1576 Edition | Book 10 | Page 1385 
CloseAll three of the disputations had been described in the Rerum. Yet it is indicative of the enormous importance which Foxe attached to the disputations that even before he returned to England, he had tried to obtain further information on them. In the first half of 1559, Foxe wrote to Francis Russell, the Earl of Bedford, stating that he had heard that the earl possessed a record of the disputations and asking the earl to send a copy to him at Basel, 'since by these collected copies a more certain, trustworthy narrative of the event may be produced' (BL Harley MS 417, fol. 120r). On his return to England, Foxe continued to pursue additional records of the disputation. In late 1562 or early 1563, Foxe wrote to Bishop Grindal, stating that he had just discovered in Bonner's records that an official account of the disputations, with the seal of Oxford University and the subscriptions of the notaries, was exhibited in Convocation. Foxe requested Grindal's help in obtaining this record (BL Additional MS 19400, fol. 97r). This official account survives (BL Harley MS 3642); it is almost certain that Foxe did consult it and it could usefully be compared with Foxe's text.
[Back to Top]Each account of each of three disputations was based on different sources. Since Foxe stated, regarding his account of Cranmer's disputation, that he 'receyved it out of the Notaries booke' (1570, p. 1599; 1576, p. 1364; 1583, p. 1435), his account was based on one of the five notarial copies of the disputation. Judging by the account's favourable tone to Cranmer (e.g., its characterisation of Cranmer's 'mild voice' and the criticism of Weston for inciting the 'rude people' to heckle and boo Cranmer on 1563, p. 946; 1570, p. 1598; 1576, p. 1346; 1583, p. 1434), it was probably the account written by one of the two protestant notaries, John Jewel or Gilbert Mounson.
[Back to Top]It is noteworthy that the passages cited above are not in the Rerum version of Cranmer's disputation (Rerum, pp. 640-68). During their exile, Grindal had written to Foxe stating that he had obtained a copy of Cranmer's account of his disputation written in the archbishop's own hand, as well as a notary's account of the disputation (BL Harley, 417, vol 119r). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is apparently based on a notary's account, since Foxe stated that it came 'ex ipso notoriarum archetypo' (Rerum, p. 659); presumably this was the notary's account which Grindal had acquired. (Strangely, Foxe does not seem to have had access in the Rerum to the account Cranmer had written). The Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation is not only somewhat briefer than the 1563 version, it has some odd gaps throughout. The most likely explanation is that Foxe started with a notary's account in the Rerum (and his getting such an account at that period, probably from Grindal, also suggests that it was one of the protestant versions) and had nothing beyond this single source for Cranmer's disputation. In the 1563 edition, a number of different accounts of Cranmer's disputation appear to have been collated. (This is also indicated by Foxe's printing an alternative version of one of Chedsey's arguments which he declared he found 'in some other copies' [1563, p. 943; 1570, p. 1596; 1576, p. 1362; 1583, p. 1432; this alternate argument is not in the Rerum]). What is particularly significant, however, is that Foxe did not translate the Rerum account of Cranmer's disputation but replaced it with a new account. (There is a portion of Cranmer's disputation in Foxe's papers [BL Harley MS 422, fols. 44r-45v], as well as two independent versions of Cranmer's disputation, one in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 340, and one in CUL MS Kk.5. 14).
[Back to Top]
CloseThis section is fairly representative of the rest of the disputations in its marginalia. Many of the glosses mark points of conflict and arguments, often with forms of textual privileging present in the 1563 edition which later became glosses (e.g. 'The contents of Cranmers explication geuen vp in writing', 'Argument', 'Aunswere', and 'D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes'). From 1570 onwards 'Articles' appears in the margin in several places, with the numbers of the articles incorporated in the text; in 1563 the numbers are in the margin. The later method offers a clearer guide for a reader seeking the scholastic bones of the debate.
[Back to Top]All texts use alternative fonts for the articles ('Articles', '1', and 'Argument'). In several places the editions from 1570 onwards use glosses where the 1563 edition indents the corresponding piece of text (e.g. 'How Christ is really present'; 'Argument') or uses a different font (e.g. '1. Cor. 11'; 'Iohn. 1.'). The glosses provide more explicit signposting.
