Critical Apparatus for this Page
View an Image of this PageCattley Pratt ReferencesCommentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Henry Morgan
Person and Place Index  *  Close
Henry Morgan

(d. 1559)

Bishop of St David's (1554 - 1559). (DNB)

Henry Morgan was appointed to support Thomas Watson in the disputes in the 1553 convocation. He debated with James Haddon, Richard Cheney and debated very extensively with John Philpot (1563, pp. 912-16; 1570, pp. 1576-78; 1576, pp. 1344-47; 1583, pp. 1415-17).

He was appointed Bishop of St David's c. January 1554, (1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1369; 1583, p. 1467).

Together with Edmund Bonner and Gilbert Bourne, Morgan condemned Thomas Tomkins on 9 February 1555. 1563, p. 1103; 1570, p. 1712; 1576, pp. 1461-62; 1583, p. 1535.

He interrogated and tried Robert Ferrar in Carmarthen 26 February - 11 March 1555. Morgan condemned Ferrar on 13 March 1555. 1563, pp. 1098-1100; 1570, pp. 1723-24; 1576, pp. 1471-72; 1583, pp. 1554-55.

Philpot's eighth examination was before Bonner, John Harpsfield, St David's, Mordant and others. 1563, pp. 1419-20, 1570, pp. 1982-83, 1576, pp. 1705-06, 1583, p. 1814.

John Rough, in the presence of the bishop of London, the bishop of St David's and John Feckenham, was degraded and condemned. 1563, p. 1648, 1570, p. 2227, 1576, p. 1923, 1583, p. 2030.

After his condemnation of Ferrar, Henry Morgan fell ill and suffered greatly until his death. 1570, p. 2298, 1576, p. 1990, 1583, p. 2101.

He died after Queen Mary. 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1990, 1583, p. 2101.

[1563, p. 1704, incorrectly lists him among those who died before Queen Mary.]

1439 [1415]

Queene Mary. Disputation in the Conuocation house about the reall presence.
The acte of the fift day.

MarginaliaAnno 1554. MarginaliaOctober 27.ON Friday the 27. of Octob. D. Weston the Prolocutor did first propounde the matter, shewing that the Conuocation had spent 2. dayes in disputation already aboute one only doctor, which was Theodoret, & about one onely worde, which was οὐσία. Yet were they come the 3. daye to answer al things that could be obiected, so that they would shortly put out their argumēts. MarginaliaM. Haddon Deane of Exceter disputeth against M. Watson, Morgan and Harpsfield.So M. Haddon Deane of Exeter, desired leaue to appose M. Watson, which wyth 2. other mo, that is, Morgan & Harpsfield, was apoynted to answer. M. Haddon demaunded this of him, whether any substāce of bread or wine did remaine after the consecration. Then Master Watson asked of him againe, whether he thought there to be a reall presence of Christes body or no? M. Haddon saide, it was not meete nor orderlike, that hee which was appoynted to be respondent, should be opponent, & he whose duty was to obiect, shuld answer. Yet M. Watson a long while would not agree to answer, but that thing first being granted him. At last an order was set, and M. Haddon had leaue to go forwarde with his argument.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe wordes of Theodoretus alleaged.Then he prooued by Theodorets words, 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 405, fn 2

Dial. vol. iv. p. 84. edit. Sirmond: and vol. iv. edit. Schulze. Halæ, 1776. - ED.

a substance of breade and wine to remaine. For these are his wordes: The same they were before the sanctification, whiche they are after. M. Watson sayde, that Theodoret meant not the same substance, but the same essence. MarginaliaA popish distinction betweene substāce and essence.Whereupon they were driuen againe vnto the discussing of the Greek woorde οὐσία, and M. Haddon prooued it to meane a substaunce, bothe by the Etimologie of the word, and by the wordes of the Doctor. For οὐσία (quoth he) cōmeth 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 answeared that it had not that signification onely. But M.Haddon prooued þt it must nedes so signifie in that place. Then hee asked Watson when the bread & wine became Symboles? Wherunto he answered: after the consecration and not before. Then gathered M. Haddon this reason out of hys author.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaArgument of M. Haddon.Da-
The same thing, saieth Theodoret, that the bread and
wine were before they were Symboles, the same
they remaine still in nature and substance, after they
are Symboles.
ti-Bread and wine they were before:
si.Therefore bread and wine they are after.

MarginaliaWatson is driuē to a shamefull shift, to deny the author when he cannot aunswer.Then M. Watson fell to the deniall of the author, and said he was a Nestorian: and he desired þt he might answer to master Cheiney, whyche stoode by, for that he was more meete to dispute in the matter, because he had granted and subscribed vnto the real presence. MarginaliaM. Cheyney.M. Cheyney desired pacience of the honorable men to heare hym, trusting that he should so open the matter, that the veritie should appeare: protesting furthermore, that he was no obstinate nor stubburne man, but would be conformable to all reason: and if they by their learning, which he acknowledged to be much more then his, could answer his reasons, then he would be ruled by them, and say as they sayd: for he would be no author of schisme, nor hold any thing cōtrary to the holy mother the church, which is Christes spouse. D. Weston liked this well, and commended him highly, saying that he was a well learned and a sober man, & well exercised in all good learning, and in the Doctors, and finallye a man meete for his knowledge to dispute in that place: I pray you heare him, quoth he. Then Master Cheiney desired such as there were present to pray 2. words with him vnto God, and to say, MarginaliaM. Cheynyes prayer.Vincat veritas, Lette the veritie take place, and haue the victorie: and all that were present cried with a loud voyce, Vincat veritas, vincat veritas.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWeston.Then sayde D. Weston to him, that it was hypocriticall. Men may better say (quoth he) Vincit veritas, Trueth hath gotten the victorie. Master Cheyny sayd againe, if he woulde geue hym leaue, he woulde bryng it to that poynte that he might wel say so.

MarginaliaM. Cheny and Watson disputeth.Then he began wyth M. Watson after thys sorte: you sayd, that M. Haddon was vnmete to dispute, because hee graunteth not the naturall and real presence: but I say you are muche more vnmeete to aunswere, because you take away the substance of the sacrament.

M. Watson said, MarginaliaM. Haddon chalenged for subscribing to the reall presence.he had subscribed to the real presence, & should not go away from that. So sayde Weston also, & the rest of the Priestes, in so muche 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 tolde them what hee meant by his subscribing to the reall presence, farre otherwyse then they supposed. So then he went forwarde, and prosecuted M. Haddons argument in prouing that οὐσία was a substance, vsing the

same reason that M. Haddon did before him: and when he had receiued the same aunswere also that was made to M. Haddon, he said it was but a leud refuge, when they could not answer, to deny the author, & proued the author to be a catholike doctor: and that being prooued, he confirmed that was saide of the nature and substance, further. MarginaliaThe argument of Theodoret renued by M. Cheyny.The similitude of Theodorete is this, quoth he: As the token of Christes body and bloud after the inuocation of the Prieste, doe change their names, & yet continue the same substaunce, so the body of Christ after his ascension changed his name, & was called immortall, yet had it his former fashion, figure, & circumscription, and to speake at one word, the same substance of his body. Therefore said M. Cheiney, if in the former part of the similitude you denye the same substaunce to continue, then in þe later parte of the similitude which agreeth with it, I wil deny the body of Christ after his ascensiō to haue the former nature & substance. But þt were a great heresy: therefore it is also a great heresye to take awaye the substance of bread and wine after the sanctification.

[Back to Top]

Then was M. Watson enforced to saye, that the substaunce of the bodye in the former parte of the similitude brought in by him, did signifie quantitie & other accidentes of the sacramentall tokens which be seene, and not the very substance of the same: and therfore Theodoret saith, Quæ videntur. &c. that is, Those things which be seene. For according to Philosophie, the accidentes of things be seene, and not the substances.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Cheyny appealed to the Lordes.Then M. Cheiney appealed to the honorable mē, and desired that they shoulde geue no credite to them in so saying: for if they should so thinke as they woulde teache, after theyr Lordshippes had ridden 40. miles on horsebacke (as their busines doth sometime require) they should not be able to say at night, that they sawe their horses all þe day, but only the colour of theyr horsses: and by hys reason Christe must go to schole & learne of Aristotle to speake. For when he saw Nathanaell vnder the fig tree, if Aristotle had stand by, he would haue said no Christe, thou sawest not him, but the colour of him. After this Watson sayde, 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).

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

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaMorgan is called for to helpe at a pinche.Then the Prolocutor called for M. Morgan to helpe: and sayd, that Theodoret did not more then he might lawfully do. For first he graunted the truthe, and then for feare of suche as were not fully instructed in the faythe, he spake, αἰνιγματικως, that is, couertly, and in a mysterie: and thys was lawfull for him to do, for first he graunted the trueth, and called them the body of Christ, & bloud of Christ. Then afterward he seemed to geue somwhat to the sences, and to reason, but that Theodorete is of the same minde that they were of, the words folowing, quoth he, do declare. For that which followeth is a cause of that whiche went before, and therefore he sayth: The immortalitie, &c. Whereby it doth appeare, that he meante the diuine nature, & not the humane. MarginaliaMorgan is taken with false alleaging of the texte.Then was Morgan taken wt misalleging of the text. 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 407, line 16

It may be well perhaps to give the original of a passage, which has from that day to the present been perverted by mistranslation (see Faber's "Account of Husenbeth's Attempt to assist the Bishop of Strasbourg," Lond. 1829, p. 30): Ἐραν. Καὶ πιστεύεις γε σώματος Χριστοῦ μεταλαμβάνειν καὶ αἷματος; Ὀρθ. Οὕτω πιστεύω. Ἐραν. Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματος τε καὶ αἷματος, ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετά δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται· οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν. Ὀρθ. Ἑάλως αἷς ὕφηνας ἄρκυσιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὸ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι, καὶ ἁπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν. Theodoret, Dialog. ii. cap. 24; or fol. 38 recto. edit. Romæ, 1547.

[Back to Top]
For the booke had not this word (for). For the Greeke word did rather signify (truly) & not (for) so tht it mighte manifestly appeare that it was the beginning of a newe matter, & not a sentence rendring a cause of that he had sayd before.

[Back to Top]

Then was it said by Watson again: suppose that Theodoret be wyth you, whych is one that we neuer hearde off printed, but two or three yeres ago: Yet he is but one, and what is one against the whole consent of the church? After this M. Cheyney inferred, that not only Theodorete was of that minde, that the substance of bread and wine doe remaine, but diuers other also, & speciallye Irenæus, who making mention of this sacrament, sayth thus: when the cuppe whych is mingled with wine, and the breade that is broken, doe receiue the worde of God, it is made the Euchariste of the bodye and bloude of Christ, by the whiche the substaunce of our flesh is nourished, and doeth consist. MarginaliaIrenæus. Lib. 5. contra Valentium. If the thankes geuing doe nourish our body, then ther is some substance besides Christes body.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaWatson.To the which reason both Watson and Morgan aunsweared, that Ex quibus, By the whych, 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.Master Cheiney replied, that it was not the bodye of Christ which norished our bodies. And let it be that Christes flesh norisheth to immortalitie, yet it doth not answere that argument, although it be true, no more then that aunswere which was made to my allegation out of S. Paule The bread which we breake, &c. wt certaine other like: whereunto you answered, that bread was not taken there in hys proper signification, but for that it had bene: no more then the rod of Aaron which was taken for the serpent, because it had beene a serpent. After this M. Cheyney broughte in

[Back to Top]
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.
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.
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield