243. A DISPUTATION ON RELIGION ORDERED BY THE QUEEN.
During the time of this parliament, the clergy likewise, after their wonted manner, had a convocation, with a disputation also, appointed by the queen's commandment, at Paul's church in London the same time, which was about the eighteenth of October; in the which convocation, first Master John Harpsfield, bachelor of divinity, made a sermon ad clerum, the sixteenth of October. After the sermon done, it was assigned by the bishops, that they of the clergy-house, for avoiding confusion of words, should choose them a prolocutor; to the which room and office, by common assent, was named Dr. Weston, dean of Westminster, and presented to the bishops with an oration of Master Pie, dean of Chichester, and also of Master Wimbisley, archdeacon of London: which Dr. Weston, being chosen and brought unto the bishops, made his gratulatory oration to the house, with the answer again of Bishop Bonner.
After these things thus sped in the convocation-house, they proceeded next to the disputation appointed, as is above said, by the queen's commandment, about the matter of the sacrament; which disputation continued six days: wherein Dr. Weston was chief on the pope's part, who behaved himself outrageously in taunting and checking. In conclusion, such as disputed on the contrary part were driven some to flee, some to deny, and some to die; though to the most men's judgments that heard the disputation, they had the upper hand, as here may appear by the report of the said disputation, the copy whereof we thought fit here to annex as followeth:
The true report of the disputation had and begun in the convocation-house at London the eighteenth of October, A.D. 1553.
"Whereas divers and uncertain rumours be spread abroad of the disputation had in the convocation-house; to the intent that all men may know the certainty of all things therein done and said, as much as the memory of him that was present thereat call bear away, he hath thought good, at request, thoroughly to describe what was said therein on both parties of the matters argued and had in question, and of the entrance thereof."
The act of the first day.
"First, upon Wednesday, being the eighteenth of October, at afternoon, Master Weston, the prolocutor, certified the house, that it was the queen's pleasure, that the company of the same house, being learned men assembled, should debate of matters of religion, and constitute laws thereof, which her Grace and the parliament would ratify. 'And for that,' said he, 'there is a book of late set forth, called the Catechism, [which he showed forth,] bearing the name of this honourable synod, and yet put forth without your consents, as I have learned; being a book very pestiferous, and full of heresies; and likewise a book of Common Prayer very abominable,' as it pleased him to term it. 'I thought it therefore best, first to begin with the articles of the Catechism, concerning the sacrament of the altar, to confirm the natural presence of Christ in the same, and also transubstantiation. Wherefore,' said he, 'it shall be lawful, on Friday next ensuing, for all men freely to speak their conscience in these matters, that all doubts may be removed, and they fully satisfied therein.'"
The act of the second day.
"The Friday coming, being the twentieth of October, when men had thought they should have entered disputations of the questions proposed, the prolocutor exhibited two several bills unto the house; the one for the natural presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar; the other concerning the Catechism, that it was not of that house's agreement set forth, and that they did not agree thereunto: requiring all them to subscribe to the same, as he himself had done. Whereunto the whole house did immediately assent, except six, which were the dean of Rochester, the dean of Exeter, the archdeacon of Winchester, the archdeacon of Hereford, the archdeacon of Stow, and one other.
"And whilst the rest were about to subscribe these two articles, John Philpot stood up, and spake, first, concerning the articles of the Catechism, that he thought they were deceived in the title of the Catechism, in that it beareth the title of the synod of London last before this; although many of them which then were present were never made privy thereof in setting it forth; for that this house had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the king's Majesty; and whatsoever ecclesiastical laws they, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to a statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the synod of London, although such as be of this house now, had no notice thereof, before the promulgation. And in this point he thought the setter-forth thereof nothing to have slandered the house, as they, by their subscription, went about to persuade the world, since they had our synodal authority unto them committed, to make such spiritual laws as they thought convenient and necessary.
"And moreover he said, as concerning the article of the natural presence in the sacrament, that it was against reason and order of learning, and also very prejudicial to the truth, that men should he moved to subscribe before the matter were thoroughly examined and discussed. But when he saw that allegation might take no place, being as a man astonished at the multitude of so many learned men, as there were of purpose gathered together to maintain old traditions more than the truth of God's holy word, he made this request unto the prolocutor: That whereas there were so many ancient learned men present on that side, as in the realm the like again were not to be found in such number; and that on the other side of them that had not subscribed, were not past five or six, both in age and learning far inferior unto them: therefore, that equality might be had in this disputation, he desired that the prolocutor would be a mean unto the lords, that some of those that were learned, and setters-forth of the same Catechism, might be brought into the house, to show their learning that moved them to set forth the same; and that Dr. Ridley and Master Rogers, with two or three more, might be licensed to be present, at this disputation, and to be associated with them.
"This request was thought reasonable, and was proposed unto the bishops, who made this answer: That it was not in them to call such persons unto our house, since some of them were prisoners. But they said, they would be petitioners in this behalf unto the council, and in case any were absent that ought to be of the house, they willed them to be taken in unto them if they listed. After this, they minding to have entered into disputation, there came a gentleman as messenger from the lord great master, signifying unto the prolocutor, that the lord great master and the earl of Devonshire would be present at the disputations, and therefore he deferred the same unto Monday, at one of the clock at afternoon."
The act of the third day.
"Upon Monday, the twenty-third of October, at the time appointed, in the presence of many earls, lords, knights, gentlemen, and divers other of the court and of the city also, the prolocutor made a protestation, that they of the house had appointed this disputation, not to call the truth into doubts, to the which they had already all subscribed, saving five or six, but that those gainsayers might be resolved of their arguments in the which they stood, 'as it shall appear unto you, not doubting but they will also condescend unto us.'
"Then he demanded of Master Haddon, whether we would reason against the questions proposed, or no. To whom he made answer, that he had certified him before, in writing, that he would not, since the request of such learned men as were demanded to be assistant with them, would not be granted. Master Elmar likewise was asked, who made the prolocutor the like answer; adding moreover this, that they had done too much prejudice already to the truth, to subscribe before the matter was discussed: and little or nothing it might avail to reason for the truth, since all they were now determined to the contrary.
"After this he demanded of Master Cheney, who, the prolocutor said, allowed the presence with them; but he denied the transubstantiation by the means of certain authorities upon the which he standeth, and desireth to be resolved, (as you shall hear,) whether he will propose his doubts concerning transubstantiation, or no. 'Yea,' quoth he, 'I would gladly my doubts to be resolved, which move me not to believe transubstantiation. The first is out of St. Paul to the Corinthians, who, speaking of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, calleth it ofttimes bread, after the consecration. The second is out of Origen, who, speaking of this sacrament, saith, that the material part thereof goeth down to the excrements. The third is out of Theodoret, who making mention of the sacramental bread and wine after the consecration, saith, that they go not out of their former substance, form, and shape. These be some of my doubts, among many others, wherein I require to be answered.'
"Then the prolocutor assigned Dr. Moreman to answer him, who, to St. Paul, answered him thus: 'The sacrament is called by him bread indeed; but it is thus to be understood: that it is the sacrament of bread; that is, the form of bread.'
