1570 Edition | Book 10 | Page 1660 
MarginaliaAn. 1554. Aprill.vse, as they were wont, leauened or vnleauened bread.
Here cryed out Doct. Cole, and sayd, they agreed together concernyng transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. M. Rydley sayd, that could not be.
Here start vp an other vnknowen to M. Ridley, but thought to be one of the Scribes,MarginaliaOne of the Scribes.who affirmed with him, that in deede there was nothyng decreed concernyng trāsubstantiation, but the Coūcell left that, as a matter not meete nor worthy to disturbe the peace & concord of the Church. To whom M. Rydley aunswered againe, saying: that he sayd the truth.
[Back to Top]Pie. MarginaliaM. Pie disputeth agaynst Byshop Ridley.What say you to that Councell, where it is said that the Priest doth offer an vnbloudie sacrifice of the body of Christ?
Rid. I say, it is well sayd, if it be rightly vnderstand.
Pie. But he offereth an vnbloudy sacrifice.
Rid. MarginaliaSacrifice called vnbloudy, is nothyng els but a representation of the bloudy sacrifice of Christ.It is called vnbloudy, and is offered after a certayne maner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloudy sacrifice: and hee doth not lye whych sayth, Christ to be offered.
West. MarginaliaVVeston playeth Goliah with Dauid.I wyth one argument wyll throw downe to the ground your opinion, out of Chrysostome, Homel. 24. in. 1. ad Corinth. and I wyll teach, not onely a figure or signe, or grace onely, but the very same body whych was here conuersant in the earth, to be in the Eucharist.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThys Argument after the disposition and termes, as it standeth, is not formall.We worship the selfe same body in the Eucharist, which the wise men did worship in the maunger.
But that was his natural & real body, not spiritual:
Ergo the reall body of Christ is in the Eucharist.
Againe, the same Chrysostome sayth: We haue not here the Lorde in the maunger, but on the altar. Here a woman holdeth hym not in her handes, but a Priest.
CloseNear the very end of Ridley's disputation, his reply to Weston is completely rewritten (see textual variant 60 and textual variant 61). It is very likely that Foxe rewrote this passage to make it more theologically explicit.
West. That whych the woman dyd holde in her wombe, the same thing holdeth the Priest.
Rid. MarginaliaThe same thyng, but the maner diuers.I graunt the Priest holdeth the same thing, but after an other maner. She dyd hold the naturall body: the Priest holdeth the mystery of the body.
West. Weston repeated agayne hys argument out of Chrysostome, in English.
Rid. I say that the Autor ment it spritually.
West. Weston here dissoluing the disputations had these wordes: Videtis præfractum hominis animū, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem: videtis hodie veritatis vires incōcussas, itaq; clamate: Vicit veritas. That is: Here you see, the stubborne, the glorious, the crafty, the vnconstant mynde of this man. Here you see this day that the strength of the truth is wythout foyle. MarginaliaD. Weston bloweth vp the triumph.Therefore I beseech you all most earnestly to blow the note, and he began and they followed: Veritie hath the victory: Veritie hath the victory.
[Back to Top]
CloseUnlike the disputations of Cranmer and Ridley, Latimer's disputation was relatively unchanged from edition to edition. Partly this was because Foxe apparently used one source for this disputation. A complete copy of Latimer's disputation survives in Foxe's papers (BL Harley MS 422, fols. 92r-100v); this may well be Foxe's source for the disputation. (Whatever Foxe's source was, he had it before he wrote Rerum, which means that it almost certainly came from a protestant source and was probably the record of one of the protestant notaries). A copy of Latimer's protestation at the beginning of the disputation is in ECL MS 262, fols. 171r-174r; a version of this is also printed in Strype, EM III, 2, pp. 288-95. (Unless Strype greatly altered this document in printing it, it was not the same version as ECL 262, fols. 171r-174r). Further, a Latin summary of Latimer's disputation is also in Foxe's papers (Harley 422, fols. 65r-67r); this may well be the original version of the similar summary printed in (only) 1563, pp. 934-35.
