A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.

A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.

Table of contents

Title page

THE GENERALL CONTENTS of this booke.

TO THE READER. Concerninge the causes of the nevv Edition of this Relation; vvith a defence therof against diuers Impugners.

THE OCCASION, ARGVMENT, AND SVBSTANCE of the ensuinge triall. CHAP. 1.

THE CHALENGE OR PROVOCATION MADE BY THE L. Plessis Mornay, vnto the L. Peron Bishopp of Eureux, the 20. of March. 1600. CHAP. II.

THE ANSWERE OF THE B. OF EVREVX to the former Chalenge the 25. of March 1600. CHAP. III.

THE REPLY OF THE L. PLESSIS TO THE FORMER answere, published by the B. of Eureux vpon the Chalenge made vnto him by the said Plessis. CHAP. IV.

COPPIE DES LETTRES DV ROY A MONSIEVR D' ESPERNON. CHAP. V.

THE COPIE OF THE K. OF FRANCE HIS FORMER LETTER TO the Duke of Espernon, concerninge the late triall, had betwene the B. of Eureux, and the Lord Plessis, translated into English. CHAP. VI.

EXTRICT DV POSTSCRIPTVM DE LA LETTRE DE CELVY QVI enuoy a ceste Coppie dela lettre du Roy a Rome. CHAP. VII.

An extract of the Postscript of the letter of him that sent this coppy of the forsaid K. letter, to the French Embassadour in Rome.

§

THE COPIE OF THE LETTER OF MONSIEVR PERON B. OF EVREVX, to the L. Silary Embassadour for the K. of France in Rome, the 10. of May 1600. CHAP. VIII.

Postscript.

The superscription.

AN EXTRACT OF ANOTHER LETTER VVRITTEN BY THE Popes Nuntio, resident in Paris, vnto Cardinall Aldobrandino the Popes Nephew in Rome: the 12. of May 1600. CHAP. IX.

THE WORDS OF ANOTHER LETTER VVRITTEN FROM PARIS the 10. of May, about the same matter by a gentleman of accoumpt. CHAP. X.

An addition of the translatour.

CERTAINE OBSERVATIONS VPON THE FORMER NARRATION. CHAP. XI.

A DEFENCE OF THE PRECEDENT RELATION against the shiftes, calumniations, and tergiuersations, as well of the L. Plessis himselfe, and some of his Hugonotes in France; as of their Proctor O. E. in England.

The Preface, concerninge the authority of the Actes sett forth in France.

To the Kinge.

WHAT IS CONTEYNED MORE IN PRINT ABOVT THE fact it selfe of the Conference had at Fountayne-bleau, then is comprehended in my former Relation, CHAP. I.

OF NINE PLACES EXAMINED IN THIS FIRST DAYES conference, and how they were all iudged by sentence of the deputyes to haue byn corrupted by Monsieur Plessis. CHAP. II.

The first place examined out of Scotus about the reall presence.

The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation.

The third place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about Prayer to Sainctes.

The fourth place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about prayer in like manner to Saints.

The fifth place examined out of S. Hierome about the same argument, of prayer to Saints.

The sixt place examined, out of S. Cyrill, about honouringe the holy Crosse.

The seauenth Place examined out of the Code or Imperiall lawes, about paintinge or caruings the signe of the Crosse.

The eight Place examined out of S. Bernard about honouringe our Lady.

The ninth Place examined out of Theodorete about Images.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE END OF THIS FIRST DAYES Conference; of Monsieur Plessis his demeanor, and departure: Of the booke he sent forth for his excuse; and what successe hath ensued of mens conuersion thervpon. CHAP. III.

WHAT MONSIEVR PLESSIS DID ANSVVERE, AND CAVSED to be cast abroad after his returne home, from the Conference at Fontayne-bleau. CHAP. IV.

WHAT O. E. (OTHERWISE MATHEVV SVTCLIFFE) HATH wrytten for defence of Plessis Mornay, concerning the 9. places handled in the former Conference: and how he committeth farre greater faultes then Plessis himselfe. CHAP. V.

The first Place out of Scotus.

The second Place out of Durand.

The third Place out of S. Chrysostome.

The fourth Place out of S. Chrysostome.

The fifth Place out of S. Hierome.

The sixt Place out of S. Cyrill.

The seauenth Place out of the law of the Emperours Theodosius and Valens.

The eyght Place out of S. Bernard.

The 9. and last Place out of Theodorete.

THE CONCLVSION OF THIS TREATISE, VVITH THE notice of another booke sett forth by Mathew Sutcliffe, and the contentes and partes therof examined. CHAP. VI.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A RELATION OF THE TRIALL Made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600. betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay.

ABOVT Certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted.

Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O. E. in England.

By N. D.

Tertullian. lib. de praescript. aduers. haereses.

Vinci possunt, persuaderi non possunt.

Heretikes may be vanquished, & yet not persuaded:

Imprinted vvith licence. Anno M. DC. IIII.

THE GENERALL CONTENTS of this booke.

[Page]

IN THE RELATION.

1. The preface and aduertisment to the Reader, conteyning the occasion and summe of all. Chap. 1.

2. The first Chalenge made by the L. Plessis to the B. of Eureux for iustifying of his bookes, with the Bishopps acceptance. Chap. 2. 3.

3. The reply of the L. Plessis, with the agreement of the triall. Chap. 4.

4. Diuers letters both of the King, & others, about the successe, & issue of the triall. Chap. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

5. Certayne obseruations of the Relator, vpon the former relation, togeather with a petition, that the like triall might be made in England. Chap. 11.

IN THE DEFENCE.

1. The preface shewinge the authority of the Acts & Gests sett forth of this conference in French since the first edition of this relation.

2. VVhat is conteyned more in these Acts. then was sett downe in my former relation. Chap. 1.

3. The examen of nine places chosen by the L. Plessis, for his Iustification, in all which he was proued to haue falsified. Chap. 2.

4. How the conference was broken vp. & what ensued afterward, & of a defence sett forth by the L. Plessis after his retyring from the combatt, without a name, more dishonorable then the combat it selfe. Chap. 3.

An examen of that defence in French, as also of the answere of O. E. in English. Chap. 4. and 5.

The Conclusion with certayne considerations vpon the whole. Chap. 6.

TO THE READER. Concerninge the causes of the nevv Edition of this Relation; vvith a defence therof against diuers Impugners.

[Page]

THREE or foure causes (good reader) haue induced me to renew this Relation, and to sett yt forth againe, after three years space, that it was first wrytten, and printed, which was in the yeare of Iubiley 1600. The first reason is, for that 1 hauing to performe afterward in this third part of the Treatise, of three Conuersions of England, diuers points heere promised concerninge the vnfolding of sundry falsifications, vsed as well by Iohn Fox, as by some other English wryters of our time; I thought good to lay downe the ground of my obligation and promise made in this relation, to the end yt may be seene, [Page] whether I do satisfie the same or no. 2 Secondly, wheras my former narration was very breefe, & founded only vpo certaine letters receaued from Paris at that time; now I hauing pervsed the whole acts & gests of that coferēce, betweene the B. of Eureux, & Plessis Morney, authentically published by authority, & by the approbatio of the deputies themselues that were iudges in the cause; I haue come to know many particulars which then I knew not, & consequently, I am desirous, that the reader should be partaker therof in like manner for that they may import him not a little, being of the subiect they are.

3 My third reason was, for that there hath come to my hands since the forsaid printinge of this Relation two aduersary wrytings, published against the same, or at least wise, against some principall points therof, the one in [Page] French, wrytten (as is thought) by the L. Plessis himselfe or by some other at his directio, after the flight from the combat, the other in English by O. E. otherwise interpreted Mathevv Sutcliffe. who hath taken vpon him to be his procter and aduocate: both vvhich wrytings I thought good in this place, breefely to looke ouer, & by occasion of printing againe this Relation, to lett the reader see, what truth or substance there is in them; but yet with such moderation of speach as we may imitate therin (so neere as may be) the courteous proceeding vsed by the aduersary partyes in this Triall in France, as a little after you shall heere, & in deed is conuenient to the subiect handled, (which is Religion) and to the persons that treate the same.

And albeit accordinge to the information which men giue heere of the [Page] nature & condition of O. E. little hope is conceaued of any good correspondence from him in this point, as not so powerable ouer his owne passions, as to performe it: yet will I hope the contrary for this tyme, presuminge that his so exorbitant excesse in former wrytings, proceeding of the confidence of a visard, wherby he thought perhaps to passe vnknowen; but now the maske being taken away, and euery child being able to read and interprett vvhat the vvords O. E. do signifie, to witt, a person, that professeth Ecclesiasticall life & dignity; I shall expect somwhat from him agreeable to that profession, vvherin I promise againe all due correspondence on my behalfe, to the end, that matters of Religion may be handled in the stile they ought to be. But if I be deceaued, and that he vvill needs follow his ould veigne [Page] still; I am like inough to leaue him in that kind and giue him ouer to others; that vvill pay him perhaps his dew, according to that of the ghospell,Matt. 18 tradatur tortoribus, quousque persouerit vltimum quadrantem, for there vvant neyther men, nor matter to performe yt. And so much of this.

For these reasons then, and some other, I haue byn moued to sett forth this Relation againe, togeather with a defence therof, encreased, as yow vvill see, and confirmed out of the authenticall acts sett forth by publike authority. I do thinke the reading, & pervsing heerof, vvill turne thee (good Reader) to singular commodity, if it be done vvith indifferency and attention. To Gods euerlasting glory be all referred, vvhole euer preserue thee. This first of December 1603.

THE OCCASION, ARGVMENT, AND SVBSTANCE of the ensuinge triall.
CHAP. 1.

[Page]

[Page]

NOtwithstanding (gentle reader) I may iustly presume, that the report of the late combat, and conference had in France, betweene two noble and famous learned men, concerning a triall of fidelity and falshood in alleaginge authorityes for controuersies in Religion, hath come into England before this day, being a matter of so notorious memory & done in the presence of so great a King, and of so many Princes, and so neare to our countrey, and vpon so markable preambles and premisses, as heere are declared:Causes of this Translation. yet was I moued by diuers reasons, and considerations, to lay the same togeather in these few sheets of paper, and to sende them vnto thee to reade, and behold, and (as the importance of the thing it selfe requireth) to be considered with some attention, and leasure. For first I weighed with my selfe, that albeit the chalenges which heerafter do follow, be extant in the French tongue, and consequently like also to be in England before this day: yet for that euery man vnderstandeth not that language, nor is it so probable that many men [Page] will take the paynes to translate & diuulge the same, to such as may haue neede or desire to reade it; I iudged the labour not vnprofitable to performe the same from hence.

But besides there is another reason of more moment, and more peculiar to this place, to witt, that albeit the former printed chalenges, might come to Englishmens hands by other meanes: yet the combat it selfe, with the true issue therof, togeather with the manner of the triall, and particulars occurred therin, which haue byn wrytten hither by most authenticall partyes (as vnto the place, where accompt of such affayres concerninge Religion is wont to be giuen) could not, or would not perhapps so fully, and sincerely be related in England, as the truth of the whole action requireth, the reason wherof each man will easily cōsider.

These then being the causes that moued me to take this little paine, founded (as yow see) in the zeale of truth and fidelity, I haue thought good to deliuer faithfully vnto you such letters, as haue come to my hands, about this affayre, though not all. For that diuers letters wrytten out of France, by diuers other partyes reportinge the selfe same thing, I thought not needful for me to print, nor to multiply relations without necessity, but to content my selfe only (for breuityes sake) with the letter of the K. Maiestie himselfe, and with one other of the Bishop [Page] (that was an actor in the cause) wrytten to the Kings Embassadour in this place, and to some other Cardinalls besides, by them to be exhibited vnto his Holynes, VVhy the B. of Eureux his relation in this matter is of much creditt. to whome the Bishopp well knew, that the selfe same thing would be wrytten by others also les [...]e interessed in the matter then himselfe; and more then this, that his said letters and reporte would be returned to France againe, where all aduātage would be taken against him by the aduersary, yf in any one point he should exceed the bare truth in his narration; which consideration may assure vs, that he would haue great care to relate all points both truly and modestly, as in his letter that ensueth may be seene, that he doth, and the same may be gathered also plainely by the K. letter it selfe to the Duke of Espernon, which after we shall relate.