"Then Master Cheney inferred and alleged, that Hesychius called the sacrament both bread and flesh. 'Yea,' quoth Moreman, 'Hesychius calleth it bread, because it was bread, and not because it is so.' And passing over Origen, he came to Theodoret, and said, that men mistook his authority, by interpreting a general into a special, as Peter Martyr hath done in the place of Theodoret, interpreting ουσια [Greek: ousia], for substance, which is a special signification of the word; whereas ουσια [Greek: ousia] is a general word, as well to accidents as to substance; and therefore I answer thus unto Theodoret; That the sacramental bread and wine do not go out of their former substance, form, and shape; that is to say, not out of their accidental substance and shape.'
"After this Master Cheney sat him down; and by and by Master Elmar stood up, as one that could not abide to hear so fond an answer to so grave an authority, and reasoned upon the authority of Theodoret alleged before by Master Cheney, and declared, that Moreman's answer to Theodoret was no just or sufficient answer, but an illusion and subtle evasion, contrary to Theodoret's meaning. 'For,' said he, 'if ουσια [Greek: ousia] should signify an accident in the place alleged, as it is answered by Master Moreman, then were it a word superfluous set in Theodoret there, where do follow two other words, which sufficiently do expound the accidents of the bread, that is ειδος και σχημα [Greek: eidos kai schema], which signify in English, shape and form.' And so he proved out of the same author, by divers allegations, that ουσια [Greek: ousia], in Greek, could not be so generally taken in that place, as Moreman for a shift would have it. But Moreman, as a man having no other salve for that sore, affirmed still, that ι ουσια [Greek: ousia], which signifieth substance, must needs signify an accidental substance properly. To whose importunity, since he could have no other answer, Elmar, as a man wearied with his importunity, gave place.
"After this stood up John Philpot, and said, that he could prove, that by the matter that Theodoret entreateth of in the place above alleged, and by the similitude which he maketh to prove his purpose, by no means Master Moreman's interpretation of ουσια [Greek: ousia], might be taken for an accidental substance, as he for a shift would interpret it to be; for the matter which Theodoret entreateth of in that place, is against Eutiches, a heretic, who denied two natures of substance to remain in Christ, being one person, and that his humanity, after the accomplishment of the mystery of our salvation, ascending into heaven, and being joined unto the Divinity, was absorpt, or swallowed up of the same; so that Christ should be no more but of one Divine substance only, by his opinion. Against which opinion Theodoret writeth, and by the similitude of the sacrament proveth the contrary against the heretic: that like as in the sacrament of the body of Christ, after the consecration, there is the substance of Christ's humanity, with the substance of bread remaining as it was before, not being absorpt by the humanity of Christ, but joined by the Divine operation thereunto; even so in the person of Christ, being now in heaven, of whom this sacrament is a representation, there be two several substances, that is, his Divinity and humanity, united in one hypostasis or person, which is Christ; the humanity not being absorpt by the conjunction of the Divinity, but remaining in his former substance. 'And this similitude,' quoth Philpot, brought in of Theodoret to confound Eutiches, should prove nothing at all, if the very substance of the sacramental bread did not remain as it did before. But if Dr. Moreman's interpretation might take place for transubstantiation, then should the heretic have thereby a strong argument, by Theodoret's authority so taken, to maintain his heresy, and to prove himself a good Christian man; and he might well say thus unto Theodoret: Like as thou, Theodoret, if thou wert of Dr. Moreman's mind, dost say, that after the consecration in the sacrament, the substance of the bread is absorpt or transubstantiate into the human body of Christ coming thereunto, so that in the sacrament is now but one substance of the humanity alone, and not the substance of bread as it was before: even so likewise may I affirm, and conclude by thine own similitude, that the humanity ascending up by the power of God into heaven, and adjoined unto the Deity, was by the might thereof absorpt and turned into one substance with the Deity; so that now there remaineth but one Divine substance in Christ, no more than in the sacramental signs of the Lord's supper, after the consecration, doth remain any more than one substance, according to your belief and construction.'
"In answering to this, Dr. Moreman staggered, whose defect Philpot perceiving, spake on this wise, Well, Master Moreman, if you have no answer at this present ready, I pray you devise one, if you can conveniently. against our next meeting here again.'
"With that his saying the prolocutor was grievously offended, telling him that he should not brag there, but that he should be fully answered. Then said Philpot, 'It is the only thing that I desire, to be answered directly in this behalf; and I desire of you, and of all the house at this present, that I may be sufficiently answered, which I am sure you are not able to do, saving Theodoret's authority and similitude upright, as he ought to be taken.' None other answer, then, was made to Philpot's reason, but that he was commanded to silence.
"Then stood up the dean of Rochester, offering himself to reason in the first question against the natural presence, wishing that the Scripture and the ancient doctors, in this point, might be weighed, believed, and followed. And against this natural presence, he thought the saying of Christ in St. Matthew to make sufficiently enough, if men would credit and follow Scripture; who said there of himself, that poor men we should have alway with us, but Him we should not have always 'which was spoken,' quoth he, 'concerning the natural presence of Christ's body. Therefore we ought to believe as he hath taught -- that Christ is not naturally present on earth in the sacrament of the altar.'
To this was answered by the prolocutor, that we should not have Christ present always to exercise alms-deeds upon him, but upon the poor.
"But the dean prosecuted his argument, and showed it out of St. Augustine further, that the same interpretation of the Scripture alleged, was no sufficient answer; who writeth on this wise, on the same sentence: 'When he said, (saith St. Augustine,) Me shall ye not have always with you; he spake of the presence of his body. For by his majesty, by his providence, by his unspeakable and invisible grace, that is fulfilled which is said of him, Behold, I am with you until the consummation of the world. But in the flesh, which the Word took upon him, in that which was born of the Virgin, in that which was apprehended of the Jews, which was crucified on the cross, which was let down from the cross, which was wrapped in clouts, which was hid in the sepulchre, which was manifested in the resurrection, You shall not have me always with you. And why? For after a bodily presence he was conversant with his disciples forty days; and they accompanying him, seeing and not following him, he ascended and is not here; for there he sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and yet here he is, because he is not departed in the presence of his majesty. After another manner we have Christ always, by the presence of his majesty; but, after the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, You shall not verily have me always with you. For the church had him in the presence of his flesh a few days, and now by faith it apprehendeth him, and seeth him not with eyes.'
"To this authority Dr. Watson took upon him to answer, and said, he would answer St. Augustine by St. Augustine. And having a certain book in his hand of notes, he alleged out of the seventieth treatise upon St. John, that after that mortal condition and manner we have not now Christ on earth, as he was heretofore before his passion.
