Actes and monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church. [vol. 2, part 1] with an vniuersall history of the same, wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from the primitiue age to these latter tymes of ours, with the bloudy times, horrible troubles, and great persecutions agaynst the true martyrs of Christ, sought and wrought as well by heathen emperours, as nowe lately practised by Romish prelates, especially in this realme of England and Scotland. Newly reuised and recognised, partly also augmented, and now the fourth time agayne published and recommended to the studious reader, by the author (through the helpe of Christ our Lord) Iohn Foxe, which desireth thee good reader to helpe him with thy prayer.

¶The Acte of the third day.

Upon Monday the xiij. of October, at the time apoin∣ted,* 1.1 in the presence of many Erles, Lordes, Knights, gen∣tlemen, and diuers other of the Court and of the Citie al∣so, 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 alredy all subscribed, sa∣uing v. or sixe, but that those gainsayers might be resolued of their arguments in the which they stood, as it shall ap∣peare vnto you, not doubting but they will also condescēd vnto vs.

* 1.2Then he demanded of M. Haddon whether he would reason against the questions proposed, or no. To whom he made answer, that he had certified hym before in writyng, that he would not, since the request of such learned men as were demaunded to be assistent with them, would not bee graunted. M. Elmar likewyse was asked. Who made the Prolocutor the like aunswer, addyng moreouer this, that they had done too much preiudice already to the truth, to subscribe before the matter was discussed: and little or no∣thyng it might auayle to reason for the truth, since all they were now determined to the contrary. After this he de∣maunded of M. Cheyney, whome the Prolocutor sayd al∣lowed the presence with them,* 1.3 but he denyed the transub∣stantiation by the meanes of certayne authorities vppon the which he standeth, and desireth to be resolued, as you shall heare, whether he will propose his doubtes concer∣nyng Transubstantiation or no. Yea, quoth he, I would gladly my doubts to be resolued, which mooue me not to beleeue Transubstantiation.

The first is out of S. Paule to the Cor. who speakyng of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ,* 1.4 calleth it oft tymes bread after the consecration.

The second is out of Origene, who speaking of this sa∣crament sayth, that the materiall part therof goeth down to the excrements.

The third is out of Theodoretus, who making mention of the sacramentall bread and wine after the consecration, saith that they go not out of their former substance, forme, and shape. These be some of my doubts among many o∣ther, wherein I require to be answered.

Then the Prolocutor assigned D. Moreman to answer him,* 1.5 who to Saint Paule answered him thus: That the Sacrament is called by hym bread in deede, but it is thus to be vnderstood, that it is the sacrament of bread, that is, the forme of bread.

Then M. Cheyney inferred and alledged, that Hesychi∣us called the sacrament both bread and flesh.

* 1.6Yea quoth Moreman, Hesychius calleth it bread, because it was bread, & not because it is so. And passing ouer Ori∣gen, he came to Theodoretus, & sayd, that men mistooke hys authoritie, by interpreting a general into a special, as Pe∣ter Martyr hath done in y^e place of Theodoret, interpretyng 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for substance,* 1.7 which is a special signification of y^e word whereas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a general word, as well to accidence, as to substane, and therefore I answer thus vnto Theodoret, y^t the sacramental bread and wine do not go out of their for∣mer substance, forme, and shape, that is to say, not out of their accidentall substance and shape.

After this M. Cheyney sat him downe, & by and by M. Elmar stood vp as one that could not abide to heare so fōd an answer to so graue an authoritie,* 1.8 & reasoned vpon the authoritie of Theodoret alledged before by M. Cheyney▪ & declared that Moremans aunswer to Theodoret, was no iust nor sufficient answer, but an illusion and a subtill eua∣sion contrary to Theodorets meaning. For, said he, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, should signify an accident in the place alledged, as it is an∣swered by M. Moreman, then were it a word superfluous set in Theodoret there, where do follow two other wordes which sufficiently do expound the accidēces of y^e bread, y^t is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signify in English, shape and forme: & so prooue out of the same author by diuers allegations,* 1.9 y^t 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Greek could not be so generally taken in that place as Moreman for a shift would haue it. But Moreman, as a man hauing no other salue for that sore, affirmed stil that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth substance, must needes signify an ac∣cidental substance properly. To whose importunity, since he could haue no other answer. Elmar as a man wearied with his importunity, gaue place.

