1576 Edition | Book 10 | Page 1409 
MarginaliaThys Argument after the disposition and termes, as it standeth, is not formall. MarginaliaAn. 1554. Aprill.We worship the selfe same body in the Eucharist, which the wise men dyd worship in the maunger.
But that was his natural and real body, not spiritual:
Ergo, the reall body of Christ is in the Eucharist.
Againe, the same Chrysostome saith: we haue not here the Lord in the maūger, but on the aultar. 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.
CloseThe following information is kindly supplied by D H Frost of St David's Catholic College, Cardiff. Citations are derived from his work in progress onSacrament an Alter (SA), a Tudor Catholic eucharistic catena, drawn from Foxe's 1576 account of the Oxford Disputations, translated into Cornish and appended to the Cornish translation of Bishop Bonner's Homilies, BL Add. MS 46397.
[Back to Top]SA 65v.26
Ridley: We worship, I confesse, the same true Lord and sauiour of the worlde, which the wise men worshipped in the maunger, howbeit we do it in mysterie, and in the sacramēt of the Lordes supper, and that in spirituall libertie, as saith S. Aust. Lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana: not in carnall seruitude: that is, we do not woorship seruilely the signes for the thinges: for that should be, as he also saith, a parte of a seruile infirmitie. But we beholde with the eyes of fayth, hym present after grace and spiritually set vppon the table: and we worship hym which sitteth aboue, & is worshipped of the angels. For Christ is alwayes assistant to his mysteries, as the sayd August. sayth.
[Back to Top]West. That which the woman did holde in her wombe, the same thyng holdeth the priest.
Rid. MarginaliaThe same thing, but the maner diuers.I graunt the Priest holdeth the same thing, but after an other maner. Shee dyd hold the naturall body: the Priest holdeth the mystery of the bodie.
West. Weston repeated againe hys argumēt out of Chrysostome in English.
Rid. I say that the author meant it spiritually.
West. Weston here dissoluyng the disputations had these woordes: Videtis præfractū hominis animum, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem: videtis hodie veritatis vires inconcussas, Itaque clamate: Vicit veritas. That is: MarginaliaD. Weston bloweth vp the triumph. Here you see, the stubborne, the glorious, the crafty, the vnconstant mind of this man. Here you see this day, that the strength of the truth is wythout foyle. Therefore I beseech you all most earnestly to blow the note, and he beganne, and they folowed: 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]
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]
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.
There replyed vnto hym MarginaliaM. Smyth of Oriall Colledge Opponent to M. Latimer. M. Smith of Oriall colledg. Doctor Cartwright, master Harpsfielde, and diuers other had snatches at hym, and gaue hym bytter tauntes. He escaped no hissinges, and scornefull laughinges, no more then they that went before hym. He was very faint, and desired that he might not long tarry. He durst not drinke, for feare of vomityng. The disputation ended before xi. of the clocke. MarginaliaMaister Latymers wrytinges could not be read.Maister Latimer was not suffered to reade, that hee had (as he said) painfully written: but it was exhibited vp, & the Prolocutor read part thereof, and so proceeded vnto the disputation.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaWestons preface. MEn and brethren, we are come together this day (by the helpe of God) to vanquish the strength of the argumentes, and dispersed opinions of aduersaries, against the truth of the reall presence of the Lordes body in the sacrament. And therefore, you father, if you haue any thing to answere, I doe admonish you, that you aunsweare in short and fewe wordes.
[Back to Top]Lati. MarginaliaM. Latymer requireth to dispute in the English tounge.I pray you good master Prolocutor, do not exacte that of me, which is not in me. I haue not these. xx. yeares much vsed the Latine toung.
West. Take your ease Father.
Lati. I thanke you sir, I am well. Let me here protest my fayth: for I am not able to dispute, & afterwardes doo your pleasure with me.
The conclusions whereunto I must aunsweare, are these.
MarginaliaThe three Conclusions.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, conceiued of the virgin Mary, vnder the kindes of the appearances of bread and wyne: and in like maner his bloud.
2 The second is, that after cōsecration, there remaineth no substance of bread and wyne, nor none other substaunce, but the substance of God and man.
