Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1370 [1345]

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

Marginalia1553.that he might wel say so.

MarginaliaM. Cheyny and Watson disputeth.Then he beganne with M. Watson after this sort: You said, that M. Haddon was vnmeete to dispute, because he granteth not the natural & real presence: but I say you are much more vnmeete to answeare, because you take awaye the substance of the sacrament.

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

[Back to Top]

Then he told them what he meant by his subscribyng to the real presence, far otherwise then they supposed. So then he went forward and prosecuted M. Haddons argument in prouing that οὐσία was a substāce, vsing the same reason that M. Haddon did before hym: and when he had receiued the same answere also that was made to M. Haddon, he said it was but a leude refuge, when they could not answere, to deny the Author, & proued the author to be a catholike doctor: and that being proued, he cōfirmed that was said of the nature & substance, further. The similitude of Thodoret is this quoth he: As the token of Christes body & bloud after the inuocation of the priest, do chāge their names, & yet continue the same substaunce, so the body of Christ after his ascension changed his name, & was called immortal, yet had it his former fashion, figure, & circūscription, & to speake at one word, the same substāce of his body. MarginaliaThe argument of Theodoret renued by M. Cheyny.Therfore said M. Cheyney, if in the former part of the similitude you deny the same substance to cōtinue, thē in the latter part of the similitude which agreeth with it, I wyll deny the body of Christ after his ascension to haue the former nature & substāce. But that wer a great heresie: therfore it is also a great heresie to take away the substance of bread and wine after the sanctification.

[Back to Top]

Thē was M. Watson enforced to say, that the substāce of the body in the former part of the similtude brought in by him, did signifie quantitie & other accidents of the sacramentall tokens which be seene, & not the very substance of the same: and therfore Theodoret saith: Quæ videntur. &c. that is, Those things which be sene. For according to Philosophie, þe accidents of things be sene, & not the substances.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Cheyny appealed to the Lordes.Then M. Cheyney appealed to the honorable men, & desired that they should geue no credite vnto thē in so saying: for if they should so thinke as they would teach, after their Lordships had ridden fourty myles on horsebacke (as their busines doth sometyme require) they should not be able to say at night, that they saw their horses al the day, but only the colour of their horses: & by his reason Christ must go to schole and learne of Aristotle to speake. For when he saw Nathanael vnder the figge tree, if Aristotle had stand by, he would haue said no Christ, thou sawest not hym, but the colour of hym. After this Watson said, what if it were graunted that Theodoret was on the other side? 

Commentary  *  Close

The statement that a passage in Theodoret was on 'their side' (Trew report, sig. D4v; 1563, p. 913 and 1570, p. 1576 [recte 1577]) was misprinted to read 'the other side' in 1576 (p. 1345). This error was reprinted in 1583 (p. 1415).

wher as they had one of that opinion, there were an hundred on the other side.

[Back to Top]

Then the Prolocutor called for M. Morgan to helpe: MarginaliaMorgan is called for to helpe at a pinch. and said, that Theodoret did not more then he might lawfully do. For first he graunted the truth, and the for feare of suche as were not fully instructed in the faith, he spake, αἰνιγματικως, that is couertly, & in a mysterie: and this was lawfull for hym to do. For first he graūted the truth, & called thē the body of Christ, & the bloud of Christ. Then afterward he seemed to geue somewhat to the senses and to reason: but that Theodoret is of the same mind that they were of, the words folowing, quoth he, do declare. For that which foloweth, is a cause of that which went before, and therfore he saith: The immortalitie &c. Wherby it doth appeare, that he meant the diuine nature, & not the humane. MarginaliaMorgan is taken with false alleging of the texte.Then was Morgā takē with misalleging of the text. For the booke had not this word (for.) For the Greke word did rather signifie (truely) & not (for) so that it might manifestly appeare that it was the beginnyng of a newe matter, & not a sentence rendring a cause of that he had said before.

[Back to Top]

Thē was it said by Watson againe: Suppose that Theodoret be with you, whiche is one that we neuer hearde of printed, but two or three yeares ago: Yet he is but one, and what is one against the whole consent of the church? After this M. Cheyney inferred that not onely Theodoret was of that mynd, that the substance of bread and wine doo remaine, but diuers other also, & specially Irenæus, who making mention of this sacrament, saith thus: MarginaliaIrenæus Lib. 5. contra Valentium.When the cup whiche is myngled with wyne, and the bread that is broken, do receiue the word of God, it is made the Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ, by the which the substaunce of our flesh is nourished, and doth consist. If the thankes geuing do nourishe our body, then there is some substaunce besides Christes body.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWatson.To the which reason both Watson and Morgan aunsweared, that Ex quibus, By the which, in the sentence of Irenæus was referred to the next antecedent, that is, to the body and bloud of Christ, and not to the wine which is in the cup, and the bread that is broken.

