1583 Edition | Book 9 | Page 1412 
Close)1519? - 1589) [ODNB]
BA Cambridge 1539; MA 1540; BTh 1547; DTh 1552; master of Peterhouse, Cambridge 1553; dean of Ely 1557; vice-chancellor of Cambridge
In the disputation at Cambridge in 1549, William Glyn answered the second disputation, opposed by Andrew Perne, Edmund Grindal, Edmund Guest and James Pilkington. 1570, pp. 1556-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1382-85.
In the same disputation at Cambridge in 1549, Andrew Perne answered the third disputation, opposed by Thomas Parker, Leonard Pollard, Thomas Vavasour and John Young. 1570, pp. 1556-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1385-88.
Close(1514 - 1581/2) [ODNB]
College head; BA Cambridge 1535; MA 1539; BTh 1546; DTh 1553; vice-chancellor of Cambridge (1553 - 55); regius professor of divinity (1555/6); imprisoned 1558
Young was present at the deathbed of John Redman and discussed matters of religion with him. 1563, pp. 867-70; 1570, pp. 1537-39; 1576, pp. 1310-12; 1583, pp. 1360-62.
After John Redman's death, John Young sent a testimonial letter to John Cheke, praising Redman and his thoughts on religion. 1563, pp. 870-74; 1570, pp. 1539-41; 1576, pp. 1312-14; 1583, pp. 1362-64.
In the disputation at Cambridge in 1549, John Madew answered the first disputation, opposed by William Glyn, Alban Langdale, Thomas Sedgewick and John Young. 1570, pp. 1556-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1376-82.
In the same disputation at Cambridge in 1549, Andrew Perne answered the third disputation, opposed by Thomas Parker, Leonard Pollard, Thomas Vavasour and John Young. 1570, pp. 1556-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1385-88.
John Young was a deponent in the case of Stephen Gardiner. 1563, p. 846.
Doctors Smyth, Chedsey, Standish, Young and Oglethorpe recanted their earlier conservative positions by the last year of the reign of King Edward VI. 1570, p. 1522; 1576, p. 1323; 1583, p. 1373.
Close(c. 1502 - 1555) [ODNB]
Protestant martyr; BA Cambridge 1522, MA 1525, BTh 1537, DTh 1541; master of Pembroke (1540 - 53)
Bishop of Rochester (1547 - 53); bishop of London (1550 - 03) [licence to hold both]
When Nicholas Ridley visited Princess Mary at Hunsdon, she recalled the sermon he preached at the marriage of Elizabeth and Anthony Browne in the presence of King Henry. Ridley offered to preach before her, but she refused. 1570, pp. 1565-66; 1576, pp. 1335-36; 1583, p. 1396.
Charles V requested of Edward VI that his cousin Mary Tudor be allowed to have the mass said in her house. The request was denied, in spite of the strong urgings of Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley. 1563, p. 884; 1570, p. 1484; 1576, p. 1258; 1583, p. 1295.
Stephen Gardiner wrote to Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley while imprisoned in the Fleet. 1563, pp. 732-54; 1570, p. 1522; 1576, p. 1297; 1583, pp. 1340, 1348-50.
Gardiner was released out of the Fleet by a general pardon, but was placed under house arrest for failure to conform. Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Smith and William Cecil were sent to him. He was called before the council. 1563, p. 755; 1570, pp. 1525-26; 1576, p. 1301; 1583, p. 1351.
Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Goodrich, Sir John Cheke, William May and Thomas Wendy, king's visitors, attended the disputation at Cambridge in 1549. Ridley took part in the disputation and made the determination. 1570, pp. 1555-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1376-88.
Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, Sir William Petre, Sir Thomas Smith and William May, dean of St Paul's, were commissioned to examine Edmund Bonner. 1563, p. 697; 1570, p. 1504; 1576, p. 1275; 1583, p. 1312.
Bonner was summoned to appear before the commissioners. He behaved haughtily, ridiculing his accusers and the commissioners, and spoke in favour of the mass. He appeared first on 10 September 1549 before Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Sir William Petre and William May. Sir Thomas Smith was absent. 1563, pp. 698-99; 1570, pp. 1504-06; 1576, pp. 1275-77; 1583, pp. 1312-14.
