himself content: and therewith proceeded to read his answer or Explication of the first Article: for he had brought, it would appear, his written answers with him, of great length and very elaborate. To each proposition or article he had composed an answer, supported by an explication branching off into many particular arguments. As to the first proposition, he objected to the doubtful sense of every phrase: the word of God, what meant that what might be the meaning of the word priest. Enough," said Weston, "these are evasions: you consume the time in vain." But Ridley persisted: that the word "really" was ambiguous: that there was doubtfulness, in the terms "under the forms," whether the accidental exterior appearances of bread and wine were meant, or the substantial natures visible by qualities perceived by the senses. "We lose time," said Weston, "you shall have another day for that: fall to arguments.

66

"In explication I have no more to say," said Ridley, "let me proceed briefly to confirmation." He then exhibited a syllogism, and advanced an argument to prove one of the propositions of which it consisted: and was advancing something more, when the Prolocutor exclaimed again, "Thus you consume time! Master opponent, go to your arguments: " and Smith herewith proposed to argue on Transubstantiation. Ridley again protested against being cut short: that it was unreasonable: that he had little more to say. "Then read on," said the Prolocutor: and Ridley stated seven reasons in proof of the second part of his argument: and proceeded to enlarge upon them. He was in the fourth; and was remarking, somewhat horribly, that the doctrine of the carnal Presence amounted to anthropophagy, when Doctor Pie indignantly broke in: "He asks for time in order to utter blasphemies. Leave your blasphemies."-“I

* By "arguments" Weston meant syllogistic arguments.

little thought to have such contumely from you," Ridley said: for Pie was a private friend. "All this is very peaceful"; said Weston, "go to arguments, master doctor."-"I have not much more," urged Ridley. "You void blasphemies with a face of brass," said Weston, "leave off, I say: go to arguments: come, begin." Ridley therewith ceased to read his papers: of which (as they now are) there still remained about twice as much as he had read already: * and addressed himself to the

* Ridley had a day longer than Cranmer, or rather two days, to write his answers to the three Articles. From the letter that he wrote to Weston after the disputation it seems that he handed in as much as he had read, or rather his answer to the first Article, and kept the rest: and that he afterwards sent in his answers to the second and third, without keeping a copy: he asks for copies of all three. He may probably have amplified the last two before he sent them to Weston. It is difficult to think that he could have produced such an amount of closely reasoned matter otherwise : or that he had so much with him when he kept saying that he had not much to read, was near the end, and so on. See his letter to Weston in Fox. From his Answers some sentences of unusual doctrinal clearness, or of biographical interest, may be quoted. "Think not, because we disallow the presence of the Body of Christ which the first proposition affirms, as holding it to be forged, fantastic and brought into the Church by the Romanensians, contrary to the authority of God's word, that we therefore go about to take away the true Presence of Christ's Body in His Supper rightly and duly administered, which is grounded upon the word of God, and illustrated by the commentaries of orthodox fathers."- -"Bertram it was that first brought me from the common error of the Romanensian church; Bertram who was ever reckoned a learned and Catholic man these seven hundred years unto this our age."- "Concerning the Romanensian Mass, which exists at this day, or the lively sacrifice thereof, propitiatory for the sins of quick and dead, Holy Scripture hath not so much as one syllable."—"In the name Mass there is ambiguity what it may mean; and whether there be any such as the ancient Fathers used, seeing that now there are no catechumens or penitents to be dismissed." He concluded by referring to what he called his first Protestation: from which it may be supposed that he delivered up something in writing on the previous Saturday: and he added that since they had recently pronounced an unjust and cruel sentence on him, he appealed from them to some competent judge, and that according to the approved state of the Church of England, though what that state was, he could not tell, on account of the trouble and alteration of the realm. As no sentence was pronounced till April 20, and

opponent. Smith reasoned somewhat weakly, but was powerfully aided by Weston: and the disputation was long and inconclusive. Harpsfield succeeded Smith: and again Weston intervened, rudely telling Ridley that one of his answers was crass and unlearned, exclaiming to the people in English, and appealing to certain of the Commissioners who seem to have been umpires, and were called censores: who agreed that Ridley's answer was ridiculous. "I am glad," said Ridley, "that you speak in English: I would all the world might understand your reasons and my answers." Ward then disputed: and then Glyn, who charged the respondent with eluding and shifting away the Scriptures and the Fathers: a reproach which was bitterly resented. All this part of the disputation was very warm.* Watson came next, and reasoned with great skill: after whom Tresham, who beginning with a prayer for Ridley's conversion said that he polluted his mother the Church by setting nought by her. "These

Ridley's disputation was on April 17, this last passage is a proof that Ridley wrote at least a considerable part of his Answers after the Disputation. Indeed he may have had them in hand up to the eve of Weston's departure from Oxford, which was on Monday, April 23. Look at both the Latin and English of Ridley's disputation, to get at his sense in every

case.

* Some things of historical interest occur hereabouts. The "Catechism of the synod of London was mentioned, as it had been in Cranmer's case; and it was here that Ridley denied the authorship of it. Comp. Vol. III. p. 529, 530 huj. oper. Ridley said to his opponent Ward, “Sir, I give you to wit, before you go any further, that I did set out no catechism." Weston. 66 Yes, you made me subscribe to it, when you were a bishop in your ruff." (Weston seems to have had a lively remembrance of his former diocesan but this is one of the passages in which we can correct the vigorous English of Fox. "In your ruff" has an insulting sound which can scarcely be in the word "purpuratus," which Weston spoke.) Ridley. "I compelled no man to subscribe." Ward. "Yes by the rood, you are the very author of that heresy." Ridley. "I put forth no catechism." Cole. "Did you never consent to the setting out of those things which you allowed?" Ridley. "I grant that I saw the book; but I deny that I wrote it. I perused it after it was made, and I noted many things for it: so I consented to the book. I was not the author of it," &c.

byewords do pollute your school," retorted Ridley. "If an Arian had your subtle wit," said Tresham, "he might soon shift off the authority of Scriptures and Fathers." Whereupon Weston, interposing again against Tresham, bade him either dispute or hold his peace.* Tresham alleged the Council of the Lateran, which decreed Transubstantiation: "where," said he, "were three hundred bishops."-" And eight hundred priors and friars," said Ridley. “What," exclaimed one of the notaries, "reject you that Council for the multitude of those priors?"

By no means," was the answer, "so much for that as because the doctrine of that Council agrees not with God's word."-"What," cried Tresham, "you reject the Council of the Lateran ? Write it down, write, write! "Write it a dozen times, if you will," said Ridley. "You reject the Council of the Lateran," observed Weston, "what say you to the Council of Nice?"—"That Council is to me a great authority," Ridley answered: but the words that were cited from it he affirmed to make for him, not against him. Shortly after this the school was dissolved by the Prolecutor with the brief oration : "Ye see the stubborn, the glorious, the crafty, the inconstant mind of the man: ye see the unshaken strength of the truth shout after me the song of victory, Vicit veritas, vicit veritas."

Ridley, like Cranmer, has left on record his protest

* There is nothing of these incivilities in Ridley's Latin narrative of the disputation according to which Weston made no remark here, and Ridley and Tresham treated one another with respect, though Ridley soon found that Tresham's gentleness was accompanied with acuteness, or, as he said, was foxey as well as sheepish. "Ego sane initio, quia hominem non cognovi, arbitrabar fuisse seniculum qui haberet zelum Dei, licet non secundum scientiam : et illi cum omni mansuetudine et reverentia respondere cœpi, sed visus sum mihi postea sentire sub ovina pelle delitescere vulpinam calliditatem." Works, Park. Soc. 476.

+ Scribite et rescribite.

ations against the way in which he was used in this memorable combat: the clamour, the hissing and interruption, the concurrent questions with which he was assailed. Perhaps it may be gathered from the memoirs themselves of the fray that these disturbances were not continual, but rather that they broke out at certain points, when he certainly spared not the feelings of his opponents. As compared with the performance of Cranmer, his disputation was more of an attack than a defence. He was less delicate, various, and instructive in the exposition of his own opinions: closer, keener, fiercer in assaulting the contrary propositions: and he showed a bolder spirit of negation. He went far when he said that the Scriptures allowed no sacrificing priests save the order of Aaron or of Melchizedec: on saying which he received his first interruption. He uttered some things that have a shocking sound and approach the profanity that he himself had rebuked in former days. But he exposed with skill (as indeed Cranmer had done) the fallacious method of bringing detached passages of the Fathers, often their pious breathings or their oratorical heights, as formal statements of doctrines, particularly of doctrines that were unknown to them unless it were inferred from these very passages that they were known: he often explained with truth the spiritual meaning of expressions that had not been meant literally: and he even touched upon the comparative value of testimonies. The Sacramental Presence was plainly maintained by him. "Is not the miracle great," he said, "when bread, which is wont to sustain the body, becometh food to the soul? He that understandeth not that miracle, understandeth not the force of that mystery." Again, "To expound, This is my Body, this is a figure of my Body, is not so full to express the whole." Again, "Evil men do eat the very true and natural Body of Christ sacramentally, and no