Marginalia1553.The third is out of Theodoretus, who makyng mention of the sacramental bread & wyne after the consecratiō, saith, that they go not out of their former substance, forme, and shape. These be some of my doubtes among many other, wherin I require to be answered.

Thē the Prolocutor assigned D. Moreman to answere hym. Who to s. Paul answered him thus: MarginaliaMoremans aunswere to S. Paule.that the sacramēt is called by him bread in dede, but it is thus to be vnderstād that it is the sacrament of bread, that is, the form of bread.

MarginaliaM. Cheyny replyeth to Moremans aunswere.Then M. Cheyney inferred & alleged, that Hesychius called the sacrament both bread and flesh.

Yea, quoth Moremā, Hesychius calleth it bread, because it was bread, & not because it is so. And passing ouer Origen, he came to Theodoretus, & said, that men mistooke his authoritie, by interpreting a general into a special, as Peter Martyr hath done in that place of Theodoret, interpreting οὐσία for substāce, which is a special significatiō of the word, wheras οὐσία is a general words, as wel to accidence as to substance: & therfore I anwere thus vnto Theodoret, MarginaliaMoremans aunswere to Theodoretus.that the sacramental bread & wine do not go out of their former substance, forme & shape, that is to say, not out of their accidental substance and shape.

After this, M. Cheyney sat hym downe, & by & by M. Elmar stood vp, as one that could not abide to heare so fond an answer to so graue an authoritie, MarginaliaM. Elmar argueth agaynst D. Moremans aunswere.& reasoned vpō the authoritie of Theodoret, alleged before by M. Cheyney, & declard that Moremans answere to Theodoret, was no iust nor sufficient answer, but an illusion & a subtyl euasion cōtrary to Theodorets meaning. For, sayd he, if οὐσία should signifie an accident in the place alleged, as it is answered by M. Moremā, thē were it a word superfluous set in Theodoret there, where do folow two other words which sufficiently do expoūd the accidences of the bread, that is, εῖδος και σχῆμὰ, which signifie in English, shape & forme: MarginaliaMoremans shift is ouerthrowen.and so proue out of þ^e same author by diuers allegations, that οὐσίὰ in Greke could not be so generally takē in that place as Moreman for a shift would haue it. But Moreman, as a mā hauyng no other salue for that sore, affirmed styl that οὔσία, which signifieth substance, must needes signifie an accidental substance properly. To whose importunity since he could haue no other answere, Elmar as a man weryed with his importunity, gaue place.

After this stood vp Iohn Philpot, & said, MarginaliaPhilpots replication to Moremans shift.that he coulde proue, that by the matter that Theodoret intreateth of in þ^e place aboue alleged, & by the similitude which he maketh to proue his purpose, by no meanes M. Moremans interpretation of οὐσία, might be taken for accidental substance, as he for a shift would interpret it to be. For the matter which Theodoret intreateth of in that place, is against Eutiches an heretike, whiche denied two natures of substance to remaine in Christ beyng one person, & that his humanitie after þ^e accōplishmēt of the mystery of our saluatiō ascendyng into heauē, & being ioyned vnto the Diuinitie, was absorpt or swalowed vp of þ^e same,MarginaliaThe place of Theodoret opened. so that Christ should be no more but of one diuine substāce only, by his opiniō: against which opiniō Theodoret writeth, & by þ^e similitude of þ^e sacramēt proueth the cōtrary against the heretike: MarginaliaThe argument of Theodoret a simili.that like as in the sacrament of the body of Christ after the consecration, there is the substance of Christes humanitie with the substance of bread, remainyng as it was before, not being absorpt of the humanitie of Christ, but ioyned by the diuine operation therunto: euen so in the person of Christ beyng now in heauen of whō this sacrament is a representation, there be two seueral substances, that is, his diuinitie & humanitie vnited in one hypostasie or person, which is Christ, the humanitie not beiyng absorpt by the coniunction of the diuinitie, but remaynyng in hys former substance.

And this similitude, quoth Philpot, brought in of Theodoret to cōfound Eutyches, should proue nothing at al, if the very substāce of the sacramental bread dyd not remaine, as it dyd before. But if D. Moremās interpretation might take place for transubstantiation, MarginaliaThe place of Theodoret falsely taken of the Papistes.then should the heretike haue therby a strong argument by Theodorets authoritie so taken to maynteyn his heresie, & to proue hym self a good Christen man, & he myght wel say thus vnto Theodoret: Like as thou Theodoret, if thou were of D. Moremans mynd, doest say that after the consecration in the sacramēt, the substance of the bread is absorpt or transubstantiate into the humane bodye of Christ cōmyng therunto, so that in the Sacrament is nowe but one substaunce of the humanitie alone, and not the substaunce of bread as it was before: euen likewise maye I affirme and conclude by thyne owne similitude, that the humanitie ascēdyng vp by the power of God into heauē, & adioyned vnto the deitie, was by the might therof absorpt & turned into one substance with the deitie: so that now there remaineth but one diuine sub-

stance in Christ, no more then in the sacramental signes of the Lords supper, after the consecration doth remayne any more then one substance according to your beliefe and construction.MarginaliaThe false exposition of D. Moreman vpon Theodoretus ouerthrowen.

