might be resolued of their argumēts in þ^e which they stode, as it shal appeare vnto you, not doutyng but they wyll also condiscende vnto vs. Than he demaunded of maister Haddon whether he would reason against the questions proposed or no? To whom MarginaliaM. Haddon. he made aunswere that he had certifyed hym before by writyng that he would not, since the request of such learned mē as were demaunded to be assistent with them, would not be granted. Maister Elmar likewise was asked: MarginaliaM. Elmar who made the Prolocutor the lyke aunswere, adding moreouer this, that they had done to muche preiudice already to the truthe, to subscribe before the matter was discussed: & litle or nothing it might auaile to reason for the truthe, since al they wer now determined to the contrarye. After this he demaunded of mayster Cheny, whom the Prolocutor said allowed the presence with them, but he denied the transubstanciation, by the meanes of certaine autorities, vppon the which he standeth and , desyreth to be resolued, as you shall heare whether he wyll propose his doutes concernyng transubstanciation or no. MarginaliaM. Chenyes obiections. Yea, quoth he, I would gladly my doutes to bee resolued whiche moue me not to beleue transubstanciation. The fyrste is out of the scripture of saint Paule to the Corinthians who speaking of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ calleth it oft tymes bred, after the consecration. The second is out of Origene, who speakyng of this sacrament sayeth that the material part therof goeth down to the excrementes. The third is out of Theodoretus who makyng mention of the sacramental bread and wyne after the consecration sayth that they go not out of theyr former substance, forme and shape. These be some of my doutes among many other, whiche I require to be aunswered of. Than the Prolocutor assigned D. Moreman to aunswer him. MarginaliaMoremās answere to S. Paule. Who to saint Paul answered him thus, that the sacrament is called bread by hym in dede, but it is thus to be vnderstande that it is bread of the sacramentall bread, that is, the forme of bread. MarginaliaMaister Chenies replicatiō Than maister Cheny, inferred and alledged that Hisychius called the sacramēt both bread and fleshe. Yea, quoth Moremā Hisychius calleth it bread, because it was bred and not because it is so. And passyng ouer Origen, he came to Theodoretus, and sayd that mē mistoke his authoritie, by interpreting a general in to a speciall, as Peter Martir hath done in that place of Theodoret, interpreting ουσία, for substāce, which is a special significatiō of the word. Whereas ουσία is a generall word as wel to accidence as to substance. MarginaliaMoremās aunswer to Theodoret Mark this answer and shyft. And therfore I answere thus vnto Theodoret that the sacramental bred and wine do not go out of theyr former substāce forme and shape, that is to say, not out of theyr accidentall substance and shape. After this maister Cheny satte hym down: and by and by MarginaliaM. Elmar maister Elmar stoode vp, as one that coulde not abyde to heare so fonde an aunswere to so graue an authoritie. And reasoned vpon the authority of Theodoret, alledged before by maister Chenye, and declared that Moremans aunswere to Theodoret was no iuste nor sufficiente aunswere, but an illusyon and a subtyle euasyon contrarye to Theodoretes meanynge. For sayde hee, yf (ουσία) shoulde signyfye an accydence in the place alledged, as it is aunswered by master Moreman, than were it a word superfluous sette in Theodorete, there where

do folow. ii. other wordes which sufficyently do expounde the accidents of the bread, that is, εἶδος και σχῆμα, which signify in English, shape and forme: MarginaliaMoremans shifft is ouerthrowen. And so very lernedly proued oute of the same author by dyuers allegacyons that (ουσία) in greke could not be so generally takē in that place as Moremā for a shifft wold haue it. But Moreman as a man hauing no nother salue for that sore, affyrmed styll that (ουσιαν) which signyfyeth substance, must nedes signify an accidētal substance properly. To whose importunyte syns he could haue no nother answer, Elmar as a mā weryed wyth so long talk gaue place. MarginaliaFylpots replicacyon, to Moremans shyfte. After this, stode vp Iohn Fylpot, and sayd that he could proue that by the matter that Theodoret intreateth of in the place aboue alleaged, & by the simylitude which he makyth to proue hys purpose, by no meanes maister Moremans interpretacyon of (ουσια), might be taken for accydentall substance as he for a shift wold interpret it to be. For the matter whych Theodoret intreatyth of in that place is agaīst Eutyches an heretike, which denied ii. natures of substance to remayne in Christ beyng one parson, but that hys humanyty after thaccomplyshment of the mystery of our saluacion ascēdyng into heauen and beyng ioyned vnto the dyuynitie, was absorpt or swalowed vp of the same, so that christ shuld be no more but of one diuyne substance only by hys opinion. Agaynst whych opinion Theodoret writeth, and by the symilitude of the sacrament proueth the contrary against the heretike: that like as in the sacrament of the body of christ after the consecraciō. there is the substāce of christes humanyty with the substance of brad, remayning as it was before, not being absorpt of the humanity of christ but ioined by the diuine operation therunto. Euen so in the parson of christ being nowe in heauen, of whome this sacrament is a representacion, there be ii. seuerall substances, that is, his diuinitie and humanitye vnited in one hipostasy or parson, which is christ. The humanitie not absorpt by the coniunctyon of the deitie but remaining in his former substance. And this similitude, quod Filpot, brought in of Theodorete to confounde Eutyches, should proue nothing at all, yf the very substance of the sacramentall bread dyd not remain, as it did before: but if Doctor Moremans interpretatiō might take place for transubstanciacion, than shoulde the heretike haue thereby a strong argument by Theodoretes authoritye so taken to mayntein his heresy and to proue hym selfe a good christē man, and he might well saye thus vnto Theodoret: Like as thou Theodoret if thou were of Doctor Moremans mynde, doest say that after the consecration in the sacrament the substance of the bread is absorpte or transsubstancyate in to the humane body of Christ comming therunto, so that in the sacrament is now but one substance of the humanitie a lone, and not the substance of bread as it was before, euen likewyse may I affyrme and conclude by thyne owne similytude that the humanitye ascending vp by the powre of god into heauen & adioyned vnto the deitye was by the myght therof absorpt and turned into one substance with the deity: so that nowe there remayneth but one diuine substaunce in Christ, nomore than in the sacramētall signes of the lordes supper after the consecration do remayne anye more than one sub-