[Back to Top]Bonner appeared for the second time on 13 September before Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Sir William Petre, Sir Thomas Smith and William May and was further examined. 1563, pp. 699-704; 1570, pp. 1506-08; 1576, pp. 1277-79; 1583, pp. 1314-17.
Bonner appeared for the third time on 16 September before Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Sir Thomas Smith and William May to answer the articles put to him at the previous session. John Hooper and William Latymer also appeared in order to purge themselves against the slanders of Bonner. 1563, pp. 704-709; 1570, pp. 1508-11; 1576, pp. 1279-80; 1583, pp. 1317-22.
[Back to Top]Bonner appeared before the commissioners for the fourth time on 18 September, at which session new articles were drawn up and new witnesses received. 1563, pp. 704-710; 1570, pp. 1508-12; 1576, pp. 1279-81; 1583, pp. 1317-22.
Bonner appeared for the fifth time before the commissioners on 20 September. During an interval, he instructed Gilbert Bourne, his chaplain, Robert Warnington, his commissary, and Robert Johnson, his registrar, to tell the mayor and aldermen of London to avoid reformed preachers. Bonner made his first appellation to the king. As a result of his behaviour during the proceedings, he was committed to the Marshalsea. 1563, pp. 713-717; 1570, pp. 1513-16; 1576, pp. 1282-85; 1583, pp. 1324-26.
[Back to Top]Bonner appeared for the sixth time before the commissioners on 23 September, when he presented a general recusation against all the commissioners and a second appellation to the king. A letter was read from Bonner to the mayor of London, Henry Amcottes, and aldermen. 1563, pp. 717-18; 1570, p. 1516; 1576, p. 1285; 1583, pp. 1326-27.
[Back to Top]Bonner' seventh appearance before the commissioners took place on 1 October. He presented a declaration, an appellation and a supplication to the king. The commissioners pronounced their sentence definitive. Bonner was imprisoned and deprived of his office. 1563, pp. 718-26; 1570, pp. 1516-19; 1576, pp. 1285-88; 1583, pp. 1327-30.
[Back to Top]Ridley replaced Bonner as bishop of London in 1550. He received a letter from the king and privy council directing him to remove and destroy all altars within the churches of his diocese and install communion tables. He carried out a visitation to ensure that churches were conforming to the directive and broke down the wall next to the altar in St Paul's. 1563, pp. 727-28; 1570, pp. 1519-21; 1576, pp. 1288-89; 1583, pp. 1331-32.
[Back to Top]When Sir William Herbert and Sir William Petre went to Stephen Gardiner in the Tower with new articles, they took with them a canon and a civil lawyer: Nicholas Ridley and Richard Goodrich. 1563, p. 768; 1570, p. 1534; 1576, p. 1307; 1583, p. 1357.
After Gardiner's sequestration, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Thomas Goodrich, Henry Holbeach, Sir William Petre, Sir James Hales, Griffith Leyson, John Oliver and John Gosnold were commissioned to examine him. 1563, p. 776; 1570, p. 1535; 1576, p. 1309; 1583, p. 1358.
Close(1499 - 1562) [ODNB]
b. Florence; Augustinian friar; Greek and Hebrew scholar; evangelical reformer
DTh Padua 1525; abbot in Naples; prior at Lucca
From 1542 in exile: Strasbourg (1542-47); regius professor of divinity at Oxford (1548-49); Strasbourg (1553-56); Zurich (1556-death)
Peter Martyr was brought to Oxford by Edward Seymour. 1563, p. 684; 1570, p. 1486; 1576, p. 1260; 1583, p. 1296.
Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius were welcomed as scholars during the reign of Edward VI. 1570, p. 1552; 1576, p. 1323; 1583, p. 1373.
Peter Martyr disputed with William Chedsey and others at Oxford over transubstantiation in 1549. 1570, p. 1519; 1576, p. 1288; 1583, p. 1330.