"Against whose answer John Philpot replied, and said, that Master Watson had not fully answered St. Augustine by St. Augustine, as he would seem to have done; for that in the place above mentioned by master dean of Rochester, he doth not only teach the mortal state of Christ's body before his passion, but also the immortal condition of the same after his resurrection: in the which mortal body St. Augustine seemeth plainly to affirm, that Christ is not present upon the earth, neither in form visibly, neither in corporal substance invisibly, as in few lines after the place above alleged, St. Augustine doth more plainly declare by these words, saying, 'Now these two manners of Christ's presence declared, who is, by his majesty, providence, and grace, now present in the world, who before hisascension was present in flesh; and being now placed at the right hand of the Father, is absent in the same from the world, I think (saith St. Augustine) that there remaineth no other question in this matter.'
"'Now,' quoth Philpot, if St. Augustine acknowledged no more presence of Christ to be now on earth, but only his Divine presence, and touching his humanity, to be in heaven, we ought to confess and believe the same. But if we put a third presence of Christ, that is, corporally to be present always in the sacrament of the altar invisibly, according to your suppositions, whereof St. Augustine maketh no mention at all in all his works; you shall seem to judge that, which St. Augustine did never comprehend.'
"'Why,' quoth Watson, 'St. Augustine, in the place by me alleged -- maketh he no mention how St. Stephen, being in this world, saw Christ after his ascension? '
"It is true,' said Philpot: 'but he saw Christ, as the Scripture telleth, in the heavens, being open, standing at the right hand of God the Father.' Further to this Watson answered not.
"Then the prolocutor went about to furnish up an answer to St. Augustine, saying, that he is not now in the world after the manner of bodily presence, but yet present, for all that, in his body.
"To whom Philpot answered, that the prolocutor did grate much upon this word secundum in St. Augustine; which signified', after the manner, or in form: but he doth not answer to id quod, which is that thing or substance of Christ, in the which Christ suffered, arose, and ascended into heaven, in the which thing and substance he is in heaven, and not in earth; as St. Augustine, in the place specified, most clearly doth define.
"To this nothing else being answered, the dean of Rochester proceeded in the maintenance of his argument, and read out of a book of annotations sundry authorities for the confirmation thereof; to the which Moreman, who was appointed to answer him, made no direct answer, but bade him make an argument, saying, that master dean had recited many words of doctors, but he made not one argument. Then said the dean, 'The authorities of the doctors by me rehearsed, be sufficient arguments to prove mine intent, to the which my desire is to be answered of you.' But still Moreman cried, 'Make an argument,' to shift off the authority which he could not answer unto.
"After this the dean made this argument out of the institution of the sacrament: Do this in remembrance of me; and, Thus ye shall show forth the Lord's death until he come.-- The sacrament is the remembrance of Christ: ergo, the sacrament is not very Christ; for yet he is not come. For these words, until he come,' do plainly signify the absence of Christ's body. Then the prolocutor went about to show that these words, 'until he come,' did not import any absence of Christ on the earth, by other places of Scripture, where donec, 'until,' was used in like sense; but directly to the purpose he answered nothing. In conclusion the dean fell to questioning with Moreman, whether Christ did eat the paschal lamb with his disciples, or not? He answered, 'Yea.' Further, he demanded whether he did eat likewise the sacrament with them, as he did institute it? Moreman answered, 'Yea.' Then be asked, what he did eat, and whether he did eat his own natural body, as they imagine it to be, or no? which when Moreman had affirmed; then said the dean, 'It is a great absurdity by you granted;' and so he sat down.
"Against this absurdity Philpot stood up and argued, saying, he could prove it by good reason deduced out of the Scripture, that Christ ate not his own natural body at the institution of the sacrament; and the reason is this:
"Receiving of Christ's body hath a promise of remission of sins with it annexed.
"Christ, eating the sacrament, had no promise of remission of sin.
"Ergo, Christ, in the sacrament, did not eat his own body.
"To this reason Moreman answered, denying the former part of the argument, that the sacrament had a promise of remission of sins annexed unto it.
"Then Philpot showed this to be the promise in the sacrament: Which is given for you, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins. But Moreman would not acknowledge that to be any promise, so that he drave Philpot to John vi., to vouch his saying with these words; The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
"Moreman answering nothing directly to this argument, Harpsfield started up to supply that which was wanted in his behalf; and thinking to have answered Philpot, confirmed more strongly his argument, saying, 'Ye mistake the promise which is annexed to the body of Christ in the sacrament: for it pertained not to Christ, but to his disciples, to whom Christ said, This is my body which is given for you; and not for Christ himself.'
"'You have said well for me,' quoth Philpot, 'for that is mine argument. The promise of the body of Christ took no effect in Christ: ergo, Christ ate not his own body.'
"Then the prolocutor, to shoulder out the matter, said, the argument was nought; for by the like argument he might go about to prove, that Christ was not baptized, because the remission of sin, which is annexed unto baptism, took no effect in Christ. To the which Philpot replied, that like as Christ was baptized, so he ate the sacrament: but he took on him baptism, not that he had any need thereof, or that it took any effect in him; but as our Master, to give the church an example to follow him in the ministration of the sacrament, and thereby to exhibit unto us himself; and not to give himself to himself.
"No more was said in this; but afterward the prolocutor demanded of Philpot, whether he would argue against the natural presence, or no? To whom he answered, Yea, if he would hear his argument without interruption, and assign one to answer him, and not many; which is a confusion to the opponent, and especially for him that was of an ill memory.
"By this time the night was come on; wherefore the prolocutor brake up the disputation for that time, and appointed Philpot to be the first that should begin the disputation the next day after, concerning the presence of Christ in the sacrament."
The act of the fourth day.
"On Wednesday, the twenty-fifth of October, John Philpot, as it was before appointed, was ready to have entered the disputation, minding first to have made a certain oration, and a true declaration in Latin of the matter of Christ's presence, which was then in question. Which thing the prolocutor perceiving, by and by he forbade Philpot to make any oration or declaration of any matter; commanding him, also, that he should make no argument in Latin, but to conclude on his arguments in English.
"Then said Philpot, 'This is contrary to your order taken at the beginning of this disputation. For then you appointed that all the arguments should be made in Latin, and thereupon I have drawn and devised all my arguments in Latin. And because you, master prolocutor, have said heretofore openly in this house, that I had no learning, I had thought to have showed such learning as I have, in a brief oration, and a short declaration of the questions now in controversy; thinking it so most convenient also, that in case I should speak otherwise in my declaration than should stand with learning, or than I were able to warrant and justify by God's word, it might the better he reformed by such as were learned of the house, so that the unlearned sort, being present, might take the less offence thereat.'
"But this allegation prevailed nothing with the prolocutor, who bade him still form an argument in English, or else to hold his peace. Then said Philpot, 'You have sore disappointed me, thus suddenly to go from your former order: but I will accomplish your commandment, leaving mine oration apart; and I will come to my arguments, the which, as well as so sudden a warning will serve, I will make in English. But before I bring forth any argument, I will, in one word, declare what manner of presence I disallow in the sacrament, to the intent the hearers may the better understand to what end and effect mine arguments shall tend; not to deny utterly the presence of Christ in his sacraments, truly ministered according to his institution; but only to deny that gross and carnal presence, which you of this house have already subscribed unto, to be in the sacrament of the altar, contrary to the truth and manifest meaning of the Scriptures: That by transubstantiation of the sacramental bread and wine, Christ's natural body should, by the virtue of the words pronounced by the priest, be contained and included under the forms or accidents of bread and wine. This kind of presence, imagined by men, I do deny,' quoth Philpot, 'and against this I will reason.'
