is strikingly close to Protestantism, but what Redman actually meant is unclear. If justification by faith was the sole means of attaining salvation, then not teaching it to people endangered their souls. Next to this, the question of whether people were or were not negligent in performing good works hardly mattered.

Although both William Seres (A Reporte of Maister Doctor Redmans answers (London, 1551), 20827, sig A2r-v) and Alexander Nowell himself (A Confutation as wel of M. Dormans last Boke…[London, 1567], STC 18739, fos. 11v-13r) are quite disingenuous about the origins of this document, its apparent genesis is revealing. Word of Redman's deathbed reached William Cecil, who instructed Nowell to draw up this of doctrinal points made by Redman and to get witnesses to subscribe to it. (For the identities of these witnesses see commentaries earlier in this section.) Cecil gave this document to Seres who printed it in A Reporte, fos. A3r-A6r). This again is indicative of the efforts made by Cecil and the Edwardian authorities to capitalize on Redman's death for purposes of religious propaganda.

What Redman is saying here is that the Sacrament should not be offered in Requiem masses, not that these masses should not be celebrated. But this would contradict the third point, since if if there is no Purgatory, Requiem masses serve no useful purpose.

If Redman is saying that the character of the recipient affected the efficacy of the Sacrament, than both Protestants and Catholics would reject this view. But if he is saying that taking the Sacrament would not in and of itself save the unrepentant, than this statement was relatively uncontroversial.

Now this, if said, is truly evangelical. Note that JohnYoung and Richard Wilkes, both theological conservatives, did not subscribe to the accuracy of this article.

This is less radical than it sounds. No one, Catholic and Protestant, denied that faith alone saved, but were good works inseparable from faith? The ambiguity here comes from the clause that the faith must conform with true doctrine. A Catholic (like John Young) would maintain that this meant acceptance of the teachings of the Church.

These are John Young's own comments on Redman's points; they may have been added at Young's insistence, in return for his subscribing to Nowell's list of Redman's points.

I.e., carrying.

This letter, which Foxe claimed was a translation of the autograph, almost certainly passed from Cheke to Cecil, and thence to Foxe. But Cecil probably obtained this letter after the report of Redman's answers was printed or it would have been included. Young's version of what Redman said is basically consistent with the versions given by Wilkes and Nowell, but in his version Redman is less doubtful about the Real Presence in the Sacrament. In Young's version, Redman also accepts Purgatory, while in the third of Nowell's points, Redman denies its existence.

Psalm 97: 3.

Richard Wilkes was the master of Christ's College. John Young was, at the time, a fellow of Trinity and an outspoken religious conservative. Alexander Nowell was, at this time, the headmaster of Westminster School and an evangelical.

For Simon Magus see Acts 8: 14-24. This account specifically relates that Simon, traditionally regarded as the proto-heretic, received Christian baptism.

I.e., Justin Martyr, one of the early patristic writers.

Redman's belief in the merits of prayers for the dead seems to contradict the third point in the list Nowell compiled, which denied Purgatory. It also drew a sharp response from Foxe who, in a marginal note, observes that Redman's judgment on this point.

These are both series of Requiem Masses, celebrated to mitigate the punishments inflicted on departed souls in Purgatory.

Romans 6: 23.

This note was given to Seres by William Cecil. (For the provenance of this note, see A reporte of Maister Doctor Redman's answers…(London, 1571), STC 20827, sig. A2v). Seres printed the communication (see A reporte, sigs. A6v-B3v). Cecil's possession of this communication strongly suggests that there was a systematic effort made by the Edwardian authorities to collect testimony about Redman's final days. This in turn suggests that Seres's account was carefully orchestrated propaganda and not, as Seres suggests, the result of happenstance and casual interest..

This was probably Alexander Nowell, the headmaster of Westminster School, although it might have been Edward Cratford, under master of Westminster School, who was also present.

The servants who were present were Ellis Lomas, Richard Elithorne, Richard Burton and John Wryght.

Nicholas Ridley, the bishop of London.

Redman is quoting Matthew 26:26 from the Vulgate.

Redman is quoting Ephesians 5:30 from the Vulgate.

This account of William Gardiner's spectacular act of sacrilege was first printed in the Rerum (pp. 203-8). A faithful translation of it was printed in the first edition of the A&M and reprinted, without significant change, in all subsequent editions. The most surprising thing about this account, however, is not Gardiner's extraordinary actions, but the accuracy of Foxe's account of them. A comparison of Foxe's narrative with the records of the Portuguese Inquisition records of the case, show that Foxe's narrative of Gardiner's crime and punishment, despite occasional errors, was accurate in even small details. [The records of the case are printed in I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Descato na Capela Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Anais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 597-623. English translations of some of these documents are available in Thomas S. Freeman and Marcelo J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1996), pp. 2-17]. Needless to say, Foxe did not have access to these records. Rather, the accuracy of Foxe's account was clearly due to an informant who was not only present at the event, but knew Gardiner well. Foxe identifies this informant as one Pendigrace. The fact that Foxe was able to obtain this account from a person with whom he had no known association and whilst he was in exile, speaks volumes about the network of associates that supplied Foxe with information for his work, both during Mary's reign and afterwards. Yet it should also be remembered that, for all of its accuracy, Foxe's account of Gardiner provides one of the rare examples of his inventing a speech and claiming that it actually took place.

Gardiner's case clearly caught Foxe's imagination, at least partly because of his constancy during excruciating torments. One of the rare woodcuts in the Acts and Monuments depicts Gardiner being raised and lowered into the fire (Rerum, p. 209). And Foxe wrote a poem - only printed in the Rerum - eulogizing Gardiner's fortitude and villifying his tormenters. In the A&M, Foxe made the reasons for his admiration clear. Gardiner's constancy and willingness to suffer for the Gospel made him a model for Christians to follow, if not in dying for Christ, than in living the Christian life.

Thomas S. Freeman

This acknowledgement that Pendigrace was Foxe's source first appears in Rerum, p. 206. For a possible identification of 'Pentigrace' as one Thomas Pendigrace, see Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Roayl Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1966).

The wedding which putatively inspired Gardiner's act of sacrilege took place on 4 December 1552 (not September as Foxe states); the act of sacrilege itself took place on 11 December.

Interestingly, a witness testified before the tribunal investigating Gardiner that, at the time of his act of sacrilege, he was 'a man of respectable appearance' ['um homem bem disposito'] (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 [1996], p. 5).

Foxe is in error on this point. The Cardinal-Infante Henrique was unquestionably present at the service, but testimony at Gardiner's trial reveals that a royal chaplain was celebrating Mass (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 [1996], p. 13).

In a pastoral letter written after Gardiner's sacrilege, the Archbishop of Lisbon wrote that Gardiner had crushed the Host with one hand and overturned the chalice with the other (I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Desacato na Capella Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Annais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 618-19).

Witnesses testified at Gardiner's trial that the crowd attacked Gardiner and were only stopped from killing him by the personal intervention of João III (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous incident against our holy Catholic Faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', Historical Research 69 (1996), pp. 14-15).

To accept that this speech actually took place, one must accept that a person who seriously wounded by an enraged mob would have had the presence of mind to deliver this oration and that the king, anxious to forestall the mob, would have listened patiently while he delivered it. It is almost certain that Foxe wrote this little speech himself. His reason for doing so was clear. The martyrologist was anxious to clear Gardiner (and Protestants in general) of any taint of disrespect for monarchs or sedition.

It is worth noting that, despite Portuguese suspicions that Gardiner was not acting alone, the incident did not disturb either diplomatic or trade relations between England and Portugal.

Actually Portuguese; Foxe seems to have believed that the language of Portugal was Spanish.

This is an astonishing claim and another indication of Foxe's admiration for Gardiner and his conviction that Gardiner was a model for all Christians.

Gardiner's examinations were conducted in Latin but recorded in Portuguese.

The Portuguese records state that torture was applied to Gardiner, but they do not describe the tortures. The tortures described by Foxe have a grim plausibility since conventional tortures could not be used on a severely wounded man.

Once again, Foxe is anxious to describe providential punishments befalling persecutors and here the reason why is obvious: the actions of Providence 'prove' that Gardiner was indeed a martyr of God.

In the Rerum (p. 208) and 1563 (p. 878), Foxe stated that João III died three or four months after Gardiner's execution. In later editions, Foxe modified that statement to the one year given here. In actual fact, the Infante died in January 1554 and João III in June 1557.

Again Foxe is surprisingly correct. The archbishop of Lisbon had, in the aftermath of Gardiner's sacrilege, ordered that fasting and a penitential procession be held in every church in the diocese and also decreed forty days indulgence to all who confessed their sins at this time (I. da Rosa Pereira, 'O Desacato na Capela Real em 1552 e o processo do calvinista inglês peranto Ordinário de Lisboa', Annais da Academia Portuguesa da Historia 29 (1984), pp. 619-20).

I.e., Cyriac and Crescentius. These along with Ignatius, Laurence and Gordian, were martyrs of the early Church. Foxe is developing his belief that Gardiner was fully the equal of the martyrs of the early Church.

Foxe is careful here to remind his readers that the saints were not intercessors between God and man.

This is the beginning of a long discourse by Foxe on how William Gardiner's constancy provided a model for Christians to follow in their daily lives, not in seeking martyrdom, but in resisting temptation and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh.

