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 fift day.

ON Friday the 27. of Octob. D. Weston the Prolocutor did first propounde the matter, shewing that the Con∣uocation had spent 2. dayes in disputation already aboute one only doctor,* 1.1 which was Theodoret, & about one onely worde, which was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet were they come the 3. daye to answer al things that could be obiected, so that they would shortly put out their argumēts. So M. Haddon Deane of Exeter, desired leaue to appose M. Watson, which wyth 2. other mo, that is, Morgan & Harpsfield, was apoynted to answer.* 1.2 M. Haddon demaunded this of him, whether any substāce of bread or wine did remaine after the consecrati∣on. Then Master Watson asked of him againe, whether he thought there to be a reall presence of Christes body or no? M. Haddon saide, it was not meete nor orderlike, that hee which was appoynted to be respondent, should be oppo∣nent, & he whose duty was to obiect, shuld answer. Yet M. Watson along while would not agree to answer, but that thing first being granted him. At last an order was set, and M. Haddon had leaue to go forwarde with his argument.

Then he prooued by Theodorets words, a substance of breade and wine to remaine. For these are his wordes: The same they were before the sanctification,* 1.3 whiche they are after. M. Watson sayde, that Theodoret meant not the same sub∣stance, but the same essence. Whereupon they were driuen againe vnto the discussing of the Greeke woorde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and M. Haddon prooued it to meane a substaunce,* 1.4 bothe by the Etimologie of the word, and by the wordes of the Doctor. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (quoth he) cōmeth of the Participle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which des∣cendeth of the verbe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so commeth the Noune 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth substance.

Then M. Watson answeared that it had not that sig∣nification onely. But M. Haddon prooued y^t it must nedes so signifie in that place. Then hee asked Watson when the bread & wine became Symboles? Wherunto he answered: after the consecration and not before. Then gathered M. Haddon this reason out of hys author.

Da- The same thing, saieth Theodoret, that the bread and wine were before they were Symboles, the same they remaine still in nature and substance,* 1.5 after they are Symboles.

ti- Bread and wine they were before:

si. Therefore bread and wine they are after.

Then M. Watson fell to the deniall of the authour, and said he was a Nestorian:* 1.6 and he desired y^t he might answer to master Cheiney, whyche stoode by, for that he was more meete to dispute in the matter, because he had granted and subscribed vnto the real presence. M. Cheyney desired pa∣cience of the honorable men to heare hym, trusting that he should so open the matter, that the veritie should appeare: protesting furthermore,* 1.7 that he was no obstinate nor stub∣burne man, but would be conformable to all reason: and if they by their learning, which he acknowledged to be much more then his, could answer his reasons, then he would be ruled by them, and say as they sayd: for he would be no au∣thor of schisme, nor hold any thing cōtrary to the holy mo∣ther the church, which is Christes spouse. D. Weston liked this well, and commended him highly, saying that he was a well learned and a sober man, & well exercised in all good learning, and in the Doctors, and finallye a man meete for his knowledge to dispute in that place: I pray you heare him, quoth he. Then Master Cheiney desired such as there were present to pray 2. words with him vnto God, and to say, Vincat veritas, Lette the veritie take place, and haue the victorie:* 1.8 and all that were present cried with a loud voyce, Vincat veritas, vincat veritas.

Then sayde D. Weston to him, that it was hypocriti∣call. Men may better say (quoth he) Vincit veritas, Trueth hath gotten the victorie.* 1.9 Master Cheyny sayd againe, if he woulde geue hym leaue, he woulde bryng it to that poynte that he might wel say so.

Then he began wyth M. Watson after thys sorte: you sayd,* 1.10 that M. Haddon was vnmete to dispute, because hee graunteth not the naturall and real presence: but I say you are muche more vnmeete to aunswere, because you take a∣way the substance of the sacrament.

M. Watson said, he had subscribed to the real presence, & should not go away from that.* 1.11 So sayde Weston also, & the rest of the Priestes, in so muche that for a greate while hee could haue no leaue to say any more, till the Lordes spake, and willed that he should be heard.

Then he tolde them what hee meant by his subscribing to the reall presence, farre otherwyse then they supposed. So then he went forwarde, and prosecuted M. Haddons argument in prouing that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a substance, vsing the same reason that M. Haddon did before him: and when he had receiued the same aunswere also that was made to M. Haddon, he said it was but a le••d refuge, when they could not answer, to deny the author, & proued the author to be a catholike doctor: and that being prooued, he confirmed that was saide of the nature and substance, further. The simili∣tude of Theodorete is this, quoth he: As the token of Chri∣stes body and bloud after the inuocation of the Prieste, doe change their names, & yet continue the same substaunce, so the body of Christ after his ascension changed his name, & was called immortall, yet had it his former fashion, figure, & circumscription, and to speake at one word, the same sub∣stance of his body. Therefore said M. Cheiney,* 1.12 if in the for∣mer part of the similitude you denye the same substaunce to continue, then in y^e later parte of the similitude which agre∣eth with it, I wil deny the body of Christ after his ascensiō to haue the former nature & substance. But y^t were a great heresy: therefore it is also a great heresye to take awaye the substance of bread and wine after the sanctification.