"But before he could make an end of that he would have said, he was interrupted of the prolocutor, and commanded to descend to his argument. At whose unjust importunity Philpot being offended, and thinking to purchase him a remedy therefor, he fell down upon his knees before the earls and lords which were there present, being a great number, whereof some were of the queen's council, beseeching them that he might have liberty to prosecute his arguments, without interruption of any man; the which was gently granted him of the lords. But the prolocutor, putting in use a point of the practice of prelates, would not condescend thereunto, but still cried, 'Hold your peace, or else make a short argument' 'I am about it,' quoth Philpot, 'if you will let me alone. But first, I must needs ask a question of my respondent (who was Dr. Chedsey) concerning a word or twain of your supposition; that is, of the sacrament of the altar: What he meaneth thereby, and whether he taketh it as some of the ancient writers do, terming the Lord's supper the sacrament of the altar -- partly because it is a sacrament of that lively sacrifice which Christ offered for our sins upon the altar of the cross,-- and partly because that Christ's body, crucified for us, was that bloody sacrifice, which the blood-shedding of all the beasts offered upon the altar in the old law, did prefigurate and signify unto us, in signification whereof the old writers sometimes do call the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, among other names which they ascribe thereunto, the sacrament of the altar? Or whether you take it otherwise; as for the sacrament of the altar which is made of lime and stone, over the which the sacrament hangeth, and to be all one with the sacrament of the mass, as it is at this present in many places? This done, I will direct mine arguments according as your answer shall give me occasion.'
"Then made Dr. Chedsey this answer, that in their supposition they took the sacrament of the altar, and the sacrament of the mass, to be all one.
"'Then,' quoth Philpot, 'I will speak plain English as master prolocutor willeth me, and make a short resolution thereof: That that sacrament of the altar, which ye reckon to be all one with the mass, once justly abolished, and now put in full use again, is no sacrament at all, neither is Christ in any wise present in it.' And this his saying he offered to prove before the whole house, if they listed to call him thereunto; and likewise he offered to vouch the same before the queen's Grace, and her most honourable council, [or] before the face of six of the best learned men of the house, of the contrary opinion, and refused none. And if I shall not be able,' quoth he, 'to maintain by God's word that I have said, and confound those six which shall take upon them to withstand me in this point, let me be burned with as many faggots as be in London, before the court gates.' This he uttered with great vehemency of spirit.
"At this the prolocutor, with divers others, was very much offended, demanding of him, whether he wist what he said, or no? 'Yea,' quoth Philpot, 'I wot well what I say;' desiring no man to be offended with his saying, for that he spake no more than by God's word he was able to prove. And praised be God,' quoth he, 'that the queen's Grace hath granted us of this house, (as our prolocutor hath informed us,) that we may freely utter our consciences in these matters of controversy in religion: and therefore I will speak here my conscience freely, grounded upon God's holy word, for the truth; albeit some of you here present mislike the same.'
"Then divers of the house, besides the prolocutor, taunted and reprehended him for speaking so unfearingly against the sacrament of the mass, and the prolocutor said, he was mad; and threatened him, that he would send him to prison, if he would not cease his speaking.
"Philpot, seeing himself thus abused, and not permitted with free liberty to declare his mind, fell into an exclamation, casting his eyes up towards the heaven, and said, 'O Lord, what a world is this, that the truth of thy holy word may not be spoken and abiden by!' And for very sorrow and heaviness the tears trickled out of his eyes.
"After this the prolocutor, being moved by some that were about him, was content that he should make an argument, so that he would be brief therein.
"'I will be as brief,' quoth Philpot, 'as I may conveniently be, in uttering all that I have to say. And first, I will begin to ground my arguments upon the authority of Scriptures, whereupon all the building of our faith ought to be grounded; and after, I shall confirm the same by ancient doctors of the church. And I take the occasion of my first argument out of Matthew xxviii., of the saying of the angel to the three Marys, seeking Christ at the sepulchre, saying, He is risen, he is not here: and Luke xxiii., the angel asketh them, Why they sought him that liveth among the dead. Likewise the Scripture testifieth, that Christ is risen, ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: all the which is spoken of his natural body: ergo, it is not on earth included in the sacrament.
"'I will confirm this yet more effectually, by the saying of Christ in John xvi.; I came, saith Christ, from my Father into the world, and now I leave the world and go away to my Father: the which coming and going he meant of his natural body. Therefore we may affirm thereby, that it is not now in the world.
"'But I look here,' quoth he, to be answered with a blind distinction of visibly and invisibly, that he is visibly departed in his humanity, but invisibly he remaineth notwithstanding in the sacrament. But that answer I prevent myself, that with more expedition I may descend to the pith of mine arguments, whereof I have a dozen to propose; and will prove that no such distinction ought to take away the force of that argument, by the answer which Christ's disciples gave unto him, speaking these words: Now thou speakest plainly, and utterest forth no proverb; which words St. Cyril, interpreting, saith, 'That Christ spake without any manner of ambiguity and obscure speech.' And therefore I conclude hereby thus, that if Christ spake plainly, and without parable, saying, I leave the world now and go away to my Father, then that obscure, dark, and imperceptible presence of Christ's natural body, to remain in the sacrament upon earth invisibly, contrary to the plain words of Christ, ought not to be allowed. For nothing can be more uncertain, or more parabolical and insensible, than so to say. Here now will I attend what you will answer, and so descend to the confirmation of all that I have said by ancient writers..
"Then Dr. Chedsey, reciting his argument in such order as it was made, took upon him to answer severally to every part thereof on this wise. First, to the saying of the angel, That Christ is not here; and, Why seek ye the living among the dead? he answered, that these sayings pertained nothing to the presence of Christ's natural body in the sacrament; but that they were spoken of Christ's body being in the sepulchre, when the three Marys thought him to have been in the grave still. And therefore the angel said, Why do ye seek him that liveth among the dead? And to the authority of John xvi., where Christ saith, Now I leave the world and go to my Father, he meant that of his ascension. And so likewise did Cyril, interpreting the saying of the disciples, that knew plainly that Christ would visibly ascend into heaven. But that doth not exclude the invisible presence of his natural body in the sacrament; for St. Chrysostom, writing to the people of Antioch, doth affirm the same, comparing Elijah and Christ together, and Elijah's cloak unto Christ's flesh: 'Elijah,' quoth he, 'when he was taken up in the fiery chariot, left his cloak behind him unto his disciple Elisha. But Christ, ascending into heaven, took his flesh with him, and left also his flesh behind him.' Whereby we may right well gather, that Christ's flesh is visibly ascended into heaven, and invisibly abideth still in the sacrament of the altar.
