1576 Edition | Book 10 | Page 1395 
MarginaliaAn. 1554. Aprill. Iustine are thus: We are taught that the meate consecrated by the word of prayer, by the which our fleshe and bloud is nourished by communion, is the body and bloude of the same Iesus which was made flesh.
CloseChedsey's quotation from Justin (1563, p. 954-55) - 'We doe teache that Jesus, by whom our fleshe and bloude is ... the same Jesus incarnate' - was altered in the next edition to read: 'We are taught that the meate, consecrated ... the same Jesus made flesh' (1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440). Possibly this is a correction of an inadequate translation.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaCranmer purgeth him selfe. Cran. I dyd not translate it word for word, but onely I gaue the meanyng: and I go nothyng from his meanyng.
Harps. You remember, touchyng Iustine, to whom this Apologie was written, namely to an heathen man. The heathen thought that the Christians came to the Churche to worship bread. Iustine aunswereth, that we come not to common bread, but as to. &c. as is sayd afore. Wey the place well, it is right worthy to be noted: Our flesh is nourished: according to mutation.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaIn eating the sacrament no bread is considered but onely the true body of Christ. Cran. We ought not to cōsider the bare bread: but whosoeuer cōmeth to the sacramēt, eateth the true body of Christ.
West. You haue corrupted Emissenus
Close'Emissene' or 'Emissenus' (1563, p. 955; 1570, p. 1605; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1440) is Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa (or Emissa), now Homs, from c.340 - 359.
Cran. I haue not corrupted it: for it is so in the Decrees.
West. You haue corrupted an other place of Emissenus. For you haue omitted these woordes: MarginaliaDe consecrat. Dist. 2. Quia. Mirare cum reuerendum altare cibis spiritualibus satiandus ascendis: sacrum Dei tui corpus & sanguinem fide respice, honorem mirare, merito continge. &c. That is: Maruell thou when thou commest vp to the reuerend alter to be filled with spirituall meates: looke in fayth to the holy body and bloud of thy God: maruell at his honour: worthely touch him.
[Back to Top]Cran. This booke hath not that.
MarginaliaCranmer charged with false translating. West. Also you haue falsified this place by euil translating Honora corpus Dei tui. i. Honour the body of thy God. You haue translated it: Honora eum qui est Deus tuus. i. Honour hym whiche is thy God. Wheras Emissenus hath not [honour him] but [honour the body of thy God].
[Back to Top]MarginaliaCranmer purgeth hym selfe. Cran. I haue so translated hym, and yet no lesse truely, thē not without a weyghty cause, for els it should not haue ben without daunger, if I had translated it thus: Honour the body of thy God: because of certayne, that, according to the errour of the Anthropomorphites, dreamed that God had a body.
[Back to Top]West. Nay you most of all, haue brought the people into þt errour, whiche so long haue taught that he sitteth at the right hand of God the father: and counted me for an hereticke, because I preached that God had no right hand. Thē I wyll appose you in the very Articles of your fayth.
MarginaliaArgument.Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father.
But God the Father hath no right hand:
Ergo, where is Christ now?
Cran. MarginaliaThe ryght hand of God what it signifieth.I am not so ignoraunt a nouice in the Articles of my faith, but that I vnderstand, that to sit at the right hande of God, doth signifie to be equall in the glory of the father.
West. Now then take this Argument.
Wheresoeuer gods authoritie is, there is Christes body.
But Gods authority is in euery place:
Ergo, what letteth the body of Christ to be in euery place?
MarginaliaCranmer charged with mistrāslating Duns.Moreouer you haue also corrupted Duns.
Cran. That is a great offence, I promise you.
West. For you haue omitted secundum apparentiam. i. as it appeareth. Where hys wordes are these: Et si quæras quare voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem huius articuli, cum verba Scripturæ possint saluari secundum intellectum facilem & veriorem, secundum apparentiam, de hoc articulo. &c. That is: And if you demaund why the church did chuse this so hard an vnderstanding of this Article, where as the words of scripture may be salued after an easie and true vnderstanding (as appeareth) of this article, &c.
[Back to Top]Cran. It is not so.
MarginaliaD. Cranmer chalenged for setting forth the Catechisme in the name of the Conuocation. West. Also you haue set forth a Catechisme, in the name of the Synode of London, and yet there bee 50. which witnessing that they were of the number of that Conuocation, neuer heard one word of this Catechisme.
MarginaliaD. Cranmer purgeth hymselfe concernyng the Catechisme. Cran. I was ignoraunt of the setting to of that title: and as sone as I had knowledge therof, I did not like it. Therfore whē I complayned therof to the Councel, it was aunswered me by them, that the booke was so intituled, because it was set forth in tyme of the Conuocation.
[Back to Top]West. Moreouer, you haue in Duns translated in Romana Ecclesia, pro Ecclesia Catholica. i. In the Churche of Rome, for the Catholicke Church.
Cran. Yea, but he ment the Romish Church.