Gardiner's examinations by the Portuguese confirm that he came from Bristol but also contain a detail that is not in Foxe; Gardiner claimed that he had studied at Oxford (Thomas S. Freeman and Marcello J. Borges, '"A grave and heinous offence against our holy Catholic faith": Two Accounts of William Gardiner's Desecration of the Portuguese Royal Chapel in 1552', HistoricalResearch 69 (1996), pp. 3 and 16).

This was the marriage of the Portuguese Infante João, son of João III, to Juana, a daughter of Charles V, on 1 September 1552.

These is a hint here that Foxe did not approve of organs and choral music during church services.

Foxe's first narrative of Somerset's downfall was in Rerum, pp.210-14. This contained the account of the end of Thomas Seymour and the enigmatic record of Somerset's downfall along with the detailed account of his execution, which were all reprinted in 1563. The Rerum account also contained praise of Somerset's virtues which were elaborated on in subsequent editions. But it concluded with passages that would never be reprinted: a scathing assessment of the duke of Northumberland's career and downfall. Foxe not only blamed Northumberland for Somerset's execution, but he also intimated that Northumberland had poisoned Edward VI . These passages were undoubtedly deleted because of the swift rise in power and favour of Northumberland's sons Ambrose and Robert Dudley in the early years of Elizabeth's reign.

Little was added to the 1563 narrative except for an extended comparison of the duke of Somerset with Humphrey duke of Gloucester, the uncle of Henry VI. Both men were regents for under-age monarchs and both were named Lord Protector. Both men were, at least in Foxe's view, upright men undone by the scheming machinations of their clerical opponents. In the 1570 edition, Foxe added a number of documents. Some of these came from a letter book of John Russell, the first earl of Bedford. A proclamation may have been obtained from the printer Richard Grafton. Other sources are harder to identify. Someone supplied Foxe with copies of two letters to the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, one from Edward VI, the other from members of the Privy Council. This source also supplied Foxe with an account of deliberations in the Common Council in October 1549. And Foxe also obtained one of the many copies of the articles charged against Somerset in 1549.Foxe's account of Somerset helped lay the foundation for the longstanding historiographical tradition of Somerset as the 'good Duke', a man devoted to the reformation of Church and State. So great was Foxe's admiration of Somerset that he had to add a disclaimer to the 1570 edition, denying that he had intended to compare Somerset with Christ. But if Foxe had a hero, most unusually, this account did not have a villain. Even Foxe could not blame Stephen Gardiner for an execution performed by Edward VI's government. Foxe was not about to blame the godly Edward VI for Somerset's death. And, as noted above, Foxe was prevented by the power of the Dudley brothers from blaming their father, the duke of Northumberland, for Somerset's death. As a result, Foxe's contain focuses on Somerset's good death on the scaffold, but says little about how he came to be there.

Thomas S. Freeman

This is an accurate printing of Inner Temple Petyt MS 538/46, fo. 469r-v.

This passage is a fairly clear indication of Foxe's pro-Somerset bias.

Foxe not only obtained two letters to the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, he also has an account of their debates on whether to support efforts to topple Somerset. Clearly Foxe's source was a member of London's governing elite at the time.

This is an abridged, but essentially accurate version of a proclamation issued by Edward VI. (For the full text see Troubles Connected with the Prayer Book of 1549, ed. Nicholas Pocock, Camden Society, First series 38 (London, 1884), pp. The proclamation was printed by Foxe's friend Richard Grafton and it is possible that he provided Foxe with a copy.

This letter has not survived.

This letter has not survived.

Edward VI's letter, written in response to Sir Philip Hoby's mission, is printed in Troubles Connected with the Prayer Book of 1549, ed. Nicholas Pocock. Camden Society, First series, 38 (London, 1884), pp. 102-4.

This took place on 11 October 1549.

I.e., detained.

This took place on 14 October 1549.

This is an interesting (and rare) admission from Foxe that he knows more than he is saying. As has been previously noted, the standing of the duke of Northumberland (apart from other circumstances) would have induced Foxe to caution. In addition, however, Foxe had the reputation of William Cecil, who left Somerset's 'sinking ship' to become Northumberland's secretary, to consider, besides that of Edward VI, whom he extolled as a model of mercy and piety.

There are numerous varying versions of this document, some with 29, others with 31 articles. (For a discussion of this document, see William K. Jordan, Edward VI: the Young King (London, 1968), pp. 522-27). The version which Foxe used, and where he obtained it, remains unknown. However, his elimination of articles - assuming that he was not working from a faulty copy - appears not have been tendentious, but to eliminate repetition.

This is a reference to Somerset's debasing the coinage.

The aristocrats opposed to Somerset blamed his proclamation banning enclosures for triggering the 1549 rebellions. Ironically, the depiction of Somerset in these articles as a wild-eyed social reformer, was a keystone in the later image of him as a benevolent ruler.

Once again, Foxe's chronology is inaccurate. Somerset was released from the Tower on 6 February 1550; he was rearrested on 16 October 1551.

It appears as though Foxe was drawing this information from an eyewitness.

Foxe is describing Somerset's trial in a manner that compares it to the Passion of Christ.

Somerset was acquitted of treason but found guilty of felony under a statute forbidding the assembly of men for purposes of riot. (Allegedly, Somerset had been gathering his retainers together to assassinate Northumberland). Ironically, the law was a response to the 1549 rebellions.

3 & 4 Edward VI c.5

This was a quay in London. Somerset was conveyed through London by boat.

This account was in Foxe's hands during his exile. The most likely candidate for an aristocrat likely to have been present at Somerset's death and to have sent an account of it to Foxe or his friends is Francis Russell, the second earl of Bedford.

I.e., Satan. See Genesis 3.

John Stow, who was present at Somerset's execution, blamed the noise on the huge size of the crowd (John Stow, The Annales, ed. E. Howes (London, 1615), p. 607). Another contemporary account - independent of Foxe - also compared the noise to gunpowder set on fire (BL, Cotton Charters, IV.17). Henry Machyn, also present, thought that the noise sounded like gunfire or horseman riding in the distance. Machyn also observed that the soldiers on guard panicked at the commotion (Diary of Henry Machyn, ed. J. G. Nichols. Camden Society, original series 42 (1848), p. 14).

This passage appeared in the Rerum and 1563. In the 1570 edition, Foxe introduced this caveat: 'this is not to be expounded as though I compared in any part the Duke of Somerset with Christ' (the last page of the prelims in the 1570 edition, 1576, p. 2008 and 1583, p. 2149).

The account of the rivalry between Cardinal Beaufort and Humphrey , duke of Gloucester, is taken from Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre families of Lancastre and York [London, 1550], STC 12723a, fo. 94r.

See 1563, p. 883, 1570, p. 834, 1576, pp. 679-80 and 1583, p. 704.

Tyndale, Expositions and Notes…with the Practice of Prelates, ed. Henry Walter. Parker Society (Cambridge, 1849), p. 297.

Foxe is repeating his earlier account of the battle of Musselborough (1570, p. 1499; 1576, p. 1271; 1583, p. 1406). Foxe claimed that the victory occurred at exactly the same time as Ridley began purging the images from the London churches.

Foxe's patron, the fourth duke of Norfolk, was the earl of Surrey's son, so Foxe's circumspection in discussing the case is understandable.

This suggestion that Somerset's death was a providential punishment for the execution of his brother, Thomas Seymour, was added in the 1570 edition (p.1545).

Fane, Sir Ralph Fane's widow, was a 'sustainer' and correspondent of numerous Marian martyrs, particularly John Philpot.

Foxe blamed the falling out between the Seymour brothers as being due to ill-feeling between their wives. It is disingenuous to the point of mendacity. Thomas Seymour had already defied the King and the Privy Council by marrying Henry VIII's widow. He had been involved in a sexual scandal with Princess Elizabeth and he had been plotting an (admittedly ill-conceived) coup. But it is easy to see why Foxe preferred not to air this 'dirty laundry' in public.

By 1570, Foxe had in his possession a letter book which had belonged to John Russell, the first earl of Bedford. (This was almost certainly given to Foxe by Francis Russell, the second earl, a zealous Protestant with close ties to some of Foxe's closest friends). The papers in the letter book survive among the Petyt MSS in the Inner Temple Library (Petyt MS 538/46, fos. 431r-470r) and cover the period June to October 1549. During this time Russell was campaigning in the southwest against the Prayer Book rebels and then summoned back home (with his soldiers) to support Somerset against the other nobles. (In the event, Russell sided with Northumberland - then only the earl of Warwick - against Somerset, a fact which Foxe discreetly does not mention). In fact, Foxe's use of Russell's letters is highly selective. He not only prints only the ones dealing with Somerset's fall, but he edits them in such a way as to place both Somerset and Russell in the best possible light.

This is an accurate reprinting of Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS 538/46, fo. 467r-v except that Foxe omits a postscript in which Somerset denied rumours that he was committed to the Tower and that the Mass was to be restored.

What follows is loosely based on Inner Temple Library Petyt MS 538/46, fos. 467v-468v. Foxe adds passages emphasising Russell's desire to avoid bloodshed and his concern for the safety of the realm, and for that of Edward VI. The original letter is much more non-committal and much less high-minded.

This is based on Inner Temple Library Petyt MS 538/46, fo. 470r-v. It is basically accurate but it drops some sharp reproaches Russell sent to Somerset for stirring up internal dissension.

Edward Seymour was executed for treason in October 1551.

According to Foxe the English nobility were conforming to Protestant changes in religion, once Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, the leaders of traditional or Catholic faith in England, had been imprisoned in the Tower of London.