MarginaliaM. Cheyny.Maister Cheyney replyed, that it was not the body of Christ which norished our bodyes. And let it be that Christes flesh nourish to immortalitie, yet it doth not answeare that argument, although it be true, no more then that answeare which was made to my allegation out of S. Paul: The bread which we breake. &c. wt certayn other like: wherunto you answeared, that bread was not taken there in his proper signification, but for that it had bene: no more then the rod of Aaron which was taken for the serpent, because it had bene a serpent. After this M. Cheyney brought in Hesychius, and vsed the same reason that he dyd of the custome of burnyng of Symboles, and he asked them what was burnt. M. Watson saide, we muste not enquire nor aske, but if there were any fault, impute it to Christ. Then said M. Cheyney, wherof came those ashes? not of a substance? or can any substance aryse of accidents?

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaHarpesfield called in to helpe Watson.Then was M. Harpsfield called in to see what he could say in the matter. Who told a fayre tale of the omnipotencie of God, and of the imbecility and weaknes of mans reasons not able to attaine to godly things. And he said, that it was conuenient what soeuer we saw, fealt, or tasted, not to trust our senses. MarginaliaHere is goodly stuffe as it were out of the Legend of Lyes.And he told a tale out of s. Cyprian, how a woman saw the sacrament burnyng in her coffer, & that which burned there, quoth Harpsfield, burneth here, & becommeth ashes. But what that was that burnt, he coulde not tell. But M. Cheyney continued styll, & forced them with this question, what it was that was burnt? It was either (said he) the substance of bread, or els the substaunce of the body of Christ, which were too much absurditie to graunt. At length they answeared, that it was a myracle. Whereat M. Cheyney smiled, & sayd, that he could then say no more.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWeston would know whether they were sufficiently aunswered, when he and his had aunswered no argument.Then D. Weston asked of the company there, whether those men were sufficiently answeared, or no? Certayne Priestes cried: Yea, but they were not heard at al, for the great multitude which cryed, No, no. Which cry was heard & noysed almost to the end of Paules. Wherat D. Weston beyng much moued, answeared bytterly, that he asked not the iudgment of the rude multitude & vnlearned people, but of them which were of the house. Then asked he of master Haddon & his felowes, whether they would answere them other three dayes. Haddon, Cheyney, and Elmar said, No. But MarginaliaM. Philpot.the Archdeacon of Winchester stood vp and said, that they should not say but they should be answeared, & though al other dyd refuse to answeare, yet he would not, but offered to answeare thē al, one after an other: MarginaliaMarke Westons impudence.with whose proffer the Prolocutor was not contented, but rayled on hym, & said that he should go to Bedlem. To whom the Archdeacon soberly made this answeare: that he was more worthy to be sent thyther, who vsed hym self so ragingly in that disputation, without any indifferent equalitie. Then rose D. Weston vp, and said.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaA strong argument of Weston.Al the cōpany hath subscribed to our Article, sauing only these men which you see. What their reasons are, you haue heard. MarginaliaWhere he is not able to aunswere he would outface.We haue answeared them three dayes, vpon promise (as it pleased hym to descant, without truth, for no suche promise was made) that they should answere vs againe as lōg (as þe order of disputation doth require:) and if they be able to defend their doctrine, let them so do.

[Back to Top]

Then M. Elmar stood vp and proued how vaine a man Weston was: MarginaliaM. Elmars reasons why they would not aunswere.for he affirmed that they neuer promised to dispute, but only to open & testifie to the world their consciences: For when they were required to subscribe, they refused, & said that they would shew good reasons which moued them that they could not with their consciences subscribe, as they had partly already done, and were able to do more sufficiently: therfore (quoth he) it hath bene yl called a disputation, and they worthy to be blamed that were the authors of that name. For we meant not to dispute, nor now meane not to answeare, before our argumentes (quoth he) which we haue to propound, be soluted, according as it was appointed: Fro by answering we should but incomber our selues, and profite nothing, since the matter is already decreed vpon & determined, what soeuer we shall proue or dispute to the contrary.

[Back to Top]
¶ The acte of the sixt day.

MarginaliaThe vi Acte or Session.ON Monday folowing, beyng the. xxx. of October, the Prolocutor demaunded of Iohn Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester, whether he would answere in the questions before propounded to their obiections, or no? To whom he made this answeare, that he would willyngly so doo if accordyng to their former determination, they woulde first

[Back to Top]
answere
HHHh.iij.
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