MarginaliaD. Cranmer charged wyth misunderstanding Tho. Aquinas. West. Moreouer, you haue depraued Saint Thomas, namely where he hath these wordes: In quantum vero est sacrificium habet vim satisfactiuam. Sed in satisfactione attenditur magis affectio offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Vnde Dominus dicit apud Lucam de vidua quæ obtulit duo æra, quòd plus omnibus misit. Quamuis ergo hæc oblatio ex sui quantitate sufficiet ad satisfaciendū pro omni pœna: tamē fit
[Back to Top]satisfactoria illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus secundum quantitatem suæ deuotionis, & non pro tota pœna That is: In asmuch as it is a sacrifice, it hath the power of satisfaction. But in satisfaction the affection of the offerer is more to bee weyed then the quantity of þe oblation. Wherfore the Lord sayd in Lukes Gospell, of the wydow which offered two mites, that shee cast in more then they all. Therfore, although this oblation of the quantity of it selfe will suffice to satisfy for all payne, yet it is made satisfactorye to them, for whome it is offered, or to the offerers, accordinge to the quantitye of theyr Deuotion, and not for all the payne.
[Back to Top]You haue thus turned it: Quod sacrificiū Sacerdotis habet vim satisfactiuam &c. That is, That the sacrifice of the priest hath power of satisfaction. &c. And therefore in thys place you haue chopped in this word [Sacerdotis] of þe Priest, wheras in the translation of al the new testament, you haue not set it, but where Christ was put to death. And againe, where S. Thomas hath [pro omni pœna] for al payn, your booke omitteth many thinges there.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaWeston triumpheth before the victory.Thus you see brethren, the truth stedfast and inuincyble: you see also the craft and deceit of heretickes, the truth may be pressed, but it can not be oppressed: therfore cry altogether: Vincit veritas. i. The truth ouercommeth.
CloseFoxe concluded the account of Cranmer's disputations by transposing a brief description of it to its proper chronological place (textual transposition 16).
CloseIn the Rerum, Foxe's account of Ridley's disputation was based on a single version of Ridley's own narrative of his disputation (Rerum, pp. 660-95). One again, Grindal had obtained a copy of Ridley's account of his disputation in the Bishop's own hand (BL Harley 417, fol. 119r) and once again, it does not seem to have been available to Foxe for the Rerum. In the Actes and Monuments, Foxe continued to rely on this narrative, but he had multiple versions of it. There are a number of different versions of Ridley's narrative which survive in Foxe's papers: BL Lansdowne MS 389, fols. 118r-124v and 130r-134v; ECL MS 262, fols. 3r-15v and 17v-25v; BL Harley MS 422, fols. 54r-58v and (in Latin) fols. 68r-83v. The number of these copies is testimony to Foxe's zeal in obtaining as much material on the Oxford disputations as he could gather; he obtained one copy from Grindal (see 1570, p. 1901).
[Back to Top]As with Cranmer's disputation, the 1563 version of Ridley's disputation has sections of text which are not in the Rerum; almost certainly because Foxe's single copy of Ridley's narrative was defective and also because Foxe had multiple versions on which to draw for the 1563 edition.
THe next day folowing, which was
CloseIn the initial stages, the glosses are less adversarial than in much of the Cranmer section because Ridley leaps in more forcefully and dictates the agenda for a time; the glosses mostly respect and emphasize his divisions and offer commentary on procedure and clarification. Once disputation itself begins, the glosses return to a more familiar pattern, with many logical points (e.g. 'A rule of Logike for confirmation of the argument' (1563), '* The rule of Logicke is this A propositione de tertio adiacente, ad eam quæ est de secundo, cum verbo recto significante existentiam, valet consequentia affirmatiue &c', 'This argument holdeth after the same rule as did the other before', 'This argument is not formall in the 2. figure').
[Back to Top]As with Cranmer, there is one example of Foxe correcting Ridley (in this case clarifiying a point about the beneficiaries of the promise in bread and wine, '* No promise made to bread & wine, as they be common bread and common wine, but as they be sanctified & made sacramēts of the Lords body and bloud, they are not now called bread nor wine, haue a promise annexed to them, or rather (to say the trueth) annexed to the receauers of thē'). Several definitions of obscure terms are in all editions ('Anthropophagi, are a kinde of brutishe people that feed on mens flesh', 'Anagogicall sense is that which hath a high and misticall vnderstanding that lyeth abstruse & profound vnder the externall letter'). A feature emerging for the first time in this section is the taunting of the martyrs' tormentors with their embarrassing past actions ('D. Smith purposing to write for the mariage of Priestes', 'But where were these Iudges in K. Edwardes tyme', 'D. Weston in K. Edwards dayes subscribed' and 'The Iudges * geue an vntrue verdite: for D. Cranmer meaning by the Counsell, spake no word of Ridley'). It may be that Foxe simply took the opportunity as it arose, but it may also be that the margin's accusations partly served to distract the reader from Ridley's cautious response to the question of his involvement in setting forth the catechism.
[Back to Top]This section includes a portion of the 1563 text which is unusually well annotated. This spate of marginalia occurs largely around pp. 961-62 (from the gloss '3'), and does not seem to be focussed on a particular subject (it straddles Ridley's response to the second and third propositions). Many of the references on p. 962 are (unnecessarily, to judge from later practice) repeated pointers to Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10. They give the impression of an uncertain experiment in adding marginalia in this early version, which may be compared with the grounding of much of the later annotation in the layout and other features of 1563.
