Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

Transubstantiation. He now explained in what sense he understood the one, and he denied the other. The

"And by the way to admonish the reader, if time had served to answer to the place recited, or if it had come into controversy again, it should have been answered much after this sort. First, it is not Theodoretus his own mind, but cited out of Ignatius: and not to prove either to or fro of the Sacrament, for that was not in question, as the whole dialogue sheweth, wherein that place is cited, but to prove that the manhood and flesh of Christ did suffer, and therefore he had man's nature verily and substantially, and the manhood it was that suffered in him, and not the godhead, as it appeareth as well by the title of the dialogue and the preface to the same, as also to divers other authorities brought in for the same purpose in that dialogue nothing mentioning the sacrament neither one way nor other. Secondarily, the place is not in Ignatius his epistle. Thirdly, Ignatius hymself is against that opinion, as may be gathered by his saying in the same epistle ad Smyrnenses, a little after the beginning. Fourthly, the place is there rehearsed very abruptly, shewing uncertainly whose opinion it was which is there cited for refusing the sacrament. Fifthly, Theodoretus himself is directly against that meaning of the sacrament as though substance should not remain of bread and wine, as well after the consecration as before, as may well appear not only very manifestly in his first and second dialogue; but also by divers of the authors cited by him in sundry places of his three dialogues. Sixthly, If it were granted that it were Ignatius his saying, and perfectly cited, and to be spoken of the Sacrament, yet is it well known to the learned how the old writers name the sacraments, and why they name them by the things they signify and represent, according to St. Austin's rule ad Bonifacium, sacramenta earum rerum nomina habent quarum sunt sacramenta: that is, Sacraments have the names of those things whereof they be sacraments. And Theodoretus also in his first dialogue very plainly sheweth why the bread is called the body of Christ and the wine his blood, though sayth Theodoret he did not change their nature. Chrysostom doth shew also in divers places that the whole action is named "xapioríav, and why it is so named. But this is common among the old writers ecclesiastical, both Greeks and Latins; and this is a figure or manner of speaking much used among the best of profane writers, specially poetical or that write in any high style, and even in our daily speech also; that is, to name a whole matter by some special point in it, or that maketh notable mention or remembrance of it. Much after this sort, and to this end should have been answered to that place, if time had served, or that it had come any more in question, as it was thought it should.

The communication had upon the third day in the Convocation
House by Mr. Haddon and others.

"Friday next after being the third day that any reasoning was, when the Convocation house was assembled, and many noble personages there and worshipful to hear D. Weston Prolocutore."

Prolocutor instantly exhibited the roll of signatures that he held, and the name of Pern, to the laymen who sat around him. "Shame," said he, "that a doctor of divinity sets to his hand, and revokes the same again." Then Haddon and Aylmer declared that the subscription had been made on the express condition that it was not to prejudice any from afterwards declaring his opinion: the laymen held that Pern was in his right; the whole house was stirred with murmurs and protestations; and the Prolocutor at last was compelled to say that all who would might have liberty to revoke. "Belike many would," it was answered, "if it were not for shame and fear."-"What shame," said the Prolocutor, "what fear"-"For example," it was answered," the fear of being handled as Mr. Pern is for his well-doing." The laymen urged that the subscribing should go for nothing: on which the Prolocutor said that the names should be kept, but no man charged with what he had done. "Rather let them be torn to pieces," said Haddon, "men cannot shew their consciences so long as they think their names be remembered and ready to be shewn." After this nothing more was heard of the subscriptions: and the disputation was resumed, this time between Haddon and the Prolocutor. The dean was pressing his opponent, and was preparing to despatch him in a final syllogism, when the Prolocutor suddenly observed how dark it was getting, and "The next day, Mr. Dean," lightly exclaiming, "the next day you shall be heard," dismissed them with praise for their learning; adding that, all reasoning apart, the order of Holy Church must be received. The day for Haddon's syllogism never came, so far as Weston was concerned; though at the next meeting he was engaged again.