[Back to Top]Logical points and objections to Cranmer's interlocutors abound (e.g. 'D. Westons argument denyed: we eate the true body of Christ: Ergo we eate it with our mouth' and the next gloss, 'An other false argumēt wherein the 3. figure the Minor is a negatiue', 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall', and '* The forme of this argument which he repeateth, stood better before: for the fourme of this connexion answereth to none of the three figures of Sillogismes'), including one gloss which implicitly criticizes Cranmer himself for missing a logical error of his opponent ('Doct. Cranmer might haue foūd fault with this argument as well as with his latin being made in no moode or figure'). There are also several definitions of school terms present in all editions (e.g. 'Organicall is called that which is a perfect body, hauing all the members and partes complete belonging vnto the same' and 'Disparata, is a Schoole terme, meaning diuers substances being so sondred in nature, that one can neuer be sayd to be the other'). Along with logical points there are some (though fewer) grammatical criticisms of the interlocutors ('D. Weston speaketh truer then he wisse', 'D. Oglethorp breaketh Priscians head & speaketh false latin'). Perhaps to be linked to these are glosses which emphasize the rhetorical and figurative nature of scriptural discourse ('How the doctours doe take the speach of Christ. Tropical. Figuratiue. Anagogicall. Allegoricall', 'Tropes may be vsed in mens testaments, why not?'): on one level, these simply show the greater intellectual sophistication of Cranmer and his brand of humanist analysis, but at another level they also connect with the central matter at hand: the sacrament, and what is meant by the real presence. Many of the glosses are concerned with this issue. While Cranmer seems to have been paying close attention to the specific questions of scriptural and patristic interpretation under discussion, Foxe's glosses often lead things back to a wider perspective and the fundamental opposition between protestant and catholic views of the sacrament.
[Back to Top]Foxe distinguishes the protestant emphasis on the mystery of the sacrament and its proper reception ('What is meant by eating the misticall bread') from the more grossly physical catholic version: hence his gloss in response to Weston's point that we receive Christ's body by the mouth, 'A grosse saying'; see also 'The argument of Chedsey is not formall' 'God cannot be touched'). Two lengthy glosses are concerned with what 'naturally' might have to do with all this. The first ('* The Papistes by this one word [naturally] confound themselues ... Wherefore it remayneth that the naturall vniting to Christes body commeth not by the bodely eating of the Sacrament vnto our body, but to our soule, & so shall redounde at length vnto our bodyes') again criticises the papists for imagining that we eat Christ's body in a physical sense in the sacrament, as this would imply that perfection was conveyed to our sinful selves in the sacrament (which helps to show a connection between sacramental theology and the question of justification), while the second ('* Christ not after his manhod but after his diuine nature liueth naturally by his father ... and so onely the bodyes of the faythfull doe lyue by eating the bodye of Christe naturally, in particypatyng the naturall propertyes of the bodye of Christe') makes the point that only the faithful live by the sacrament, rather than anyone who receives it: a pastoral distinction of fundamental significance. The distinction created between a protestant reliance on faith and a spiritual understanding of the sacrament and a debased, gross catholic eating obviously has a polemical utility and should be connected to the many logical objections to papist arguments as part of a concerted effort to show the Romish rule of appetite over reason. Along with these insinuations, there are some more direct attacks in the margins as in the glosses 'Westō falsifieth the wordes of Chrysostome' and 'Vnreuerend wordes vsed in the Schoole agaynst Doctor Cranmer'. Several glosses show the relative failings of the 1583 edition in the accuracy of its references and the positioning of its glosses ('Easy. 53' and two glosses following, 'Heb. 9', 'Heb. 17', '* Alloiosis rerū & symbolorū').