[Back to Top]As with Cranmer's disputation, several of the glosses offer comments on the sacrament. The gloss 'The Analogie of the sacramēt is the similitude and likenes whiche they haue with the thinges they represent' gives a definition of the analogy of the sacraments, once again emphasising their representative function; the glosses 'The true presence of Christes body in the Supper not denyed' and 'The fayth & confession of D. Ridley in affirming the true presēce in the Sacrament' point to a discussion of the true presence, and to Ridley's belief in it; the gloss 'Christes abode in heauen is no let for him to appeare on earth when he will, but whether he wil, that must be proued. Againe it is one thing to appeare on earth, an other still in the Sacrament, and to be present the same time with his body in heauen, whē he is bodely present in earth' once again points the reader back to the sacramental significance of the discussion of Christ's presence in heaven: these cases are less a matter of comment than of making clear to a less learned reader what was familiar to the disputants. There is a group of references which emphasise the singleness of Christ's sacrifice ('One Christ but not one body, nor after on bodely substance in all places'; 'One Christ and one sacrifice in all places, and how: to wit, christ by veritie the sacrifice by, signification' and 'How one christ is offered in many places at once'): this relates to the implicit opposition between protestant and catholic, the former recognizing the all-sufficiency of a single sacrifice, the latter misled by carnality to endless, unintentionally parodic re-enactments. This also links to the rules of polemical engagement: the importance of presenting oneself as a defender of what is holy and truthful was paramount in mounting these attacks, and the implication that the central rite of the catholic church was a continuous performance of ingratitude and disdain for Christ gave license for just anger.
[Back to Top]The gloss 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua' is a Latin transcript of insults translated in the text; the point of the translation would seem to be to leave the reader in no doubt of the vehemence of the precise terms employed: once again, a contrast is drawn between the moderate and the railing protagonists. See also 'Sacrifice called vnbloudy is nothing els but a representation of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ' and 'D. Weston bloweth vp the triumph' (attacking Weston's arrogance). For examples of 1583 being less well produced than earlier editions, see the glosses 'Christes appearing on the earth sometime, taketh not away his residēce in heauen. How christ appeared in earth', 'Quam sit Stupida & crassa responsio tua', 'Of this Catechisme read before pag. 1357'. The gloss 'The protestantes falsely belyed to teach nothing but a figure in the sacrament' uses 'protestantes', a word not in the text, but perhaps more acceptable (or at least accepted) by 1570.
[Back to Top]
CloseFoxe made some interesting additions to Ridley's disputation in the 1570 edition. The first of these was a brief account of Dr. Richard Smith's career together with a grovelling letter from Smith to Cranmer written in 1550 (see textual variant 55). This letter, with another similar epistle from Smith to Cranmer, written about the same time, was printed in Peter Martyr Virmigli, Defensio D. Petri Martyris Vermelli Florentini ... ad Ricardi Smythaei Angli, olim Theologicae professoris Oxoniensis duos libellos de Caelibatu Sacerdotum, et votis monasticis, nunc primum in luce editu (Basel: Peter Peran, 1559), pp. 645-48. (The letters may well have been given to Martyr by Cranmer himself). Foxe almost certainly translated this letter from Martyr's book.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaA letter of D. Smyth to Doctor Cranmer Archbyshop of Cant. MOst honorable, I commend me vnto your Lordshippe, doyng the same to vnderstande, that I wrote letters to your grace in Ianuary last, and the x. day of February, declaring the causes of my sodain and vnaduised departing from your grace ouer the sea, and desiring your good Lordship of your Charitye toward them that repent their ill Actes, to forgeue me your selfe all that wronge I dyd towardes your Grace, and to obtayne in writinge the Kinges Maiestyes pardon for me in all poyntes concerning hys Lawes: vpon the receipt wherof I would returne again home, and with in halfe an yeare (at the vttermost) afterward, write de Sacerdotum connubijs. &c. MarginaliaD. Smyth purposing to write for the mariage of priestes.a Latin booke that should be a iuste satisfaction for any thinge that I haue wrytten against the same. Reliquaquè omnia dogmata vestra, tum demum libenter amplexurum, vbi Deus mentē meam, vt ea citra conscientiæ læsionem agnoscam, doceamquè. I wrote not this that I want any good liuinge here, but because mine absence out of the Realme, is dishonour to the Kinges highnes, and Realme, and because I must needes (if I tarrye here a quarter of a yeare longer) write an aunswere to your Graces Booke of the Sacrament, and also a booke of common places agaynst all the Doctrine set forth by the kinges Maiestye, which I cannot do with good conscience. Wherfore I beseech your grace helpe mee whom, as soone as ye may conuenyently for Gods sake, and ye shal neuer I trust in God repent that fact.
[Back to Top]Ex vrbe diui Andreæ 14. Februarij. Richardus Smithæus.
And thus much touchyng the forenamed Doctour Richard Smith, beyng set here (as is sayd) to dispute agaynst Byshop Ridley who was brought now the next day after the