But yet besides these two letters, there was another wrytten, two dayes after the said Bishops letter, by the Popes Nuntio in Paris vnto Cardinall Aldobrandino, and by him to be deliuered to his holynes, wherin is related & verified (though in very few words) the very sameAll this is novv cōfirmed by the publique Acts printed that after do ensue. narration, which the Bishop wryteth, as by the extract therof heerafter sett downe appeareth. And this now were sufficient for a preface only to this matter, were yt not, that I haue thought expedient also to touch breifely two other points. First, what these two persons are, [Page] which had the combat, and then the briefe summe of that which passed betwene them therein.

For first the L. Plessis Morney L. Plessis Morney. his name and person is well knowne in England; for that aboue 20. yeares past I saw my selfe a booke of his intituled: Of the Church, and notes therof, translated into English, and much esteemed by protestants of that time, for that he wryteth more cunningly and couertly, and is more plausible in shew both of scriptures & Fathers, then commonly other wryters of his Religion then were. And for that he is a noble man borne, and of the laity and not vnlearned in diuers languages, and in great creditt for many yeares with this King of France (whose Embassadour he was in England, whilst he was yet a protestant, and his Maiestie King only of Nauarre) and now since his comminge to the kingdome of France much trusted also, and vsed by him in his ciuill affayres, and in gouernment of the towne and country of Saumur. For these causes (I say) and for that he hath wrytten many bookes, he is accompted euery where for one of the cheeife champions and head pillars of Protestant Religion in France, wherby this his disgrace so notoriously receaued in that thinge, wherin he made publike profession to be exact, to witt, in true, and playne dealinge: must needs open the eyes of such, as are discreet, and desirous in [Page] deed to follow truth and decline from falshood, and so it did vs after yow see.

The B. of Eureux on the other side, named Monsieur Person, L. Bishop of Eureux. is a person no lesse eminent & markable, both for that his parents being great Protestants, & himselfe also for many yeares, he being a man also of great wyet, & extraordinary memory, and by reason of his state of life more occupied in studyes (as is probable) then the other, comminge afterward by readinge, and by Gods especiall grace to be a Catholike, he became so zealous earnest, and ardent therin (as none do more when they are full informed) that his greatest indeauours since his conuersion, haue byn to conuert also others, and to impart that light, which God hath bestowed vpon him, to as many as possibly he can. In which respect the K. Maiestie of France hauinge loued him much, and esteemed also before, when he was a Protestant, and no lesse synce that he hath byn a zealous Catholike, and knowinge him to be both learned faithfull & sincere; made choyce of him for his especially Embassadour in Rome in the yeare 1595. to treat his great affayre for his reconciliation to the Catholike Church, which hath come to that happy issue, which [...]ll the world seeth both for the good of his [...]arson, people, and crowne.

And thus much of these 2. persons, who being both of them so gratefull and well [Page] liked of the King, as I haue shewed, his Maiesties indifferency in iudgmēt also betwene them both, (the truth of the cause only excepted) must needs be voyd of all suspition, and consequently his sentence afterward prononced on the one side (as by his letter appeareth) must in reason be thought to haue proceeded of the manifest difference of the said cause, and force of truth it selfe, which he discouered vpon that triall. Now then to speake a word or two of the action as it passed, you must vnderstand, that about Christmasse last, there came forth a booke in Paris of the aforsaid Monsieur Plessis against the Masse; A briefe relation of the vvhole action. which booke making shew (as the fashion is) of great aboundance and ostentation of Fathers, Councells, Doctors and storyes for his purpose, great admiration seemed to be conceaued therof, and the Protestants euery where began to triumph of so famous a worke, published in their behalfe, Whervpon diuers Catholike learned men tooke occasion presently to examine the said booke, & finding many most egregious deceyts, shiftes, and falsifications therin, diuers bookes were wrytten against it, & one in particular by a FrenchP Fronto Duceus Burdeg. Iesuite, discouering at least a thousand falshoods of his part.

All the preachers of Paris in like manner, the whole lent followinge, were occupyed for the most part in refutinge, and shewinge the falshood of this booke: duringe which [Page] tyme, many Protestants of accounte were either conuerted or greately moued heer with,Monsieur Sainct-Mary cō uerted. and amonge other one Monsieur Sainct-Mary du Monte a principal noble man o [...], Normandy, who frequenting the preaching of one F. Angelus a Capuchin friar, borne a great noble man, and named before his entrance into Religion Monsieur du Bouchage brother to the late Duke of Ioyeus, whose state he had of late inherited (his said brother being dead) but left the same for that other vocation of a poore, and humble seruant of God.Monsieur Bouchage leaue [...]h a Dukedome to be a [...]riar. And albeit afterward vpon necessity of the said temporal state which he had left, he was forced for some yeares, to take a secular life vpon him againe, and to mennage armes, as he did, by licence of the Supreme Pastor of Gods Church, yet after publike affayres once accommodated, he retired himselfe backe to his Religious habitt, & habitation againe, where he liueth now a most vertuous life, & preacheth with great zeale, & singular edification of all sorts of men, & well sheweth that his mind is superior to all wordly welth & promotion. And these are examples that are not found lightly among Protestants, but are reserued as peculiar to Christs Catholike Church, where the dew of heauenly grace, continually falling, worketh often such extraordinary effects. And thus much of him.

By this godly mans sermons then was [Page] Monsieur Sainct-Mary at length conuerted (the experience of this triall not a little helping thervnto, as after shall appeare) and made a good Catholike with no small edification of all men, in respect of the great humility, and zeale he vsed in his returne to Gods Church, and with much comfort of the K. himselfe, to whome first before all other he vttered his resolutiō. And heervpon as well his Maiestie, as also the noble men that were Protestants, and namely the Duke of Bouillon, Monsieur Rosny, Monsieur Digiers, and other began to call vpon this triall of Monsieur Plessis his booke, for that it seemed to touch all their honours, and of their Religion, especially, when the B. of Eureux had protested vpon his honour in the pulpit, that he could shew more then 500. falsifications in the same booke for his part.The issue of the chalēges. Vpon which offers made as well by him as others, there ensued the chalengs heerafter following. The issue wherof was this; that when vpon the 4. of May the K. being at his palace of Fountaynebleau, had commaunded both partyes aforesaid to be present, and their bookes to be brought with them for this triall, to be made in his owne presence: Monsieur Plessis seemed to shrinke, and to seeke all delayes possible, eyther to auoyde the same, or to bring it to some longer examination, by going ouer all his bookes and works leafe by leafe, & lyne by lyne, as you shall heare him demaund [Page] presently: but this being denyed by the B. & cut of by the K. expresse cōmandement, he appeared at last vpon the day aforsaid with some 4. or 5. Ministers on his side.

But the dayAll these things are more particularly sett dovvne in the defence follovvinge cap. 1. precedent before this, the B. to deale more plainly, and shew frendshipp, sent vnto him threescore places taken out of his booke, vpon which he meāt to presse him, and (as his words are) to begin the play: wishinge him to come well prouided in the same. Of which threescore Monsieur Plessis, chose out nynteene, that seemed to him most defensible, and vpon which he said he would ioyne the combat, adding moreouer, that he would leese his life, yf he were conuinced therin. But the next day the triall being begon vpon the first place, and that found false, he would haue passed to the second, but the B. refused so to do, except the deputyes and iudges there present, would first subscribe, and testifie, that this first place was falsified, which at length they did, as well in this, as in the rest there examined; and Monsieur Plessis remayned in that pittifull plight, which afterward yow shall heare by the B. and other mens letters, vnto which I remitt yow: beseechinge almighty Cod, that this so notorious an accident, may worke that consideration with yow, as the moment & importāce of the marter requireth. And so to his holy prouidēce I commit yow from Rome the 10. of Iune 1600.

THE CHALENGE OR PROVOCATION MADE BY THE L. Plessis Mornay, vnto the L. Peron Bishopp of Eureux, the 20. of March. 1600.
CHAP. II.

[Page]

THE L. of Plessis doth demaund and require, that my L. Bishop of Eureux, and all other, that blame or accuse him, to haue vsed in his bookes sett forth, any false citations, will vouchsafe to ioyne with him, for subscribinge and presenting a most humble request vnto the K. Maiestie, to intreate him most humbly to ordaine and name such and so many, as shall please his Maiestie, being men of sufficient learning & vertue, before whome the said L Plessis may verifie from leafe to leafe, & from lyne to lyne, all authorityes, which he hath cited in his said books. And that this triall be made by such copyes and bookes, as haue byn printed in those places, and in those vniuersityes, which they of the Roman Church hould not for suspected. In wittnesse wherof I the aforesaid Plessis Mornay haue heere put to my hand & seale. At Paris the 20. of March in the yeare one thousand six hundred.

THE ANSWERE OF THE B. OF EVREVX to the former Chalenge the 25. of March 1600.
CHAP. III.

[Page]

HAVING receaued (good Reader) this Chalenge, wherof not only the report and brute, but the copyes also themselues and already spread abroad, wrytten and subscribed by the L. of Plessis: and consideringe that this is not a chalenge of one priuate man to another, but rather of one party or side against the other; it seemed that the interest of the commō cause of Gods Church, did not permitt eyther to lett it passe without answere, or to answere it secretly. For as the end of this his offer is, in case it be refused, by such refusall and sylence of Catholiks, to gaine a publike iustification of his books and wrytinges: so ys it conuenient, that may answere to the same be also publike, & that the enemyes of Gods Church do not gett that aduantage, as to publish one thing & conceale the other. And therfore to the end that both heauen and earth may see, and behould how I do proceed in this matter;Acceptance of the offer by the B. I make yt knowne by this my hand wryting both to him, and to all other, that shall read the same; that I do accept of [Page] his offer, and chalenge, and do require of him againe to cause the same to be put in execution, and not to end only in words:

And for my part, that all hinderance therof may be remoued, I protest that I am presently ready, and do desire out of hand to come to the very point of shewinge the falshoodes, without byndinge my selfe to that large & wearisome methood of examining his late booke against the Masse, leafe by leafe, and lyne by lyne, as he requireth. Which demaund of his;Diuers shifts discouered. yf we should yeld thervnto, would vnder a faire protext of triall, make his offer equiualent to a flatt refusall. For besides that there will hardly be found out any deputyes of such patience to try the matter, but they wilbe wearied before they haue examined in this manner, the tenth part of this his worke: There will be found also in euery leafe some allegations not so clearly false as the rest, the which yf we shouldThis is seene aftervvard by his dealinge in the defence follovving cap. 2. passe ouer, then would he take them, as admitted by vs for true, and so take wittnesse therof to the preiudice of the Catholike Church. And if we stay and striue about them, he would then of purpose settle the whole disputation vpon the first of those, which he should thinke might longest be continued, to hinder therby the examininge of the rest.

For these causes then, as also for that yt appertayneth notto him, who is accused of [Page] falsifications, to choose out the points vpon the which he is to be examined, but to them rather, which do accuse him, to propose the articles, which they are to obiect against him: For these causes (I say) see heere (good reader) the protestation I make before God & man: I protest that I do bynd my selfe to shew him in any place furnished of bookes, and in such company of capable men, as it may please the K. Maiestie to ordayne, yea in the presence of his Maiestie (yf it may please the same to take contentment to be present at some part therof) fiue hundred enormous,A nevv offer and chalenge to Plessis for 500. places corrupted by him. and open falsifications, without any amplification or exaggeration, and all these conteyned in his only late booke against the Masse. The which fiue hundred falsifications, I will choose our amongst a farre greater number, to th' end I may auoid tediousnesse, and I will choose them all so playne and manifest, as there shall be no need of any further disputation to proue & conuince them, then the only openinge of the bookes which himselfe doth alleage.

And more ouer I say, that yf after this our conference ended, he will take vpon him for his part, to choose amongst all the citations of his booke, or of his bookes (because [...] he speaketh in generall) any such authorityes, as he thinketh most sure, and to make most for his aduantage, & most against vs: I do bynd my selfe for conclusion of all to [Page] refute the whole choice,Plessis his bookes named & shewed to be corrupte. that he shall haue made therof, & to shew that neyther in his said booke against the Masse, nor in his Treatise of the Church, nor in his, Common welth of Traditions, is there to be found so much as any one place among them all, which is not eyther falsely cyted, or impertinent to the matter, or vnprofitably alleaged. And this will I shew by the very texts of Greeke and Latyn copies, of the authors themselues printed at Geneua, Basill, Heydelberge, & other townes of Protestants.