Then was M. Watson enforced to saye, that the sub∣staunce of the bodye in the former parte of the similitude brought in by him, did signifie quantitie & other accidentes of the sacramentall tokens which be s••ene, and not the ve∣ry substance of the same: and therfore Theodoret saith, Quae videntur. &c. that is, Those things which be seene. For accor∣ding to Philosophie, the accidentes of things be seene, and not the substances.

Then M. Cheiney appealed to the honorable mē, and desired that they shoulde geue no credite to them in so say∣ing: for if they should so thinke as they woulde teache,* 1.13 after theyr Lordshippes had ridden 40. miles on horsebacke (as their busines doth sometime require) they should not be a∣ble to say at night, that they sawe their horses all y^e day, but only the colour of theyr horsses: and by hys reason Christe must go to schole & learne of Aristotle to speake. For when he saw Nathanaell vnder the fig tree, if Aristotle had stand by, he would haue said no Christe, thou sawest not him, but the colour of him. After this Watson sayde, what if it were graunted that Theodoret was on the other side? whereas they had one of that opinion, there were an hundred on the other side.

Then the Prolocutor called for M. Morgan to helpe: and sayd,* 1.14 that Theodoret did not more then he might law∣fully do. For first he graunted the truthe, and then for feare of suche as were not fully instructed in the faythe, he spake, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, couertly, and in a mysterie: and thys was lawfull for him to do, for first he graunted the trueth, and called them the body of Christ, & bloud of Christ. Then afterward he seemed to geue somwhat to the sences, and to reason, but that Theodorete is of the same minde that they were of, the words folowing, quoth he, do declare. For that which followeth is a cause of that whiche went before, and therefore he sayth: The immortalitie. &c.* 1.15 Whereby it doth ap∣peare, that he meante the diuine nature, & not the humane. Then was Morgan taken w^t misalleging of the text. For the booke had not this word (for). For the Greeke word did rather signify (truly) & not (for) so that it mighte manifestly appeare that it was the beginning of a newe matter, & not a sentence rendring a cause of that he had sayd before.

Then was it said by Watson again: suppose that Theo∣doret be wyth you, whych is one that we neuer hearde 〈◊〉〈◊〉 printed, but two or three yeres ago: Yet he is but one, and what is one against the whole consent of the church? After this M. Cheyney inferred, that not only Theodorete was of that minde, that the substance of bread and wine doe re∣maine, but diuers other also, & speciallye Irenaeus, who ma∣king mention of this sacrament, sayth thus: when the cuppe whych is mingled with wine, and the breade that is broken,* 1.16 doe receiue the worde of God, it is made the Euchariste of the bodye and bloude of Christ, by the whiche the substaunce of our flesh is nourished, and doeth consist. If the thankes geuing doe nou∣rish our body, then ther is some substance besides Christes body.

To the which reason both Watson and Morgan aun∣sweared, that Ex quibus, By the whych,* 1.17 in the sentence of Ire∣naeus, was referred to the next antecedent, that is, to the bo∣dy and bloud of Christ, and not to the wine which is in the cup, and the bread that is broken.

Master Cheiney replied,* 1.18 that it was not the bodye of Christ which norished our bodies. And let it be that Chri∣stes flesh norisheth to immortalitie, yet it doth not answere that argument, although it be true, no more then that aun∣swere which was made to my allegation out of S. Paule: The bread which we breake, &c. w^t certaine other like: where∣unto you answered, that bread was not taken there in hys proper signification, but for that it had bene: no more then the rod of Aaron which was taken for the serpent, because it had beene a serpent. After this M. Cheyney broughte in

Hesechius,* 1.19 and vsed the same reason that hee did of the cu∣stome of burning of Symboles, and hee asked them what was burnt. Master Watson sayd, we must not enquire nor aske, but if there were any faulte, impute it to Christ. Then sayde M. Cheiney, whereof came those ashes? not of a sub∣stance? or can anye substance arise of accidents?