[Back to Top]MarginaliaD. Weston speaketh truer then he wiste.Conuenistis hodie fratres profligaturi detestendam illam hæresin de veritate corporis Christi in Sacramento, &c. that is: Ye are assembled hether (brethren) this day, to confound that detestable heresie of the veritie of the body of Christ in the sacrament. &c. At which words thus pronounced of the Prolocutor vnwares, diuers of the learned men there present, consideryng and well waying the wordes by hym vttered, burst out into a great laughter, as though euen in the entraunce of the disputations, he had bewrayed himselfe and hys Religion, that termed the opinion of the veritie of christes body in the Sacrament, a detestable heresie. The rest of hys Oratiō tended all to this effect, that it was not lawfull by Gods worde to call these questions into controuersie: for such as doubted of the wordes of Christ, might well be thought to doubt both of the truth and power of God. Wherunto Doctor Cranmer desiring licence, aunswered in this wyse.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaD. Cranmers aunswere to the preface.We are assembled (sayth he) to discusse these doubtfull controuersies,
CloseIn 1563 (p. 939), Foxe wrote that Cranmer addressed those present, stating that they were assembled 'to vnfold the plytes and wrinkles of these doubtefull controversyes'. In later editions this became 'to discusse these doubtefulle controversies' (1570, p. 1594; 1576, p. 1360; 1583, p. 1430). Clearly, Foxe changed Cranmer's words to make them more dignified and lofty.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaD. Chadsey.Then Chedsey the first Opponent began in this wyse to dispute.
Reuerend M. Doctor, these 3. conclusions are put forth vnto vs at this present to dispute vpon.
MarginaliaArticles.1 In the Sacrament of the aulter is the naturall bodye of Christ, conceiued of the Virgin Mary, and also hys bloude present really vnder the formes of bread & wyne, by vertue of Gods word pronounced by the priest.
2 There remayneth no substaunce of bread and wyne after the consecration, nor any other substaunce, but the substance of God and man.
3 The liuely sacrifice of the church is in the Masse, propitiatory as well for the quicke as the dead.
These be the conclusions propounded, wherupon this our present controuersie doth rest. Nowe to the ende we might not doubt how you take the same, you haue already geuen vp vnto vs your opinion therof. I terme it your opinion, in that it disagreeth from the catholike. Wherfore thus I argue.
MarginaliaArgument.Ched. Your opinion differeth from the scripture.
Ergo, you are deceyued.
Cranmer. I deny the antecedent.
Ched. Christ when he instituted hys last supper, spake to hys Disciples: Take, eate, this is my body, which shalbe geuen for you.
But his true body was geuen for vs:
Ergo, hys true body is in the sacrament.
☞ The right forme of this Argument is thus to be framed.
| MarginaliaArgument.Da- | The same which was geuen for vs, is in þe sacramēt. |
| ri- | But his true body was geuen for vs: |
| j. | Ergo, hys true body is in the sacrament. |
MarginaliaAunswere. How Christes body is present in his Sacramēt.Cran. His true body is truely present to them that truely receyue him: but spiritually. And so is it taken after a spirituall sort. For when he sayd: This is my body, it is al one as if he had sayd, this is the breaking of my body, this is the sheding of my bloud. As oft as you shall do this, it shall put you in remembraunce of the breakyng of my body, and the shedyng of my bloud: that as truely as you receiue this sacrament, so truly shall you receyue the benefite promised by receiuyng the same worthely.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaArgument of the authoritie of the Church.Ched. Your opinion differeth from the church, which saith that the true body is in the sacrament.
Ergo, your opinion therin is false.
MarginaliaAunswere.Cran. I say and agree with the Church, that the body of Christ is in the sacrament effectually, because the Passion of Christ is effectuall.
Ched. Christ, when he spake these wordes: This is my body, spake of the substaunce, but not of the effect.
Cran. I graunt he spake of the substaunce, and not of the effect after a sort: and yet it is most true that the bodye of Christ is effectually in the sacrament.MarginaliaChristes body effectually, not substantially in the sacramēt. But I deny that he is there truly present in bread, or that vnder the bread in his organicall body. And because it should be to tedious (he said) to make a discourse of the whole, he deliuered vp there hys opinion therof to D. Weston written at large, with answers to euery one of their 3. propositions: which he desired D. Weston, sittyng there on high, to reade openly to the people: which he promised to doe. MarginaliaPapistes false of promise.But it was not the first promise that such Papistes haue broken.