"To this Philpot replied, and said, You have not directly answered to the saying of the angel, Christ is risen, and is not here, because you have omitted that which was the chiefest point of all. For,' said he, 'I proceeded further, as thus: He is risen, ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father: ergo, he is not remaining on the earth. Neither is your answer to Cyril, by me alleged, sufficient; but by and by I will return to your interpretation of Cyril, and more plainly declare the same, after that I have first refelled the authority of Chrysostom, which is one of your chief principles that you alleged, to make for your gross carnal presence in the sacrament; which being well weighed and understood, pertaineth nothing thereunto.'
"At that the prolocutor startled, that one of the chief pillars in this point should be overthrown; and therefore recited the said authority in Latin first, and afterward Englished the same, willing all that were present to note that saying of Chrysostom, which he thought invincible on their side. But I shall make it appear,' quoth Philpot, 'by and by, that it doth make little for your purpose.' And as he was about to declare his mind in that behalf, the prolocutor did interrupt him, as he did almost continually; wherewith Philpot, not being content, said, Master prolocutor thinketh that he is in a sophistry school, where he knoweth right well the manner is, that when the respondent perceiveth that he is like to be enforced with an argument, to the which he is not able to answer, then he loth what he can, with cavillation and interruption, to drive him from the same.'
"This saying of Philpot was ill taken of the prolocutor and his adherents; and the prolocutor said, that Philpot could bring nothing to avoid that authority, but his own vain imagination. 'Hear,' quoth Philpot, 'and afterward judge. For I will do in this, as in all other authorities wherewith you shall charge me in refelling any of my arguments that I have to prosecute, answering either unto the same by sufficient authorities of Scripture, or else by some other testimony of like authority of yours, and not of mine own imagination; the which if I do, I will it to be of no great credit. And concerning the saying of Chrysostom, I have two ways to beat him from your purpose; the one out of Scripture, the other out of Chrysostom himself, in the place here by you alleged. First, where he seemeth to say, that Christ ascending took his flesh with him, and left also his flesh behind him, truth it is: for we all do confess and believe, that Christ took on him our human nature in the Virgin Mary's womb, and, through his passion in the same, hath united us to his flesh; and thereby are we become one flesh with him: so that Chrysostom might therefore right well say, that Christ, ascending, took his flesh, which he received of the Virgin Mary, away with him; and also left his flesh behind him, which are we that he his elect in this world, which are the members of Christ, and flesh of his flesh; as very aptly St. Paul to the Ephesians, in the fifth chapter, doth testify, saying, We are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones. And if percase any man will reply, that he entreateth there of the sacrament, so that this interpretation cannot so aptly be applied unto him in that place, then will I yet interpret Chrysostom another way by himself. For in that place, a few lines before those words which were here now lately read, are these words; that Christ, after he ascended into heaven, left unto us, endued with his sacraments, his flesh in mysteries; that is, sacramentally. And that mystical flesh Christ leaveth as well to his church in the sacrament of baptism, as in the sacramental bread and wine. And that St. Paul justly doth witness, saying, As many of us as are baptized in Christ have put upon us Christ: and thus you may understand that St. Chrysostom maketh nothing for your carnal and gross presence in the sacrament, as you wrongfully take him.'
"Now in this mean while Master Pie rounded the prolocutor in the ear, to put Philpot to silence, and to appoint some other, mistrusting lest he would shrewdly shake their carnal presence in conclusion, if he held on long, seeing in the beginning he gave one of their chief foundations such a pluck. Then the prolocutor said to Philpot, that he had reasoned sufficiently enough, and that some other should now supply his room. Wherewith he was not well content, saying: 'Why, sir, I have a dozen arguments concerning this matter to be proposed, and I have yet scarce overgone my first argument; for I have not brought in any confirmation thereof out of any ancient writer, (whereof I have for the same purpose many,) being hitherto still letted by your oft interrupting of me.'
"'Well,' quoth the prolocutor, 'you shall speak no more now, and I command you to hold your peace.'
"'You perceive,' quoth Philpot, that I have stuff enough for you, and am able to withstand your false supposition, and therefore you command me to silence.' 'If you will not give place,' quoth the prolocutor, 'I will send you to prison.' 'This is not,' quoth Philpot,' according to your promise made in this house, nor yet according to your brag made at Paul's Cross, that men should be answered in this disputation to whatsoever they can say; since you will not suffer me, of a dozen arguments, to prosecute one.'
"Then Master Pie took upon him to promise that he should be answered another day. Philpot seeing he might not proceed in his purpose, being therewith justly offended, ended, saying thus: 'A sort of you here, which hitherto have lurked in corners, and dissembled with God and the world, are now gathered together to suppress the sincere truth of God's holy word, and to set forth every false device, which, by the catholic doctrine of the Scripture, ye are not able to maintain.'
"Then stepped forth Master Elmar, chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, whom Master Moreman took upon him to answer; against whom Master Elmar objected divers and sundry authorities for the confirming of the argument he took the day before in hand, to prove that ουσια [Greek: ousia] in the sentence of Theodoret, brought in by Master Cheney, must needs signify substance, and not accidents: whose reasons and probations, because they were all grounded and brought out of the Greek, I do pass over, for that they want their grace in English, and also their proper understanding. But his allegations so encumbered Master Moreman, that he desired a day to overview them, for at that instant he was without a convenient answer.
"Then did the prolocutor call Master Haddon, dean of Exeter, and chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, who prosecuted Theodoret's authority in confirming Master Elmar's argument: to whom Dr. Watson took upon him to give answer; who, after long talk, was so confounded, that he was not able to answer to the word mysterium: but, forasmuch as he seemed to doubt therein, Master Haddon took out of his bosom a Latin author to confirm his saying, and showed the same to Master Watson, asking him whether he thought the translation to be true, or that the printer were in any fault. 'There may be a fault in the printer,' quoth Watson, 'for I am not remembered of this word.' Then did Master Haddon take out of his bosom a Greek book, wherein he showed forth with his finger the same words; which Master Watson could not deny. His arguments further I omit to declare at large, because they were for the most part in Greek, about the bolting of the true signification of ουσια [Greek: ousia].
"Then stept forth Master Pern, and in argument made declaration of his mind against transubstantiation, and confirmed the sayings and authorities alleged by Master Elmar and Master Haddon; to whom the prolocutor answered, saying, I much marvel, Master Pern, that you will say thus; forasmuch as, on Friday last, you subscribed to the contrary.' Which his saying Master Elmar did mislike, saying to the prolocutor, that he was to blame, so to reprehend any man, 'partly for that this house,' quoth he, 'is a house of free liberty for every man to speak his conscience, and partly for that you promised yesterday, that, notwithstanding any man had subscribed, yet he should have free liberty to speak his mind.' And for that the night did approach, and the time was spent, the prolocutor, giving them praises for their learning, did yet notwithstanding conclude, that, all reasoning set apart, the order of the holy church must be received, and all things must be ordered thereby."
The act of the fifth day.