All which notwithstandinge I desyre should be vnderstood, as not spoken against the honour in particular of the L. Plessis, whome in all other things, which concerne not the interest of Religion, I esteeme accordinge to his qualityes and meritts. Neyther do I heerby pretend to blame him for any other thing, then that he hath byn ouer credulous in beleeuing the false relations & collections of others, that haue endeauoured to abuse the industry & authority of his pen. And wheras he demaundeth instantly, that I should ioine with him to present a supplication vnto the K. Maiestie for triall aforesaid: I declare againe by this my wrytinge, that I do wholy agree thervnto, and ioyne with him therin,Courteous [...]eaty vvith Plessis. & do make accompt for this present tyme to haue subscribed thervnto, yea (yf need were) with my owne proper bloud, conceauing infinite gladnes, [Page] that a [...]ter so many admirable victoryes, which his Maiestie hath gotten both of his enemyes by his valour, and of himselfe by his clemency, the good Angell of France doth now againe open to his Maiestie the way, to obtayne another victory no lesse glorious then the former, wherby he may as another Constantine, after peace and tranquillity restored to his temporall estate, restore also the like peace and tranqui [...]lity to the state of God, which is his holy Church. For that this disputation shall not be like to the others of former tymes, wherin were examined matters of doctrine, & the truth therof, as also of the true interpretations of holy scriptures,The quality of this disputation or conference. and other such like: In examination wherof, the shifts and sleights of the disputers, and other disguisinge of the matters, might make the truth vncertayne to the hearers. But heere all questions in this disputation, shall only be questions of fact, whether places be truly alleaged, or no; For triall wherof, yt shall only be needfull to bringe eyes for iudges to behould, whether the citations which we do accuse of falshood, be so indeed in the authors, as Plessis hath alleaged in his booke. And yet of the ouerthrow of these so many falsifications gathered togeather, ensueth the ouerthrow and dishonour of the cause which is defended by such weapons.

And consequently we are much bound [Page] to the holy prouidence of almighty God, that he hath permitted in this last assault of heretikes,The importance of this combatt. the ministers of France to haue placed all the heads of their false impostures and deceytfull dealings vpon one body, to the end they may be all cutt of at one blow. And that the simple people by them abused, seing discouered the false & vnfaithfull dealings of those, vpon whose fidelity they groūded their faith; may forsake them heerafter, and returne to that faith, which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth.

Wherfore to the end, that this happy successe may be brought to effect without delay, not only I do subscribe most willingly togeather with the L. of Plessis, to present his request to his Maiestie, but also do further promise him in the execution therof, to vse all sweetnes, modesty, & louing proceeding towards his person;Bitter speeches in conference about religion reprehensible. for that I esteeme yt a thinge most conformable to reason, that combatts which proceed of charity, should be tried with charity; & that as in old tyme in the matrimoniall sacrificos that were ordained for peace, and concord betwixt man and wife, the gaules of beasts offered vp were taken out: euen so in the disputations, which are vndertaken for the peace and vnion of the spouse of God (which is his Church) the gaule and bitternes of hatred and euill will be taken away.

Made and subscribed by me in the Castle of Condie [Page] being the house of the B. of Eureux the 25. of March in the yeare one thousand six hundred.

By me Iames. B. of Eureux.

This is the answere and acceptance of the Bishopp, full of considence, witt, and medesty, as to the reader must needs appeare: now lett vs see the reply of Plessis Mornay no lesse captious and subtile, them this is plaine, simple, and sincere.

THE REPLY OF THE L. PLESSIS TO THE FORMER answere, published by the B. of Eureux vpon the Chalenge made vnto him by the said Plessis.
CHAP. IV.

WHEN I had vnderstood (gentle Reader) the L. B. of Eureux gaue forth, that the places of the fathers quoted by me in my books, were falsely cited: I sent him a certayne Chalenge wrytten, and subscribed by my owne hand of the date of the 20. of March 1600. The which since that time, the said B. hath caused to be printed & published, though I sent the same to him priuately by the way of his owne brother. Heerevpon notwithstanding, my L. Bishopp hath caused to be printed a certayne aduertisment to the Reader, of the date of the 25. [Page] of March, the which is now cryed about the streets in this citty; and this in steed of sendinge me his priuate answere by the same way I sent to him.The first cavill of Plessis vpon nothing. Iudge (Reader) whether in matter of prouocation (for so he calleth my chalenge) this manner of proceeding be to be receaued, and not rather subiect vnto sinister interpretation. Yet notwithstanding the euent perhaps will make men iudge better of his intention, whervnto willingly I reserue my selfe.

And of this my priuate chalenge to him, as of one particular man to another, he maketh by & by a publike defiance of one part to another; as they which in an army do make their priuate quarrells, to be the publike cause of the whole natiō. Iudge heere againe (Reader) of this manner of proceeding in a conference of Religion,2. Cauill contrary to the B. his owne words. the which should tend to reniute, and ioyne togeather mens mynds, and not to disunite their affections. Consequently he flyeth the examination, vnto the which I do submitt my books before the K. deputyes from leafe to leafe and from lyne to lyne, and fayneth that he feareth the wearynesse of the deputyes.3. Cauill, for that the Bishopps, way offered is more easy and short. Iudge heere againe (Reader) yf this triall may be made with more comodity or lesse labour, then I haue offered. Wherfore to this againe I answere, that we will hould heerin so easy, & short method of triall, that I dare bragg, that this other paine shalbe [Page] turned into pleasure most gretefull. But that which greueth him (neyther can he dissemble yt) is, that he feareth (as he saith) that of some false citations, whose falshood is lesse euident: (if he passe them ouer) I wil take witnesse, as though they granted them to the preiudice of the Catholike Church: But the truth is, that he doubteth least by his flyinge of my manifest verityes, I will make a preiudice against his cauillations & calumniations. For seeing this difference betweene vs may be decyded by only true See this afterward cō tradicted by himselfe. readinge of that which is wrytten; what means shall I haue in this triall to deceaue the iudgment or rather the sight of the deputyes.

He skyrmisheth finally,Defence. cap. 2. sayinge, that he will shew me 500. false citations by number, but men will not easily beleeue him, who know that such bragging without effect, hath continued already 20. yeares and more. And therfor heervnto I haue but one word to answere, which is, that when we meete, we shall seeNow it is seene by the tryall. what he can doe. And therfore not to make many words which serue for nothinge, but to put of the things themselues, I will (notwithstandinge all this) take myne offer, as accepted by him. And euen now to this intent, I haue intreated my L. Mareshall of Bouillon, who goeth to take his leaue of the K. at his pallace of Boys de Vincens, to present vnto his Maiestie [Page] my most humble request to this effect, by the which I do beseech this Maiestie, that it will please him to ordaine some deputyes to the end aboue mentioned. Which petition if it please God to prosper and blesse, I hope it wil proue a good preamble for some greater designment, worthy the magnanimity of our King, towards some holy reformation of the Church in his Kingdome, by the meanes wherof, we shall see in this our one only King,Hereticall flattery. three most great Emperours, and their vertues represented, to wit a Caesar in conqueringe; an Augustus in pacifyinge of his estate; & one that flieth higher then any Constantine in restoringe the whole Church of Christendome by the example of his owne reformed Kingdome.

This our requeste recommended by me to the said L. Mareshall, Great dissimulation: as vvill appeare after by the euent. was yesterday the last of March so earnestly by him presented to his Maiestie, as by his answere he giueth me no small hope, that very soone he will giue vs meanes to effectuate our desires: And the more to hasten the matter, I haue againe this morninge intreated most humbly his Maiestie by my letters; so as now there remaineth nothing but to beseech the same of God, as I do withall my hart, for his glory, & for the instruction of his people. And so heerafter an end of al words about this matter. Wrytten at Paris the first of April. 1600. Plessis.

[Page] HItherto are the chalenges, answers and replies of these two partyes: which the K. Maiestie hauinge pervsed, and seeing so great shew and confidence to be in both for entring the combatt, he gaue very nobly & Christianly, his royall assent thervnto, as by the ensuing letters of the whole fact & circumstances therof doth appeare. And finding presently some relenting and drawing backe in the one party (as by the said letters yow shall see) he further layd his full commandement vpon them both, for performance of their offers, and consequently the triall was made at Fontayne-blea [...] some foure or fiue dayes after, in the presence of his Maiestie & Princes of bloud, with many of the greatest nobility, with those particularityes, which the said ensuing letters will represent vnto yow. But yet before all, I haue thought good to sett downe the K. owne letter, though short, and briefe, yet very substantiall and pithy, relatinge very prudently in few words the successe of that triall, with the good effect, that might be hoped therof for conuersion of many Protestants, that are not peruerse and willfull. It was wrytten at Fontayne-bleau where the meeting was, the very day of the triall: and for the worthinesse therof and due respect to so great a personage, yt shall go both in French & English, for them that vnderstand both languages.

COPPIE DES LETTRES DV ROY A MONSIEVR D' ESPERNON.
CHAP. V.

[Page]

Mon amy.

LEdiocese d' Eureux agaigne celuy de Saumur, & la doulceur, dont on [...]y a proced [...], oste [...]occasion a quelque Huguenot, que cesoit, de dire que rien y eut force que la verité. Ce porteur y ostoit, qui vous contera comme i'y ay faict merueilles. Certes c' est vn des plus grands coups pour l' Eglise de Dieu, qui s' est faict ily long temps, suyuant l' eclarcissement de cest erreur. Nous rammeinerons plus de separez de l' Eglise en vn an, que par toute autre voy en cinquante. Il y a vn long discours d'vn chascun, qui seroit trop long a discourir par escript. Il vous dira la façon, que ie suis d'auis que mes seruiteurs tiennent, pour tirer fruict de ce saincte oeuure. Bon soir mon amy. Sachant le plaisir que vous en aurez: Vous estes seul a qui l'on le mande. Le 5. de May. 1600.

Henry.

Au dessus de la lettre. A mon Cousin le Duc d' Espernon.

THE COPIE OF THE K. OF FRANCE HIS FORMER LETTER TO the Duke of Espernon, concerninge the late triall, had betwene the B. of Eureux, and the Lord Plessis, translated into English.
CHAP. VI.

[Page]

MY Friend. The Diocesse of Eureux hath ouercome the Diocesse ofFor that Plessis is gouernour of Saumur. Saumur, and the sweet manner of proceedinge that hath byn vsed, hath taken away all occasion to any Hugenot whatsoeuer he be, to say, that any force hath byn vsed, beside the only force of truth: The bearer heerof was present at the combatt, who will informe yow what maruayles I haue done therin. Certanily it is one of the greatest blowes, that hath byn giuen for the Church of God this long while, for the manifestation of this error. Byvvould god these meanes were vsed in England. this meanes we shall reduce more in one yeare of them, that are separated from the Church, then by any other way in 50. yeares. There were a large discourse to be made of each of their actiōs, but the same were to long to wryte. The bearer shall tell you the manner, which I would haue all my seruants to obserue for reapinge fruite of this holy worke. Good night my friend. And for that I know what pleasure yow will take heerof, yow are the only man to whome I haue wrytten yt. This 5. of May. 1600.

Henry.

The superscription. To my Cosyn the Duke of Espernon.

EXTRICT DV POSTSCRIPTVM DE LA LETTRE DE CELVY QVI enuoy a ceste Coppie dela lettre du Roy a Rome.
CHAP. VII.

[Page]

Monsieur.

I [...] vous enuoyé la coppie de la lettre du Roy, qu'il a enuoyé a Monsieur d'Espernon sur la dispute de l'Euesque d'Eureux, contre du Plessi-Mornay pour verifier son liure, qui s'est de tout trouué faulx, & s'en est allé cacher comme vn regnard. Dieu conduise tout a bonne fin a sa gloire, & salut des ames.

An extract of the Postscript of the letter of him that sent this coppy of the forsaid K. letter, to the French Embassadour in Rome.

My Lord. I do send yow heere, the coppy of the Kings letter wrytten to the Duke of Espernon, about the disputation of the B. of Eureux against Plessis Mornay, for iustifyinge of his booke, found altogeather false, and he is gone to hide him selfe like a Fox. God conduct all to a good end for his glory, and saluation of mens soules.

§

Thus much do wryte the King and his secretary, the one to the Duke of Espernon, the other to Monsieur Sylary Embassador in [Page] Rome, & both of them present at the conference. The Kings letter as yow see, is very substantiall: & yt seemeth his Maiestie was greatly moued himselfe by the seeing and hearing of this combatt. For so much as he affirmeth so resolutely, that yt was one of the greatest blowes, that had byn geuen for the Church of God a long while, & for discouering the erroneous proceedings of Protestants. The secretary also auoucheth as yow see, the falshood found in Mornayes booke, and that for shame therof he was gone to hide himselfe like a Fox. Now shall yow heare three other letters, relating more particularly the circumstances of this conference, with the Acts & successe therof, though all very breifely in respect of the Acts themselues.

