boldest spokesman of the party that was for going furthest in disowning the Reformation: a party which consisted of men like him and the Harpsfields, clerics of the lower grade, who applied the terms heresy and schism without incurring the rebuke of their superiors. Between them and the body of the clergy who sat with them it may perhaps be possible to mark a difference: and of this Convocation it may be said that it went far to restore the former opinions without any reference to the Papacy.

On the day appointed, Friday, October 20, when the house assembled, the Prolocutor, instead of forthwith opening the disputation, exhibited two declarations or bills, which he had drawn up, and to which he invited the clergy to subscribe: the one to assert the natural Presence in the Sacrament, and also Transubstantiation : the other for disowning the Catechism. The clergy proctors in this assembly were all new comers: of those who had sat in the unsubstantial convocations of Edward the Sixth not one had been returned to this.* Nearly all the house appear to have set their names to the cleverly devised paper of the Prolocutor, by which the matter that was to be disputed was prejudged, and the whole assembly was committed before a word had been spoken: but some of them excepted Transubstantiation, and many more signed, it would appear, on the express understanding that it should not be prejudicial to them to revoke the opinions whereto they put their hands. Among the deans and archdeacons there were five or six bold men who held to the Reformation, and now stood forth to defend it: Philpot Archdeacon of Winchester, Cheney of Hereford, Aylmer of Stow: Philips Dean of Rochester, James Haddon Dean of Exeter, and Young the chanter of St. David's. None of these consented to sign the Prolocutor's papers, save Cheney, who subscribed

* So Heylin.

indeed to the natural Presence, but not to Transubstantiation. Philpot took the lead among them, a remarkable man, who afterwards braved the flames of martyrdom, who was long at variance with his former diocesan Gardiner, and according to Gardiner was touched in his wits, and who had been no less inimical to Gardiner's successor Ponet, from whom he had suffered many things. To him we owe the vivid narrative which will enable us to retrace the scenes of a memorable conflict and our gratitude must be now extended to his fellow champion James Haddon, who also has left to posterity the relation of the part at least that he himself performed.* The subscribing of the Prolocutor's bills was proceeding when Philpot rose, and protested how unreasonable it was to require subscription before disputation. "It is," said he, "against reason and order of learning, and very prejudicial to the truth." But the hum and murmur of the house in the business of writing went on, and he could but stand amazed at the multitude of learned men who seemed of one consent in such contested matters. He then demanded of the Prolocutor that, as there were so few on his side, some of the

* Philpot's narrative of the disputation is in Fox, who gives it without naming the author (cf. Strype's Cranmer, Bk. II. ch. vi.), nor did Philpot name himself in it. Soon after its appearance Pullanus, then out of England, received a copy of it, and translated it into Latin. His version was published in 1554, along with his version of Cranmer's Declaration, of which we have spoken above. It is published, and so is the English original, in the Parker Society's Philpot. The other narrative, to which I refer, has been less fortunate: it has remained unprinted, I believe, till now. See it below. It also is nameless of author, but who would have related Haddon's deeds but Haddon? The Parker edition of Philpot makes the mistake of confusing James Haddon with his brother the better known Walter. Philpot's Examinations, p. 170. There are many letters of James Haddon to Bullinger in Orig. Lett. known licensed preacher (Vol. II. p. 486 huj. oper.): and had just been appointed Prebendary of Westminster and Dean of Exeter; Strype, iv. 272, 274. Cooper's Ath. Cant. i. 164, 549.

He was a well

learned men who had been concerned in setting forth the Catechism, which was now being disallowed, such men as Ridley and Rogers, might be brought into the House and associated with them. His request was taken by the Prolocutor to the Upper House, who found that it belonged not to them to order out men who were in prison, and referred it to the Queen's Council. The answer of the Council was that the disputation should be delayed to Monday, when the Lord Grand Master and the Earl of Devon would be present.