"On Friday, the twenty-seventh of October, Dr. Weston the prolocutor did first propound the matter, showing that the convocation hath spent two days in disputation already about one only doctor, who was Theodoret, and about one only word, which was ουσια [Greek: ousia]: yet were they come, the third day, to answer all things that could be objected, so that they would shortly put their arguments. So Master Haddon, dean of Exeter, desired leave to oppose Master Watson, which, with two other more, that is, Morgan and Harpsfield, was appointed to answer.
"Master Haddon demanded this of him, 'Whether any substance of bread or wine did remain after the consecration.' Then Master Watson asked of him again, Whether he thought there to be a real presence of Christ's body or no? Master Haddon said, It was not meet nor order-like, that he who was appointed to be respondent, should be opponent; and he whose duty it was to object, should answer.-- Yet Master Watson, a long while, would not agree to answer; but, that thing first being granted him, at last an order was set, and Master Haddon had leave to go forward with his argument.
"Then he proved, by Theodoret's words, a substance of bread and wine to remain. For these are his words: 'The same they were before the sanctification, which they are after.' Master Watson said, that Theodoret meant not the same substance, but the same essence.
"Whereupon they were driven again unto the discussing of the Greek word ουσια [Greek: ousia]; and Master Haddon proved it to mean a substance, both by the etymology of the word, and by the words of the doctor. 'For ουσια [Greek: ousia],' quoth he, cometh of the particle ων,[Greek:on] which descendeth of the verb ειμι [Greek:eimi]; and so cometh the noun oboia, which signifieth substance.' Then Master Watson answered, that it had not that signification only: but Master Haddon proved that it must needs so signify in that place.
"Then Haddon asked Watson, When the bread and wine became symbols? Whereunto he answered, 'After the consecration, and not before.' Then gathered Master Haddon this reason out of his author:
"The same thing, saith Theodoret, that the bread and wine were before they were symbols, the same they remain still in nature and substance, after they are symbols.
"Bread and wine they were before:
"Therefore bread and wine they are after.
"Then Master Watson fell to the denial of the author, and said he was a Nestorian; and he desired that he might answer to Master Cheney who stood by, for that he was more meet to dispute in the matter, because he had granted and subscribed unto the real presence.
"Master Cheney desired patience of the honourable men to hear him, trusting that he should so open the matter, that the verity should appear: protesting furthermore, that he was no obstinate or stubborn man, but would be conformable to all reason; and if they, by their learning, (which he acknowledged to be much more than his,) could answer his reasons, then he would be ruled by them, and say as they said; for he would be no author of schism, nor hold any thing contrary to the holy mother the church, which is Christ's spouse.
"Dr. Weston liked this well, and commended him highly, saying that he was a well-learned and sober man, and well exercised in all good learning, and in the doctors; and finally, a man meet, for his knowledge, to dispute in that place: 'I pray you hear him,' quoth he.
"Then Master Cheney desired such as there were present, to pray two words with him unto God, and to say, Vincat veritas: 'Let the verity take place, and have the victory;' and all that were present cried with a loud voice, Vincat veritas, Vincat veritas.
"Then said Dr. Weston to him, that it was hypocritical. 'Men may better say,' quoth he, 'Vicit veritas, Truth hath gotten the victory.' Master Cheney said again, if he would give him leave, he would bring it to that point, that he might well say so.
"Then he began with Master Watson after this sort: 'You said, that Master Haddon was unmeet to dispute, because he granteth not the natural and real presence; but I say, you are much more unmeet to answer, because you take away the substance of the sacrament."
"Master Watson said, he [Cheney] had subscribed to the real presence, and should not go away from that: so said Weston also, and the rest of the priests; insomuch that for a great while he could have no leave to say any more, till the lords spake, and willed that he should be heard.
"Then Master Cheney told them what he meant by his subscribing to the real presence, far otherwise than they supposed. So then he went forward, and prosecuted Master Haddon's argument, in proving that ουσια [Greek: ousia] was a substance; using the same reason that Master Haddon did before him. And when he had received the same answer also that was made to Master Haddon, he said, it was but a lewd refuge, when they could not answer, to deny the author: and proved the author to be a catholic doctor; and, that being proved, he confirmed that which was said of the nature and substance further. 'The similitude of Theodoret is this,' quoth he: 'As the tokens of Christ's body and blood, after the invocation of the priests, do change their names, and yet continue the same substance; so the body of Christ, after his ascension, changed its name, and was called immortal, yet had it its former fashion, figure, and circumscription; and, to speak at one word, the same substance of his body. Therefore,' said Master Cheney, 'if, in the former part of the similitude, you deny the same substance to continue, then, in the latter part of the similitude, which agreeth with it, I will deny the body of Christ, after his ascension, to have the former nature and substance. But that were a great heresy; therefore it is also a great heresy to take away the substance of blood and wine after the sanctification.'
"Then was Master Watson enforced to say, that the substance of the body, in the former part of the similitude brought in by him, did signify quantity, and other accidents of the sacramental tokens which be seen, and not the very substance of the same; and therefore Theodoret saith, 'those things which be seen.' For, according to philosophy, the accidents of things be seen, and not the substances.
"Then Master Cheney appealed to the honourable men, and desired that they should give no credit to them in so saying; for if they should so think as they would teach, after their Lordships had ridden forty miles on horseback, (as their business doth sometimes require,) they should not be able to say at night, that they saw their horses all the day, but only the colour of their horses. And, by his reason, Christ must go to school, and learn of Aristotle to speak: for when he saw Nathanael under the fig-tree, if Aristotle had stood by, he would have said, 'No, Christ; thou sawest not him, but the colour of him.'
"After this, Watson said, 'What if it were granted that Theodoret was on the other side? Where they had one of that opinion, there were a hundred on the other.'
"Then the prolocutor called for Master Morgan to help, and said, that Theodoret did no more than he might lawfully do. For first, he granted the truth; and then, for fear of such as were not fully instructed in the faith, he spake αινιγματκως [Greek: ainigmatikos]; that is, covertly, and in a mystery; and this was lawful for him to do: for first he granted the truth, and called them the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. Then, afterwards, he seemed to give somewhat to the senses, and to reason: 'but, that Theodoret is of the same mind that they were of, the words following,' quoth he, 'do declare; for that which followeth is a cause of that which went before. And therefore he saith, 'The immortality,' &c., whereby it doth appear, that he meant the Divine nature, and not the human.'
"Then was Morgan taken with misalleging of the text: for the book had not this word 'for;' for the Greek word did rather signify 'truly' and not 'for;' so that it might manifestly appear, that it was the beginning of a new matter, and not a sentence rendering a cause of that he had said before.
"Then it was said by Watson again, 'Suppose that Theodoret be with you, who is one that we never heard of printed, but two or three years ago; yet is he but one, and what is one against the whole consent of the church?' After this, Master Cheney inferred, that not only Theodoret was of that mind, that the substance of bread and wine do remain, but divers others also, and especially Irenæus, who, making mention of this sacrament, saith thus: 'When the cup which is mingled with wine, and the bread that is broken, do receive the word of God, it is made the eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, by the which the substance of our flesh is nourished, and doth consist.' If the thanksgiving do nourish our body, then there is some substance besides Christ's body.