THE COPIE OF THE LETTER OF MONSIEVR PERON B. OF EVREVX, to the L. Silary Embassadour for the K. of France in Rome, the 10. of May 1600.
CHAP. VIII.

My Lord.

AT length the victory of the combat betwixt the L. Plessis and me remayneth to the Catholike Church, and after many tergiuersations, which he vsed for the space of 5. or 6. dayes at Fontayne-bleau, I sent him on wednesday the third of May, threescore [Page] falsifications taken out of his booke, to begin the play withall, for him to prepare himselfe to answere the next day. Of them he chose out 19. the which he went & told the King the next day, that he had chosen forth, examined, and found true, and that he would loose his life, yf any one of them were proued to be falsely cited. After dynner the same day in the same place, he came forth in the presence of his Maiestie, and of 7. or 8. Princes,States present at the combatt. and of the L. Chancelour of France, and other officers of the crowne, and Counsellors of State. Where first his Maiestie declared both by himselfe, and by the L. Chancelour, that he would not in any wise, that in this conferēce should be handled any point of Catholike Religion, wherof he doubted nothinge, and knew also that the iudgment therof pertained vnto the Sea Apostolike, but only of the particular busynes of the L. of Plessis, whether he had falsified the texts of the Fathers or no? I added that when Hunnericus K. of the Vandal [...]s would haue had the Catholiks dispute with the Arrians, Eugenius Archbishopp of Carthage (as Victor of Vtica rehearseth) answered,Vict. l. 2. de persecut [...] Vandalica. that he could not do yt, without the consentment of other Bishopps, & chiefly of the Church of Rome, which is head of all others: & that this my entring into the present conference, was not for that I bare lesse respect vnto the Seat Apostolike, then that holy Bishop did.

[Page] But because there was no questions of Religion heere to be discussed,The only point to be handled. but only to shew the falsifications of the L. Plessis, about the which I was well content to haue the iudgment of the assistants, for as much as appertained to the knowledg of Grammer, to witt, whether the L. Plessis had corrupted the words of the authors or no, but not as touching points of diuinity, the which the K. Maiestie had already very wisely forbidden vs to treat, for that he will not heerin follow the example of K. of Iuda, which vsurped the incensour, and the function of priesthood, but rather of Constantyne & Theodose, and other religious Emperors in remittinge the decision of Ecclesiasticall matters vnto the Church.The manner of the combatt. This done we began to dispute, & I began to obiect vnto him those places, which himselfe had chosen out amongst threescore, sent to him by me the day before, following therin the same order that he had taken in choosing them out, the which all were conuinced of falshood, in order as they were proposed, & sentence was pronounced against him vpon euery place by the heretiks themselues, which assisted him there, and all with one voyce condemned him.

The King in this conference hath shewed himselfe so wise,The K. iustly praised. so intelligent, so affectionate, & so zealous, taking vp the argument against him at euery occasion, and pressing [Page] him by disputation, and so conuincing him of diuers falshoods; as he hath shewed manifestly his witt, and affection towards the Catholike Religion, admirable to all France, which now doth shed teares for ioy, to see their King to excell, as much all others in piety, deuotion, and zeale towards the aduauncement of Gods Church, as he hath surpassed them in valour and victory. This first conference ended,Plessis fell sicke of greefe the L. Plessis goinge from the combatt pale, astonished, and maruelously confounded fell into great conuulsions, vomitinge, & tremblinge of his body for the rest of that day; and for all the day followinge was possest with a strange vniuersall tremblinge of all the members of his body, and euer synce hath remayned sicke, and hath not byn able, nor durst shew himselfe. I pray God this may serue not so much to his confusion, as to his cōuersion: whome I beseech also to graūt you my L. a good & a happy life. From paris this 10. of may 1600.

Your humble and affectionated seruant. Iames B. of Eureux.

Postscript.

This letter which I wryte vnto your honour, is a copy of that which I wryte, to Cardinall Aldebrandino, and to the Cardinall of Aux, because the bearer, vrged by the post, hath not giuen me leasure to do otherwise.

[Page]

The superscription.

To my Lord.

The L. Silary, the K. Counselour of his Counsell of State, Embassadour for his Maiestie at Rome.

AN EXTRACT OF ANOTHER LETTER VVRITTEN BY THE PopesClaudius Ragonius episc. Rhegiensis. Nuntio, resident in Paris, vnto Cardinall Aldobrandino the Popes Nephew in Rome: the 12. of May 1600.
CHAP. IX.

I HAVE freshly receaued newes from Fountaine-bleau of the prosperous successe of the conference betwene the B. of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay. The Bishopp hath conuinced manifestly by the iudgment and sentence of all the assistants, the falshoods, as he had before promised. Wherfore the said Plessis was so ashtonished, and troubled, that he fell presently sicke of an Ague. The King himselfe in this conference hath shewed great vnderstandinge, and no lesse zeale to the Catholike Religion. The whole redoundeth much to the confusion of the Hugonotts, heere, who held Plessis for their S. Augustine, &c. Paris the 12. of May 1600.

THE WORDS OF ANOTHER LETTER VVRITTEN FROM PARIS the 10. of May, about the same matter by a gentleman of accoumpt.
CHAP. X.

[Page]

HEERE hath byn some 4. dayes past a great conference at Fontayne bleau 15. leagues hence, betwene Monsieur Peron B. of Eureux, & Monsieur Plessis Mornay Counselour to his Maiestie Gouernour of Saumur, and generall of the Hugonotts. The K. with other Princes were present, and iudges chosen & appointed for both partyes. In the end Plessis Mornay was vtterly disproued and confounded by a generall consent of both sides, and shamed, in so much as the K.The Kings oath. rose vp from his place & swore Ventre S. Gry, he had heard and seene inough of Plessyes falsityes, & that by Act of Parlament he would cause his bookes to be burned, sayinge that himselfe had all his youth tyme ben abused, and carryed away with their corruptions. He presently sent word vnto the Duke of Espernon, sayinge that the B. of Eureux had gotten the gouernement of Saumur, and willed that the Doctors & Preachers in Paris should be aduertised therof to publish yt, and so yt is in pulpitts with great ioy and thanks to God.

The Hugonotts are stroken more dead, with [Page] with this accident,Hugonotes much moued with the successe. then yf they had lost a battle of 40. thousand men, & Plessis Mornay himselfe is fallen sicke vpon yt, vomitts bloud, and lookes like himselfe. There was present of Plessis side a great Hugonot of accoumpt amōg other, called Monsieur du Gramond, who seing the euent of that conferēce, said, that he neuer in his life durst follow Monsieur Plessis for a Captayne, but now he would lesse follow him for a diuyne. It is hoped that the said Gramond will become a Catholike vpon yt, & Monsieur du Rosney also; and heresie was neuer so likely to go to wracke in France, as at this present, &c. Paris this 10. of May 1600.

An addition of the translatour.

HITHERTO are the letters which I haue thought good to translate out of French, & to sett downe in this place concerning the euent of this triall and combat, as also of the great and high honour, which the most Christian King of France hath gayned, by being present & furthering the same in his royall person. Which act will be vnto him (besides the benedictiō of almighty God t [...]erby gayned as we hope) an euerlastinge praise with all posterity. And yf yt might please the same mighty hand of our Sauiour, by his holy grace to inspire the heart [Page] of herThis petition may better be made now to his royall Maiestie as more intelligēt in such affayres, & better enclyned to heare truth. Maiestie of England by the example of so famous a fact of her neighbour and colleague, and deare Cosyn the K. of France, to take the same course in England, and to heare and permitt the like triall betweene such Catholiks, as would offer to prooue, & conuince the like falshoods & falsifications; (and greater also perhaps) in the chiefe protestant wryters of our nation, as Iewell, Fox, Fulke, & the like: and that some of the learned, and zealous of the other side, might be intreated or commaunded toe defend the same; or if they refuse this, then at least some competent number of equall iudges, might be assigned on both sides to heare the matter, with the same lawes and conditions as the matter passed in France, to witt, that no point of controuersie or disputation be admitted to be disputed of, but only matter of fact discussed: As for example, whether such and such places and authorityes as are cyted & quoted in their wrytings, out of Fathers, Doctors, Councells, and storyes, and are auouched by Catholiks to be falsified, be so or no? If this (I say) might be obtayned (seeing larger triall & disputation, so often and earnestly by vs demaunded, cannot be had) and that by the wisdome and authority of her Maiestie & her honourable Councell, this at last might be brought to passe; yt would be an infinite comfort to all sincere, and true meaninge men of all sides, [Page] which desyre indeed to know the truth.

And as for the triall it selfe, yt would be more easy, breefe and pleasant vnto her Maiestie and other assistants, whosoeuer they should be; For that as the B. of Eureux well noteth before, yt wilbe sufficient for this triall, to bringe only eyes, and to open the books, whence the authorityes are cyted. And to the end that some tast before hand may be taken of the matter, which would breake forth in such a triall, concerning the Protestants part; I haue thought good to adde these few obseruations that do ensue, which are of a person that would willingly offer himselfe in this seruice, or at least to send, and represent some part of those obseruations, which to this effect he hath gathered.

CERTAINE OBSERVATIONS VPON THE FORMER NARRATION.
CHAP. XI.

THOVGH yt be hard for any man to reflect, and make obseruations vnto himselfe, of what may best be noted, by the precedent story & relation; yet to help the Readers memory, & to stirre vp somwhat more his vnderstandinge, and discourse about the premisses, I haue not thought amisse to resent [Page] in part by this postscript, what occurreth vnto me in this behalfe.Act. 1. And first of all is the wonderfull prouidence of almighty God in conseruation, and continuation of the ould ancient, Catholike, Apostolike, & vniuersall faith left at the assension of our Sauiour, vnto his followers and visible Church that then was, and spread by them miraculously in very short space ouer all the world,The primitiue Cath. Church. and continued euer since by tradition, and succession of one age to another vntill our tyme, vnder the protection and mighty powerable defence of the same Lord and Sauiour, and vnder the gouernement of his only espouse the said Catholike Church.1. Tim. 4. Against which Church & discent of faith therin,2. Tim. 3. though many new fantasyes and deuises of particular men (which holy scriptures call heresies) haue spronge vp in euery age with fresh and glisteringe titles,3. Pet. 2. of pure ghospell, of new reueyled truth, of godly reformation, and other like pretenses; and that God for more triall and exercise of his said Church,Causes of heresies and their ends. & for the speedier redresse perhaps of some abuses, and corrupt manners crept into some part therof, hath permitted the said new inuentions to preuayle, grow, and ruffle for a tyme (as by experiēce of all ages we haue seene) yet euer in the end he bringeth the same to confusion, and shame, accordinge to those words of the Psalme.Psalm. 76 Percussit inimicos suos in posteriora, opprobrium sempiternum[Page]dedit eis. ‘He striketh his enemyes in the hinder parts (that is towards the end of their ruffle) and confoundeth them with euerlasting shame.’ Which prophesy of the Psalmist is principally to be vnderstood of hereticall enemyes,Tert. l de praes rip [...]. aduers. haereses. Ep phan. cont. haer. as Tertullian, Epiphanius & other anciēt Fathers wryting against them, do interprete, and the experience of like end in all heresies past doth make yt playne.

And this shame and confusion of heresies & heretiks,Foure confusiōs of heresies. (which Gods prouidence doth heere fortell, and in tyme also bringeth to passe so manifestly, as the whole world may be wittnesse therof) consisteth principally in foure points,1. Diuisiō amonge thēselues as holy Fathers do note. First that euery new sect, diuideth it selfe quickly into many others sects and heresies, which S. Augustine sheweth largely of the Arrians, Aug. lib. [...]. cont epist. Parm. c. 4. & l. 1 de bapt. cont. Donat. c. 6. and Donatists, and Staphilus, Lyndanus, and other wryters of our time do shew the same of Luthers sect, diuided into so many sects & branches in so few yeares, as all the world seeth. And Stanislaus Rescius, a learned man of Polonia [...] in his late booke of the Atheisine, of haeretiks, sheweth out of the wrytings of protestants themselues, that in the yeare 1596. when he wrote his booke (which was but 4. yeares past) that there were now extant in the world 270. different sects, all risen out of Luthers, from the yeare 1517. wherin Luther began. All which he declareth at length; & the reason of this so great multiplication [Page] is giuen by Tertullian in his booke Of prescription against heretikes aboue 1400.Tertull. ibid. yeares past, sayinge: ‘That for so much as euery scholler of a sectary knoweth, that his maister inuented his opinions of his owne head, he will inuent also somethinge himselfe, therby to shew that his witt is not inferiour to that of his Maisters. And heerby they come to such confusion in the end that one destroyeth the other.’ Wherof Luther himselfe is a good witnesse, when he wryteth these words:Luth. Commēt [...]in Psa. 5. Truly God doth not fight by any other meanes with heretiks, then by permittinge among them a certayne seditious spiritt of dissention, by which their ouerthrow also and perdition doeth ensue. So he: who is a wittnesse in this cause without exception as yow know.