In answeryng to this D. Moreman stackered, whose defect Philpot perceiuyng, spake on this wise. Wel, M. Moreman, if you haue no answere at this present ready, I pray you deuise one, if you can conueniently, against our next meetyng here agayne.

With that his saying the Prolocutor was greeuously offended.MarginaliaWeston is offended. tellyng hym that he should not bragge there, but that he should be fully answered. Then sayd Philpot: It is the thyng that I only desire, to be answered directly in this behalfe, and I desire of you and of al the house at this present, that I may be sufficiently answered, which I am sure you are not able to do, sauyng Theodoretes authority & similitude vpright, as he ought to be taken. MarginaliaPhilpots replycation aunswered by commaunding him to silence.None other answeare then was made to Philpots reasons, but that he was commaunded to silence.

Then stood vp the Deane of Rochester offryng him self to reason in the first question agaynst the natural presence, wishing that the scripture & þ^e ancient doctors in this point might be weyed, beleued, & folowed.MarginaliaThis man called M Phillips continued Deane of Rochester all Q. Maryes tyme and yet still so remayneth. And agaynst this natural presence he thought the saying of Christ in S. Mathew to make sufficyently enough, if men would credit and folow scripture: who sayd there of him selfe, that poore men we should haue alway w^t vs, but hym we should not haue alwayes: which was spoken, quoth he, concernyng the natural presence of Christs body, therfore we ought to beleue as he hath taught, that Christ is not naturally present on yearth in the sacrament of the altar.

MarginaliaWestons aunswere to the Deane.To this was answeared by the Prolocutor, that we should not haue Christ present alwayes to exercise almes deedes vpon hym, but vpon the poore.

MarginaliaThe Deanes replication.But the Deane prosecuted his argumēt, & shewed it out of s. Austen further, that the same interpretatiō of the scripture alleged was no sufficient answer, who writeth in the 50. treatise of S. Iohn on this wise on the same sentence: When as he said (saith s. AustenMarginaliaAugust. in Ioan. tract. 50. A notable authoritie out of Saint Augustine.) me shall ye not haue alwaies with you, he spake of the presence of his body, but by his maiestie, by his prouidence, by his vnspeakable & vnuisible grace, that is fulfilled which is said of him, Behold I am with you vntyl the consummation of the world. But in the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon him, in that which was borne of the virgin, in that which was apprehended of the Iewes, which was crucified on the Crosse, whiche was let downe from the Crosse, which was wrapped in cloutes, which was hiddē in the sepulchre, which was manifested in the resurrectiō, you shal not haue me alwayes with you. And why? for after a bodily presence he was cōuersant with his disciples. xl. dayes, & they accōpanying him, seeing & not folowing him, he ascēded & is not here: for there he sitteth at the right hand of the father; & yet here he is, because he is not departed in the presence of his maiestie. After an other maner we haue Christ alwayes by presence of his maiesty: but after the presenceof his flesh it is rightly said: You shal not verily haue me alwayes with you. For the Church had him in the presence of his flesh a fewe dayes, & now by faith it apprehended him and seeth him, not with eyes.

To this authority D. Watson toke vpon hym to answer & sayd MarginaliaWatsons aunswere to S. Augustine.he would answer s. Austen by s. Austen, & hauyng a certaine booke in his hande of notes, he alleged out of the 70.  

Commentary     Close

Once again, the text is occasionally altered by typographical errors in the edition of 1576. A reference to Augustine's 'xc' treatise on St. John (Trew report, sig. B4v), rendered as 'lxxxx' in 1563 (p. 908) and 1570 (p. 1513) became '70' in 1576 (p. 1513) and was reprinted as '70' in 1583 (p. 1412).

[Back to Top]

Agaynst whose answeare Iohn Philpot replyed and said, MarginaliaPhilpot agaynst Watson.that M. Watson had not fully answered S. Austine by S. Austine as he would seeme to haue done, for that in the place aboue mentioned by Master Deane of Rochester, he doth not onely teache the mortall state of Christes body before his Passion, but also the immortall condition of the same after his resurrection: in the which mortall body S. Austine seemeth playnely to affirme that Christ is not present vpon the earth, neyther in forme visibly, neyther in corporall substance inuisibly: as in fewe lynes after the place aboue alleged, S. Austine dooth more playnely declare by these wordes, saying: Now these two maners of Christes presence declared, which is by his maiestie, prouidence, and grace now present in the world, which before his ascēsion was present in the flesh, and being now placed at the right hand of the father, is absent in the same from the worlde, I thinke (sayth S. Austine) that there remayneth no other question in this matter.

Now, quoth Philpot, if S. Austine acknowledged no more presence of Christe to be nowe on earth but onely his diuine presence, and touchyng his humanitie to be in heauen: we ought to confesse and beleue the same: But if we put a thirde presence of Christ that is, corporally to be