Marginalia1553.figge tree, if Aristotle had stand by, he would haue sayd, no Christ, thou sawest not him, but the coulour of hym. After this, Watson sayd, what if it were graunted that Theodoret was on their 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).

MarginaliaMorgan is called for to helpe at a pinch.Then the Prolocutor called for M. Morgan to helpe: who sayd that Theodorete did not more then hee might lawfully do. For first he graunted the truth, and then for feare of such as were not fully instructed in the fayth, he spake αἰνιγματικῶς that is, couertly and in a mistery: and this was lawfull for him to do. For first he graunted the truth, & called thē þ^e body of Christ & the bloud of Christ. Then afterward hee seemed to geue somewhat to the senses & to reason: but that Theodoret was of the same mind þ^t they were of, þ^e wordes folowing, quoth he, do declare. For that which foloweth, is a cause of that which went before, and therfore he sayth: The immortalitie. &c. Wherby it doth appeare, that he ment the diuine nature, and not the humane. MarginaliaMorgan is taken with false alleging of the texte.Then was Morgan taken with misallegyng of the text. For þ^e boke had not this word [for]. For the Greke worde did rather signify [truely] and not [for] so that it might manifestly appeare that it was þ^e begynnyng of a new matter, & not a sentence rendryng a cause of that he had sayd before.

Then was it sayd by Watson agayne: Suppose that Theodorete be with you, which is one that we neuer heard of Printed, but two or three yeares ago: Yet he is but one, and what is one agaynst the whole consent of the Church? After this M. Cheyny inferred, that not onely Theodoret was of that mind, that the substance of bread and wyne do remaine, but diuers other also, and specially Irenæus, who makyng mention of this Sacrament, sayth thus: MarginaliaIrenæus Lib. 5. cōtra Valentinum. VVhen the cup vvhich is myngled vvith vvyne, and the bread that is broken, do receyue the vvorde of God, it is made the Eucharist of the body and bloud of Christ, by the vvhich the substance of our flesh is nourished, and doth consist. If the thākes geuyng do nourish our body, then there is some substance besides Christes body.

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

MarginaliaMaister Cheyny.Maister Cheyny replyed, that it was not the body of Christ which nourished our bodyes. And let it be that Christes flesh nourish to immortalitie, yet it doth not aūswere that Argument, although it be true, no more then that aunswere which was made to my allegation out of S. Paul: The bread vvhich vve breake. &c. with certayne other like: wherunto you aunswered that bread was not taken there in his proper signification, but for that it had bene: no more then the rodde of Aaron which was takē for the Serpent, because it had bene a Serpent. After this Maister Cheyny brought in Hesychius and vsed the same reason that he did of the custome of burning of Symboles, and he asked them what was burnt. M. Watson sayd, we must not inquire nor aske, but if there were any fault, impute it to Christ. Then sayd M. Cheyny, wherof came those ashes? not of a substance? or can any substance aryse of accidences?

MarginaliaHarpsfield 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 omnipotēcy of God, and of the imbecillitie and weakenes of mans reasons not able to atteine to godly thyngs. And he sayd that it was conuenient what soeuer we sawe, felte, or tasted, not to trust our senses. MarginaliaHere is goodly stuffe, as if 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, and that which burned there, quoth Harpsfield, burneth here, and becommeth ashes. But what that was that burnt, he could not tell. But M. Cheyney continued still, and forced them with this questiō, what it was that was burnt? It was either (said he) þ^e substance of bread, or els the substance of the body of Christ, which were to much absurditie to graunt. At length they aunswered, that it was a miracle. Wherat M. Cheyny smiled and said, that he could then say no more.