The second reproach followinge sectaryes is Contradiction to themselues,2. Contradictiō of the Sects. in their owne wrytings and sayings, and shamfull inconstancy in their doctrine. The reason wherof is, for that the said doctrine consystinge only in the inuention, iudgment, and memorye of the sectarye himselfe, that inuented yt, or chose to follow yt, though inuented by another, (for whatsoeuer they alleage of scripture or other antiquity, must depend of their owne new inuented interpretation) of necessity it must follow, that as their talents, and witts, discourse or memory, do alter, change, or faile in tyme; so must the doctrine also therof [Page] dependinge, be altered: And so eyther forgetting what they said in one time or place, or matter; or hauing altered their iudgment or opiniō vpon some further reason, which then they saw not, they must needs come to say cōtrary to that they did before. In which kind of contradiction, some thousands haue byn noted by learned men in Luther himselfe;In varijs lib. de antilog. Lutheri. & no maruayle seeing he was the first of that sect, that inuented new opinion [...] dayly. And the same is obserued in Caluyns wrytings by VVestphalus Hesshusius, and other Lutheran Protestants, that wrote against him.

The third confusion that followeth commonly vpon heresie,3. Dissolution & Atheisme following vpon heresie. is coldnes & doubtfulnesse in Religion, and at length also plaine atheisme and contempt; and thervpon dissolution of life, neglect of conscience, and other sutable effects, which therfore among heretiks principally do ensue. For that heresie callinge into question, and shaking the very pillars and strongest meanes, wherby men remayned assured before of their faith, to witt, the number, quality, and right vnderstandinge of holy scriptures, tradition of the Church, from whome we receaued them, the verity of Ecclesiasticall storyes, Christian miracles, authority of generall Councells, creditt of ancient Fathers, and the like: and breakinge downe besides the hedges and walles, that were wont to be [Page] bulwarks to good life, as Confession, Restitution, Satisfaction, fastinge, vowinge, and other helpes of that quality: this (I say) being once done (which is the proper worke of heresy) a man runneth naturally into doubt & contempt of all; and consequently leesing by little and little both feare and shame, geueth himselfe ouer easily to all licentious liberty, and sensuality of life, which the Apostle calleth Desperation. Rom. 1.

And thus much of the cause of this third reproach; For as for the effect yt selfe, to witt, that these fruits haue followed in the world, since heresies came in, much more then euer before, I could alleage both Luther himselfe,Se, the story in both their liues the 17. of Febr. and 26. December. and Erasmus Roterodauius, and other authors of most creditt with Protestants testifyinge of their dayes: and as for England yt selfe, the present knowledge & experience of thousands will beare me witnesse. Wherfore I meane to prosecute no further these first 3. reproaches followinge heresies and heretiks, to witt [...] diuision among themselues, contradiction to themselues, and dissolution of life, or propension to Atheisme; though for the Readers fuller instruction therin (yf he vnderstand the Latin tongue) I must needs giue him notice of two famous bookes wrytten of late of that argument,Two famous [...]ookes. by two excellent learned men of our tyme, & taken out of the works themselues of all the Sectaryes of this age. The one is of our contreyman [Page] Maister VVilliam Reynolds, M. Reynolds Caluino [...]turcismus. once fellow of new-colledg in Oxford, & a Protestant Preacher, intituled Caluino [...] turcismus: that is of Caluyns Religion leading to Turcisme, or a comparison of Turkish Religion with Caluinisme. The other is of the aforesaid Polonian gentleman Stanislaus Rescius, Embassadour and Treasorer for his King in the Kingdome of Naples [...], where his said worke was printed 4. yeares past as hath byn said, to witt in the yeare 1596. and yt is diuided into two bookes, the title wherof is this: De Atheismis & Phalerismis Euangelicorum nostri temporis, libri duo: quorum prior de fide, Stanislaus Rescius de Atheismis. posterior tractat de operibus eorum. Which in English is thus: ‘Two bookes of the Atheismes, and Phalerismes (or crueltyes) of the ghospellers of our tymes, wherof the first treateth of their faith, the second of their works.’ This is the title, and I do assure the Reader, yf he pervse them with attention and indifferency, he will remayne informed by their readinge, and not a little astonished, to behould what is there alleaged out of the wrytings of Protestants themselues, and other authenticall witnesses in this behalfe.

Of the other worke of Maister VVilliam Reynolds prouinge that Caluyns Religion is worse in condition, and lesse probable in reason, then that of the Turke, & hath lesse ground & substance therin, then the other: (for all this, and much more he declareth in [Page] this worke) I shall not need to treat heere, nor yet giue notice of the booke, for that it was written, & printed very lately in Flanders; & is (no doubt) or may be easily in England before this day; only I will adde this of the iudgment of strangers, to witt, that by testimony and asseueration of diuers very learned men of other nations, there was neuer wrytten a thinge in that kind, and of such an argument more excellent in respect of the infinite variety of hereticall books, which he sheweth to haue read, and well pondered, and for the many inuincible reasons & demonstrations which he alleageth for his purpose. And so much of this.

And now I will speake somewhat larger of the fourth reproach and shame accompanyinge comonly heretiks and sectaryes,The 4. reproach of heretiks, or open lyinge. and especially the heads and cheefe therof that wryte bookes, which is counterfaytinge, deceytfull dealinge, falsifyinge, and open lyinge; but principally in alleaginge antiquity for their purpose, wherof I haue occasion by this present story of Plessis Mornay to say somewhat; and the accusation of ancient Fathers,Heretiks called falsarij by ancient fathers. that call heretiks Falsarij, that is falsifiars, and corrupters of antiquity, occurreth euery where in their books. So as the spiritt of old heretiks agreeth with this of our new, in this point, as well as in many others; and if we will consider the cause & necessityes of this reproach in like manner, [Page] we shall find them no lesse euident or forcible then the former, for that sectaryes pretendinge antiquity in their doctrine (for that otherwise yt would haue no credit), & findinge all antiquity wholy against them (except only [...] the antiquity of heretiks and sectaryes, which they dare not alleage openly, (though they follow them) they are forced to fayne and forge somewhat of their owne; as for example some of the ancient Fathers to be with them, or els should they remayne without all shew or colour of honest pretence. In which point notwithstandinge, they do not agree amonge themselues:Luther & other sectaryes denyed al fathers at the beginning. For that first Martyn Luther their great Father forseeinge this difficulty, & not willinge at the beginninge to cast himselfe into these two troublesome labyrinthes; first of shiftinge of by diuised interpretations those manifold authorityes of Fathers, that were to be brought against him, and then in finding out other Fathers in his owne behalfe; he tooke a more briefe, and compendious way, which was to deny and contemne them all, for so he doth in very many places of his workes, protesting at the very beginning almost of all his heresies, (to wit in the yeare 1521.) in an epistle wrytten to a German knight,Luth. in epist ad equitem Germ. an. 1521. that he was tyed by the authority of no Father, though neuer so holy, yf he were not approued by the authority of holy scriptures: wherof you must imagine himselfe world be iudge. [Page] and addeth in the same place, that the fathers wrytings were full of errors, contrary often to themselues, and disagreeing the one from the other, wrestinge scriptures; and the like.

The same also he saith of Councells in the same place, and in the next yeare after this, wrytinge against K. Henry the 8. he saith:Luth. cōt. Henr. Angl. Reg. an. 1522. I do oppose against all the testimonyes of fathers, of men neuer so holy, of Angells, and of diuells, &c. Wherby we may see, what accoumpt he made of Fathers and Councells, when they were against him. And the same did Zuinglius, Caluyn, and others after him for a tyme, when Fathers authorityes plainly were against them, and could not be shifted of, by sleight interpretation, as in their works appeareth: and Rescius declareth it notably and largely, by manifold examples, and places in his tenth Chapter, and first booke aforesaid.

But when this audacity grew in tyme to be very reproachfull, some later followers of theirs blushinge therat, and desiringe to exercise their witts in a higher kind of subtility,A new diuise of later protestants about the fathers. they betooke themselues to a more plausible, but yet more shamefull, and desperate course then these their maisters, which was to say, that indeed the Fathers, and ancient wryters were wholy for them, & not for vs, as the philosopher, that would defend, that swow was blacke, & not white. And this course tooke first of all Peter martyr [Page] in the [...]yeare 1549. and third of the raigne of K. Edward the 6. as appeareth by Fox in the last edition of hispag. 1549. Acts and Monuments. And this perhaps Peter martyr was forced to do at that tyme, by commaundement of B. Cranmer and others of the priuy Counsell, who appointed his disputation for more authorizing of their new decree in Religion, scarse two monethes before agreed vpon, & would perforce haue the Fathers to be of their side.Peter Martyrs disputation in Oxford an. 1549. But what successe Peter martyr had in this attempt, yt may appeare su [...]iciently by the places themselues, which Fox alleageth for him out of ten or twelue seuerall Fathers, wherof the Reader will scarse find one (though the said texts be breefely alleaged) truly cyted, in all respects; but that eyther the words next going before [...] or immediatly following, or both (making wholy against them) are purposely left out, and others put in or mistranslated.

And let any man who listeth examine the same, and conferre them with the authors bookes themselues, he shall find this to be true.See these places examined part. 3. c. 19. & 20. & 21. of the Treatise of 3. counersions of England. For I haue examined them with some diligence my selfe, as vpon some other occasion herafter may chance appeare, but now yt were to long to alleage them in this place; I meane the manifest falsifications therin vsed. But yf any Protestant in defence of Peter martyr, and Iohn Fox h [...]s honour, will take vpon him to verify the [Page] same, and their quotations to be good, and without fraud; lett him wryte a little pamphlet therof (as easily he may, they being conteyned in lesse then one page) & he shall presently be answered: albeit yf he do but sett downe the whole places themselues as they ly in the Fathers books, whence they are cut, they will need no answere, but will answere themselues, and confute the alleager, and shew the shamlesse dealinge eyther of Peter martyr or Iohn Fox, or of both, in cytinge them.

The like deceytfull dealinge was vsed by Nicolas Ridley B.B. Ridley & Bucers disputation in cābridge an. 1549. then of Rochester and after of London, the next moneth following in the Cambridge disputation, about the same controuersy of the reall presence, wherof he being president (Martyn Bucer refusinge vtterly to deale in that controuersie) he affirmed to the whole vniuersity,Fox pag. 1261. that he had fiue sure grounds for the opinion of Zuinglius, wherof the first was (to vse his words) the authority, Maiestie, and verity of holy scriptures; the second, the most certayne testimonyes of the ancient Catholike Fathers, &c. Wheras the truth is, that both these foundations are most euidently against him, as much the one as the other, which Bucer well k [...]ew, & therfore would not take part with him in that matter, though soone after, to remedy this breach, he putt vp three other impertinēt questions to be disputed against Catholiks; but in this [Page] other article, he know that Ridley lyed shamfully against his owne conscience, for that all Farthers are against him most euidently; & so do the Magdeburgians their cheefe Protestant Chroniclers shew & declare in euery age,The Magdeburgians refute Ridleyes vaunt of fathers. or century of their Ecclesiasticall history. And yt shalbe sufficient for the reader to cast his eye ouer the 4. Chapters only of euery century, intituled of doctrine. And thus much for K. Edwards dayes, when Zuinglian Religion first peeped vp in our countrey.

