as I have." However he entered on his argument in English, perhaps with some superfluity of speech, for he was continually checked by the Prolocutor; till he fell on his knees and appealed to the laymen present, earls and lords, some of the Council, who signified that they wished to protect him. "Either hold your peace," said the Prolocutor, "or make a short argument.". His respondent was Doctor Chedsey, the celebrated antagonist of Peter Martyr. In the course of the contest between them, Philpot offered to maintain before the Queen and Council against any six of the best learned men of the House that the Sacrament of the Altar, or of the Mass, was no sacrament at all: and, if he should not confound them, to bear all the faggots in London in front of the gate of the Court. The Prolocutor told him he was mad, and threatened to send him to prison, if he would not cease speaking.* "O Lord," cried Philpot, "what a world is this, that the truth of thy holy Word may not be spoken!" On the instance of several of the House he was allowed to proceed. "He "He may make his argument, if he be brief," said the Prolocutor: and thereupon Philpot addressed himself to his opposite in a more regular manner, and had the advantage. He was pronounced by the Prolocutor, at the suggestion of Pie, to have reasoned enough, long before he would have finished. "A sort of you, said he at last, "which hitherto have lurked in corners, and dissembled with God and the world, are now gathered together to repress the sincere truth of God's holy Word: and to set forth every false device, which by the Catholic doctrine of the Scriptures ye are not able to maintain." The next combatants were Aylmer and Moreman, who thus engaged one another for the second

* From this curious case, Collier observes that Convocation claimed the same right as the House of Commons, to send refractory members to prison.

time on the same author, the result being that Moreman requested a day to review the allegations of his opponent: and the disputation seems not to have been renewed between them. Then followed Haddon the Dean of Exeter and Doctor Watson, between whom there ensued a long and arduous conflict, which did credit to the learning and logical acuteness of the former.* He had reduced

The arguments both of Aylmer and Moreman and of Haddon and Watson are in great part omitted in Philpot's narrative on the ground that they mostly turned on the meaning of the Greek word for Substance (Fox, or Philpot's Examinations, Park. Soc. p. 199-202). According to the same authority, the contest between the two latter was renewed next day. But there is another account of this part of the Disputation, which makes Haddon and Watson conclude their arguments on the same day that they began them and gives them very fully. This account also gives the subsequent episode of Pern. As it has not been printed that I know, I will transcribe it in full, as a contribution to the original records of a memorable Convocation. It will give the reader more of the theological matter than I feel free to do. It is in the Harleian Library, MS. 422, vol. 38: among the Foxii MSS.

"Part of the Disputation upon the Sacrament. Ao 1553. Between Watson and Haddon.

Watson then answered and said, Theodoretus did not reason of the substance of Christ but of the integrity of his two natures: neither that Eutyches did speak of the substance of Christ, but of the integrity, and that ovoia did not here signify substance but the outward appearance. Haddon answered, Then Christ had a body in outward appearance, and an human or man's nature, but not in deed substantial. Then did Mr. Watson ask what predicament is σxñμa and tidos, that is to say, fashion or shape. Mr. Haddon answered, in the predicament of quality. Watson. Why then it is no substance. Haddon. Marry, you point me, whether I will or no, to put ovoía in the predicament of substance, for when fashion and shape or form and shape be in the predicament of quality, then must it need follow that ovcía is in the predicament of substance, for they be here (in the passage of Theodoret) manifestly spoken as differing. Besides that you know when Aristotle entitleth the predicaments he nameth that of substance Tepi rns ovoias, so that it must needs signify substance and not appearance only, as Mr. Norman said. Watson. Yes, it signifieth substance there. Haddon. It can indeed signify no otherwise according to the etymology or true signification of the word. How say you to opoloog, that is, of like and equal substance, which is applied to the Trinity? Watson. It signifieth there so too; but here in Theodoret it may signify otherwise. Haddon. It can signify none otherwise in

his antagonist to great straits, when Doctor Pern, the celebrated disputant of Cambridge, who had hitherto