On Monday, October 23,* many nobles and gentlemen of the Court and of the city came to witness the expected contest in the long chapel of St. Paul's; and took their station about the Prolocutor's chair: while a crowd of the common people hung around the outer spaces. It was seen at once that Weston's design in causing the clergy to subscribe his bills was to prejudge the whole matter: for he now signified that the business was not of the nature of a disputation of truth that was doubted, or to bring into doubt truth upon which all were agreed, but to resolve the arguments of five or six gainsayers, who would be won to the opinion of the rest. On this he called on Haddon to dispute or reason against the positions laid down in the bills. Haddon declined, on the ground that they had been denied the assistance of the learned men whom they had requested. He then called on Aylmer, who said that it would be useless to argue where all was determined.

*The Grey Friars' Chron. (p. 85) makes it begin on the 21st. "Item, the xxi day of the same month began the disputation in the long chapel in Paul's between the old and the new at Monday, Wednesday, and Friday: and there came much people, but they never the wiser." It was however on the 23d that it began. On the day before, which was Sunday, 22nd, Weston preached at Paul's, " and at every gate in Paul's churchyard was made, to prevent the breaking in of horses and great throng of people, great bars." Machyn, p. 46.

On Cheney then the lot fell, whose scruples extended only to Transubstantiation, for to the natural Presence he had subscribed. To him by order was opposed Doctor Moreman, and a somewhat tremulous combat ensued after which Cheney sat down. Then was roused the spirit of Aylmer, because Moreman had contemned Peter Martyr's definition of the term Substance: and he arose and vindicated the late luminary of Oxford; but soon ceased, being unable, it seemed, to impress the obstinacy of his opponent. But now stood Philpot up, and, taking the argument where Aylmer had left it, by a home-thrust caused Moreman to stagger, showing that his interpretation of the word substance would make him a heretic like Eutyches. Seeing his adversary at a loss, he tauntingly bade him get an answer ready by their next meeting. "You shall not brag thus," cried the Prolocutor fiercely, "you shall be answered.""I desire no better," retorted Philpot, 66 answer me, if you can." He was commanded to silence and no one stood up against him. The Dean of Rochester next, Philips, offered himself to reason on the former of the two questions proposed, the natural Presence. The Prolocutor answered his argument: he replied: Doctor Watson, Gardiner's chaplain, responded: against whom Philpot eagerly broke his second lance: Dean Philips then resumed, and Moreman was sent against him. This doctor's argument the Dean reduced to absurdity, as he said: and sat down. As however Moreman seemed content to accept the alleged absurdity, Philpot rose and attacked it: and Moreman, being hard pressed, was succoured by Harpsfield, who fared no better. Him the Prolocutor strove to rescue; but seemed to be worsted. He then asked Philpot whether he meant to argue upon the first question, the natural Presence: who said that he would if one might answer

him, and not many, which was confusing to the opponent, especially if he were of an ill memory. The night was now come: the disputation was broken up, and the Prolocutor assigned to Philpot to begin at the next meeting. The arguments propounded on this occasion, except one or two of Philpot's, seem painfully insufficient, resolving themselves into mere exercises of ingenuity, although the learning of the men engaged was beyond question. The scholastic terms, especially substance, which had been refused or forbidden in the disputations of the last reign, were revived in this, at least in the Greek equivalent: and the authorities alleged were the fathers and doctors of the Church, as well as the Scriptures. But the contest throughout exhibited, unhappily in vain, the dangerous folly of bringing the most sacred, the most profound, and the most variously apprehended of the mysteries of religion into public question.*

Philpot appeared on the Wednesday following, October 25, armed with a Latin oration: which the Prolocutor suffered him not to deliver, but to finish his argument in English. "At the beginning," exclaimed Philpot, "you ordered the arguments to be in Latin: openly in this House you have called me unlearned: I have made a brief oration, thinking to shew such learning

* I have abstained from giving the matter of controversy, which is too sacred to be exposed in a work that is not primarily theological. I may say however that, besides the Scriptural arguments, the main subject of debate was a passage in Theodoret containing the word ouoia, and the question whether in that passage it were a general or a special word. Moreman affirmed that Peter Martyr had erred in interpreting it as a special, whereas it was a general, referring to accidents as well as substance in the special sense: and that Theodoret meant an accidental substance. Philpot confuted this very ably by explaining the full contention of Theodoret. The complaint of the Prolocutor, which he made in a subsequent session, was not altogether groundless, that they had spent two whole days over "one only doctor and one only word."