After this man, stepped to Paules Crosse in the beginninge of this Queenes dayes about the yeare 1559. and 1560.B. Iewels hypocriticall chalenge at Paules Crosse an. 1560. Maister Iohn Iewell, otherwise called B. of Salisbury, and he proceeded yet further in this bragg or fiction; For he protested there, euen with feigned teares, that yf any one authority, place, sentence, or asseueration of any one Father, Doctor, Councell, or authenticall history, within the first 600. yeares after Christ, could be brought forth by any man liuinge for any one of those points of Catholike Religion which he there recyted to be in controuersie, that then plainely and sincerely he vvould subscribe. Against which vayne and shamlesse bragg, when Doctor Harding, and diuers other learned men of our side, began to wryte from Louayne, and to bring forth authorityes of all Fathers, Doctors, Councells, and historyes in great aboundance, the first effect of this chalenge, that appeared to the world, was [Page] a seuere proclamation, that no such bookes wrytten in English by the Catholike party should be receaued or read in England, vnder great punishments, by which prouision Maister Iewell thinking himselfe meetly well de [...]enced, he plyed the pulpitt often, and renewed his chalenges many tymes, and perceauing notwithstāding that Doctor Hardings confutation was come into England,The meaninge of M. Iewels cha [...] ̄lge. he answered the same with a longe volume of Rhetoricall words, & stuffed the margents therof with the shew of infinite authors, as though the whole world had byn for him and none for the other side; and with this he deceaued the people then, and doth to this day, such I meane as haue not commodity or learninge, or other meanes to examine those places, and to find out the manifold lyes and falsifications therin conteyned. And this was the gaine by all likely hood that Maister Iewell pretēded to his cause by that worke, knowing full well, that this sort of men is farre the greater, which would be gayned and setled in his doctrine before the learneder sort (who are but few in comparison of the other) could haue tyme, books, and commodity to discouer & refute him, & when they should do yt, they should hardly be beleeued.

And in this conceate he was not deceaued, yf we respect that present tyme, and many yeares after, as also yt is probable the [Page] L. Plessis Mornay had the like designment, in stuffing vp his bookes with the like authorityes of Fathers, but yf we consider the continuance of tyme (wherof truth is said to be the daughter) yt hath succeeded vnto him, as yow haue heard, and will do more and more dayly, as to such shifts is wont to happen, that is to say (accordinge to Kinge Dauids sayinge before recorded) [...]ppr [...]brium sempiternum dedit eis, Men cō uerted by M. Iewels booke to be Catholiks. God layeth euerlastinge shame vpon them. For how many learned men lightly of our nation haue taken vpon seriously, to go ouer that booke of Maister Iewells, & to examine yt by the authors themselues with any indifferency of mynd; haue for the most part byn therby conuerted to Catholike Religion, though neuer so great Protestants before: of which sort I haue heard relation of many, but of some I can testify my selfe, for that I haue heard it from their owne mouthes, who of earnest Protestants were made most zealous Catholikes by that meanes principally; of which number I thinke yt not inconuenient to name h [...]re some 2. or 3. omittinge others which for iust respects may not to be named.

The first of them is Syr Thomas Copley, The L. Coplcy and his conuersion from protestancy. made Lord afterward in his banishment by the K. of France, who often tymes hath related vnto me, with much comfort of his soule, how that being a zealous Protestant and very familiar to the late Earle of Licester in the beginninge [Page] of this Q. dayes, when Maister Iewells booke was newly come forth, he being also learned himselfe in the Latyn tongue, tooke paines to examine certayne leaues therof, and findinge many falshoods therin, which were in excusable (as they seemed to him) he conferred the same with the said Earle, who willed him that the next tyme Maister Iewell dyned at his table, he should take occasion after dynner to propose the same, which he did soone after; and receauing certaine triflinge answers from Maister Iewell, he waxed more hoate, and vrged the matter more earnestly: which Iewell perceauinge,M. Iewels answere to the L. Copley. told him in effect; That Papists were Papists, and so they were to be dealt withall, and other answere he could not gett; which thinge made the good Gentleman to make a new resolution with himselfe, and to take that happy course which he did to leaue his countrey, and many great commodityes, which he enioyed therin, to enioy the liberty of consciēce, for saluation of his soule: and so he both liued and died in voluntary banishment for confession of that truth, which his Sauiour by occasion of Maister Iewells falshood, had reueyled vnto him.

The second example, which I remember of my owne knowledge,M. Doctors Steuens. is Maister Doctor Steuens, a learned man yet aliue, who being Secretary or Chaplyn to Maister Iewell (for I remember not well whether) and a forward [Page] man in Protestant Religion at that tyme, espied certayne false allegations in his Maisters booke, whilst yt was yet vnder the print in London, wherof aduertisinge him by letters (for that he supposed yt might be by ouersight) the other commaunded notwithstandinge the print to goe forward, and passed it ouer as it was, which this man seeing, that had a conscience, and sought the truth indeed, resolued to take another way of findinge yt out: and hauinge found yt in the Catholike Church where only it was to be found, he resolued also to follow yt, and so he did, and went voluntarily into banishment for the same, where yet he liueth vnto this day in France, with good reputation both of learninge and godlynes.

The third example that I call to mynd, is the worthy man before named Maister VVilliam Reynolds, M. VVilliam Reynolds. who being first an earnest professor, and Preacher of Protestant Religion in England, and much engaged amonge the Puritans in Northampton-shire (as he was wont to tell) he fell in the end to read ouer Maisters Iewells booke, and did translate some part thereof into Latyn: but before he had passed halfe ouer, he found such stuffe, as made him greatly mislike of the whole Religion, and so he leauing his hopes, & commodityes in England went ouer the sea into these parts, and the last yeare of Iubiley, to witt, 1575. he came to Rome, and brought [Page] that booke with him,M. Iewels booke pretented to the tribunall of Inquisition in Rome. and presented both himselfe and yt, to the Tribunall of Inquisition of his owne free motion and accord, where I ghesse the booke remayneth still, yf yt be not burned: and himselfe after absolution receaued from his former errors (which he with great humility and zeale required, & my selfe also at that tyme spake with him in that place) he returned into France, and Flanders, and there liued many yeares with singular edification for his rare vertue & learninge; and how hartily indeed he was conuerted, may well appeare by his zealous wrytinge both in Latyn & English in defence of Catholike Religion, & in confutation of Protestant errors, which himselfe before had held for verityes. And thus much of the falshood of Maister Iewells wrytyngs, wherof, he that will see more, lett him read Maister Hardings returne of vntruthes, but especially yt would import him that hath learninge, leasure and commodity, to examine the quotations themselues by a good library: but in this kind of false dealinge, I can giue Maister Iewell a compagnion as good as himselfe, yf not exceedinge him, which is Iohn Fox, who aboue all that euer wrote perhaps, may be recorded for notorious in this behalfe.

I haue had occasion theseThis may appeare by the Treatise of 3. conuersions of England. sett [...]orth in three Tomes. monethes past to peruse a great part of his last edition of Acts and Monuments, printed the fifth tyme in [Page] the yeare 1596. and do find it so stuffed with all kind of falshood, and deceytfull manner of telling tales, as I could neuer (truly) haue beleeued yt, yf I had not found yt by my owne experience. And I do persuade my selfe fully (notwithstandinge all his hypocriticall words and protestations, which are more, and oftener repeated by him, then in all the wryters togeather, that I haue read in my life) that there is scarse one whole story in that huge volume, told by himselfe, except when he relateth other mens words out of records, and therby is bound to the formality therof,Iohn Fox his f [...]lsifyinge. but that it is falsified, and peruerted one way or other, eyther in the beginning, middle, or end, by adding, cutting of, concealing, false translating, wrong cyting, or cunning iugling and falsification, which I do not speake for any tooth against the man, that is dead, and whome I neuer knew, but in respect of truth only, and of so many deceaued soules, as are in danger to perish by his deludinge them. Nor when I speake of Maister Fox his falshoods, do I make accompt of any errors or ouersights (though neuer so grosse) that are found in him, as to reckon some for Martyrs that were aliue at the making of his booke: (for this he excuseth in his later edition, in that he was deceaued by false informations) nor do I vrge that others are made Calendar-martyrs by him, whome he cannot gainsay, but that [Page] they were malefactors, and some of them eytherSee the story of Collyns and Co [...] bridge 10 & 11. Octobris part. 1. madde or denyed Christ himselfe, and yet placeth he them in his Calendar, for Saints: These escaped (I say) are not heere to be vrged by me now, but rather in another place. The points that I for the present accuse him of, are willfull corruptions, and falsifications that cannot be excused: as among other things (and for examples sake) when he recyteth any point in controuersie of the Catholiks doctrine, he putteth yt downe commonly in plaine cōtrary words & sense, to that which he must needs know that they holde and teach, for so much as their publike books are extant in euery mans hands to testifie the same.

Of this kind,30. [...]falsifications of Fox in tvvo leaues. a certaine learned student of diuinity, brought to me of late 30. places taken out of two only leaues of Fox his booke, to witt, from the 12. to the 14. which I looking vpon found them all most euident by conference of the Catholike authors alleaged by the said student: and moreouer, besides these thirty, I did discouer so many other plaine falshoods, and manifest willfull lyes, in those only two leaues, as might wellNovv they are found to be quadruple to vvitt aboue [...]20. Se part. 3. cap. 22. of the Treatise of 3. cōuersiōs of England. double the former number; and I do offer to proue them one by one, yf any frend of Iohn Fox will ioyne issue with me vpon this point. And then yf by Arithmetique a man will multiply these lyes & falsifications of two leaues only, with a thousand [Page] and more, which Fox hath in this last volume, and will adde afterward to euery two leaues so many falshoods; the number will rise to so huge an accoumpt, as were a shame to sett downe; and would much surpasse Iohn Sley [...]ans Story in this kind (though he be the Protestants Protochronicler) out of which an eleuen thousand lyes were only gathered by the Catholike wryters of Germany.Sleida [...] a great lyar. And this is so much as for the present seemeth needfull to be said about this matter.

The end of the relation; there followeth the defence.

A DEFENCE OF THE PRECEDENT RELATION against the shiftes, calumniations, and tergiuersations, as well of the L. Plessis himselfe, and some of his Hugonotes in France; as of their Proctor O. E. in England.

The Preface, concerninge the authority of the Actes sett forth in France.

THE former relation being sett downe wholy and entirely as yt was printed in the yeare 1600. (though somwhere more explaned, and towards the end made s [...]orter) I am first to yeld a reason in this place, why the passages or points accused of falshood that vvere [Page] handled in the conference ensue not heere, as they did in the former edition: wherof the cause is, for that those passages indeed, were neuer seene or viewed by the relator himselfe, but added only by a frend (as in the preface therof is signified) according to his wrytten copy receaued from Paris; which copy, though it agree in truth and substance, with the publike Acts themselues, of that conferēce which afterward haue byn authentically [...] sorth, yet for that the points are not so cleerly laid open, as some men perhaps would require, I haue thought good to relate the same againe in this my defence, out of the said Acts themselues.

Concerning which Acts, yow are to consider, that about some two or three monethes after the said conference at Fountayne-bleau, The occasion of publishinge the Acts. that is to say in the moneth of August wheras this conference was made vpon the fourth of May in the same yeare 1600. the Catholiks remayninge quiett and content with the victory of truth, that had fallen out in their fauour, Monsieur Plessis and his Hugonote Ministers, hauinge departed and broken vp the said conference, in the manner and sort which a little after yow shall heare, and findinge themselues extreemely gauled, with so dishonourable an euent; resolued for some remedy, to sett forth a certayne discourse in French without name of the Author, the Title heerof was. A true discourse of the conference held at Fountayne-bleau, Discours veritab [...]e. &c. Acts fol. 10 [...]. &c. In which discourse they endeauoured to handle three thinges, First touchinge the history of matters passed therin, carpinge bitterly heere and theere both at the King, and Chancelour [Page] and other Assistants & Iudges, as disfauourable and partiall in many points against them and their cause, which is refuted by the defender (to witt and B. of Eureux himselfe) by the publike Acts and records of the conference and be the depositions of 200. persons as presently yow shall heare him affirme.

Secondly they diuised,See Athanas. in his Apologyes [...] and S. Aug [...] [...] Breuiculo. vpon better deliberation, new defences for the points wherin they had byn condemned in the conference, as both the Arrians did after the Councell of Nice, wherin they were condemned, and the Donatists after their conference with the Catholiks at Carthage, and as euery man condemned at our English barres would do, yf they might haue replyes allowed them, after their condemnations. The third point of euasion vsed by them is, recrimination, that is to say, to shew that others also do falsifie besides them, and haue vsed fraud in their quotations, which though yt were true (as in the particulars obiected, is shewed by the defender that they are all false) yet were it no honourable defence as each man will confesse. And this is the summe of that discourse, and the confutation therof.

