Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1614 [1552]

Quene Mary. Disputation in the Conuocation house about the reall presence.

MarginaliaAn. 1553.tooke the day before in hand to proue, that Marginaliaοὐσία. οὐσία in þe sentence of Theodoret brought in by M. Cheyny, must nedes signify substaunce and not accidence. Whose reasons and approbations, because they were all grounded & brought out of the Greke, I doe passe ouer for that they wante their grace in English, and also their proper vnderstandyng. But hys allegations so incombred M. Moreman, MarginaliaMoreman desireth a day to imagine some craftie shifte. that he desired a day to ouer vewe them, for at that instāt he was without a conuenient aunswere.

[Back to Top]

Then dyd the Prolocutor call M. Haddon Deane of Exeter & Chaplain to the Duke of Suffolke, who prosecuted Theodoretes authoritie in confirmyng M. Elmars Argument. To whom Doct. Watson tooke vpon hym to geue aunswere: MarginaliaWatson confounded by M. Haddon. who after long talke was so confounded that he was not able to aunswere to the word Mysterium. But for asmuch as he seemed to doubt therin, M. Haddon tooke out of hys bosome a Latine author to confirme hys saying, and shewed the same to M. Watson, askyng hym whether he thought the translation to be true, or that the Printer were in any fault. There may be a fault in the Printer, quoth Watson, for I am not remembred of this word. MarginaliaM. Watson for a bare shift, putteth a fault in the Printer. Then did Maister Haddon take out of his bosome a Greke booke, wherein he shewed forth with hys finger the same wordes, which M. Watson could not deny. Hys Argumentes further I omyt to declare at large, because they were for the most part in Greke, about the bultyng out of the true signification of οὐσία.  

Commentary  *  Close

The text reads (1563, p. 912; 1570, p. 1576; 1576, p. 1344; and 1583, p. 1414) that James Haddon's arguments on the fourth day of the 1553 Convocation, relating to a passage in Theodoret, would not be repeated because they were in Greek. This abridgement was Philpot's, and Foxe was merely repeating it (see Trew report, sigs. C8r-D1v). But Foxe had an account of this expurgated portion of the debate which he never printed, and it survives in his papers (BL Harley MS 422, vols. 38r-40r. This document was printed in R. W. Dixon, A History of the Church of England (6 vols), London, 1884-1902, IV, pp. 81-85.

[Back to Top]

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Pearne agaynst transubstantiation.Then stept forth M. Perne and in Argument made declaration of his minde against transubstantiatiō, & confirmed the sayinges and authorities alledged by M. Elmar and M. Haddon. To whom the Prolocutor aunswered saying: I much maruell, M Perne, that you will say thus, for somuch as on Friday last you subscribed to the contrary. Which his saying M. Elmar dyd mislike, saying to the Prolocutor that hee was to blame so to reprehend any man, partly for that this house (quoth he) is an house of free liberty for euery man to speake his conscience, and partly for that you promised yesterday that notwithstandyng any man had subscribed, yet he should haue free lyberty to speake his mynd. And for that the night did approch and the tyme was spent, the Prolocutor MarginaliaD. Weston prayseth their learning to flatter them, but he aunswereth not their argumentes. geuyng them prayses for their learnyng, did yet notwithstādyng conclude that all reasonyng set apart the order of the holy Church must be receyued, and all thynges must be ordered therby.

[Back to Top]
¶ The Acte of the v. day.

MarginaliaOctob. 27.ON Friday the xxvij. of October, Doct. Weston the Prolocutor dyd first propounde the matter, shewyng þt the conuocatiō had spent ij. dayes in disputatiō already about one onely Doctor, which was Theodoret, & about one only word, which was οὐσία. Yet were they come the thyrd day to aunswere all thinges that could be obiected, so that they would shortly put out theyr Argumētes. So MarginaliaM. Haddon Deane of Exeter disputeth agaynst M. Watson, Morgan, and Harpsfield. M. Haddon Deane of Exceter, desired leaue to appose M. Watson, which with ij. other mo, that is Morgan & Harpsfield, was appointed to aūswere. M. Haddon demaunded this of him, whether any substaūce of bread or wyne dyd remayne after the consecration. Then M. Watson asked of him agayn, whether he thought there to be a reall presence of Christes body or no? M. Haddon sayd, it was not meete nor orderlike, that he which was appoynted to be Respondent, should be Opponent, and he whose duety was to obiect, should aunswere. Yet M. Watson a long while would not agree to aunswere, but that thyng first beyng graunted hym. At last an order was set, and M. Haddon had leaue to go forward with his Argument.

[Back to Top]

Then he proued by Theodoretes wordes, a substance of bread and wine to remaine. For these are his wordes: MarginaliaThe words of Theodoretus alleaged. A Popish distinction betwene substance and essence. The same they vvere before the sanctificatiō, vvhich they are after. M. Watson sayd that Theodoret ment not the same substance, but the same essence. Wherupon they were dryuen agayne vnto the discussyng of the Greke word οὐσία, and M. Haddon proued it to meane a substaunce, both by the Etymology of the word, and by the wordes of the Doctor. For οὐσία, (quoth he) commeth of the participle ών, which descendeth of the verbe εἰμὶ, and so commeth the noune οὐσία, which signifieth substance.