On Friday, October 27, the Prolocutor once more insisted on brevity: that they had spent two whole days

in debating the meaning of one author of the church, and the definition of a single term. Dean Haddon then again entered the lists, to whom responded Watson, aided by Morgan and Harpsfield: their argument turned upon the same term, and the meaning of it in the same author: and, after a short but obstinate struggle, Watson turned to seek another adversary. "Master Cheney," said he, "is more meet to dispute in the matter, because he has granted and subscribed to the Real Presence." Cheney began with meekness: that he was not obstinate: that he prayed for the patience of honourable men, whose learning was greater than his: that he would be no author of schism, nor hold anything contrary to Holy Church. The Prolocutor highly commended him for this. "Hear him," said he, "a learned and sober man, fit to dispute." Then Cheney proceeded solemnly to ask the prayers of all, that all should pray with the two words, Vincat veritas: and all repeated with a loud voice, Vincat veritas, vincat veritas. "That is hypocrisy," angrily exclaimed the Prolocutor, "say rather that the truth hath prevailed and gotten the victory: say, Vicit veritas."—" I will try," meekly replied Cheney, " to bring it to that point that I might well say so." He then addressed himself to Watson: that if Haddon were unmeet to answer because he granted not the natural and real Presence, Watson was more unmeet, who took away the substance of the Sacrament. Watson replied that he should not get away from this, that he had subscribed to the real Presence. The rest seconded him, until the laymen present requested that Cheney might be heard. Cheney then said that he had subscribed to the real Presence in a sense far other than they supposed: and went forward, pressing Watson with the argument where Haddon had left it, proving the meaning of the term to be what Haddon and others of the like mind

had alleged; and showing that the author who used it was, which had been denied, a Catholic doctor. In the course of the argument he appealed to the laymen, who seem to have taken his part: the discussion was close and keen: Morgan and Harpsfield joined Watson: but all these respondents were reduced to palpably absurd asseverations: on hearing which Cheney smiled, and said he could say no more.

After this the proceedings were of less moment: but it remained, if the scholastic order were to be preserved, that the opponents should become respondents. The Prolocutor asked whether the men who had brought objections had been sufficiently answered. Many of the clergy said, yea: but their voices were drowned in the outcry of the lay people, who cried No, no, with a shout that reached the doors of St. Paul's. The Prolocutor fiercely retorted that he was not asking the judgment of the rude multitude, but of the House: and demanded of Haddon, Cheney, and Aylmer* whether they would be respondents for three more days, the space that had been consumed already. They declined: and the controversy would have ended here, but for the impetuous Philpot, who sprang up and exclaimed that, if all others refused to answer, yet would he answer all opponents one after another. "Go to Bedlam," said the Prolocutor and Philpot, "Thou art worthy to go, for using thyself so ragingly, without indifferent quality." Then said the Prolocutor, "All have subscribed to the articles saving these men. You have heard their reasons. We promised to answer for three days, on the promise that they would answer again as long: if they be able to defend their doctrine, let them do so." Aylmer however

* Young of St. David's had departed early in the conference: and perhaps had been followed by Philips of Rochester, of whom we hear nothing now.

denied this that they had never promised to dispute, but only to testify, and show why in conscience they could not subscribe: that they had done so, and could do so more sufficiently than they had: that they would not be respondents before their arguments were solved: that, as the matter was already determined and decreed, they would but encumber themselves to no profit by answering. The controversy would therefore have been at an end, but that the challenge of Philpot could not be overlooked.

The final day of disputation, 30 October, was opened by the Prolocutor, who demanded of Philpot whether he would answer in the questions before propounded to the objections of himself and his fellows. He replied that if, as it had been at first determined, they would answer fully but one of his arguments, of which he had a dozen to bring, he would answer their objections. He was told to propound his argument: and thus the order of proceeding remained as it had been hitherto. He put forth the well-known argument of circumscript locality, in syllogistic form. Morgan, who responded, denied his major: and a wrangle followed, in which the weapons of anger and ridicule were used on both sides. Morgan laughing at one of Philpot's allegations, as if disdaining to answer it, Harpsfield stepped in with a replication, and was refuted by Philpot in a syllogism: a digression on the nature of necessity was stopped by the Prolocutor, demanding whether or no Philpot would answer to Morgan an argument or two: but Philpot held to the position that his own. arguments had not yet been answered sufficiently. Then Morgan rose again, and asked whether Philpot would be ruled by the universal Church. "Yea," answered the other, "if it be the true Catholic Church : but I would have you declare what the Church is."

« ÖncekiDevam »