Now then for so much as Plessis, and his frends had published this false discourse; yt was thought good by the K. & his Councell vpon request of the Catholiks, that the authenticall Acts of the said conference, and all particularityes passed therin, and taken fourth by seuerall publike notaryes appointed for that purpose before hand, and one of them of the new religion, should be examined anew, vpon the depositions as well of the said notaryes, as also of 200. more, and so published to the world, which was done, and the [Page] whole presented to the K. by the B. of Eureux vpon the 29. of August in the same yeare 1600. which epistle, for that it is short & very substantiall, I haue thought good to relate heere for a foundation of all that is to [...]ollow, & for creditt of the Acts themselues. Thus then he wryteth to the King himselfe that was present, and an eye-witnesse of all.

To the Kinge.

Sire.

I would neuer haue beleeued,The letters of the B of Eureux to the K. of Frāce 29. Aug. an. 1600. that so publike & renowned an action, as that of the conference at Fountayne-bleau, represented in one of the most illustrious Theaters of the world, and adorned with the presence of your Maiestie, of so many Princes & officers of the crowne, Counsellours of Estate, and other Lords & nobles of great marke; could haue bin called in question, or that any man could haue byn found, that will dare to take vpō him to peruert, or disguise the knowne verity therof, for which cause I haue abstayned hitherto to wryte any thinge of that matter, least by publishinge my priuate testimony therof, I should seeme to enfeeble the depositions of 200. persons of more authenticall creditt then myne owne: but yet seeing now that Monsieur du Plessis contrary to the saith and witnesse of so many eyes & eares, as were there present, and contrary to [Page] the testimony both of the mouth and pen of your Maiestie, hath cast forth into the field a certayne new discourse, wherin by his eloquence of Pe [...]icles, he will needs go about to persuade those that were present at the Conference, cōtrary to that which they saw, and those that were absent contrary to that which so credibly they haue heard: I haue thought cōuenient by your Maiesties permission, to lend him the paines of a few dayes labour for settinge forth the true description of the fact it selfe, as yt passed, and therby to dissolue all his cunninge illusions, and inchauntments.

Wherfore, Soueraigne Lord, I do offer heer [...] vnto your Maiestie the simple verity of the history as she lyeth in the Acts in her naturall white habyt, without colours or paintings, most humbly beseechinge your highnesse, that yow will vouchsafe to see the same, or cause yt to be seene and examined by such, of whose wisdome & grauity your Maiestie standeth most assured; and yf it shalbe found to be such, as heere I do qualifie yt, that then permission may be giuen to publish the same for a faithfull image and representation to posterity, of that which there fell out. And yf Monsieur du Plessis do hold himselfe content with that which passed in this conference, he hath in his hands other 52. articles to be examined as the remnant of those 60. which were agreed vpon [Page] for the first Conference, from which he departed without bidding any man fare well, and hath had tyme inough since that to study better vpon them: I for my part am ready to giue him the same exercise vpon the said articles, as I did vpon the other 9. handled at Fountayne bleau, and after these ended to come to the other that do remaine of the 500. falsifications, which I haue bound my selfe to proue against him; and so much the more willingly would I passe to the examination of those other articles; by how much more graue the authors are, and the matters more important, & his deprauations more enormous then those we haue handled as chosen out by himselfe, and in the meane space I shall lifte vp my hands to heauen, & pray almighty God to continue his grace towards your Maiesty from better to better, and to establish his Kingdome togeather with yours, &c. At Condie this 29. of August. 1600.

This was the letter and request of the B. of Eureux for examination and publishinge of the Acts; whervnto the K. agreeing, cō mytted the reuew therof vnto certayne of his Counselle, which had byn present at the said conference, and findinge the same to be sincere, and true in all respects, as his Maiestie testifieth, gaue order for the publication therof by his letters patents, signed at Lyons in France the 22. of December 1600.

[Page] Wherfore out of these acts, as most true and authenticall, I shall frame this my defence, though very breifely, against the extrauagant ouerlashings of O. E. in his answere, who saith & denyeth at his pleasure without authority, wyttnesse, reason, or probability, as after shall appeare by that which ensueth.

WHAT IS CONTEYNED MORE IN PRINT ABOVT THE fact it selfe of the Conference had at Fountayne-bleau, then is comprehended in my former Relation,
CHAP. I.

FOR that my briefe narration before recited, was founded only vpon certayne letters sent from Paris to Rome presently after the conference had, as by pervsing therof yow haue seene, and my purpose also was to be very briefe; I could not sett downe so many particularityes, as these acts do now represent: yet do I find that whatsoeuer I related before, is now confirmed againe by these acts, and diuers things added, wherof some principall I shall heere touch in few words, cytinge the leafe of the said Acts, wherin they may be read more largely. The title of the said Acts is this: Actes de la conference[Page]tenue, &c. Acts of the conference held betweene the L. Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis in presence of the King at Fountayne-bleau, the fourth of May 1600. published by the permission and authority of his Maiestie, &c. the same yeare 1600. And thus much of the title, now to the contents.

The first occasion of this combatt,The first occasion of the cōferēce Act. fol. 1. sett downe in these Acts is, that vpon the 20. day of March anno 1600. a great noble man of Normandy named, Lord Sainct-Mary du Mont, a Protestant at that tyme, but soone after conuerted, meetinge with Monsiear Plessis at the lodginge of the Lady Princesse of Orange in Paris, told him how he was cryed out of euery where about the falsifications found in his booke lately printed against the Masse, & that himselfe had seene some shewed vnto him by the B. of Eureux which he could not solue. Heervpon Monsieur Plessis thinkinge himselfe touched greatly in honour, did iudge yt the best way to make a publike Chalenge to the said B. of Eureux, which he wrote and gaue abroad the very same day, and the L. Sainct-Mary sent one of them presently to the B. wherevnto he made answere, acceptinge of his Chalenge, vpon the 25. of March, which letters before ISupra cap. 3. haue alleaged; and soone after the said Bishopp thinking yt conuenient to print and publish the same, did so, and sent a copy therof to the King, togeather with a letter of his owne hand of the 28. of March, wherin [Page] amongst other words he saith thus: I do send vnto your Maiestie a Chalenge of Monsieur Plessis made about the examen of his allegations in his booke against the Masse,The B. of Eureux letter to the king. Act. fol. 5. togeather with my answere to the same. I should be vnworthy to serue so great and noble a King, and of so high courage at your Maiestie is, yf I should refuse such a Chalenge, especially in a quarrell that may be ended without bloud, and tend much to the glory of almighty God, and to the saluation os him that shalbe ouercome, and therfore I do most humbly beseech your Maiestie to permitt this triall, &c.

Heervpon Monsieur Plessis vnderstandinge that the B. had wrytten to the King, he wrote also another to his Maiestie to the same effect, & returned likewayes anSupra cap. 4. answere to the Bishop, shewinge himselfe willinge to goe forward in the said triall, but with diuers exceptions and diuersions, as in the said letter appeareth, which we haue related before. The King hauinge receaued these letters from both partyes, and conferred the same with his Counsell, resolued to permitt the triall demaunded, as also to be present theratt himselfe, and so gaue order to the L. Chancelour of France vpon the second of Aprill, to warne the partyes to prepare themselues, and to be ready for the beginninge of the next moneth with all prouision necessary for that Triall.

In the meane space the Popes Nuntius that lay in Paris hearinge of an appointment for [Page] triall of matters in Religion, began to make some difficulty to permitt any such publike act, appertayning to the vniuersall cause of Christendome, without licence and approbation of the Sea Apostolike, and proofe of the persons that must dispute, alleaginge that it was a thinge inconuenient to lay the creditt of so great and generall a cause of Religion vpon the learning of any particular man whatsoeuer,No generall dispute of Religion to be permitted without approbation of the supreme Pastors [...] Actes fol. 8. 9. 10. without necessity. But when he was answered by the B. and after by the K. himselfe, and others, that their meaninge was not to dispute of controuersies, but only to examine places cited by Monsieur Plessis whether they were truly and faithfully calleaged or no? and that this should be sett downe and obserued as the first law of this conference, the Nuntius was satisfied, and so the day was appointed, his Maiestie commandinge expressely, that the conference should be made with all sweetnesse and courtesie, &c.

So in the meane space diuers things were set in order necessary for that conference, as namely for choosinge the iudges on both sides, and principall assistance without all partiality, to witt, learned, wise and graue men, to the end that all might passe with indifferency, loue, and charity, as much as might bee; & namely for the Catholiks, was chosen the president of Tou, a great learned man, vpright & constant, and a neere kinsman [Page] and frend to Monsieur Plessis. The iudges & deputyes chosen for [...]oth sides. The second was Monsieur Pitheu, aduocate in the Court of Parlament of Paris a man both graue and generally well learned, and a [...]amiliar frend also to Monsieur Plessis. The third was Monsieur le Feure Maister of the Prince of Condie. And on the other side were named the President Calignon, Chauncelour of Nauarre, and the Lord de Fresne Canaye president of the Chamber of Parlament appointed for them of the new Religion in Languidoc, and Monsieur Cazaubon Reader of his Maiestie in Paris, all earnest, learned and iuditious Protestants.

The K. departed from Paris the 21. of Aprill to Fountayne bleau to hold there the conferēnce, leauing order with the L. Chancelour, that the next weeke followinge, he with the rest of the iudges and deputyes should follow, and bringe the B. of Eureux with them; & so they did, arriuing at Fountayne-bleau the 27. of Aprill, and the next day arriued also Monsieur Plessis, A new Memoriall of Plessis conteyninge 4. points for new delayes. but brought no books with him, sayinge that he had not byn warned to do so, and so the next day after that againe, he presented a new petition to the Kinge in wrytinge by the Chancelour askinge 4. thinges, which his Maiestie caused presently to be conferred with the B. & to take his answere thervnto. The first was 1 that wheras the B. had giuen out [...] that he had obserued aboue 4000. falsifications in his booke Against the Masse, and therby infamed [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] the same, that yt might be examined page by page, Act. pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. and leafe by leafe, as before he had demaunded, but the B. refused this for the same reasons which he had alleaged before in hisSupra cap. 3. letter to Monsieur Plessis, principally for that yt was but a refuge to draw out tyme, he well knowinge that yt would neuer be ended.

2 The second demaund was, that all such places of his booke, as the B. did not accuse of falsity, might be esteemed as allowed and approued after this conference. But this also the B. said was no reason, for that perhapps other men would find other faults in other places, which he had not examined, and that after these first 500. now obiected, were examined, he offered to be bound to go ouer his whole booke, page by page, and lyne by lyne as Plessis desired.

3 The third petition was, that if this might not be graunted, that at least the Bishopp would giue him in wrytinge, the first 500. places, that he had noted togeather with his proofes, against the same, and that he might haue tyme to examine them before hands, to cutt of long disputes before his Maiestie. But to this the Bishopp aunswered in like manner, that if he did so, the other would aske so much tyme to examine them, as he would delude this conference now appointed. Wherfore he offered, that yf the present triall might go forward, he would send [Page] him 50. places the day before to prouide himselfe for the first day, and so 50. the next day, for the second conference, and so forth for 10. dayes togeather, vntill all the 500. were examined.

The fourth demaund was, that the same 4 order might be held in examininge his booke, which he had held in wrytinge the same, to witt beginninge from the first part therof, &c. But this also the Bishopp refused, sayinge that it was only a shift, for that Plessis comonly had hādled only light points in the first part of his booke, wheron it was no reason to stand and leese tyme, but rather as an accuser he might begin where he would, and that Plessis was bound to aunswere him: yet for the last vpshott & to end all, he offered the King, to giue the whole 500. places presently into his Maiesties hands in wrytynge, & so to take them from him euery day by 50. at once, to be examined in ten dayes, as is afore said, and after this he said, he would bynd himselfe to remaine a whole moneth with him in Paris or els where he should thinke best, to examine the rest of the 4000.