After this stood vp Iohn Philpot and sayd,* 1.10 y^t hee could prooue that by the matter that Theodoret intreateth of in the place aboue alledged, and by the similitude whiche hee maketh to prooue his purpose, by no meanes M. More∣mans interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, might be taken for an accidē∣tall substaunce, as he for a shift would interprete it to be. For the matter which Theodoret intreateth of in y^t place,* 1.11 is against Eutiches an hereticke, whiche denied two na∣tures of substance to remayne in Christ beyng one person, and that his humanitie after the accomplishment of y^e my∣sterie of our saluation, ascendyng into heauen,* 1.12 & being ioi∣ned vnto the Diuinitie, was absorpt or swalowed vp of y^e same, so that Christ should bee no more but of one deuine substance only by his opiniō. Against which opiniō Theo∣doret writeth, and by the similitude of the sacrament proo∣ueth the contrary against the hereticke: that like as in the sacrament of the body of Christ after the consecratiō, there is the substance of Christes humanitie, with the substance of bread, remaining as it was befor, not beyng absorpt of y^e humanitie of Christ, but ioyned by the deuine operation therunto, euen so in the person of Christ being now in hea∣uen, of whom this sacrament is a representation, there bee two seueral substances, that is, his diuinitie & humanitie vnited in one hypostasie or person, which is Christ, the hu∣manitie not beyng absorpt by the coniunction of the diui∣nitie, but remaining in his former substance.

And this similitude quoth Philpot, brought in of The∣odoret to confound Eutiches, should prooue nothing at al, if the very substance of the sacramentall bread dyd not re∣mayne, as it did before. But if D. Moremans interpretati∣on might take place for transubstantiatiō, then should the heretike haue thereby a strong argument by Theodorets authoritie, so taken to maintayne his heresie,* 1.13 and to prooue hymselfe a good christen man, and he might well say thus vnto Theodoret. Like as thou Theodoret, if thou were of D. 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 com∣myng thereunto, so that in the sacrament is now but one substance of the humanitie alone, and not the substance of bread as it was before: euen likewise may I affirme and conclude by thine owne similitude, that the humanitie as∣cending vp by the power of God into heauen, & adioyned vnto the deitie, was by the might therof absorpt & turned into one substance with the deitie: so that now there re∣mayneth but one diuine substance in Christ, no more then in the sacramental signes of the Lords supper,* 1.14 after y^e con∣secration doth remayne any more then one substaunce, ac∣cordyng to your beliefe and construction.

In aunsweryng to this D. Moreman stackerd, whose defect Philpot perceiuyng, spake on this wyse. Well, M. Moreman, if you haue no answer at this present ready, I pray you deuise one, if you can conueniently, agaynst our next meetyng here agayne.* 1.15

With that his saying the Prolocutor was grieuously offended, tellyng hym that he should not bragge there, but that he should be fully answered· Then sayd Philpot, it is the thing that I only desire, to be answered directly in this behalfe, & I desire of you, & of all the house at this present▪ that I may be sufficiently answered, which I am sure you are not able to do, sauyng Theodoretus authoritie and si∣militude

vpright, as he ought to be taken. None other answer then was made to Philpots reasons, but that hee was commaunded to silence.

Then stoode vp the Deane of Rochester offeryng hym selfe to reason in the first question agaynst the natural pre∣sence,* 1.16 wishing that the scripture and the auncient Doctors in this poynt might be weyghed, beleeued, and followed. And agaynst this naturall presence he thought the saying of Christ in Saint Mathew to make sufficiently enough, if men would credite and follow scripture, who sayd there of hymselfe, that poore men wee should haue alway with vs, but hym we should not haue alwayes: which was spoken, quoth he, concernyng the naturall presence of Christes body, therefore we ought to beleeue as hee hath taught, that Christ is not naturally present on earth in the sacrament of the aultar.

To this was aunswered by the Prolocutor, that we should not haue Christ present alwayes to exercise almes deeds vpon hym,* 1.17 but vpon the poore.

But the Deane prosecuted his argument, and shewed it out of S. Austen further,* 1.18 that the same interpretation of the scripture alledged, was no sufficient aunswere, who writeth in the 50. treatise of S. Iohn on this wise, on the same sentence: When as he sayd (sayth S. Austen) me shal ye not haue always with you, he spake of the presence of his bodye. For by his maiestie,* 1.19 by his prouidence, by his vnspeakable & vn∣uisible grace, that is fulfilled which is sayd of him. Behold I am with you vntill the consummation of the world. But in the fleshe which the worde tooke vpon hym, in that which was borne of the virgin,* 1.20 in that which was apprehended of the Iewes, whiche was crucified on the Crosse, which was let down from the crosse, which was wrapped in cloutes, which was hid in the Sepulchre, which was manifested in the resurrection, you shall not haue me alwayes with you. And why? for after a bodily presence he was conuersant with his disciples fortie dayes, and they accompany∣ing him, seyng and not folowing him, he ascended & is not here, for there he sitteth at the right hand of the father, and yet here he is, because he is not departed in the presence of hys maiestie. Af∣ter another maner we haue Christ alwayes by presence of hys maiesty, but after the presence of his flesh it is rightly sayd: You shall not verily haue me alwayes with you. For the Church had hym in the presence of his flesh a few dayes, and now by fayth it apprehendeth hym and seeth hym, not with eyes.