[Back to Top]Another reason for Foxe's relative restraint in editing Latimer's disputation was that it, unlike the other disputations, was largely conducted in English rather than Latin, thus eliminating the need (so apparent in Cranmer's disputation) for Foxe to correct the work of earlier translators. Furthermore, Latimer eschewed elaborate theological or logical arguments during his disputation and quoted few patristic authors, thus obviating much of the need for the revisions which Foxe had made in the other two disputations.
[Back to Top]After
CloseFoxe seems keen here to compensate for and justify Latimer's relatively quiet performance. He seeks to construct a venerable Latimer whose past achievements preaching before kings place him beyond the criticism of 'rusticall diuines' ('M. Latimer found more audience with kinges & Princes, then with rusticall diuines'), an impression emphasised by the glosses dealing with his moderate and perceptive admonishment of Weston (e.g. 'The iudgement of M. Latimer of D. Weston', 'Pride of D. Weston priuily touched'). (The sense of participation in an unfolding historical-providential drama conveyed in these glosses is added to by the reference to Weston's early death: 'But God saw it good that Westō neuer came to his age'.)
[Back to Top]This protective impulse is expressed in other ways. The large amount of comment from the glosses ('By that reason the new & old testamēt should not differ, but should be contrary one frō the other, which cannot be true in naturall or morall precepts', 'Edere in some places is taken for credere: but that in all places it is so taken it followeth not', 'This place of the Hebrewes alluded to the old Sacrifice of the Iewes, who in the feast of propitiation the 10. day, vsed to cary the flesh of the sacrifice out of the tents to be burned on an Altar with out, because none of thē which serued in the Tabernacle should eate thereof: only the bloud was caryed by the high Priest into the holy place') objecting to the arguments of the interlocutors was perhaps provoked by Latimer's somewhat nondisputacious bearing at this stage. The typological contrast between the moderate martyr and his railing opponents is drawn once more: compare the presentation of Weston and Latimer in the glosses 'Weston scorneth the name of Minister' and 'M. Latimer modestly maketh himselfe vnable to dispute': 'scorneth' against 'modestly'. Foxe seems somewhat more willing to vent spleen in this section, especially towards the end ('Shameles railyng and blasphemous lyes of D. Weston sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' (1570), 'A shamefull railing and blasphemous lyes' (1563), 'Who be these, or where be they M. Oblocutor, that will be like the Apostles? that will haue no churches? that be runnagates out of Germany? that gette thē tankards? that make monethly faithes? that worship not Chrst in al hys Sacramētes? Speake truth man, and shame the deuil. If ye know any such, bring them forth: if ye know none, what aleth you thus to take on where ye haue no cause?' (1570), 'Vrge hoc quoth Weston, with his berepot', 'Blasphemous lyes of D. Westō sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' and 'D. Westons Apes haue tayles' (1583); again this was perhaps due to a desire to reinforce the resistance offered by Latimer and also genuine anger at the treatment of an old man. Weston seems to be a particular focus for Foxe's ire. The 1570 gloss 'There you misse I wis' contains an insult that Foxe later dropped: this would suggest that he was careful to consider the likely effect of the tone of his critical remarks.