Doctors Tresham, Chedsey and Morgan Philips were the chief opponents of Peter Martyr in the disputations at Oxford in 1549. 1570, pp. 1552-55; 1576, pp. 1323-26; 1583, pp. 1373-76.
Close(d. 1573) [ODNB]
Roman Catholic theologian; BA Cambridge 1530; MA 1533; BTh 1545; DTh 1554; deacon in Lincoln 1537; Lady Margaret professor of divinity (1554 - 58); regius professor of divinity (1557 - 61); refused the oath of supremacy in 1559, deprived; imprisoned 1569
In the disputation at Cambridge in 1549, John Madew answered the first disputation, opposed by William Glyn, Alban Langdale, Thomas Sedgewick and John Young. 1570, pp. 1556-57; 1576, pp. 1326-28; 1583, pp. 1376-82.
ticle of fayth: He ascended into heauen, and sitteth on the right hand, &c.
MarginaliaAugust super Ioan. tract. 30. Tract. 50.Augustine sayth: The Lord is aboue euen to the end of the world: but yet the veritie of the Lord is here also. For his body wherein he rose agayne, must needes be in one place, but his veritie is spread abroad euery where.
Also in another place he sayth: Let the godly receyue also that Sacrament, but let them not be carefull (speaking there of the presence of his body.) For as touchyng hys maiesty, his prouidence, his inuisible and vnspeakeable grace, these woordes are fulfilled which he spake: MarginaliaMath. 28.I am with you vnto the ende of the world. But accordyng to the flesh which he took vp? hym, accordyng to that which was borne of the Virgin, was appreh?ded of the Iewes, was fastened to a tree, taken downe agayne from the crosse, lapped in lynnen clothes, was buried and rose agayne, and appeared after hys resurrection, so you shall not haue me always with you. And why? because that as concernyng his flesh he was conuersant with hys Disciples fourty dayes, and they accompanying hym, seyng hym, but not followyng hym, he went vp into heauen, and is not here, for he sitteth at the right hand of hys Father, and yet he is here, because he is not departed hence, as concernyng the presence of hys diuine Maiestie.
[Back to Top]Marke and consider well what Saint Augustine sayeth: He is ascended into heauen, and is not here, sayth he. Beleeue not them therefore which say that he is yet here still in the earth.
MarginaliaAugust. Epist. 57.Moreouer, Doubt not (sayeth the same Augustine) but that Iesus Christ as concernyng the nature of hys manhoode, is there from whence he shall come. And remember well and beleeue the profession of a Christian man: that he rose from death, ascended into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, and from that place, and none other (not from the aultares) shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead, and he shal come as the Angell sayd, as he was seene go into heauen: that is to say, in the same fourme and substaunce, vnto the which he gaue immortality, but chaunged not nature. After this fourme (meanyng hys humaine nature) we may not thynke that it is euery where.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaAugust. Ibid.And in the same Epistle he saith: Take away from the bodies the limitation of places and they shall be no where: and because they are no where, they shall not be at all.
MarginaliaVigilius contra Eutych? lib. 4.Vigilius sayth: If the word and the flesh be both of one nature, seeyng that the word is euery where, why then is not the flesh also euery where? For when it was in earth, then verely it was not in heauen: and now when it is in heauen, it is not surely in earth. And it is so certayne, that it is not in earth, that as c?cernyng the same we looke for hym from heauen, whom as concernying the word, we beleeue to be with vs in earth.
[Back to Top]Also the same Vigilius sayth: Which thyngs seeyng they be so, the course of the scripture must be searched of vs, and many testimonies must be gathered to shew plainly what a wickednes and sacriledge it is to referre those thyngs to the property of the diuine nature, which do onely belong to the nature of the fleshe: and contrarywyse, to apply those thinges vnto the nature of the fleshe, which doe properly belong to the diuine nature. Which thyng the transubstantiatours doe, whilest they affirme Christes body not to be conteyned in any one place, and ascribe that to hys humanity, which properly belongeth to hys diuinitie: as they do which will haue Christes body to be in no one certayne place limited.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe thyrd Conclusi?.Now in the latter conclusion concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth vpon the first, I will in fewe wordes declare what I thinke. For if we did once agree in that, the whole controuersie in the other would soone be at an end: Two things there be which do presuade me that this conclusion is true: that is, certayne places of the scripture, & also certayne testimonies of the fathers. Saint Paul saith, Heb. 9. MarginaliaHeb 9.Christ beyng come an high Priest of good thinges to come, by a greater and more perfecter tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neyther by the bloud of Gotes and Calues, but by his owne bloud,MarginaliaSacrifice of Christes body. entred once into the holye place, and obtayned for vs eternall redemption, &c. and now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of hymselfe.