* 1.21To this authority D. Watson tooke vpon him to aun∣swer, and sayd, he would answer S. Austen by S. Austen, and hauyng a certaine booke in hys hand of notes, he al∣ledged out of the 70. treatise vpon S. Iohn, that after that mortall condition and maner we haue not now Christ on the earth as he was heretofore before his passion.

Agaynst whose aunswer, Iohn Philpot replyed and said,* 1.22 that M. Watson had not fully answered S. Augustine by S. Augustine, as he would seeme to haue done, for that in the place aboue mentioned by M. Deane of Rochester, he doth not onely teach the mortall state of Christes body before his passion, but also the immortall condition of the same after his resurrection: in the which mortal body S. Augustine seemeth plainely to affirme, that Christ is not present vpon the earth, neither in forme visibly, neither in corporall substance inuisibly, as in few lynes after y^e place aboue alledged. S. Augustine doth more plainely declare by these wordes, saying: Now these two manners of Christes presence declared, which is by his maiestie, prouidence, & grace now present in the world, which before his ascension was pre∣sent in flesh, and beyng now placed at the right hand of the fa∣ther, is absent in the same from the world, I thinke (saith Saint Augustine) that there remayneth no other question in thys m••t••er.

Now quoth Philpot, if S. Augustine acknowledged no more presence of Christ to be now on earth, but onely his diuine presence, and touching his humanitie to bee in heauen, we ought to confesse and beleeue the same. But if we put a third presence of Christ, that is, corporally to bee present always in the sacrament of the aultar inuisibly, ac∣cording to your suppositions, whereof S. Augustine ma∣keth no mention at all in all his works: you shal seeme to iudge that which S. Augustine did neuer comprehend.

* 1.23Why, quoth Watson, S. Augustine in the place by me alledged, maketh he not mention how S. Steuen beyng in this world, saw Christ after his ascension?

It is true, said Philpot, but he saw Christ, as the scrip∣ture telleth,* 1.24 in the heauens beyng open, standyng at the right hand of God the father. Further to this Watson an∣swered not.

Then the Prolocutor went about to furnish vp an an∣swere to S. Augustine, saying, that he is not now in the world after that maner of bodily presence,* 1.25 but yet present for all that in his body.

To whom Philpot answered, that the Prolocutor dyd grate much vpon this worde Secundum, in S. Augustine,* 1.26 which signifieth after the maner, or in forme: but he doth not answer to id quod, which is that thyng or substance of Christ, in the which Christ suffred, arose, and ascended into heauen, in the which thing and substance he is in heauen, and not on earth, as S. Augustine in the place specified most clearely doth define.

To this nothing els beyng aunswered, the Deane of Rochester proceeded in the maintenance of his argument,* 1.27 and read out of a booke of Annotations, sundry authori∣ties for the confirmation therof. To the which Moreman, who was appointed to answer him, made no direct aun∣swer, but bade him make an argument,* 1.28 saying that mai∣ster Deane had recited many wordes of Doctors, but he made not one argument.

Then said the Deane, the authorities of the doctors by me rehersed, be sufficient arguments to proue mine intent, to the which my desire is to be answered of you. But still Moreman cried, make an argument to shift of the autho∣ritie, which he could not answer vnto. After this y^e Deane made this argument out of the institution of the sacramēt: Do this in remembraunce of me: and thus ye shall shew foorth the Lordes death vntill he come.

The sacrament is the remembrance of Christ: Ergo,* 1.29 the sacrament is not very Christ: for yet he is not come. For these words, Vntill he come, do plainly signify the absence of Christes bodye. Then the Prolocutor went about to shew that these wordes Vntill he come,* 1.30 did not import any absence of Christ on the earth, by other places of scripture, where, Donec, vntill, was vsed in like sense: but directly to the purpose he answered nothing.

In conclusiō, the Deane fel to questioning with More∣man, whether Christ did eate the Paschal lambe with hys disciples, or no? He answered, Yea. Further, he demanded whether he eate likewise the Sacrament with them, as he did institute it? Moreman aunswered, Yea.* 1.31 Then he asked what he did eate, and whether he eate his owne naturall body, as they imagine it to be, or no? Which when More∣man had affirmed, then said the Deane, it is a great absur∣ditie by you granted, and so he sate downe.

Against this absurditie, Philpot stood vp and argued,* 1.32 saying, he could proue it by good reason deduced out of scri∣pture, that Christ eat not his owne natural body at the in∣stitution of the sacrament, and the reason is this.

Ba- Receiuing of Christes body hath a promise of remis∣sion of sinnes with it annexed.* 1.33

ro- Christ eating the sacrament, had no promise of remis∣sion of sinne.

co. Ergo, Christ in the Sacrament did not eate his owne body.