"To the which reason both Watson and Morgan answered, that ex quibus, 'by the which,' in the sentence of Irenæus, was referred to the next antecedent, that is, to the body and blood of Christ; and not to the wine which is in the cup, and the bread that is broken.
"Master Cheney replied, that it was not the body of Christ which nourished our bodies. 'And let it be that Christ's flesh nourished' to immortality, yet it doth not answer to that argument, although it be true, no more than that answer which was made to my allegation out of St. Paul, The bread which the break, &c., with certain other like: whereunto you answered, That bread was not taken there in its proper signification, but for that it had been; no more than the rod of Aaron was taken for the serpent, because it had been a serpent.'
"After this, Master Cheney brought in Hesychius, and used the same reason that he did, of burning of symbols; and he asked them, What was burnt. Master Watson said, we must not inquire nor ask, but if there were any fault, impute it to Christ. Then said Master Cheney, Whereof came those ashes -- not of substance? or can any substance arise of accidents?
"Then was Master Harpsfield called in to see what he could say in the matter; who told a fair tale of the omnipotency of God, and of the imbecility and weakness of man's reason, not able to attain to godly things. And he said, that it was convenient, whatsoever we saw, felt, or tasted, not to trust our senses. And he told a tale out of St. Cyprian, how a woman saw the sacrament burning in her coffer; 'and that which burned there,' quoth Harpsfield, 'burneth here, and becometh ashes.' But what that was that burnt, he could not tell. But Master Cheney continued still, and forced them with this question, What it was that was burnt? 'It was either,' said he, the substance of bread, or else the substance of the body of Christ, which were too much absurdity to grant.' At length they answered, that it was a miracle; whereat Master Cheney smiled, and said, that he could then say no more.
"Then Dr. Weston asked of the company there, whether those men were sufficiently answered, or no. Certain priests 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 end of Paul's. Whereat Dr. Weston, being much moved, answered bitterly, that he asked not the judgment of the rude multitude and unlearned people, but of them which were of the house. Then asked he of Master Haddon and his fellows, whether they would answer them other three days? Haddon, Cheney, and Elmar said, 'No.' But the archdeacon of Winchester stood up and said, that they should not say, but they should be answered; and though all others did refuse to answer, yet he would not, but offered to answer them all one after another. With his proffer the prolocutor was not contented, but railed on him, and said, that he should go to Bedlam: to whom the archdeacon soberly made this answer, that he was more worthy to be sent thither, who used himself so ragingly in that disputation, without any indifferent equality. Then rose Dr. Weston up, and said:
"'All the company have subscribed to our article, saving only these men which you see. What their reasons are, you have heard. We have answered them three days, upon promise (as it pleased him to descant without truth, for no such promise was made) that they should answer us again as long as the order of disputation doth require; and if they be able to defend their doctrine, let them so do.'
"Then Master Elmar stood up, and proved how vain a man Weston was; for he affirmed that they never promised to dispute, but only to open and testify to the world their consciences. For when they were required to subscribe, they refused, and said that they would show good reasons which moved them, that they could not with their consciences subscribe; as they had partly already done, and were able to do more sufficiently: 'Therefore,' quoth he, 'it hath been ill called a disputation, and they were worthy to be blamed that were the authors of that name. For we meant not to dispute, nor now mean to answer, before our arguments,' quoth he, 'which we have to propound, be solved, according as it was appointed. For by answering we should but encumber ourselves, and profit nothing; since the matter is already decreed upon and determined, whatsoever we shall prove, or dispute to the contrary.'"
The act of the sixth day.
"On Monday following, being the thirtieth of October, the prolocutor demanded of John Philpot, archdeacon of Winchester, whether he would answer in the questions before propounded to their objections, or no? To whom he made this answer, That he would willingly so do, if, according to their former determination, they would first answer sufficiently to some of his arguments, as they had promised to do, whereof he had a dozen, not half of the first being yet decided: and if they would answer fully and sufficiently but to one of his arguments, he promised that he would answer to all the objections that they should bring. Then the prolocutor bade him propound his argument, and it should be resolutely answered by one of them; whereunto Master Morgan was appointed.
"'Upon Wednesday last,' quoth Philpot, 'I was enforced to silence before I had prosecuted half mine argument; the sum whereof was this (as was gathered by the just context of the Scripture)-- That the human body of Christ was ascended into heaven, and placed on the right hand of God the Father: wherefore it could not be situate upon earth in the sacrament of the altar, invisible after the imagination of man.' The argument was denied by Morgan: for the proof whereof, Philpot said, that this was it wherewith he had to confirm his first argument, if they would have suffered him the other day, as now he trusted they would.
"'One self and same nature,' quoth he, 'receiveth not in itself any thing that is contrary to itself.
"'But the body of Christ is a human nature, distinct from the Deity, and is a proper nature of itself:
"'Ergo, it cannot receive any thing that is contrary to that nature, and that varieth from itself.
"'But bodily to be present, and bodily to be absent; to be on earth, and to be in heaven, and all at one present time; be things contrary to the nature of a human body: ergo, it cannot be said of the human body of Christ, that the selfsame body is both in heaven, and also in earth, at one instant, either visibly or invisibly.'
"Morgan denied the major, that is, the first part of the argument; the which Philpot vouched out of Vigilius, an ancient writer. But Morgan cavilled that it was no Scripture, and bade him prove the same out of Scripture.
"Philpot said, he could also so do, and right well deduce the same out of St. Paul, who saith, that Christ is like unto us in all points, except sin: and therefore, like as one of our bodies cannot receive in itself any thing contrary to the nature of the body, as to be in Paul's church and at Westminster at one instant, or to be at London visibly and at Lincoln invisibly at one time, (for that is contrary to the nature of a body, and of all creatures, as Didimus and Basil affirm, that an invisible creature, as an angel,cannot be at one time in divers places,) wherefore he concluded that the body of Christ might not be in more places than in one, which is in heaven; and so consequently not to be contained in the sacrament of the altar.
"To this the prolocutor took upon him to answer, saying, that it was not true that Christ was like unto us in all points, as Philpot took it, except sin. For that Christ was not conceived by the seed of man, as we be.
"Whereunto Philpot again replied, that Christ's conception was prophesied before, by the angel, to be supernatural; but after he had received our nature by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb, be became in all points like unto us, except sin.
"Then Morgan inferred that this saying of Paul did not plainly prove his purpose.
"'Well,' quoth Philpot, 'I perceive that you do answer but by cavillation, yet am I not destitute of other Scriptures to confirm my first argument, although you refuse the probation of so ancient and catholic a doctor as Vigilius is. St. Peter, in the sermon that he made in Acts iii., making mention of Christ, saith these words, Whom heaven must receive, until the consummation of all things, &c.: which words are spoken of his humanity. .If heaven must hold Christ, then can he not be here on earth, in the sacrament, as is pretended.'
"Then Morgan, laughing at this, and giving no direct answer at all, Harpsfield stood up, being one of the bishop of London's chaplains, and took upon him to answer to the saying of St. Peter, and demanded of Philpot, whether he would, ex necessitate, that is, of necessity, force Christ to any place, or no.
