In September, 1592, besides plays, &c., there was a disputation in law
and physic, and, amongst many questions, was one,--"_Whether the air,
or meat, or drink, did most change a man?_" and a merry Doctor of that
faculty, named Richard Ratcliffe, lately Fellow of Merton College, but
now Principal of St. Alban's Hall, going about to produce the
_negative_, showed forth a big, large body, a great fat belly, a side
waist, all, as he said, so changed by _meat_ and _drink_, desiring to
see any other so metamorphosed by the _air_. But it was concluded (by
the Moderator) in the affirmative, that _air_ had the greater power of
change. One of the questions (the next day) was,--"_Whether it be
lawful to dissemble in the cause of religion?_" written thus, says
Gutch, "Non est dissimulandum in causa religionis;" "which being
looked upon as a nice question," continues Wood, "caused much
attention from the courtly auditory. One argument, more witty than
solid, that was urged by one of the opponents, was, 'It is lawful to
dispute of religion therefore 'tis lawful to dissemble;' and so going
on, said, 'I myself now do that which is lawful, but I do now
dissemble; ergo, it is lawful to dissemble.' (Id quod nunc ego, de
rebus divinis disputans, ego dissimulare; sed quod nunc ego, de rebus
divinis disputam, ego dissimulare est licitum; at which her majesty
and all the auditory were very merry.)"