According to the metaphysics of the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, which became enshrined in Catholic theology through its use by St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, 'substance' refers to the inherent nature of an object; 'accidents' refer to the elements of an object that are not inherent. In the case of bread, for example, the shape and color are accidents of the substance of a piece of bread.

St Augustine gave the traditional definition of Sacraments as visible signs ('analogy', 'similtude'of invisible grace, grace being the Holy Spirit or God's divine self at work in the world. Protestants argued that regarding the Eucharist the bread and wine are the 'analogy' that signify Christ's true but spiritual presence. Catholics argue that visible signs or analogy are the accidents of the outward signs of bread and wine after the substance of the bread and wine have been consecrated and completely transformed into the invisible but true, spiritual and corporeal body and blood of the Risen Christ.

The 'major' of an argument is its chief point; the 'minor' is the proof ascertaining ('certaine') the major's veracity.

Edward VI died on 6 July 1553.

Matt. 26: 26; Mark 14: 22; Luke 22: 19 - the Gospel narratives of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Martyr claimed that Catholics read this phrase only according to the literal sense of interpreting the Bible, not the analogical, figurative or 'spiritual' sense. Catholics claim they understand this Biblical text in both the literal and spiritual senses.

'Trope': metaphor; in this case a visible object signifying Christ's Eucharistic presence. A sacrament could not exist without the visible sign of invisible grace, and Martyr claimed that the Catholic Eucharist did not have one, since the substance was completely transformed. Catholics maintained that the accidents of bread and wine - the outward signs of the transubstantiated elements - served as the trope or figure of Christ's corporeal body and blood, and so could be called 'bread' and 'wine'.

Luke 22: 19; I Corinthians 11: 23-26 (the institution narrative as given by St. Paul). Martyr held that Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine, not literally, for otherwise there would be no need to remember Christ, since one remembers only that which is not there. Catholics state that the Eucharist is a memorial that makes truly but mystically present Christ's one sacrifice on the cross, as well as making his body and blood corporeally present.

Richard Smyth, William Chedsey, John Standish, John Young, Owen Oglethorpe were among the leaders of Catholic or traditional belief in England who seemingly conformed to the Edwardian Church. Smyth had been the Henrician Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and fled into exile after recanting. Chedsey was a canon of St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. John Standish had published a book on traditional religion under Henry, but became Archdeacon of Colchester under Edward. John Young assisted in the foundation of Trinity College, Cambridge in Henry's reign. Owen Oglethorpe was President of Magdalen College, Oxford. They all became leading members of the Catholic Church hierarchy under Mary I. Only Standish conformed to the Elizabethan Settlement in 1559, the rest undergoing exile or imprisonment.

I Corinthians 11: 27. Catholics claim Christ shall come personally at the end of time in the majesty of his glorified and risen body to judge the living and the dead; they also claim he comes truly, corporeally and spiritually in the Eucharist of his glorified and risen body and blood, since for Christ, who is truly divine as well as truly human, nothing is impossible.

I Corinthians 10: 16-17. Catholics claim that Christ's one death upon the cross, where he body was broken, becomes truly, mystically present in the Mass. They also receive Christ's true, corporeal, risen, glorified body and blood, which can no longer be broken as it was upon the cross, but Christ's one body can be given to people whenever and wherever they receive the Eucharist.

A common objection to Catholic Eucharistic doctrine at the time. Catholics claim that Christ's risen, glorified body is not susceptible to whatever befalls any other kind of food, including chewing.

Luke 22: 19 and I Corinthians 11: 25. Catholics maintain that Christ's body and blood both represent Christ's New Testament or covenant: his promise to be with his Church always, including in the sacrament of the Eucharist, in contrast to the Hebrew covenant in which God's presence and protection was dependent upon Jewish adherence to the Law of Moses. It is unclear whether Martyr means the Eucharist represents the New Testament as only meaning the Christian scriptures.

John 6: 63. The beginning of the conclusion of Jesus' 'The Bread of Life Discourse' in John 6. Catholics would remind those who denied Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist, that such a reading of John 6: 63 seemed to deny that 'The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1: 14): God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.

John 6: 62. Perhaps the chief Protestant argument against Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist at the time was that Jesus had ascended into heaven and told his disciples he would not return until the end of time. Jesus 'refells' (refutes) the 'Capernaites' (people of Capernaum, though actually he is addressing his disciples) who find Jesus' self-description as 'the bread of life' that must be eaten for salvation difficult to accept. Jesus counters by asking if they would believe if they see him doing something else impossible: ascending into heaven (which seems to imply that they will, though no mention of it is given in John's Gospel, but see Luke 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9). Catholics state that Christ is personally present in heaven and is also corporeally present in the Eucharist, for nothing is impossible for God.

Bonner acceded to the Royal Supremacy in religious matters under both Henry VIII and Edward VI, and initially administered the Edwardian royal injunctions regarding religion in his Diocese of London. In a short time he refused to conform to the religious changes, however, and was tried, convicted, deprived of his diocese and imprisoned in the Tower.

The second edition of the Book of Common Prayer appeared in 1552 with significant changes, which made more explicit the Protestant doctrines contained in the 1549 edition. Contrary to Foxe, there is no evidence that Gardiner intended to subscribe to the second Prayer Book. He was already imprisoned partly for his Catholic interpretation of the first, which incurred the wrath of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and encouraged him to bring forth the second edition.

Hieronimus is Saint Jerome.

The second argument has already been alluded to. Catholics claim that Christ is both present in heaven and in the Eucharist on earth.

Matthew 26: 64.

John 12: 8.

John 16: 28.

Matthew 24: 23.

Acts 3: 21.

The Edwardian regime was careful to imprison Bonner and Gardiner and to apply pressure to Mary to conform to religious changes; but they were careful not to make martyrs of them.

Col. 3: 1.

Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius were important theologians of the Reformation on the Continent, and fled to England from the Holy Roman Empire after Charles V's victories over the Protestant nobility. They were given important professorships in theology at England's two universities: Martyr at Oxford and the others at Cambridge.

Catholics would counter Martyr's use of the Fathers here by stating that transubstantiation does not destroy Christ's humanity: in his risen body it is possible for Christ to be in many places at once, for his risen body possesses the property of 'agility' or ease of movement, and so he passes through locked doors in John 20: 19.

The risen body is also 'impassible': immune from all suffering. Martyr argues that Christ's body was not immune from suffering at the institution of the Eucharist, therefore Christ's corporeal body cannot be received in the sacrament. Catholics would counter that it is the risen body of Christ which they receive, which is still also the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary and also died on the cross. See St Paul's discussion of the resurrected body in I Corinthians 16: 35-57.

The risen body possesses the quality of 'subtlety': in contrast to its former finitude, the risen body has infinite capabilities such that it cannot be hindered by any created object.

'[T]he Popes doctrine' and 'the Pope's sacrament': if Foxe's record of the debate is accurate, than Martyr is attempting to associate the doctrine of transubstantiation with the papacy, which has been unremittingly vilified in England since the break with Rome in 1534, and in Edward's reign became equated with Antichrist, the servant of Satan on earth.

Martyr argues that sinful Christians and non-Christians cannot eat the body of Christ: for Christ is only truly, spiritually present to those who receive the Eucharist with faith. Using I Corinthians 11: 27-30, Catholics argue that St Paul states that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily or without belief, cannot harm Christ's risen body but rather condemn themselves, and not only in the Last Judgment. Even in this life they suffer the consequences of their sin or lack of faith, as seen, according to Paul, by those who become ill or die after eating without repentance for their sins or without faith in Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

John 16: 7.

Disputations were held at both universities on the subject of the Eucharist, one of the most divisive issues of the Reformation. These debates were set pieces to convince fellows, students and local aristocracy of Edwardian religious positions.

As with the phrase, 'the Popes doctrine', Martyr describes belief in transubstantiation as a belief created by the papacy, an institution despised and even demonized in Edwardian England.

John 6: 56. Martyr does not refer to I Corinthians: 27-30, in which St Paul describe those who receive the Eucharist without faith or repentance for their sins and so condemn themselves.

De caena domini was in fact a medieval work that was erroneously attributed to St Cyprian of Carthage by both Catholics and Protestants in this period. Both Catholics and Protestants found it a useful source of proof texts for their various views of the Eucharist.

'[N]ot sacramentally': the point at issue continues to be whether grave sinners and non-believers receive the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist if given the opportunity to consume as food. Martyr states that only believers receive the sacrament; Catholics theologians say all receive it, but grave sinners and nonbelievers receive no benefit from it - in fact they receive only condemnation from God and the Church. Their reception does no harm to Christ in his glorified, risen body.

Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic doctrine that maintains that in the mass the bread and wine are completely transformed into the real, substantial body and blood of the Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and risen from the dead.

Impanation (Luther's view that Christ's body and blood are present together with the bread and wine, often called consubstantiation) and Transubstantiation, in which only the outward signs of bread and wine remain), are denied.

Another denial of impanation is presented.

William Tresham, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford until the beginning of Edward's reign, William Chedsey, Canon of St George's Windsor, and Henry Morgan, who became Marian bishop of St David's in Wales, upheld the traditional views on the Eucharist.

Foxe concludes his discussion of Edward VI's reign and the religious reforms that came with it by reflecting on the state of the Edwardian Church and the Protestant religion its leaders attempted to establish in England.

De caena Domini was a medieval sermon falsely ascribed to St Cyprian by both Catholics and Protestants at this time.