[Back to Top]The copy of this writyng, although it were not there read, yet the contentes therof here we haue drawen out as followeth.
MarginaliaThe cōtents of Crāmers explication geuen vp in writing.CRan. In the assertions of the Church and of religion, triflyng and new fangled nouelties of wordes, so much as may be, are to be eschued, wherof ryseth nothyng but contention and brawlyng about wordes, and we must follow so much as we may, the maner of speakyng of the scripture.
[Back to Top]In the first conclusion if ye vnderstande by this worde [really [reipsa. i. in very deede, and effectually, MarginaliaHow Christ is really present.so Christ by the grace and efficacy of his Passion is in deede and truly present to all hys true and holy members.
But if ye vnderstand by this word [really] Corporaliter. i. Corporally, so that by the body of Christ is vnderstanded a naturall body and organicall:MarginaliaOrganical is called that which is a perfect body, hauing all the mēbers and partes complete belōging vnto the same. so the first proposition doth vary not onely from vsuall speache and the phrase of scripture, but also is cleane contrary to the holy word of god and christian profession: when as both the scripture doth testifie by these woordes, and also the Catholike church hath professed from the begynnyng, Christ to haue lefte þe worlde and to sit at the right hande of the father till hee come vnto Iudgement.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAunswere to the second Conclusion.And lykewise I aunswere to the second question: that is that it swarueth from the accustomed maner and speach of Scripture.
MarginaliaAunswere to the third Conclusion.The thyrd conclusion, as it is intricate and wrapped in all doubtfull and ambiguous wordes, & differyng also much from the true speach of the Scripture, so as the wordes therof seeme to importe in open sense: MarginaliaThe third Conclusion contumelious agaynst Christ.it is most contumelious agaynst our onely Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus, & a violatyng of his precious bloud, whiche vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the onely sacrifice and oblation for the sinnes of all mankynd.
[Back to Top]Ched. By this your interpretation which you haue made vppon the first conclusion, this I vnderstand, the body of Christ to bee in the Sacrament onely by the way of participation: in so much as we communicatyng therof: do participate the grace of Christ: so that you meane hereby onely the effect therof. But our conclusion standeth vpon the substance, and not the efficacy onely, whiche shall appeare by the testimonye both of Scriptures, and of all the fathers a thousand yeare after Christ.
[Back to Top]And first to begyn with the Scripture, let vs consider what is written in Math. 26. Mark. 14. Luke. 22. first to the Corinth. 11. Mathew sayth: MarginaliaMath. 26.As they sat at Supper Iesus tooke bread. &c. In Marke there is the same sense, although not the same wordes: who also for one parte of the Sacrament speaketh more playnely. MarginaliaMar. 14.Iesus takyng bread. &c. After the same sense also writeth Luke. 22. MarginaliaLuke. 22.And when Iesus had taken bread. &c. In the mouth of two or three witnesses sayth the Scripture, standeth all truth. Here we haue three witnesses together, that Christ sayd that to be his body which was geuen for many: and that to bee his bloud whiche should be shed for many: wherby is declared the substance and not onely the efficacy of his body.
[Back to Top]Ergo, it is not true that you say there to be, not the substance of his body, but the efficacy alone therof.
Cran. Thus you gather vpon myne aunswere, as though I dyd meane of the efficacy, and not of the substance of the body: MarginaliaSubstance & efficacie both graunted in the sacrament.but I meane of them both, as well of the efficacy as the substance. And for so much as all thinges come not readily to memory, to a man that shall speak ex tempore, therfore for the more ample and fuller aunswere in the matter, this wrytyng here I do exhibite.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAn other explication for aunswere exhibited in writing, by the Archb.OVr Lord and sauiour Iesus Christ, at the tyme of his Maundy, preparing himselfe to die for our cause, that he might redeme vs from eternall death, to forgeue vs all our