[Back to Top]

Then M. Watson aunswered that it had not that signification onely. But M. Haddon proued that it must nedes so signifie in that place. Then he asked Watson when the bread & wyne became Symboles? wherunto he aunswered: after the consecration and not not before. Then gathered M. Haddon this reason out of his author.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaArgument of M. Haddon.Da-The same thyng, sayth Theodoret, that the bread and


wyne were before they were Symboles, the same
they remayne stil in nature and substance, after theyare Symboles.
ti-Bread and wyne they were before:
si.Therfore brad and wyne they are after.

MarginaliaWatson is driuen to a shamefull shift, to deny the author when he can not aunswere.Then M. Watson fell to the deniall of the author, and sayd he was a Nestorian: & he desired that he might aunswere to M. Cheyny, which stode by, for that he was more meete to dispute in the matter, because he had graunted and subscribed vnto the reall presence. MarginaliaMaister Cheyny. M. Cheyny desired patience of the honourable men to heare hym, trustyng that he should so open the matter that the veritie should appeare: protestyng furthermore, that hee was no obstinate nor stubburne man, but would be conformable to all reasō: and if they by their learnyng, which he acknowledged to be much more then his, could aūswere his reasons, then hee would bee ruled by them, and say as they sayd: for he would be no author of schisme, nor hold any thyng contrary to the holy mother the Church which is Christes spouse. Doct. Weston liked this well, and commended hym highly, saying that he was a well learned, and a sober man, and well exercised in all good learnyng and in the Doctours, and finally a man meete for his knowledge, to dispute in that place: I pray you heare him, quoth he. Thē M. Cheyny desired such as there were present to pray two wordes with hym vnto God, and to say, MarginaliaMaister Cheynyes prayer. vincat Veritas, let the veritie take place & haue the victory: and all that were present cried with a loude voyce, vincat Veritas, vincat Veritas.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWeston.Then said Doct. Weston to him, that it was hypocriticall. Men may better say (quoth hee) vicit Veritas, truth hath gottē the victory. Maister Cheyny sayd agayne, if he would geue hym leaue, hee would bryng it to that poynt that he might well say so.

MarginaliaMaister Cheyny & Watson disputeth.Then hee began with M. Watson after this sort. You sayd that M. Haddon was vnmeete to dispute, because he graunteth not the naturall and reall presence: but I say you are much more vnmeete to aunswere because you take away the substance of the Sacrament.

Maister Watson said, MarginaliaMaister Haddon chalenged for subscribing to the reall presence. he had subscribed to the real presence, and should not go away from that. So sayd Weston also and the rest of the Priestes, in so much that for a great while hee could haue no leaue to say any more till the Lordes spake and willed that he should be heard.

[Back to Top]

Then he told them what he ment by his subscribyng to the reall presence, farre othrewise then they supposed. So then he went forward and prosecuted M. Haddons Argument in prouing that οὐσία was a substance, vsing the same reason that M. Haddon did before hym: and whē hee had receiued the same aunswere also that was made to M. Haddon, he sayd it was but a leude refuge, whē they could not aūswere to deny the author, and proued the authour to be a Catholicke Doctor: & that being proued, he confirmed that was said of the nature and substance, further. The similitude of Theodoret is this, quoth he. As the tokē of Christes body & bloud after the inuocation of the Priest, do chaūge their names & yet cōtinue the same substance, so þe body of Christ after hys ascensiō chaūged his name and was called immortal, yet had it his former fashion, figure and circumscription, and to speake at one word, the same substance of his body. MarginaliaThe argument of Theodoret renued by Maister Cheyny. Therfore sayd M. Cheyny, if in the former part of the similitude you deny the same substance to continue, then in the latter part of the similitude which agreeth with it, I will deny the body of Christ after his Ascension to haue the former nature & substance. But that were a great heresie: therfore it is also a great heresie to take away the substaunce of bread and wyne after the sanctification.

[Back to Top]

Then was M. Watson enforced to say that the substāce of the body in the former part of the similitude brought in by him, did signifie quantitie and other accidences of the Sacramental tokens which be seene, and not the very substaunce of the same: and therfore Theodoret sayth: Quæ videntur. &c. that is, those thynges vvhich bee seene. For accordyng to Philosophy, the accidences of thynges be seene and not the substaunces.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaMaister Cheyny appealed to the Lordes.Then M. Cheyny appealed to the honorable men, and desired that they should geue no credite vnto them in so saying: for if they should so thynke as they would teach, after their Lordships had rydden fourty myles on horsebacke (as their busines doth sometime require) they should not be able to say at night that they saw their horses all the day, but onely the colour of their horses: and by his reason Christ must go to schole and learne of Aristotle to speake. For when he saw Nathanaell vnder the

[Back to Top]
figge
Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield