MarginaliaAn. 1533.to be done in the Sinode of London, although such as be of this house now had no notice thereof before the promulgation. And in this poynt he thought the setter forth therof nothing to haue sclaundered the house as they by theyr subscription went about to persuade the worlde, since they had our Synodall authority vnto them cōmitted to make such spiritual lawes as they thought conuenient and necessary.

MarginaliaAgaynst the article of naturall presence.And moreouer he sayd as concerning the article of the naturall presence in the sacrament, that it was agaynst reason and order of learning, and also very preiudiciall to the truth, that men should be moued to subscribe before the matter were thorowly examined and discussed. But whē he sawe that allegatiō might take no place, being as a man astonied at the multitude of so many learned men as there were of purpose gathered together to maintaine olde traditions more then the truth of Gods holy word, MarginaliaM. Philpots request to the Prolocutor.he made his request vnto the Prolocutor, that where as there were so many auncient learned mē present on that syde, as in the realme the lyke agayne were not to bee found in such nomber, and that on the other side of them that had not subscribed, were not past. v. or. vj. both in age and learning farre inferiour vnto them: therefore, that equality might be had in this disputation, he desyred that the Prolocutor would be a meane vnto the Lordes, that some of those that were learned and setters forth of the same catechisme might be brought into the house to shewe their learning that moued them to set forth the same, MarginaliaRequest to haue Doct. Ridley and M. Rogers at the disputation.and that Doctour Ridley and Maister Rogers with two or three moe might be licensed to bee present at this disputation, and to be associate with them.

This request was thought reasonable, and was proposed vnto the Bishops: who made this aunswere, MarginaliaAunswere of the Byshops vnto the request.that it was not in them to call such persons vnto our house, since some of them were prisoners. But they sayd they would be petitioners in this behalf vnto the Coūsel, and in case any were absēt that ought to be of the house, they willed them to be taken in vnto them, if they listed. After this they mindyng to haue entred into disputation, there came a Gentlemā as messenger frō the Lord great maister  

Commentary     Close

Philpot states that a messenger came to Convocation on 20 October 1563 from the 'lord gret master' (Trew report, sig. A7r) and this is repeated in every edition of the Actes and Monuments (1563, p. 906; 1570, p. 1572; 1576, p. 1340; and 1583, p. 1411). In the Rerum the official's title is given as 'Domine magni oeconomi', but, more helpfully, a marginal note reads 'Is est Comes Arundellus, qui ad nobilitatis antiquiss. ornamenta, adiecit etiam eruditionem non vulgarem' (Rerum, p. 216). This not only identifies the office of 'lord gret master' (it is Lord High Steward, the Earl of Arundel's hereditary office) but it also confirms that Foxe did not even consult the Rerum, much less translate it, when printing Philpot's account of the Convocation for the 1563 edition.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe thyrd Session. October. 23.Vpon Monday the xxiij. of Octob. at the time appointed, in the presence of many Earles, Lordes, Knightes, Gentlemen and diuers other of the Court and of the Citie also, the Prolocutor made a Protestation that they of the house had appoynted this disputation, not to call the truth into doubt, to the which they had already all subscribed sauyng v. or vj. but that those gaynesayers might be resolued of theyr Argumētes in the which they stode, as it shall appeare vnto you, not doubtyng but they will also condescend vnto vs.

Then he demaunded of maister Haddon whether hee would reason agaynst the questions proposed, or no. To whom he made aunswer, MarginaliaM. Haddon & M. Elmar refuse to aunswere, except their request were graunted.that he had certified him before by writing that he woulde not, since the request of such learned men as were demaunded to bee assistent wyth them, would not be graunted. Maister Elmar likewyse was asked. Who made the Prolocutor the like answere, adding moreouer this, that they had done to much preiudice already to the truth, to subscribe before the matter was discussed: and litle or nothing it might auaile to reason for the truth, since all they were now determined to the contrarie. After this he demaunded of M. MarginaliaM. Cheyny then Archdeacō of Herford, now Bishop of Glocester.Cheyny, whō the Prolocutor sayd allowed the presence with thē, but hee denyed the transubstantiation by the meanes of certaine authorities vpon the which he standeth and desyreth to be resolued, as you shall heare whether he will propose his doubtes concernyng transubstantiation or no. Yea, quoth hee, I would gladly my doubtes to be resolued which moue me not to beleue transubstantiation.

MarginaliaM. Cheynyes doubtes about transubstantiation.The first is out of S. Paul to the Corinthians, who speakyng of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, calleth it oft tymes bread after the consecration.

The second is out of Origene, who speakyng of this Sacrament, sayth that the materiall parte thereof goeth downe 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 substaunce, forme, and shape. These be some of my doubtes among many other, wherein I require to be aūswered.