In the disputations on the Sacrament of the Eucharist held at the two universities under the auspices of the Edwardian Privy Council, the problem of biblical and patristic proof-texting arises again and again. Both traditionalist or Catholic and evangelical or protestant - the last term did not come into common usage until the reign of Mary I (1553-1558) - claimed that Scripture and the writings of the Fathers of the Church (the theologians of the approximately the first 500 years of Christianity) upheld their disputed doctrinal stances, and quoted them liberally to demonstrate their claims to the antiquity of those stances. These theologians and indeed Foxe himself falls into the trap of not looking at their sources more critically; such critical study was to been at the heart of the humanist endeavor among scholars, but this seems to have become more and more of an ideal rather than a reality among controversial theologians in the Reformation period. Often the biblical and patristic sources they employed had not been written over a thousand years previously as tools for controversy; but often as sermons or treatises that were more concerned with persuading Christians to a more devout life through rhetoric, rather than through precision of thought.

William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi ChurchNew York CityUSA

Another disputation regarding the Eucharist was held under royal auspices at Cambridge University in June 1549, the same month in which the first Book of Common Prayer became the official form of worship for the Church of England, and the Mass became proscribed. Bishop Nicholas Ridley was the leading Protestant speaker in these meetings, and he gives several lucid expositions of his, Thomas Cranmer's and the other English Reformers' understanding of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. William Glyn, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the early years of Edward's reign, was the leading advocate of Catholic doctrine in Cambridge, and according to Foxe's account he seems to have given the Catholic position with clarity and vigour. In fact Glyn, along with the other Catholic theologians, seem to have been so capable that Ridley, who should have served as one of the arbitrators for the debate as a Royal Commissioner, kept entering into the arguments, rather than letting the appointed advocate for the Protestant doctrine, Dr Madew, speak.

William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi Church,New York CityUSA

The first issue under dispute was whether the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is the bread and wine consecrated at Mass are transformed completely into Christ's true, corporeal, risen and glorified body and blood, so that only the outward signs of bread and wine appear, have any warrant in scripture and in the writings of the ancient teachers or doctors (the 'Fathers') of The Church, in the first 1000 years of the history of Christianity. The chief Protestant speaker, John Madew, begins with a long disquisition on the perceived evils of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine of Transubstantiation, to which his Catholic opponents for some reason do not respond.

It is an ancient, pious belief in the tradition of the Catholic and Eastern churches, though it has never be defined as doctrine (unlike the article of faith: 'He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.'), that Christ was born without opening the Virgin Mary's womb.

Glyn refers to Luke 24:41-43, when the risen Christ ate in the presence of his disciples.

Perne argues that since a sacrament is a visible sign (or 'analogy') of invisible grace, and the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is that Christ is actually present under the signs of bread and wine, such that the visible sign and invisible grace are united, then this understanding contradicts the very definition of a sacrament. Catholics would respond that in the Eucharist the visible signs are the forms of bread and wine which conceal the invisible grace that is present in Christ's true body and blood. Catholics would hold that though this kind of combination is unique among the Seven Sacraments (and for them the Eucharist is the greatest of the Sacraments), the traditional definition of a sacrament still obtains.

Perne's argument is odd, for it he seems to equate Christ's human and mortal body, subject to vicissitudes of this world, with his human, risen body.

Leonard Pollard was a fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and then of St John's. In Mary's reign he became chaplain to Bishop Pate of Worcester (a close associate of Cardinal Pole's), and published several lucid sermons on Catholic doctrine. Thomas Vavasour was associated with St John's, Cambridge. In Mary's reign he became a physician after studying in Venice. He was a recusant in Yorkshire in Elizabeth's reign. John Young was a fellow of St John's Cambridge and became Regius Professor of Divinity in Mary's reign.

Nestorius was a fifth-century Patriarch of Constantinople who was charged with decisively dividing the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ to the point of dualism and denying Jesus' divinity.

The Council of Ephesus (451) was the fourth of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church; it clarified the Church's understanding of the how Christ is truly human and truly divine and the nature of the Trinity.

Perne offers the Edwardine Reformers' understanding of Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

Madew's third objection concerned the adoration or worship of Christ in the Eucharist, which Protestants equated with idolatry, or the worship of created objects or beings. Catholics would answer that Christ, being almighty God present under the outward signs of bread and wine, is rightly worshipped.

Pollard uses traditional arguments to demonstrate how Catholics explain that Christ in the Eucharist is still called 'bread' and 'wine', and how the wicked may receive his body but gain to benefit from it.

'Jairus' son': actually daughter; see Mark 5:22-43.

Vavasour introduces himself with a traditional, if verbose, trope of humility.

Vavasour places Berengar together with Zwingli and Oecolampadius, despite the centuries of time that passed between Berengar and the others.

Vavasour comes to the crux of the different understandings between Catholics and Protestants regarding the sacraments. For the former, they are extremely important to living the Christian life. For Protestants, sacraments are helpful to the Christian, but not essential; what is essential is justification by faith alone.

The second point of dispute is the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Catholics maintain that the Mass is the real but mystical or mysterious participation in Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross at Calvary by those who attend Mass, those who receive the Eucharist, and those for whom the worship of the Mass is offered or intended, whether living or the dead preparing for union with God in heaven by being purged of their sins in Purgatory. It is as if the participants become truly present, but in a mystical or sacramental way, at Mount Calvary on Good Friday. Protestants rejected this doctrine utterly. For Catholics the Mass is also an act of thanksgiving to God for the salvation through Christ's death and resurrection, but it is more than a remembrance of those events; in the Catholic understanding, they are actually at the foot of the Cross.

Catholics would agree with Ridley's 'grounds' or foundations of determining how Christ is present in the Eucharist, except the fourth. They would differ on how the first, second and fifth are defined and interpreted.

The leading Catholic theologians in this disputation were William Glyn, a distinguished humanist, one of the first fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge and Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity there until after the disputation, when he lost his professorship, but under Mary he became Bishop of Bangor, Wales; Alban Langdale was a fellow of St John's College, Cambridge and would die in prison for his Catholic faith under Elizabeth; Thomas Sedgewick was also Lady Margaret Professor, but during Mary's reign, and when Elizabeth came to the throne he became a recusant; John Young was another of the first fellows of Trinity, and under Mary became first Vice-Chancellor of the Cambridge and then Regius Professor of Divinity, but would die in prison for his Catholic faith under Elizabeth.

'Sacramentaries and Capernites': Sacramentaries were the name given to sixteenth-century radical English Protestants who denied that Christ was truly present in the Sacrament, and thus the stance of the Edwardine Reformers. Capernites refers to the audience to whom Jesus gave 'The Bread of Life Discourse' in John 6: the people of Capernaum, who, according to Ridley, misunderstood Christ's words and believed that Jesus would give his own flesh and blood to eat. For Ridley, Catholics were Capernites.

Rabanus was a ninth-century German monk, teacher, theologian and Archbishop of Mainz.

Ridley maintains that Catholics deny Jesus' humanity, because transubstantiation is only possible through divine power. Catholics would say that Christ's body, present in the Sacrament, is truly human (born of Mary, crucified, risen from the dead and glorified); and through the miraculous power of God, Christians may receive this human body, now glorified through its resurrection, under the signs of bread and wine.

For Catholics, Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross is never repeated; the Mass is a mystical and real participation in his one death on the cross for the salvation of humanity. Protestant theologians emphasised the 'once-for-all' nature of Christ's sacrifice, which they felt was compromised by regarding the Mass as a 'sacrifice' of any kind.

Malachy 1:11 has been traditionally understood among Catholics as a prophecy regarding the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass: 'For, from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles: and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of Hosts.' Maydew holds that this text refers to constant offering of prayers of thanksgiving to God for Christ's one sacrifice, not a constant participation in that one sacrifice.

The disputations in which Martin Bucer, a leading Continental theologian in exile in England, took part. By the end of 1549 he was made Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge.

In principle Catholics would not disagree with the first and third conclusions or points to be disputed, though they differ vehemently with Bucer and other Protestants on how these statements should be understood or interpreted. The second conclusion - that the Church could be wrong in what it teaches regarding the Faith - would be rejected as a denial of Christ's promise to remain with the Church always. That members, including leading members of the Church, could be wicked or act contrary to Christian morals ('manners') is indisputable.

Protestants and Catholics agreed that the Eucharistic liturgy is indeed an offering or 'sacrifice' of thanksgiving (Eucharistia is the Greek word for thanksgiving). Indeed, Catholics would understand the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as all Christians becoming priests of God in the Sacrament of Baptism. All Christians are called to make 'spiritual sacrifices', such as prayer, fasting and almsgiving that Christ himself recommended.

'Students in divinity': scholars of theology.

'The Master of The Sentences: Peter Lombard.

Glyn remarks that if Christ spoke of the bread and wine as inanimate things, he would have used the neuter form of the article, 'this'. Instead he used the masculine form of 'this', signifying to Catholic minds that he was referring to himself under the signs of bread and wine at the institution of the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

Glyn uses the common Catholic argument that Christ promised to be with the Church always through the guidance given by the Holy Spirit in matters of life and doctrine (i.e., see Matthew 16:18 and 28:20; John 20:22-23). Glyn couples this promise with Christ's promise of giving his flesh and blood in the Eucharist in John 6.

'Scholastical': a derogatory reference to the theological method of scholasticism, which was the main form of theological inquiry in the high and late Middle Ages (1200-1500). In the scholastic method, conclusions regarding Christian doctrine were drawn from disputations, oral or written, in the theological schools (hence the name) of European Universities. In the Sixteenth Century scholasticism fell into disrepute because many perceived that it had fallen into debates about religious minutiae based on uncritical use of Biblical and other sources. Humanism, a method of intellectual inquiry using literary and historical analyses of critical editions of religious texts, made headway in replacing the scholastic method in the first half of the Sixteenth Century, but afterwards both methods became combined by both Protestants and Catholics in the religious debates between them.

'Curteled': Madew decries using citations taken out of the historical and literary contexts of their sources to prove a theological point, and so depriving texts of their original meaning. This was a common accusation against scholasticism made by both Protestants and Catholics in the sixteenth century; however both groups practised this method with aplomb as a strategy in the doctrinal debates of the Reformation period.

Catholics would describe the Eucharist as Christ's true corporeal body that was born of the Virgin Mary and died upon the Cross that has now be transfigured and glorified through the Resurrection, and is now capable of being made present without the horrors of the Crucifixion or in an 'unbloody' and 'spiritual' or mystical manner. The Eucharist was, of course, central to Reformation debates, both between Catholics and Protestants, and among Protestants.

Glyn denies both the Edwardian Protestant notion of Eucharistic presence (non-corporeal presence only during Communion) and the Lutheran doctrine of impanation (presence united to the elements of bread and wine only during Communion) as not what Christ meant when he spoke at the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

Glyn, like many contemporary English Catholics, equated the Edwardian Protestant Eucharistic doctrine as delineated by Cranmer with that of Zwingli: the bread and wine represent ('a bare and naked sign') Christ's body and blood - there is no presence of Christ. The Eucharistic doctrine established in Edward's reign for the Church of England was that Christ was truly, but not corporeally, present in the believer who receives Communion. Whether this was a willful conflation of the two doctrines by Glyn and other Catholics or they did not see any substantial difference between Cranmer's and Zwingli's views is uncertain.

Glyn makes the interesting (and possibly unique) argument that there can be only three logical possibilities regarding how Christ is present in the Eucharist: 1. He is not present (Zwinglians); he is present alongside the bread and wine (Lutherans); he is truly present under the signs of bread and wine, which have been transformed completely from bread and wine into his corporeal, glorified body and blood (Catholics). The stance of Madew, Cranmer and their fellow English Protestants (real but not impanated or transubstantiated) cannot be sustained, because there would be two substances taking up the same space, which is contrary to all logic. The views of Luther and Zwingli are dismissed as not founded in Scripture, according to Catholic tradition. [This commentator has not found this argument elsewhere in the Catholic controversial works on the Eucharist published in England during the 1540s and 1550s, or in the works of Fisher in the 1520s, the last being fundamental for most Catholic theological understanding in England after his execution in 1535.]

'Plain words': Glyn turns the common Protestant trope that the Bible can be plainly understood by all against Madew, for in the case of 'this is my body' so it should be understood, according to Catholics.

Glyn now suddenly shifts his argument to whether Protestants equate the signs of God's power given in the Old Testament (i.e., the Temple sacrifices) with the sacraments (visible signs of God's invisible grace) instituted by Jesus in the New Testament. If so, than Christ's gospel is no different from the Jewish Covenant and cannot be the fulfillment or completion of Judaism ('the old Law'), as the New Testament ('the law of Grace') claims and the Church believed, for Christ's sacraments should logically have the greater potency. In fact in some cases Christ's sacraments would be inferior, such as the manna from heaven in comparison to the bread made from earthly grain and baked in earthly ovens.

Glyn uses a common Catholic trope against Protestants, that they have ceased believing in what the rest of the Church believes and has believed.

Ambrose, one of the four great doctors or teachers of the Western Church, was bishop of Milan in the fourth century. Basil and John Chrysostom were two of the great doctors of the Eastern Church in the same period. Denis, or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, was actually a medieval theologian who was believed to have been the disciple of Saint Paul in Athens.

'Ethnics, and Paynims': pagans.

'Catholic': from the Greek word meaning 'universal', this word was claimed by both English Protestants and Catholics in their religious disputes, to demonstrate the universal nature of their doctrinal claims. By Mary's reign English Protestants lost this particular battle over nomenclature, and became known and called themselves 'Protestants'.

'Lapidary': merchant of precious stones; 'emrode': emerald.

'Moe': more.

Here is the first example of Ridley forgoing his role as arbitrator of the disputation and supporting Madew in arguing against the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and defending the English Protestant stance on it.

Ridley gives a clear exposition of the Eucharist as understood by the leaders of the Edwardine Reformation.

The leading Royal commissioners were Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, who would be burned alive for his Protestant faith at Oxford under Mary I in 1555; Thomas Thirlby, bishop of Ely, was largely a diplomat under Edward and Mary, but seemed convinced by the renewal of Catholicism under the latter, and died incarcerated for rejecting the 1559 Elizabethan Religious Settlement; John Cheke, a layman and one of the great English humanists of the period, who recanted his Protestantism under Mary.

According to Foxe, Ridley does not say that only in the reception of the Eucharist is Christ present, as was - or would soon be - the Edwardine Reformers' stance. According to the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the clergy may take home the consecrated bread left over from Communion for their Sunday dinner. This appears to have been Cranmer's view in 1549, but he did not make that view explicit in the edition of the 1549 Prayer Book.

Proctors: university police.

Glyn declares that the Sacrament possesses power to grant spiritual and bodily health, since it is 'supersubstantial'. Christ's body is truly, corporeally, present, but in his glorified, risen body, which, since Christ is also divine as well as human, is capable of powers beyond that of earthly substances.

St John Damascene (of Damascus), an eighth-century Father of the Eastern Church; hence he lived 800 years prior, not 1000.

Since Damascene did not live within the first 500 years of the Church, and so was not near to its primitive (and especially for Protestants) purer state. Ridley dismisses him as theologian advocating the veneration of sacred images of Christ and the saints, against the Eastern Iconoclasts. For most Protestants, such veneration was taken to be idolatry or the worship of idols, and hence the great destruction of medieval sacred paintings and sculptures in the Edwardine Reformation.

Ridley presents another clear exposition of the Eucharistic doctrine of the Edwardine Reformers.

'Elias': Elijah, the great Old Testament prophet who was understood by Christians to prefigure St John the Baptist, the last of the biblical prophets and forerunner of Christ.

See I Corinthians 10:16.

In response to Catholic claims that the Protestant Eucharist was no fulfillment or bettering of the Manna from heaven, Ridley says it is better, because it is sanctified by Christ in the Communion Service.

See Matthew 26:29

Langdale quotes Desiderius Erasmus, the great Dutch humanist and the darling of the English Reformers. Erasmus maintained the Catholic Church's position on the Eucharist in his writings, to the embarrassment of Edwardine Protestants.

Madew does not recognize the Catholic stance that the body of Christ is his corporeal, glorified, risen body that cannot be broken.

'Lucubrations': written results of intense study.

Catholics and Protestants often found each other's translations of ancient texts wanting in accuracy.

Madew follows other Protestant theologians in offering a rather unsatisfactory explanation as to what 'this' means, which to Catholic minds it obviously meant the bread had been transformed into his body: 'the Lord Jesus, the same night he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke it, and said, Take and eat: this is my body' (I Corinthians 11:23-24). Madew and his fellow Protestants said that Jesus meant the bread and wine to 'signify' his body and blood, but Catholics would respond that would be putting words into his mouth; there is no such explanation of the Sacrament in the New Testament, whereas other metaphors that Jesus used are explained in the New Testament.

Here and for the rest of this first disputation Ridley interjects frequently to support Madew against Langdale and Sedgewick, rather than serving as a referee of the debate.

It is remarkable how quickly the understanding of the Eucharist had changed in England at this time. What Madew declared as blasphemy on 20 June 1549 had not been blasphemy in 1548 and before.

'Austin': an English abbreviation of the name of Augustine, in this case St Augustine of Hippo, one the leading doctors or teachers and theologians of the early Church.

It is remarkable that Foxe notes the difference between the views of Ridley, whose view reflected the official doctrine of the Church of England, and Vermigli. On one level it may demonstrate that Foxe was not so determined to deny any difference of theological opinions between Protestants in Edwardine England, and hence in Mary's reign as well. On the other hand, Foxe may be informing readers and listeners what is the doctrine of the Established Church as annunciated by a soon-to-be martyr, and thus giving it a formidable pedigree.

The second matter under discussion was the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics would say that the Mass makes truly but mystically present Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross. Those who attend Mass are present on Mount Calvary, but in a mystical way. Christ's one sacrifice is made present perpetually, but in an 'unbloody' manner: mystically his body is offered up on the cross for our salvation, but under the signs of bread and wine on the altar. Protestants and Catholics agreed that Christ's one sacrifice on the Cross is the ultimate sacrifice that put an end to the need of the Temple sacrifices of the Jews for the redemption of sins and for well-being. Both groups agree that the Eucharistic liturgy is a memorial of that one sacrifice, but they disagree on the nature of this memorial: Catholics maintain that Eucharistic liturgy makes truly present Christ's one sacrifice; Protestants claim it is purely a remembrance or commemoration of that sacrifice. In the Reformation and after, Protestants accused Catholics of trying to kill Christ again and again in every Mass, which the latter vehemently denied.

Melchizedek is an Old Testament figure (see Genesis 14:18-20 and Psalm 110 [Vulgate version: 109]), a mysterious priest-king who brought forth bread and wine and blessed Abraham in the name of Abraham's God. He has been seen by Christians as a prefiguring of Christ and the Eucharist (See Hebrews, Chapters 5-10).