MarginaliaWeston woulde know whether they were sufficiently aūswered, when he and his had aunswered no argument.Then Doct. Weston asked of the company there, whether those men were sufficiently aunswered or no? Certaine Priestes cried: yea, but they were not heard at all, for the great multitude which cried no, no: Which crie was heard & noysed almost to the end of Paules. Wherat Doct. Weston beyng much moued, aunswered bitterly, that he asked not the iudgemēt of the rude multitude and vnlearned people, but of them which were of the house. Then asked he of M. Haddon & his felowes, whether they would aunswere them other. 3. dayes. Haddon, Cheyny,

and Elmar sayd no. But MarginaliaM. Philpot. the Archdeacon of Winchester stode vp & sayd, that they should not say but they should be aunswered, & though all other did refuse to aunswere, yet he would not, but offered to aūswere thē all, one after an other: with whose proffer MarginaliaMarke Westons impudencie. the Prolocutor was not cōtented, but railed on hym, and sayd that he should go to Bedlem. To whom the Archdeacon soberly made this aunswere: that he was more worthy to bee sent thether, who vsed him selfe so ragingly in that disputation, without any indifferent equalitie. Then rose Doct. Weston vp, and sayd:

MarginaliaA stronge argument of Weston.All the company hath subscribed to our Article, sauing onely these men which you see. What their reasons are, you haue heard. We haue aunswered them three dayes, vpō promise (as it pleased him to descant, without truth, MarginaliaWhere he is not able to aūswere, hee would out face. for no such promise was made) that they should aūswere vs agayne as long (as the order of disputation doth require): and if they be able to defend their doctrine, let them so do.

MarginaliaM. Elmars reasons why they would not aunswere.Then M. Elmar stode vp and proued how vayne a mā Weston was: for he affirmed that they neuer promised to dispute, but onely to open and testifie to the world theyr consciences: For when they were required to subscribe, they refused, and sayd that they would shew good reasons which moued them that they coulde not with their consciences subscribe, as they had partly already done and were able to do more sufficiently: therfore (quoth he) it hath ben ill called a disputation, and they worthy to be blamed that were þ^e authors of that name. For we ment not to dispute, nor now meane not to aunswere before our Argumentes (quoth he) which we haue to propound, be soluted, accordyng as it was appointed: For by aūsweryng, we should but incomber our selues, and profite nothyng, since the matter is already decreed vpon and determined, what soeuer we shall proue or dispute to the contrary.

MarginaliaThe vj. Acte or Session.ON Monday folowing, being the. xxx. of October, the Prolocutor demaunded of Iohn Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester, whether he would aunswere in the questions before propounded to their obiections, or no? To whom he made this aunswere, that he would willyngly so do, if accordyng to their former determination, they would first aunswere sufficiently to some of hys Argumentes as they had promised to do: wherof he had a dosen, not half of þ^e first being yet decided: and if they would aunswere fully and sufficiently but to one of his Argumentes, he promised that he would aunswere all the obiections that they should bryng.

Then the Prolocutor bad him propound his Argument, & it should be resolutely aunswered by one of thē: wherunto M. Morgan was appointed. Vpon Wednesday last (quoth MarginaliaPhilpot. he) I was inforced to silēce before I had prosecuted halfe of myne Argumēt: the summe wherof was this (as was gathered by the iust contexte of the Scripture) that the humane body of Christ was ascended into heauen, and placed on the right hand of God the father: wherfore it could not be situate vpon earth in the Sacrament of the aultar, inuisible after the Imagination of man. The Argument was denied by Morgan. For the proufe wherof, Philpot sayd that this was it wherwith he had to cōfirme his first Argument, if they would haue suffred him the other day, as now he trusted they would.

But bodily to be present, and bodily to be absent, to be on earth, and to be in heauē, and all at one present tyme, be thynges contrary to the nature of an humane body: Ergo, it cannot be sayd of the humane body of Christ, that the selfe same body is both in heauen and also in earth at one instant, either visibly or inuisibly.

MarginaliaMorgan.Morgan denied the Maior, that is, the first part of the Argument. The which Philpot vouched out of Vigilius an auncient writer. MarginaliaHere is a new euasion inuented by Morgan who dare not plainly deny Vigilius authoritie, but vnder a colour But Morgan cauilled that it was no Scripture, & bad him proue the same out of Scripture.

Philpot sayd he could also so do, and right well deduce the same out of S. Paul, who sayth, that Christ is lyke vnto vs in all pointes, except sinne: and therfore, like as one of our bodies cannot receiue in it selfe any thyng contrary to the nature of a body, as to be in Paules Church & at West-