"Philpot said, that he would no otherwise force Christ of necessity to any place, than he is taught by the words of the Holy Ghost, which sound thus: That Christ's human body must abide in heaven until the day of judgment,-- as he rehearsed out of the chapter before mentioned.
"'Why,' quoth Harpsfield, 'do ye not know that God is God omnipotent?' 'Yes,' said Philpot, 'I know that right well; neither doubt I any thing at all of his omnipotency. But of Christ's omnipotency, what he may do, is not our question, but rather what he doth. I know he may make a stone in the wall a man, if he list, and also that he may make more worlds: but doth he therefore so? It were no good consequent so to conclude, He may do this or that, therefore he doth it.
"Only so much is to be believed of God's omnipotency, as is in the word expressed.
"That Christ's body is both in heaven, and here also really in the sacrament, is not expressed in the word:
"Ergo, it is not to be believed, that the body of Christ, being in heaven, is here also really in the sacrament.'
"'Why,' quoth the prolocutor, then you will put Christ in prison in heaven.' To the which Philpot answered, 'Do you reckon heaven to be a prison? God grant us all to come to that prison.'
"After this Harpsfield inferred that this word oportet in St. Peter, which signifieth in English 'must,' did not import so much as I would infer, of necessity, as by other places of Scripture it may appear, as in 1 Tim. iii., where Paul saith, A bishop must be the husband of one wife. 'Here,' quoth he, 'oportet doth not import such a necessity; but that he that never was married, may be a bishop.'
"To this Philpot said again, that the places were not alike which he went about to compare; and that in comparing of the Scriptures we must not consider the naked words, but the meaning rather of the Scriptures, for that, in the place by him alleged, St. Paul doth declare of what quality a bishop ought to be. But in the other, St. Peter teacheth us the place where Christ must necessarily be until the end of the world: which we ought to believe to be true. And this comparison of this word oportee doth no more answer mine argument, than if I should say of you now being here, Oportet te hic esase, You must needs be here; which importeth such a necessity for the time, that you can no otherwise be but here: and yet you would go about in words to avoid this necessity with another oportet in another sense, as this; Oportet te esse virum bonum, You must be a good man; where oportet doth not in very deed conclude any such necessity, but that you may be an evil man. Thus you may see that your answer is not sufficient, and as it were no answer to my argument.'
"Then the prolocutor brought in another oportet, to help this matter, (if it might be,) saying, 'What say you to this, Oportet hæreses esse: must heresies needs be therefore, because of this word oportet?'
"'Yea, truly,' quoth Philpot, 'it cannot otherwise be, if you will add that which followeth immediately upon these words of Paul, that is, That such as be the elect of God may be manifested and known.'
"'Why,' quoth the prolocutor, the time hath been, that no heresies were.' 'I know no such time,' quoth Philpot; 'for since the time of Abel and Cain heresies have been, and then began they.'
"Then said the prolocutor, Will you now answer Morgan an argument or two?' 'I will,' quoth Philpot, 'if I may first be answered to my argument any thing according to truth and learning.' 'What!' quoth the prolocutor, 'you will never be answered.'
"'How I am answered,' quoth Philpot, 'let all men that are here present judge, and especially such as be learned; and with what cavillations you have dallied with me. First, to the ancient authority of Vigilitis you have answered nothing at all, but only denying it to be Scripture, that he saith. Secondly, to the saying of St. Peter in the Acts, ye have answered thus -- demanding of me whether I would keep Christ in prison, or no. Let men now judge, if this be a sufficient answer or no.'
"Then stood Morgan up again, and asked Philpot whether he would be ruled by the universal church, or no?
"'Yes,' quoth he, 'if it be the true catholic church. And since you speak so much of the church, I would fain that you would declare what the church is.'
"'The church,' quoth Morgan, 'is diffused and dispersed throughout the whole world.'
"'That is a diffuse definition,' quoth Philpot, 'for I am yet as uncertain as I was before, what you mean by the church: but I acknowledge no church but that which is grounded and founded on God's word; as St. Paul saith, Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and upon the Scriptures of God.'
"'What!' quoth Moreman, 'was the Scripture before the church?' 'Yea,' quoth Philpot.
"'But I will prove nay,' quoth Moreman, 'and I will begin at Christ's time. The church of Christ was before any Scripture written; for Matthew was the first that wrote the gospel, about a dozen years after Christ: ergo, the church was before the Scripture.'
"To whom Philpot answering, denied his argument; which when Moreman could not prove, Philpot showed that his argument was elenchus, or a fallacy, that is, a deceivable argument. For he took the Scripture only to be that which is written by men in letters; whereas in very deed, all prophecy uttered by the Spirit of God, was counted to be Scripture before it was written in paper and ink, for that it was written in the hearts, and graven in the minds, yea, and inspired in the mouths, of good men and of Christ's apostles, by the Spirit of Christ; as the salutation of the angel was the Scripture of Christ, and the word of God, before it was written.
"At that Moreman cried, 'Fie! fie!' wondering that the Scripture of God should be counted Scripture before it was written; and affirmed, that he had no knowledge that said so.
"To whom Philpot answered, that concerning knowledge in this behalf, for the trial of the truth about the questions in controversy, he would wish himself no worse matched than with Moreman.
"At the which saying the prolocutor was grievously offended, saying, that it was arrogantly spoken of him, that would compare with such a worshipful learned man as Moreman was, being himself a man unlearned, yea, a madman; meeter to be sent to Bethlehem, than to be among such a sort of learned and grave men as were there; and a man that never would be answered, and one that troubled the whole house: and therefore he did command him that he should come no more into the house, demanding of the house whether they would agree thereupon, or no. To whom a great company answered Yea.' Then said Philpot again, that he might think himself happy that was out of that company.
"After this Morgan rose off, and rounded the prolocutor in the ear. And then again the prolocutor spake to Philpot, and said, 'Lest thou shouldest slander the house, and say that we will not suffer you to declare your mind, we are content you shall come into the house as you have done before; so that you be apparelled with a long gown and a tippet, as we be, and that you shall not speak, but when I command you.' 'Then,' quoth Philpot, 'I had rather be absent altogether.'"
Thus they reasoning to and fro, at length, about the thirteenth of December, Queen Mary, to take up the matter, sendeth her commandment to Bonner, bishop of London, that he should dissolve and break up the convocation.
During the time of this disputation, the twentieth day of November, the mayor of Coventry sent up unto the lords of the council Baldwin Clarke, John Careless, Thomas Wilcocks, and Richard Estelin, for their behaviour upon Allhallows-day last before: whereupon Careless and Wilcocks were committed to the Gatehouse, and Clarke and Estelin to the Marshalsea.
The same day there was a letter directed to Sir Christopher Heydon, and Sir William Farmer, knights, for the apprehension of John Huntingdon, preacher, for making a rhyme against Dr. Stokes and the sacrament: who, appearing before the council the third of December next after, was, upon his humble submission and promise to amend as well in doctrine as in living, again suffered to depart.