[Back to Top]The gloss concerned with Luther ('In that booke the deuill doth not dissuade him so much from saying Masse, as to bring him to desperation for saying Masse, such temptatiōs many times happen to good men') shows Foxe's energetic affection for him. The gloss 'Obedience to Princes hath his limitation' offers a stark formulation of the limits of princely power: it is perhaps surprising that Foxe did not make explicit that only the commands of God come before those of princes. There are some corrections of grammar and logic (see 'Weston opposed in his grammer', 'D. Treshams argument without forme or mode, concluding affirmatiuely in the 2. figure', 'Facere, for sacrificare, with D. Weston'). One gloss which departs from Latimer's point emphasises the singularity of Christ's sacrifice ('If Christ offered himselfe at the Supper, and the next day vpon the Crosse, then was Christ twise offered'). There seems to be a subtle point in the gloss 'Cartwright returning to his olde error agayne', which admits of two readings depending on one's confessional allegiance; there is a similar ambiguity at the gloss 'How the body of Christ is shewed vs vpon the earth', a gloss turning Weston's formulation against him. For mistakes following the usual trend of 1583 not matching earlier editions, see the glosses 'August. in Psal. 31. Chrisost De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1583) and 'August. in Psal. 38. Chrysost. De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1576).
[Back to Top]Aprill. 18.AFter these disputations of Bishop Ridley ended, next was brought out Maister Hugh Latimer to dispute, vpon Wedensday, whych was the xviij. day of Aprill.
CloseIn the edition of 1563 Foxe added descriptions of the beginning of Latimer's disputation (1563, p. 978; 1570, p. 1622; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1454) and the conclusion (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1389; 1583, p. 1459); these almost certainly came from another eyewitness.
MarginaliaWestons preface.MEn and brethren, we are come together this day (by the helpe of God) to vanquish the strength of the arguments, and dispersed opinions of aduersaries, agaynst the truth of the reall presence of the Lords body in the Sacrament. And therefore, you Father, if you haue any thing to aunswere, I doe admonish you, that you aunswere in short and few wordes.
[Back to Top]Lati. MarginaliaMaister Latymer requireth to dispute in the Englishe tounge.I pray you good Maister Prolocutor, do not exact that of me, whych is not in me. I haue not these. xx. yeares much vsed the Latin toung.
West. Take your ease Father.
Lati. I thanke you Syr, I am wel. Let me here protest my fayth: for I am not able to dispute, and afterwardes do your pleasure wyth me.
MarginaliaThe three Conclusions.The conclusions whereunto I must aunswere, are these.
1 The First is, that in the sacrament of the Aultar, by the vertue of Gods word pronounced by the Priest, there is really present, the naturall body of Christ, cōceiued of the virgin Mary, vnder the kindes or appearances of bread & wyne: and in like maner his bloud.
2 The second is, that after consecratiō, there remaineth no substance of bread and wyne, nor none other substance, but the substance of God and man.
3 The third is, that in the Masse there is the liuely sacrifice of the Church, which is propitiable, as well for the sinnes of the quicke as of the dead.
MarginaliaThe aunsweres of Maister Latymer geuen vp in wryting, concerning the questions aforesayd.COncerning the fyrst conclusion, me thinketh it is set forth with certayne new found termes, that be obscure, and doe not sound according to the speech of the scripture. Howbeit, howsoeuer I vnderstand it, thys doe I aunswere playnly, though not wythout peryll: I answere (I say) that to the right celebration of the lordes supper, there is no other presence of Christ required, then a spirituall presence: and this presence is sufficient for a Christian man, as a presence by which both we abyde in Christ, and Christ abideth in vs, to the obtaining of eternall lyfe, if we perseuer. MarginaliaThe presence of Christ in the Sacrament, how it is a reall presence.And this same presence may bee called most fytly, a reall presence, that is, a presence not fayned, but a true and a faythfull presence. Which thing I here rehearse, lest some Sycophant or Scorner, should suppose me wyth the Anabaptistes, to make nothing els of the Sacrament, but a naked and a bare signe. As for that, whych is fayned of many, concerning their corporal presence: I for my part take it but for a Papisticall inuētion, and therefore thinke it utterly to be reiected.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAūswer to the second Conclusion.Concerning the second conclusion, I dare be bold to say, that it hath no stay nor ground in Gods word, but is a thing inuented and found out by man: and therefore to be taken as fond and false: and I had almost sayd, as the Mother and Nourse of the other errours. It were
[Back to Top]