'Sacrifices … of Aaron's Priesthood': the Jewish sacrifices offered for the expiation of their sins and for divine blessing, which according to the Bible began with those offered by the priest Aaron, Moses' brother (see Exodus, Chapters 24-31).

'Some papists'; a derogatory term for Catholics, implying among other things, that Catholics were mentally enslaved to the corrupt bishops of Rome. Most Catholics, not 'some', of whatever educational background or none, seemed to comprehend the Church's doctrine regarding Christ's presence in the Eucharist; this widespread knowledge helps explain the great devotion to the Eucharist among Catholics of the period, to the repugnance of Protestant reformers.

Psalm 40:7 [Vulgate version: 39].

Madew offers a succinct explanation of the English Protestant understanding of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Christ's body is present in a spiritual manner, but not in a corporeal and spiritual manner, as Catholics held. When he says it is 'an only sign', he does not mean that the bread and wine merely represent Christ's body and blood, as Zwingli's followers held. Also, when he states that 'Christ's body is there with the bread', he does not mean that Christ's body enters into the bread, which was Luther's doctrine of impanation.

See John 2: 1-11.

Madew's claim that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation denied the very definition of a sacrament: a visible sign of God's invisible grace. Catholics would claim there was no contradiction: the 'accidents' or outward signs of the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine are the visible signs of God's invisible grace, which are Christ's corporeal, glorified body and blood hidden by the outward signs of bread and wine. The 'substance' or inherent nature of bread and wine are no longer present, being transformed in the consecration during the Mass.

It is noteworthy that a number of theologians now appear in the disputation without any introduction by Foxe.

Glyn reminds his Protestant opponents that no so long ago they professed the same views on the Eucharist as he and his fellow Catholics continue to do.

The Catholic view of the sacraments is that they make Christ's divine grace truly present under the visible signs or symbols; they do not merely represent Christ. Luther's and the other reformers' doctrine of justification by faith alone made the sacraments ultimately unnecessary for salvation, since grace was received through faith alone and not through the sacraments. In the theology of the Reformers, sacraments became signs of grace that the justified already possessed.

Glyn points out the marked difference between two of the leading early reformers on the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

Glyn, like Madew before him, offers a large group of Church Fathers who, in the former's view, maintain the Catholic belief in the Eucharist.

I.e., see Acts 2:42: 'the breaking of the bread'. Catholics would respond that in Scripture there were of examples of things transformed, but were still called by their original names; i.e., Exodus 12:12, when rods were transformed into serpents by Aaron and the Egyptian court magicians: 'But Aaron's rod devoured their rods.'

According to Catholic belief, in the Eucharist Christ makes himself truly, corporeally present under the signs of bread and wine in order for Christians to receive it without feeling the utter dread if his glorified body was made actually visible.

'Transelementate': transubstantiated, transformed.

Until the twentieth century, it was generally held that St Paul was author to the Letter to the Hebrews, though early Christian scholars also noted that the style of the letter was unlike that of Paul's. Biblical scholars now almost universally maintain that Paul was not the author; the actual author remains unknown.

Glyn responds to numerous Protestant objections to the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The three things, which are in fact indivisible, contained in the Eucharist are Christ's body born of the Virgin and which hung upon the Cross, Christ's glorifed, risen or 'mystical' body, and benefits for soul and body which people receive from Christ's one body in the Eucharist.

Glyn offers the opinion that signs or forms of bread and wine under which Christ's substantial body and blood appear may actually feed the human body 'miraculously', for the substances of bread and wine no longer exist, but have been completely transformed into Christ's body and blood.

Ridley concurs with such as Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, the Eastern churches and the Catholic Church, in that through the Eucharist we become what we receive: God in the person of Jesus Christ. Ridley however denied any corporeal union that would be part of this spiritual union.

Glyn does not deny that the Eucharist is 'bread': it is the bread of life, Jesus Christ, truly present; he does deny that Eucharist is 'material bread': that it is bread made of wheat. 'The article' that St Paul adds is 'the', signifying 'The Bread', which is not merely wheaten bread.

'Proper speech': the literal understanding of a text.

'Mystically': spiritual, i.e., in the Protestant view of the Eucharist, Christ is made present in the understanding and feeling of the faithful believer.

Edmund Grindal was a fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and a university proctor in 1549.

Maydew attempts to claim that the understanding of Transubstantiation only began with its definition in the Middle Ages. For him therre were three chief culprits in the creation of this theological 'monstrosity'. Gratian (twelfth century) was the most renowned canonist or church lawyer of that period. Peter Lombard (twelfth century) was the most renowned theologian of the pre-scholastic period, whose work, The Sentences, continued to serve as a theology textbook in sixteenth-century universities. Pope Innocent III convened the Fourth Lateran Council of the Church in 1215 (not 1315, as stated here), which in fact definitively establish the doctrine and term ('vocable') of Transubstantiation as the best means of understanding the Church's ancient belief in Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist, in a way not dissimilar from the Church's clarifications of the doctrine of the Trinity between three and four hundred years after Christ had been personally present on earth.

'Legal supper': possibly meaning Supper of the (Jewish) Law or Passover, Jesus' Last Supper.

There is no evidence that Boniface VIII tried to make Transubstantiation 'the third article of faith' (whatever that might mean) nearly 100 years after Lateran Council IV.

Examples of Catholics and Protestants disagreeing over the interpretation of the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

'Dividication': possibly division, meaning distinguishing between the sacraments.

Edmund Gest would succeed John Jewel as bishop of Salisbury.

'Antecedent': first premise of an argument; in this case, that Christ gave his disciples natural bread at the Last Supper.

'Circumscriptively': within set limits. Glyn offers some analogies to help explain the Catholic view of how Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Madew lists three objections to Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist, the first of which is noted here. Protestants held only those with faith received Christ in the Eucharist; sinners and infidels who received Communion only received bread. Catholics held that, according to I Corinthians 11:29-30, all received Christ corporeally in the Sacrament, but only those free from grave sin also received him sacramentally, to the benefits of their souls and even their bodies. Sinners ate to their own condemnation, and could do no harm to Christ's body.

'Master of the Sentences': St Peter Lombard, whose book, The Sentences, was an important theological textbook in medieval and early modern universities.

'Prolated': used, employed.

'Accidents': according to the philosophy of Artistotle and taken up by medieval scholastic theologians, the elements of an object that are not necessary to its essence. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine (their appearance, taste, texture, smell, shape) remain, while the essential elements of bread and wine have been completely transformed into the body and blood of Christ, so the substance of bread and wine are no longer present.

Madew's second objection reflected Protestant objection to the reservation of the Eucharist in tabernacles or pixes, that in English Churches in the Middle Ages usually hung above the altar in the chancel as 'fond' ('foolish'). Extra hosts consecrated at mass would be placed in such containers in order to give Communion to the sick, or for the adoration by priests and people of Christ corporeally present under the sign of bread.

'Syllogism': a form of reasoning which consists of three elements: a major premise and a minor premise, from which a conclusion is deduced. Most of the arguments presented in these disputations are syllogisms, though of varying aptness and quality.

'Termines': endings or elements, in this case, of an argument.

Glyn defines the nature of Christ's presence in heaven and in the Eucharist: Christ is corporeally present in heaven visibly, according to the doctrine of the resurrection of the human body, but he is also corporeally present in the sacrament invisibly, through his divinity and supernatural power.

'The gates [doors] being shut': when the risen Christ appeared to his disciples, the closed doors could not stop him from appearing in his glorious, risen body; see John 20:19, 26.

Glyn is correct in his remarks about John 20:19, 26. Ridley's argument is extraordinary, although it is not clear that it would have been immediately regarded as such by contemporaries.

Dialogues were used in classical times as a means of education through a format of imagined conversation between individuals or allegorical figures, rather than that of rote memorisation. Those of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato are the most famous. This format continued to be used throughout the medieval period, such as by the twelfth-century Ailred of Rievaulx in his Spiritual Friendship. Dialogues became an important means of humanist education in the early-modern period, following the example of classical antiquity. Those teaching or writing on philosophy and theology in particular found this method sympathetic in their attempts to inculcate the many complex ideas in these fields of knowledge. It soon became employed for elucidating religious controversy in the Reformation. Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies holds pride of place among the most-noteworthy in English for what a dialogue could offer the reader: learning in the form of intelligent, witty and engaging discussion or even argument. Of course not all dialogues reached such heights. Many were pedantic or could fall into confessional diatribes. Foxe presents an anonymous dialogue between the allegorical characters of 'Verity' and 'Custom': the Protestant understanding of true religion and a caricature of the Catholic understanding of Church tradition.

William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi ChurchNew York CityUSA

Custom queries about the antiquity of belief in Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist; antiquity being held as one of the signs of the authenticity of Christian doctrine, as described in the writings of one of the Fathers of the Church, Vincent of Lérins.

Verity seems to equate the benefits of the Old Testament Passover sacrifice with the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Catholics would argue that necessarily Christ's New Covenant surpasses the Old (otherwise what is its value?), and therefore the Eucharist is more than a metaphor, as Verity describes it.

Verity employs syllogisms, forms of logical argumentation using three points that often beg more questions than they answer. Catholics would respond to these arguments in a variety of ways; the most simple being 'with God, all things are possible,' along with evidence found in Scripture and Tradition and how the Church has interpreted these modes of divine revelation in regards to the Eucharist since Apostolic times.