[Back to Top]And agayne: Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many.
Moreouer he sayth: MarginaliaHeb. 10.With one offering hath he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified.
MarginaliaChrist neuer offered but once.These scriptures do perswade me to beleeue that there is no other oblation of Christ (albeit I am not ignoraunt there are many sacrifices) but that which was once made vpon the crosse.
MarginaliaAugust. ad Bonif. Epist. 23. August. Quest. 61.The testimonies of the auncient Fathers which confirme the same, are out of Augustine ad Bonifac. Epist. 23. Agayne in his booke of 43. Questions, in the 61. Question. MarginaliaAugust. c?tra Faustum cap. 21.Also in his 20. booke agaynst Faustus the Manichie, cha. 21. And in the same booke agaynst the sayd Faustus, cap. 28. thus he writeth: Now the Christians keepe a memoriall of the sacri-MarginaliaAnno. 1549.fice past, with a holy oblation and participation of the body and bloud of Christ.
[Back to Top]Fulgentius in hys booke De Fide, calleth the same oblation a Commemoration. And these thynges are sufficient for this tyme for a scholasticall determination of these matters.
OUer and beside these disputations aboue mentioned, other disputations also were holden at Cambridge shortly after by Martin Bucer vppon these conclusions followyng.
CloseThe 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.
MarginaliaConclusions disputed at C?bridge by Martin Bucer.1. The Canonicall bookes of holy Scripture alone, do sufficiently teach the regenerated all thinges necessarily belongyng vnto saluation.
2. There is no Church in earth which erreth not as well in faith as in maners.
3. We are so iustified freely of God, that before our iustification it is sinne, and prouoketh Gods wrath agaynst vs, what so euer good worke we seeme to doe. Then beyng iustified we do good workes.
CloseIn 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.
[Back to Top]
CloseDialogues 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.
[Back to Top]William Wizeman, SJCorpus Christi ChurchNew York CityUSA
CloseThe 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.
[Back to Top]
CloseIn 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.
[Back to Top]
CloseThe 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.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaA Dialogue betwene Custome and Verjtye.CVstome. I maruell much what madnes is cropen into those mens harts, which now a days are not ashamed so violently to tread downe the liuely worde of God, yea and impudently to deny God hymselfe.
Veritie. God forbid there should be any such. In deede I remember that the Romish bishop was wont to haue the Bible for his footestoole, & so to tread downe Gods worde euermore when he stood at his Masse.
CloseVeritie 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.
[Back to Top]Cust. No mo say you? Yes doubtles there are an hundreth thousand moe, and your parte it is Veritie to withstande them.
Veri. As touching my part, you know it agreeth not with my nature to stand with falsehood. But what are they, disclose them if you will haue them reprooued.
Custome. What? are you so great a stranger in these quarters? Heare you not how that m? do daily speake against the Sacrament of the aulter, denying it to be the real body of Christ?
CloseCustom remarks that religious truth is being denied by those who deny Christ's corporeal presence in the Eucharist.
Close'In sooth' - truly.
CloseProtestants 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.
Cust. Then this? why, what can they possible say more?
Veri. Yes there are many things worse then this: for this seemeth in some part to be tollerable.
Cust. What? me thinketh you dally
Close'dally' - tease; custom is shocked by Veritie saying the denial of the Catholic view of the Eucharist is a small matter.
Veritie. They deny it not so much as I can gather by your wordes.
Custome. Nay then fare you wel: I perceyue you wil take