To this reason Moreman answered,* 1.34 deniyng the for∣mer part of the argumēt, that the sacrament had a promise of remission of sinnes annexed vnto it.

Then Philpot shewed this to be the promise in the sa∣crament: Which is geuen for you, which is shed for you for the remission of sinnes. But Moreman would not acknowledge that to be any promise, so that he droue Philpot to the 6. of S. Iohn, to vouch this saying with these words: The bread which I will geue, is my flesh, which I will geue for the lyfe of the world.

Moreman aunswering nothing directly to this argu∣ment,* 1.35 Harpsfield start vp to supply that which wanted in hys behalfe, and thinking to haue answered Philpot, con∣firmed more strongly his argumēt, saying: Ye mistake the promise which is annexed to the body of Christ in the Sa∣crament: for it pertained not to Christ, but to his Disci∣ples, to whom Christ said: This is my body which is geuen for you, and not for Christ hymselfe.

You haue sayd well for me, quoth Philpot,* 1.36 for that is myne argument. The promise of the body of Christ, tooke no effect in Christ: Ergo, Christ eate not his owne body.

Then the prolocutor to shoulder out the matter, sayd: the argument was naught.* 1.37 For by the lyke argument he might go about to proue that Christ was not baptised, be∣cause the remission of sinne which is annexed vnto Bap∣tisme, tooke no effect in Christ. To the which Philpot re∣plied, that like as Christ was baptised,* 1.38 so he eate the sacra∣ment: but he tooke on hym Baptisme, not that he had any neede thereof, or that it tooke any effect in hym, but as our maister, to geue the church an example to folow him in the ministration of the sacrament, and therby to exhibite vnto vs himselfe, and not to geue himselfe to himselfe.

No more was said in this. But afterward the Prolocu∣tor demanded of Philpot, whether he would argue against the naturall presence, or no? To whom he answered, Yea, if he would heare hys Argument without interruption,

and assigne one to aunswer him, and not many, which is a confusion to the Opponēt, & specially for him that was of an ill memory. By this time y^e night was come on, wher∣fore the Prolocutor brake vp the disputatiō for that tyme, and appointed Philpot to be the first that should begin the disputation the next day after,* 1.39 concernyng the presence of Christ in the sacrament.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The third Sessiō. October. 23.
• * 1.2

  M. Haddon and M Elmar refus•• to aunswere, ex∣cept their re∣quest were graunted.
• * 1.3

  M. Cheyny the Archdeacon of Herford now B. of Glocester.
• * 1.4

  M. Cheynyes doubtes about transubstantiati∣on.
• * 1.5

  Moremans aun∣swere to S. Paule.
• * 1.6

  M. Cheyny re∣plyeth to More∣mans aunswere.
• * 1.7

  Moremans aūswere to Theodore••tus.
• * 1.8

  M Elmar argueth a••gaynst D. Moremans aunswere▪
• * 1.9

  Moremans shift is ou••••throwen.
• * 1.10

  Philpots replicatio•• to More∣mans shif••▪
• * 1.11

  The place of Theod••••ret opene••
• * 1.12

  The argu••ment of Theodore•• a simili.
• * 1.13

  The plac•• of Theod••••ret falsely taken of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Papistes.
• * 1.14

  The fals•• expositio•• of D. Mo••••••man vpo•• Theodo••••••tus, ouer••throwe••▪
• * 1.15

  Weston 〈◊〉〈◊〉 offende•• Philpot•• replyca•••• aunswer•• by com∣maundin•• him to si∣lence.
• * 1.16

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.17

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.18

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.19

  August. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tract. ••••.
• * 1.20

  A notable authority 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Saint Augusty••••.
• * 1.21

  Watsons aunswere to Saint Au∣gustine. August in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tract. ••70.
• * 1.22

  Philpot a∣gainst Wat∣son.
• * 1.23

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.24

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.25

  ••. Weston.
• * 1.26

  Philpot reply∣eth to Weston.
• * 1.27

  The Deane of Rochester.
• * 1.28

  Moreman.
• * 1.29

  Argument.
• * 1.30

  Weston answe∣reth to the Ar∣gument.

  Donec in Scrip∣ture.

  M. Deanes questions.
• * 1.31

  Moreman affir∣meth that Christ did eate his owne body.
• * 1.32

  Philpot.
• * 1.33

  Argument.
• * 1.34

  Moreman deni∣eth the Sacra∣men to haue a promise of re∣mission of sinnes annexed vnto it. Philpot.
• * 1.35

  Harpesfield af∣firmeth that which his fel∣low denyed.
• * 1.36

  Philpot.
• * 1.37

  Weston also is contrary to Moreman.
• * 1.38

  M. Philpots ar∣gument not so∣luted.
• * 1.39

  The conuocatiō continued to the next day.