The dialogue Foxe presents is between two allegorical figures regarding the words understood as Christ's instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist: religion according to the tradition of the Church ('custom'), and religion according to the truth as found in the word of God or scripture. For Foxe and the vast majority of Protestants, beginning with the teachings of Martin Luther, all truths that are necessary for salvation are contained in the Bible or word of God. Church tradition, being unwritten and not found in the Bible, is liable to human frailty and corruption, and is therefore not worthy of trust, and certainly cannot be a reliable source of divine truth. In the Catholic understanding, there is no division between the two modes of revelation, or God's self-manifestation to humanity. Church tradition is the unwritten word of God, handed down for centuries from the time of the Apostles. The Bible is the written word of God, which was not composed until after the Church and its tradition had come into existence. The Church as a whole possesses the responsibility, given to it by Christ with the promise that in cannot err in matters of faith since it is forever guided by the Holy Spirit, to interpret the one divine revelation as found in the complementary ways in which it is revealed: written and unwritten, which are intertwined and indivisible. For Catholics, Foxe is trying to establish a false dichotomy. Moreover, some Protestants, including such leaders as Luther and Calvin, held that the Bible needed no interpretation but was rather self-explanatory; in fact these and other reformers have been criticized for viewing their own interpretations of the Bible as the only correct ones, and indeed, as self-evidently so. For Foxe the Bible and the Protestant understanding of true religion are equated as one and the same.

The Catholic understanding of Augustine's definition of a sacrament in the context of the Eucharist is that the outward signs of bread and wine conceal the invisible grace of Christ's corporeal, glorified body and blood. Protestant objections included the argument that a corporeal body (as opposed to a spiritual one) can only be in one place at one time.

Verity's argument is that the Eucharist is spiritual food, with which Catholics agree, but is not exclusively so. According to the Church's tradition, especially in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, one of the Fathers of Church who was instrumental in defining Christ's human incarnation at the General Council of Ephesus (451), Cyril also iterated in his writings that there was a growing physical union between Christ and those who received the Sacrament. Bishop John Fisher of Rochester and Bishop Thomas Watson of Lincoln in the 1520s and 1550s, respectively, propounded Cyril's views.

Catholics would argue that Christians received Christ in the Eucharist both with faith and orally. While Protestants and Catholics agreed on the spiritual virtues of receiving Holy Communion as described by Verity, Catholics would insist that Communion is also food for the spiritual benefit of the soul and the body, as alluded to by Paul in I Corinthians 11:30. As to the common Protestant accusation against Catholics that they 'shall pluck down Christ from heaven', Catholics would answer that Christ is indeed seated in glory in heaven, but he is also present wherever mass is celebrated in his divine, risen, glorified body as he promised in John 6; for nothing is impossible with God. Therefore Catholics would utterly reject Verity's statement, 'Christ's body … hath nothing to do with our body …'

The disputants with Martin Bucer, the great reforming theologian who come to Cambridge at the invitation of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and as an exile from the religious conflicts going on in the Empire, were all distinguished Cambridge fellows of Catholic belief. Thomas Sedgwick, Fellow of Trinity College, was the leader in these August 1550 disputations regarding the Eucharist. Under Mary I he became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity until 1558, when he became Regius Professor of Divinity. He replaced John Young, another Trinity Fellow, in that post. Andrew Perne had been and would again be Vice-Chancellor of the University. Perne and Sedgwick were involved in the exhumation and burning of Bucer's remains in Cambridge as an unrepentant heretic. Sedgwick and Young became recusants under Elizabeth I. Perne embraced the Elizabethan Protestant Settlement of 1559.

Verity remarks that Eucharist does feed the body as any food or drink does, for the Eucharistic doctrine established in the Edwardian Reformation and reaffirmed in the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559 was that the elements of the sacrament remain bread and wine before, during and after the Communion Service.

Verity uses the common Protestant trope of what becomes of the Catholic Eucharist should a mouse somehow get hold of a host and consume it. The Catholic response was that although shameful if not sacrilegious for those charged with caring for the Sacrament, such an action would have no effect upon almighty God or upon any creature incapable of reason or belief.

Catholics would object that Christ's body under the signs of bread and wine is indeed his corporeal body born of the Virgin Mary and which hung upon the Cross, yet it is also his risen, glorified body, and the Mosaic Law cannot apply to it; not least because, according to Paul in Galatians 3:13, Jesus' salvific death was itself a violation of the Mosaic Law.

'Tune': misprint of 'time', in the 1583 edition only

It is noteworthy that in his marginal notes Foxe cites no canons of any General Councils of the Church to support his claim regarding kneeling.

It is not inconceivable that in times of persecution under the Romans Communion could be brought to the sick, imprisoned or dying by the laity, being a time of emergency. St Tarcisius (Third-Fourth Century) was martyred by a Roman mob for carrying the Eucharist, and possessed any early cult, according to the fourth-century writings of Pope Damasus I. Tarcisius has often been portrayed in literature and art as a youth, even a boy, but there is no certainty as to his age, or whether he was in fact a layman (he may have been a deacon).

Veritie uses the image of the pope treading on the Bible in order to offer the Mass, which as Veritie implies, is a nonbiblical corruption of the Eucharist. But now that the pope has been revealed as the source of false religion by the reformers, none ('no moe [more]') have the power to distort the Protestant views of religious truth.

'Hanged him up': placed the reserved Eucharist in a container (pyx or tabernacle) to be given to the sick or to be adored. The tradition and history of the reservation of the eucharist outside Mass is much older than the thirteenth century, as, for example, the fourth-century record of Tarcisius' martyrdom attests (see above). Among the earliest records of this practice are the writings of St Justin Martyr (first century).

'Begod': to make the Eucharist God: believed by Catholics amd denied by Protestants.

'Overhippeth': overlook

Catholics would argue that Christians received Christ in the Eucharist both with faith and orally. While Protestants and Catholics agreed on the spiritual virtues of receiving Holy Communion as described by Verity, Catholics would insist that Communion is also food for the spiritual benefit of the soul and the body, as alluded to by Paul in I Corinthians 11:30.

'Fie': expression of disgust.

'Little box': tabernacle or pyx used for reserving the Eucharist in the Catholic tradition.

In the Catholic tradition it was understood that when the outward forms of bread and wine ceased to be outward forms of bread and wine, i.e., when the outward form of bread turns into mold or the outward form of wine turns into vinegar, Christ was no longer present. Such circumstances were rare and strictly guarded against by the clergy.

'Burn him [Christ] too?'. If the Eucharist underwent the occurrences described above in the note for lines 266-267, or if an ill communicant coughed up some element of the host mixed with mucus or saliva, the clergy were to dispose of the elements (no longer recognized as Christ under the signs of bread) by burning them. Here Verity is alluding to the burning of heretics for believing the Eucharistic doctrines he is propounding in the reigns of Henry VIII, and probably Mary I.

Custom remarks that religious truth is being denied by those who deny Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist.

'Maundy': Christ's Last Supper remembered on Holy or Maundy Thursday, when he commanded ('maundy') the Apostles to continue celebrating the Eucharist as he had done that night.

An extremely simplistic view of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is presented (or rather, in this case, not presented).

Protestants were most reluctant to acknowledge that the Bible was obscure in numerous places, whether due to the difficulties of translation or the meaning of certain words or passages in their contexts; Catholics recognized Scripture's opaqueness to the general reader in certain texts, and stated that the Church had ultimate authority - given to it by Christ - in their interpretation, using the resources of Church tradition, including the determination of General Councils and the writings of the Church Fathers, in sharp contrast to Verity's remark that 'Custom [tradition] meddles but little with Scripture'. In fact, as noted earlier, tradition and scripture were inextricably linked as the two modes of Christ's one revelation.

Verity uses the strategy of employing quotes from numerous Fathers of the Church upheld as some of the leading theologians of Catholicism to dismiss Catholic claims regarding the Eucharist. This strategy has its draw-backs, i.e., in the case of the Venerable Bede, whose Ecclesiastical History of the English People possessed numerous accounts of Catholic worship and piety which the Reformers rejected.

'In sooth' - truly.

Protestants claimed that religious truth has only recently reappeared in England and the rest of the world after about 1000 years of corruption of the primitive church in the medieval period, with the advent of the Protestant Reformation.

'Boxes': tabernacles or pyxes used for reserving the Sacrament.

The Protestant reply to the Catholic view regarding whether the wicked actually receive Christ's body and blood. Catholics would say they do, but to their own condemnation. Protestants would say that faith is necessary to truly receive the sacrament, and since the wicked cannot have faith, they receive merely bread. The latter stance rests upon Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone: one cannot possess faith and be a graver sinner at the same time. Catholics responded that one could, the greatest example being the devil, who knew God and yet rejected God.

'Marie': contraction of a mild oath - 'by Saint Mary'.

An aside against the Catholic Sacrament of Confession; Protestants denied that it was instituted by Christ and was thus not a Sacrament. Catholics believed that it was instituted when the Risen Christ commanded the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:21-23).

Another aside in which Verity offers a series of objections to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, some of them more caricatures of the doctrines than actual discussions of them. Many of them have also been raised in the disputations which Foxe has just related. Such objections include: offering masses for the intentions of the living and for the dead; reservation and worship of the Sacrament; the language in which the liturgy is prayed; the ritual of the mass.

'dally' - tease; custom is shocked by Veritie saying the denial of the Catholic view of the Eucharist is a small matter.

'indifferent' - open to the truth, rather than not caring about it.

The heretics Verity describes are the Gnostics (from the Greek 'gnosis' - 'knowledge'), among the earliest and largest groups that denied elements of fundamental Christian belief; in this case, the incarnation: that God became a true human being in the person of Jesus.