3 The third is, that in the Masse there is the liuely sacrifice of the Church, whiche is propiciable, as wel for the sinnes of the quicke, as of the dead.
MarginaliaThe aunsweres of M. Latimer geuen vp in writing, concerning the questions aforesayd. COncernyng the firste conclusion, me thinketh it is set forth with certayne new found termes, that be obscure. and doe not sound accordyng to the speach of the scripture. Howbeit, how soeuer I vnderstand it, thys doe I answeare playnely, though not wythout peryll: I answeare (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 presente by which we abide in Christ, and Christe abydeth in vs, to the obteyning 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 fitly, a reall presence, that is, a presence not fayned, but a true and a faythfull presence. Which thing I here rehearse, lest some Sycophāt or scorner, shoulde suppose me with the Anabaptistes, to make nothyng els of the Sacrament, but a naked and a bare signe. As for that, whiche is fayned of many, cōcerning their corporall presence: I for my part take it but for a papisticall inuention, and therefore thinke it vtterly to be reiected.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAunswere to the second conclusion.Concernyng the seconde conclusion, I dare be bolde to say, that it hath no stay nor ground in Gods worde, but is a thing inuented and found out by man: and therefore to be taken as fōd & false: and I had almost sayd, as the mother and nourse of the other errours. It were good for my Lordes & Maisters the transubstantiation, to take heede, lest they conspire with the Nestorians, for I do not see how they can auoyde it.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAnswere to the thyrd Conclussion.The third conclusion (as I do vnderstand it) seemeth subtilly to sowe sedition agaynst the offering which Christ hym self offered for vs in his owne proper person, according to that pithy place of Paul, MarginaliaHeb. 1.Heb. 1. when he sayth: That Christe his owne selfe hath made purgation of our sinnes. And afterwardes: That he might (sayth he) bee a mercyfull and a faythful Bishop, concernyng those thinges which are to be done with God, for the takyng away of our sinnes. MarginaliaThe taking away of sinnes depēdeth rather in the person of the offerer then in the thyng offered, but that he that was the offerer was offered hym selfe.So that the expiation or taking away of our sinnes, may be thought rather to depend on this: that Christ was an offryng Bishop, then that he was offred, were it not that he was offred of hym selfe: and therfore it is needelesse, that he should be offred of any other. I wyll speake nothyng of the wonderful presumption of man, to dare to attēpt this thing, without a manifest vocation, specially in that it tendeth to þe ouerthrowing & making fruteles (if not wholy, yet partly) of the crosse of Christ: for truely it is no base or meane thing, to offer Christ. And therefore worthily a man may say to my lords & masters the officers:
CloseAn obvious mistake occurs in the 1570 edition. Latimer is quoted as saying, 'And therefore worthely a man may say to my Lords and maysters Offerers' (i.e., the priests offering up the host) (1563, p. 979). In the edition of 1570, 'offerers' was changed to 'officers' (1570, p. 1623; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1455). Not only does the change not make sense, but the Rerum, which reads 'oblatoribus' (p. 687), indicates clearly what is meant.
[Back to Top]What meaneth Paul when he sayth: They that serue at the altar, are partakers of the altar: and so addeth: So the Lord hath ordeined, that they that preach the Gospel, shal lyue of the Gospell. Where as hee should haue sayd: The Lord hath ordeyned, that they that sacrifice at masse, should lyue of theyr sacrificyng, that there might be a lyuyng assigned to our sacrificers nowe, as was before Christes commyng, to the Iewishe Priestes. For nowe they haue nothyng to alledge for their lyuyng, as they that be Preachers haue. MarginaliaThe sacrificing priesthood chaunged into a preaching priesthood.So that it appeareth, that the sacrificing Priesthood is chaunged by Gods ordinaunce, into a preachyng Priesthoode, and the sacrificyng priesthoode shoulde cease vtterly, sauyng in as muche as all Christian men are sacrificyng priestes.
[Back to Top]The supper of the Lord was instituted to prouoke vs to thankes geuyng, for the offering whiche the Lorde hym selfe dyd offer for vs, muche rather then that our Officers