Then was M. Harpsfield called in to see what he could say in the matter.* 1.20 Who told a faire tale of the omnipotencie of God, and of the imbecilitie and weaknesse of mans rea∣sons not able to attaine to godly things. And he sayde, that it was conuenient whatsoeuer we sawe, felt, or tasted, not to trust our sences. And he tolde a tale out of S. Cyprian, how a woman sawe the Sacrament burning in her cofer,* 1.21 and that which burned there, quoth Harpsfielde, burneth heere, and becōmeth ashes. But what that was that burnt he could not tell. But M. Cheiney continued still, and for∣ced them with this question, what it was that was burnt? It was eyther (sayde he) the substance of breade, or els the substaunce of the body of Christe, which were too much ab∣surditie to graunt. At length they answeared, that it was a miracle, wherat M. Cheiney smiled, and sayd that he could then say no more.

Then D. Weston asked of the company there, whether those menne were sufficiently answeared or no:* 1.22 Certaine Priestes cried Yea, but they were not heard at all: for the great multitude which cried No, no. Which cry was heard and noised almost to the ende of Paules. Whereat D. We∣ston being much mooued, answered bitterly, that hee asked not the iudgement of the rude multitude & vnlearned peo∣ple, but of them which were of the house. Then asked he of M. Haddon and his fellowes, whether they woulde aun∣swere them other three dayes. Haddon, Cheiney, and El∣mar, sayd No. But the Archdeacon of Winchester stoode vp and sayde, that they should not say but they should be aun∣sweared, and though all other did refuse to answer, yet he would not,* 1.23 but offered to answere them all one after ano∣ther:* 1.24 wyth whose profer the Prolocutor was not contēted, but raised on him, and sayd that he should goe to Bedlem: to whome the Archdeacon soberly made this answer: that he was more worthy to be sent thether, who vsed himselfe so ragingly in that disputation, without any indifferent e∣qualitie. Then rose D. Weston vp, and sayde:

All the company hath subscribed to our Article, sauing only these men which you see.* 1.25 What their reasons are, you haue heard. We haue answeared them 3. daies, vppon pro∣mise (as it pleased him to descāt, wythout truth, for no such promise was made) that they should answer vs againe as long, as the order of disputation doeth require, and if they be able to defend theyr doctrine, let them so doe.

Then M. Elmar stood vp & prooued how vaine a man Weston was,* 1.26 for hee affirmed that they neuer promised to dispute, but only to open & testifye to the worlde their con∣sciences: For whē they were required to subscribe, they re∣fused, and sayd that they would shewe good reasons whych mooued them that they coulde not with their consciences subscribe, as they had partly alreadye done, and were able to doe more sufficiently: therefore (quoth he) it hath bene ill called a disputation, & they were worthy to be blamed that were the authours of that name. For we meant not to dis∣pute, nor now meane not to answer, before our argumēts (quoth he) which we haue to propounde, be soluted, accor∣ding as it was appoynted: For by answearing we shoulde but incumber ourselues, and profit nothing, since the mat∣ter is already decreed vppon and determined, what soeuer we shall prooue, or dispute to the contrary.

Notes

• * 1.1

  October 27.
• * 1.2

  M. Haddon Deane of Exce∣ter disputeth a∣gainst M. Wat∣son, Morgan and Harpsfield.
• * 1.3

  The wordes of Theodoretus al∣leaged.
• * 1.4

  A popish di∣stinction be∣tweene substāce and essence.
• * 1.5

  Argument of M. Haddon.
• * 1.6

  Watson is driuē to a shamefull shift, to deny the author when he cannot aunswer.
• * 1.7

  M. Cheyney.
• * 1.8

  M. Cheynyes prayer.
• * 1.9

  Weston.
• * 1.10

  M. Cheny and Watson dispu∣teth.
• * 1.11

  M. Haddon cha∣lenged for sub∣scribing to the reall presence.
• * 1.12

  The argu••ment of Theodore renued by M. Chey••▪
• * 1.13

  M. Chey•••• appealed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Lord••
• * 1.14

  Morgan is called for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 helpe at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pinche.
• * 1.15

  Morgan is taken with false allea••ging of th•• texte.
• * 1.16

  Irenaeus. Lib. 5. con∣tra Valen••••um.
• * 1.17

  Watson▪
• * 1.18

  M. Cheyn••••
• * 1.19

  Anno 1553.
• * 1.20

  Harpesfield calle•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to helpe wat∣son.
• * 1.21

  Here is goodly 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were out of the Le∣gends of ••yes.
• * 1.22

  West•••• woulde know whe∣ther they were suffi∣ciently an∣swered, when he and his had answered no argu∣ment.
• * 1.23

  M. Philpot.
• * 1.24

  Marke We∣ston•• impu∣dencie.
• * 1.25

  A strong ar∣gument of Weston. Where he is not able to answere he would out face.
• * 1.26

  M. Elmers reason why they would not answer.