'Sely': simple.

Matthew 26:26: 'This is my body.'

Verity explains the Protestant view of how the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ, when it has been traditionally called such. Verity's answer however falls rather close to Sacramentarianism, the early-modern heresy particularly feared in England, which claimed that the Eucharist was only bread and wine and nothing more. The view of the Protestant theologians in England was that the body and blood of Christ was truly, though not corporeally, present in the person who received the Sacrament with faith.

'cavill' - quibble over.

'The Evangelists': the traditional authors of the four Gospels of the New Testament: Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Custom objects to the theology of Verity, claiming that the antiquity, authority and agreement of the Fathers of the Church (in other words, the Vincentian Canon that served to determine true doctrine from false) had condemned Protestant theology's chief elements long ago.

'The old writers': the Fathers of the Church, the theologians of the first 500 years of Christianity, whose writings were held as important test for the veracity of disputed doctrines. For Protestant theologians they were an important but fallible source of information. For Catholics they were part of the Tradition of the Church, and the common and historical interpretation of their writings, especially if they were seen to largely agree on a doctrine, were held as a vital test in discerning Christian truths.

'Rent with the teeth': a common Protestant trope against Catholic theology of the Eucharist and Christ's corporeal presence therein. It sets aside the Catholic understanding of Christ's risen, glorified body which is also corporeal, as shown by people touching him in the resurrection narratives in the Matthew, Luke and John.

A common argument against Protestant belief by Catholics was how could God allow his own Church, with which he had promised always to be, to adhere to heresy, and the truth about Christian doctrine to be only realized with the advent of Luther and the other reformers.

Catholics would respond that if Jesus were indeed using figurative language in John 6, he does not explain the metaphor he is using, as he does in the other occasions he uses figurative language in John's Gospel, or it is explained as such in the narrative; i.e., John 10:1-29, (Jesus the good Shepherd and the Door) especially 10:6 "this proverb Jesus spoke…'. See also John 15:1-8: Jesus as the vine; and John 15:8-27, the explanation of the metaphor.

In order to edify his readers, Foxe chooses not to offer his transcription of the disputation at this point, but to rather offer a 'Dialogue' which was compiled from the writings (and perhaps lectures?) of Peter Martyr Vermigli, the other great reformed theologian besides Bucer who had fled to Edwardian England; he became Regius Professor of Theology at Oxford. Foxe does not name the compiler other than a 'learned and reverend' Englishman. One wonders if this person is not Foxe himself.

'Hoc est corpus meum': Latin for 'this is my body.'

'Fond': foolish.

The Bible must not always be interpreted literally, which Catholics do in the context of 'This is my body.' Verity's form of argument is problematic, since it seems to assume that since some words or phrases in the Bible must not be taken literally, therefore the phrase, 'this is my body,' must not be as well. [The issues at stake here were at the heart of the Reformation debates over the eucharist, and took theologians to the equally central question (raised by 'sola scriptura') of how literally scripture should be interpreted.]

Jesus' words in John 14:28 'The Father is greater than I' was taken literally by the Arian heretics, beginning in the fourth century, as proof that Christ was not co-equal with God the Father or divine.

John 10:30 was taken by the Modalist heretics who held that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three modes of God's presence, and not three distinct persons united by God's one divine nature.

'Congregation': a word much in vogue among sixteenth-century English Protestants and some Catholics, in particular authors and translators. It replaced 'Church', and usually possessed the connotation of a smaller, non-hierarchical body in contrast to the institutional, international Church of Rome.

Transubstantiation. Verity makes the argument that word lacks antiquity, therefore the doctrine it represents is novel. Catholics would respond that words such as 'Trinity' and 'Consubstantial' were created in the Fourth Century to more clearly define the most ancient and fundamental beliefs of the Church, which had come under significant question for the first time after the end of the Roman persecution. Likewise Transubstantiation was created to clarify a long-held belief within the Church which had only recently come under question in the twelfth century.

Further examples of figures of speech in the Bible that cannot be taken literally. Mark 10:8 [Foxe does not offer a reference for 'They are not two, but one flesh', and other citations below.]; Genesis 37:27 [Foxe is mistaken in attributing these words to Rueben; according to v. 26, these are the words of Judah.]; I Corinthians 10:16, 10:4; Hebrews 7:3 [for Melchizedech]; John 1:36 [for 'Behold the Lamb'].

The traditions of reservation of the Sacrament, the use of incense, kneeling and adoration of the Host both during and outside Mass were ancient traditions of the Church long before the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi and votive masses (masses which gave particular honor to an aspect of Catholic devotion through the collects, scripture readings and hymns used).

Protestants attempted to claim the title of 'Universal' or 'Catholic', but Roman Catholics would respond that Protestant teachings could not be found in much of Christendom, and that they virulently disagreed amongst themselves about such fundamental doctrines as Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

'Jehovah': taken by William Tyndale in his translation of the New Testament into English as the proper name for God; in fact it was a medieval allision of the Hebrew words 'Yahweh' ('I am who am' - the name for God) and 'Adonai' ('the Lord').

The 'Tetragrammaton' is devout way of speaking of the name of God, without actually saying it, due to the utmost reverence given to it among the Jews. It refers to the four consonants found in the name, Yahweh (YHWH), since the ancient Hebrew alphabet did not possess characters for vowel sounds.

Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, 2.28.

'knows'.

King Edward presumably studied the Bible in Latin and possibly Greek.

Satellitium animi ('Escort of the Soul'), a collection of maxims gathered by Juan Luis Vives for the instruction of Princess Mary, whom he tutored and to whom he dedicated this book.

The Latin text of Fabulas Aesopi was standard reading for schoolboys.

Versification in Latin.

Foxe joined other Protestants in disapproving of this collection of fabulous saints' lives. Gathered by Jacobus de Voragine during the thirteenth century, it is filled with stories about miraculous events and supernatural happenings that were anathema to religious reformers. William Caxton's translation was known as the Golden Legend.

This jest accords with the iconoclastic tenor of Edward VI's reign. Although St. George was the only non-biblical saint to retain acceptance during the reign of Elizabeth I, because he is the patron saint of England and its monarchs, a proposal to replace St. George with an image of a king bearing a sword and book on the badges of the Order of the Garter received serious consideration during King Edward's reign. This change would have replaced the iconography of St. George with regal blazons symbolic of the Bible and either Faith or Justice. These emblems had a distinctively Protestant cast. King, Tudor Royal Iconography, pp. 99-100.

I.e., 'nigh'.

I.e., 'scion' or royal heir.

Cattley/Pratt, VI, 352, fn 1: '"The witnesses hereof present were, sir Thomas Wrothe, sir Henry Sidney, two of the chief gentlemen of the privy-chamber; doctor Owen, doctor Wendy, and Christopher Salmon, groom." See Edition 1563, page 888, second set'.

Cattley/Pratt, VI, 350, fn 2: 'Prince Edward, when he wrote this epistle, seemed to be very young, not above seven years of age, lying then at Ampthill'.

I.e., 1 Tim. 4.

1 Tim. 4:8.

An allusion to Terence's Adelphi 4.7, 44.

Richard Cox must have discharged a supervisory role in the education of the prince as Edward grew older, because this eminent humanistic scholar received appointment first as dean of Christ Church (1546) and then as chancellor of the University of Oxford (1548). Loach, Edward VI, pp. 11-12.

'without intermission'.

Cox refers King Edward's mastery of moralistic verses in the four books of Disticha Catonis. It was a set text for younger schoolboys, who then continued their study of Latin with Cato's De officiis and De copia, in addition to Erasmus's edition of Cato's works.

This brief account serves as a link between the reigns of Edward VI and Mary Tudor. In it, Foxe (at times somewhat tendentiously) maintains that Mary was rejected by both her father and her brother because of her obstinate adherence to Catholicism. The narrative (and Book Nine) concludes with a grim story of Nicholas Ridley's visit to Mary in order to preach to her, and her refusal to hear him. Foxe bases this short narrative on a miscellany of sources: two letters from Mary to Henry VIII, written in 1533, and - for his account of Ridley's interview with Mary - on Edmund Grindal.

Thomas S. Freeman

Foxe is being tendentious here. During the ascendancy of Anne Boleyn, when it was believed that she would produce a male heir, Mary lost her title of Princess. She regained most of her status after Anne's fall in 1536. Contrary to Foxe's implication, Mary's deprivation had little to do with her religious beliefs.

Cranmer apparently had little to do with the reconciliation between Henry VIII and Mary. It had much more to do with Mary's eventual submission to her father and with her increasing dynastic and diplomatic importance as next in line to the throne after her younger brother Edward.

These two letters were written by Mary in 1533 in protest at her being moved into the household of her younger sister Elizabeth at Hatfield, and thus subordinate in status to her sibling.

I.e., Hatfield.

Foxe states that his source for the confrontation between Mary Tudor and Ridley was a 'reverend' person, then Ridley's chaplain. This is Edmund Grindal, who had been Ridley's chaplain and was either Bishop of London or Archbishop of York when this passage was written. Grindal was a close friend of Foxe and deeply involved in the production of the Rerum and the early editions of the Acts and Monuments.

Foxe is (deliberately?) misunderstanding Mary's point. Her statement was not made in the expectation of Edward VI's premature death. She was instead maintaining - as she and her ministers would do throughout her reign - that being a minor, Edward VI could not be Supreme Head of the Church, and his religious legislation lacked legal force until he came of age - which he never did.