Theodoret, for besides the natural signification of the word the similitude doth so enforce that it cannot signify by any means otherwise. Watson. Will you so stick to Theodoret one man, that you will forsake the consent of all other doctors, and the consent of the whole church? Seeing he may be well interpreted to agree with them, it is better to take him so as he may agree with other than clean against all other. Haddon. As for that we shall see hereafter how Theodoret dissenteth from other doctors and from the whole church. But that I now stand upon is to prove that this is Theodoret his mind and judgment, that substance of bread and wine remaineth after consecration as before, so as appertaineth unto substance, and that he can be taken to mean none otherwise. Watson. Yes, he may be otherwise taken. Haddon. Maybe he can be taken none otherwise. I pray you answer me, and I will prove that he can be none otherwise taken. What were the mystical symbols or holy sacraments before they were hallowed? What were they? Were they not bread and wine? Then Dr. Weston the prolocutor spake: No, saith he, the sacraments be not bread and wine. Haddon. I ask, what were the mystical symbols, sacraments, or holy signs, before they were sanctified? Were they not bread and wine? I pray you speak. Weston and Watson together. No, the mystical symbols be not bread and wine. Haddon. What? not before they be sanctified? Weston. They be sacraments. Haddon. Before they be sanctified? Where did you read that, sir, that before they be sanctified they have the nature of sacraments? But I ask Mr. Watson what substance they be before they be sanctified. Be they not bread and wine? Mr. Watson somewhat staying, and answering nothing, Mr. Haddon said to him, You must needs speak, sir, what be they? Be they not bread and wine before sanctification? Watson. Yea, bread and wine. Haddon. And substantial bread? Watson. Substantial bread. Haddon. Natural bread, and not artificial only? Watson. Natural bread. Haddon. Natural bread substantially, and not only bread artificial accidentally? Watson. Substantially. Haddon. You grant then that the mystical symbols or sacraments before sanctification be substantial bread and wine, and not accidental only; natural and not artificial only; and naturally substantial bread and wine. Then I thus argue.

The mystical symbols or sacraments abide after consecration in their former substance, for so be then those words (of Theodoret. Cf. Philpot's Exam. p. 201). But you grant that their former substance was substantial bread and wine, and that substantially and naturally, not only accidentally and artificially.

Therefore the mystical symbols or sacraments remain or abide substantially bread and wine, and naturally not only artificially or accidentally, as well after consecration as before.

Watson. I do not grant former substance. Haddon. Then do you go from that, that you granted before: but make of that what you will, they

been silent, suddenly rose, and broke the spell that had been cast over the assembly by the ingenuity of the

abide in their former, and that you said was substance. Watson. Will you make this one author to disagree from all the rest, and the whole church? Rather reconcile him to them, and so interpret him that they may agree. Haddon. It is another matter if you grant his mind to be so, for that is all that I go about at this present time to prove that so Theodoretus meant, and that he can be none otherwise. As for that you speak of, the agreeing or disagreeing with others, and how he agreeth or dissenteth from the other doctors, and the whole church, that we shall see hereafter.

"With that Dr. Pern desired to speak, and Haddon being about to speak something more, the prolocutor stays him, and said, Mr. Pern desireth to speak, for Mr. Haddon did not hear Mr. Pern, when he spake. So Haddon left off, and Pern took the place, who shewed his mind of the real presence, and against transubstantiation. In the meanwhile d. Weston the prolocutor took forth a great scroll, wherein all they which did subscribe to the real presence and transubstantiation had written their names, among whom Mr. Pern was one. This d. Weston caused to be shewn to the nobles and worshipful there about him, and at last said to Mr. Pern that it was a shame for a man being a doctor in divinity to set to his hand and revoke the same again. Whereat Mr. Haddon and Elmer found themselves grieved, and said to d. Weston he did not well in so doing and saying: forsomuch as he had made them promise it should be prejudicial to no man, that had set to his hand by subscribing, to revoke the same again : for they had before that time put him in mind of that prejudice, in that men subscribed before they had heard anything reasoned: Whereunto d. Weston answered that it should be prejudicial to no man and when they then at Mr. Pern's declaration of his mind told him of his promise, he answered it was true he made such a promise, neither, saith he, shall it be prejudicial to any man. Why then, (quoth they) do you now go about to deface Mr. Pern's well doing? Divers of the worshipful thereabout said that it was well done of Mr. Pern to do as he did in now declaring his conscience. And thereupon the prolocutor d. Weston ceased.