Then the Prolocutor assigned D. Moreman to aūswere him. MarginaliaMoremās answere to S. Paule.Who to S. Paul answered him thus, that the Sacrament is called bread by him in deede, but it is thus to be vnderstand, that it is the Sacrament of bread, that is, the forme of bread.

MarginaliaMaister Cheyny replyeth to Moremās aunswere.Then M. Cheyny inferred and alledged that Hesychius called the Sacrament both bread and fleshe.

Yea, quoth Moreman, Hesychius calleth it bread, because it was bread and not because it is so. And passyng ouer Origene, he came to Theodoretus, and sayd that men mistooke his authoritie by interpretyng a generall into a speciall, as Peter Martyr hath done in that place of Theodoret, interpretyng οὐσία for substaunce, which is a speciall signification of the word, whereas οὐσία is a generall word as wel to accidence as to substaunce: and therfore I answere thus vnto Theodoret MarginaliaMoremās answere to Theodoretus.that the Sacramētall bread and wyne do not go out of theyr former substaūce, forme, and shape, that is to say, not out of their accidentall substaunce and shape.

After this M. Cheyny sat hym down, and by and by M. Elmar stode vp, as one that could not abyde to heare so fonde an aunswere to so graue an authoritie, MarginaliaM. Elmar argueth agaynst Doctour Moremās aunswere.and reasoned vpon the authoritie of Theodoret alledged before by M. Cheyny, and declared that Moremans aūswere to Theodoret was no iust nor sufficient aunswere, but an illusion and a subtile euasion contrary to Theodoretes meanyng. For, sayd hee, if οὐσία should signifie an accidence in the place alledged, as it is aunswered by M. Moreman, then were it a worde superfluous set in Theodorete there, where do folow two other wordes which sufficiently do expounde the accidences of the bread, that is, εῖδες καὶ σχῆμὰ, which signifie in Englishe, shape and forme: and so proued out of the same author by diuers allegations MarginaliaMoremās shift is ouerthrowē.that οὐσία in Greeke coulde not bee so generally taken in that place as Moreman for a shift would haue it. But Moreman, as a man hauyng no other salue for that sore, affirmed still that οὐσίαν, which signifieth substaunce, must needes signifie an accidentall substaunce properly. To whose importunitie since hee coulde haue no other aunswere, Elmar as a mā weried with hys importunitie, gaue place.

MarginaliaPhilpots replication to Moremās shifte.After this stode vp Iohn Philpot, and sayd that he could proue that by the matter that Theodoret intreateth of in the place aboue alledged, and by the similitude which he maketh to proue his purpose, by no meanes M. Moremās interpretation of οὐσία, might bee taken for accidentall substaunce, as he for a shift would interpret it to be. For the matter which Theodoret intreateth of in that place is agaynst Eutyches an hereticke, which denyed ij. natures of substaūce to remayne in Christ beyng one person, and that hys humanitie after the accomplishment of the mystery of our saluation ascending into heauē and being ioyned vnto the Diuinitie, was absorpt or swalowed vp of the same, so that Christ should be no more but of one diuine substaunce onely, by his opinion. MarginaliaThe place of Theodoret opened.Agaynst which opinion Theodoret writeth, and by the similitude of the Sacrament proueth the contrary agaynst the hereticke: that MarginaliaThe argument of Theodoret a simili.lyke as in the Sacrament of the body of Christ after the consecration, there is the substaunce of Christes humanity with the substāce of bread, remainyng as it was before, not beyng absorpt of the humanity of Christ, but ioyned by the diuine operation therunto: euen so in the person of Christ beyng now in heauen, of whō this Sament is a representation, there be ij. seuerall substances, that is, his Diuinitie and humanity vnited in one hypostasy or person, which is Christ, the humanitie not beyng absorpt by the coniunction of the diuinitie, but remainyng in hys former substaunce.

And this similitude, quoth Philpot, brought in of Theodorete to confoūd Eutyches, should proue nothyng at all, if the very substaunce of the Sacramentall bread dyd not remayne, as it did before. But if Doct. Moremās interpretatiō might take place for trāsubstantiation, MarginaliaThe place of Theodoret falsely taken of the Papistes.then should the hereticke haue thereby a strong argument by Theodoretes authority so taken, to mainteyne his heresie and to proue hym selfe a good Christen man, and might well say thus vnto Theodoret: Lyke as thou Theodoret, if thou were of Doct. Moremans mynd, doest say that after the consecration in the Sacrament the substaunce of the bread is absorpt or transubstantiate into the humane body of Christ commyng therunto, so that in the Sacramēt is now but one substaunce of the humanitie alone, and not the substaunce of bread as it was before: euen lykewyse may I affirme and conclude by thyne owne similitude that the humanity ascendyng vp by the power of