"Then was a muttering about this setting to of hands before men had reasoned. And it was thought a great prejudice, and very unreasonable. D. Weston answered that they should have liberty to revoke, as many as would. It was answered that belike a great many would, if it were not for shame and fear. What shame (quoth Weston) or what fear? It was answered, Do they not see example before their face, how Mr. Pern is handled for his well doing? And thereat certain of the nobility and worshipful there present thought good the subscribing should be as nothing. D. Weston answered he was content: they should only be kept, but no man to be charged with that he had done. Then said Mr. Haddon to a noble personage that stood by him, If there be good faith meant, why should they be kept, and not torn in pieces rather and afterwards, when we have disputed, then coerce man to do as his conscience shall move him,

Prolocutor in the requirement of subscription. Pern had subscribed both to the natural or real Presence and to

for else men will be ashamed, so long as they think their names be remembered and ready to be shewed. Also you see how it is to no purpose to reason while this prejudice is remaining, and sentence given before a word can be spoken.-You speak reason (quoth he), and tell the prolocutor so. -I pray you, sir, quoth Haddon, say so to him, because your words shall be of most authority.-Marry I will (quoth he), and so did move the prolocutor in it who answered, Nay, that should not need. Then saith the other, You shall never have end except you so do: and said further, the matter was not indifferently used. In this talked to and fro, and whiles Mr. Pern was shewing of his mind, Theodoretus in Latin was given to the prolocutor, and a place turned unto. Whereupon when he had looked, he said to the whole house, You shall now have a place wherein Theodoretus doth answer himself to all that hath been said before. And so read out of another dialogue in Theodoret a certain sentence which he reciteth out of Ignatius his epistle unto the Smyrnenses. The words in Latin be these ; Eucharistiam et oblationes non admittunt, quia non confitentur Eucharistiam esse carnem Christi quæ passa est pro nobis, et quam Deus sua benignitate resuscitavit. In English this much, They do not receive the Eucharistia and oblation because they do not confess that the Eucharistia is the flesh of Christ which suffered for us, and the which God of his benignity raised again. Now, sayth d. Weston to the whole house, you have the plain words of the author, how he sayth that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ. Haddon hearing it required he might answer him. At last certain of the nobility and worshipful caused d. Weston that he might so do. Then Haddon said to him, he had cited the place much amiss. So Weston reached him the book, and bad him look. Yea, said Haddon, the words be as you first read them, but you have gathered of them much amiss. Why so, (quoth Weston) read them, saith he. Haddon red the place of the book as before, and englished it. Lo, sayth Weston, be they not so? Yea, sayth Haddon, I told you before the words were so, as you and I red them, but your gathering is wrong. Why so (quoth Weston)? Marie, quoth Haddon, if you will answer me a word or twain that I shall ask you, ye shall perceive. Did the Eucharistia or sacrament suffer upon the cross for us? And was the sacrament raised up again of God? Weston. Marie, the Sacrament is the same flesh and body which suffered upon the cross, but not in the same wise: and the same body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and that was transfigured upon mount Thabor: but then it was in another wise. Haddon. These be your words, but where is your proof? And this I know is your distinction, but the place which you have red speaketh of flesh which suffered indeed, and rose again. I will make reason and syllogism. And so was about to speak more. Then said d. Weston hastily, The next day, Mr. Dean, the next day! then you shall be heard, for now it is night. And it was dark indeed, and in manner night. He then appointed Friday after, and so departed.