After this vpon the second day of May all the iudges and comissaryes being now arriued (except the President Calignon, that remained sicke in Paris) Monsieur Plessis gaue vp another Memoriall to the King, requyring yet once againe, that the Bishop would giue [Page] him in wrytinge the 500. places gathered against him, or at least wayes deliuer them vp into the hands of the Iudges,Another delay sought by petition of Monsieur Plessis to the king. with commission that yf this conference were broken of, they should deliuer them into the hands of the said Plessis, and that duringe the conference, they should deliuer him only 50. a day. Whervpon the King calling the Bishop into his great gallery in the presence of the Chancelour, and of Monsieur Rosny president of the finances, as also of the president of Tou, Cazaubon, and others, asked him why he would not yeld to this demaund; whervnto he answered as before, saying that this was but a new delay, therby to gett into his hands the whole 500. places, and then to seeke to answere them rather by wrytinge, then by present conferēce, which he might breake of by diuers occasions,Actes fol. 21. yf once he were sure to haue therby the places into this hands, and therfore he desired his Maiestie to admitt no further delayes now, but that the appointed triall might go forward, which being once ended, he promised most faithfully, that he would stay to examine the whole booke, as longe as his Maiestie should appoint, or Plessis desire.

Whervpon the Lords present as well Protestants as Catholiks said, that the Bishopp had good reason in his answers to Plessis his demaunds, and thervpon the Chancelour was cōmanded by the King to goe & [Page] pronounce this arrest vnto the said L. Plessis, and that yf he would not go forward,Monsieur Plessis threatened by the king. as he had promised, his Maiestie would take another course, & proceed to the examination of his booke in his absence,Actes fol. 17. 18. which message the Chancelour hauing done, Plessis answered, that he could not accept of yt; wherat the Chancelour told him, that he should looke well to his creditt, for that if he should be found to be a falsifier in matters of diuinity, & his booke condemned in his absence, yt would be a great shame vnto him, whervnto the other replayed, that he had rather yt should be condēned vniustly in his absence, then in his presence, which answere being carried to the K. by the Chancelour, his Maiestie commaunded that the examine should begin that very afternoone,Actes fol. 22. at three of the clocke; but after vpon other busines that fell out, it was deferred vntill the next day at 7. of the clocke in the morning, which determinatiō of the K. being knowne, there was great dealing with his Maiestie by diuers of the pretended Religion, that the matter should not go forward, and new articles & demaunds were proposed in the behalfe of Monsieur Plessis; and namely two noble men Protestants named Castelnau & Chambaret, as also the president Fresne Canay cheefe deputy of their side, tooke in hād to deale betwene the King, Plessis & the Bishop, & after many goings & commings, messages, answers & [Page] replyes,A new agreemēt about the conference. it was agreed, that the B. should giue him presently 60. places in wryting of the 500. promised, to prepare himselfe for the next day, which the Bishop did, & out of those 60. Plessis chose 19. which seemed to him most defencible, with which he wēt to the King, protesting as followeth: Syr, of the 60. Acts fol. 26. passages sent me by the Bishop of Eureux, I haue had tyme only to examine and verifie 19. and of these I will leese my honour, An hipocriticall protestation. and life, yf he fynd one false. I shall proue my selfe this day before your Maiestie, to be another manner of man, then he esteemeth me. These were his words. Which being heard, the King sent presently for the Bishop, and gaue him the list of the 19. places, which Plessis had chosen to defend, which list when the Bishopp had read, he tould the King & the deputyes, that stood present with him that he found deceatfull dealinge in euery point, for that these 60. places being gathered in hast and tumultuously,A nevv shift of Plessis in choosing out 19. places. as his Maiestie knew himselfe, in lesse then halfe an houres space by his commandemēt, out of certaine loose papers, where aboue 800. corruptions were noted of Monsieur Plessis, and put togeather as they lay in order, he had chosen to defend them, not as they stood in the Catalogue, but by particular election, to witt the 27. 39. 44. 50. 53. 56. &c. And whereas there were most of the ancient fathers named in this list as corrupted by him, & only two schoolmen among the rest for example [Page] sake, to witt Scotus and Durandus, he had gui [...]fully placed them in the first ranke of his 19. placed to begin withall, as captaynes of the rest therby to disauthorize the whole conference, and to weary the hearers, as though the cheefe moment of the triall had byn about Scotus and Durandus. The K. great moderation. The K. answered that it should be good to giue contentment to Plessis, and those of his party, wherein it might be; for which cause he said further, as before, that he desired this conference might passe with all quietnesse possible, and that the Bishop should abstayne as much as he could from vsing the word false or falsification, and other such like, as might be offensiue, for that his intent was to pacifie, and gaine men by this triall, and not to exasperate. And the same he said also vnto the Lords deputyes there present, requiring them, that yf they should see any man wax into bitternesse & choler, they should restraine him, & seeke to end all with good words and substantiall matter.

After dynner about one of the clocke, the said conference was begone in presence of his Maiestie, and of a great number of the cheefe nobles of France, which were long to name; for before the K.The K. & nobles how they sat in the cōferēce. satte the L. Chancelour and the deputyes of both partyes before named; and at his right hand satt the Archbishopp of Lyons and sundry other Bishopps, and on his left hand the 4. secretaryes of [Page] State, & behind the King sate the Princes, namely the Dukes of Vaudemont, Nemeurs, Mercury, Dumayne, Niuers, Elbeuse, Aignilon, Ianuile, and others, and after them againe the officers of the crowne, Counselors of State. and others of the nobility, and about 200. other hearers within the chamber, & aboue 500. in a gallery and garden without, expecting the resolutiō from passage to passage, wherof there were many Protestants and diuers Ministers of the new Keligion.

All being sett, the L. Chancelour made first a briefe speech, confirmed afterward by the King himselfe, that the meaning of this meeting was to try out the truth of certaine allegations, that were called in controuersy in the L. Plessis booke, and not to dispute of any article of Religion at all; to which effect also the Bishop had a breefe speech, alleaging the example of Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage, Vict. de Vtic. lib. 2. de Persetut. Vand. who being required by Hunnericus King of the Vandalls in Africa, to dispute with the Arrians, he refused the same without consent of other Bishopps, and especially, of the B. of Rome as head of all. Monsieur Plessis also, made a very short preface, saying that as he had wrytten his books with intent to do God seruice for the reformation of his Church, and would thinke himselfe happy,L. Plessis speach & protestation. yf he could help any thing therin: so was he so farre of from all intention of willfull falsifyinge, that yf he knew his right [Page] hand to haue done yt, he should be the first to burne the same. He made mention againe, and shewed greefe,Actes fol. 31. that 4. thousand places should be noted, as falsified by him in his booke, and finally protested, that howsoeuer it succeded with him, his cause was particular, and touched not the reformed Churches in France, which were before him, and would be after him, &c.

The B. repeated againe the matter of 4000. places corrupted, and offered to stand vnto yt, and to verifie them as well, as those 500. new agreed vpon, and repeated againe breifely the whole story of this action, and how guilfully Plessis had proceeded in cullinge out 19. places only of 60. offered him, and of these had put in the first ranke Scotus and Durand two schoolemen, about the controuersie of the Sacrament, The Bishopps reall dealinge. leauing out other places of S. Cyprian, S. Cyrill, S. Chrisostome, & other ancient Fathers, obiected to haue bin corrupted by him in the very same controuersie of the reall presence amongst the number of these three score: which fraud, to the end the iudges and deputyes might see and behould, he laid downe vpon the table that stood before them the whole Catalogue of the said 60. places sent the day before to Plessis: which being done, the King comaunded the foure secretaryes of the crowne, to wryte only the conclusions and iudgments that should be giuen, and not the [Page] whole speaches, for yt would be ouerlonge. and so the conference began, the B. sayinge at the opening of the first booke Domine labi [...] mea aperies. & os meum annunciabit laudem tuam. Monsieur Plessis also prayed briefly with his hatt before his face, &c.

OF NINE PLACES EXAMINED IN THIS FIRST DAYES conference, and how they were all iudged by sentence of the deputyes to haue byn corrupted by Monsieur Plessis.
CHAP. II.

IN this first dayes conference, which endured 6. houres, there could be examined only 9. places of the 19. which Plessis had chosen to defend, of which nine also the first two by his art and fraude, (as in the former Chapter hath byn seene) were of 2. schoolemen, or scholasticall wryters, Scotus, and Durandus, which being only named for exāple sake by the B. of Eureux in his catalogue of 60. places, (but yet after many more important then they of the anciēt Fathers) which Plessis thought good to thrust backe,Hovv Scotus & Durandus came to be the first in [...]iall. all the said ancient Fathers and namely S. Cyprian, S. Cyrill of Ierusalem, S. Iohn Christostome and others cited in the same controuersie, and many more in other questions, & to aduāce [Page] forward to the first & second places of triall the said Scotus and Durandus, thinking therby partly to weary his Maiesty & the audience, and to make the conference lothsome and contemptible, by so base a beginning; partly also presuming, that he might more easily trifle out the tyme in wranglinge about these, as he did a whole houre about the first place only of Scotus, and would haue done the whole day, yf he might haue byn permitted, but the Bishop discouering this fraud vnto the auditorye, shewed withall, that his deceyt and false dealing was all one in corrupting meane authors as the best, and greatest, & therfore that it was not so much to be cōsidered by the iudges what the wryter was that was falsified, but how much, & with how great fraud he is falsifyed. And with this they passed to the particulars.

The first place examined out of Scotus about the reall presence.

This preamble being made, the B. began to read out of Plessis booke pag. 869. accordinge to his forsaid edition in 4. printed at Rochell by Hierome Hautin, these words out of Scotus, about the Sacrament of the Altar.Act. fol. 34. Iohn Duns (saith he) called Scot, almost 100. yeares after the Councell of Lateran, was not afraid to call in question, if the body of Christ be really conteyned vnder the species, or accidents (of bread) and he disputeth that it is not, and his arguments are, [Page]for that the quantity doth not permitt yt, nor yet the locality and circumscription annexed to the nature of a true body, such a one as Christ had, &c. Thus he. And then for proofe he quoteth in the margent. Scotus vpon the 4. booke of Sentences dist. 10. quaest. 1.

Out of which place the B. did inferre two willfull and malitious deceyts of Plessis, Two impostures. the first that he would make his Reader beleeue, that Scotus, & the rest of the Schoolemen when they propose any matter to be disputed to and fro, do doubt of the truth therof, which is a most absurd imposture, for so he might say also, that they doubt whether God be God, or whether God can create any thing, for that they putt this question.Scot. 2. sent. dist. 1. q. 2. Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare? whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothinge? and presently yt ensueth by way of obiection: Videtur quod non: yt seemeth that yt cannot be: But after all arguments ended, they resolue that yt is so, to witt, that there is a God, and can create things of nothinge, and do solue all the arguments alleaged by themselues to the contrary. And so doth Scotus in this matter settinge downe his full determination in these words: Dic [...] quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè, realiter, Scot. in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1. est simpliciter de substantia fidei: I do say that it is simply a substantiall article of our faith, to beleeue that Christs body, is truly & really there, vnder these accidents. [Page] And he proueth the same by two places of scripture, to witt Math. 26. where Christ saith: This is my body, and Iohn. 6. where he saith: My flesh is truly foode. This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proued to haue vsed in alleadginge Scotus against his owne meaninge, discourse, and resolution.

The second is, for that he saith, that Scotus argumēts against the reall presence, were the quantity, locality, and circumscription annexed to a true body; wheras these are not argumēts of Scotus, but of heretiks refuted by Scotus, as appeareth by himselfe in the same places, where he addeth also these words: If heretiks would expound the forsaid words of Christ: Scot. ibid. This is my body, to be vnderstood figuratiuely, yt is quite against the intention of our Sauiour. These 2. corruptions then, being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus, and shewed that they could not be of ignorance, but of willfull malice to deceaue the reader,The first shift of Plessis to defend his impostures. Plessis was sore pressed, but yet had diuised a certayne way of some kind of escape, yf yt may be called an escape, and not rather a greater [...]ntanglement, which was to say, that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the reall presence, but rather of the manner of Christs body being there, to witt, by Transubstantiation, and for that respect he named the Councell of lateran in his speach, which Councell first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation: But the Bishopp [Page] shewed this to be a very sleight euasion,Concil. Lateran. [...]an. 1. for that the Councell of Lateran determined as well the article of the reall presence, as of Transubstantiation, as appeareth in the said Councell, and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other. And finally that Plessis words before recyted are plaine inough without a comentary, that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no, vnder the [...]ormes of bread & wyne, yea & to dispute that yt was not, which words do speake plainly, as yow see, of the reality. Soe as these shifts, are but a new abusing of the Reader.

And as for the places he would seeme to alleage out of Scotus, as somwhat soundinge against Transubstantiation, yt was told him first, that yt was from the purpose, for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the reall presence; and secondly that these other places made no more for him, then the former, but wholy against him, and so yt was proued by readinge and examininge publikely the said places, wherin there was an houre spent. And the Bishopp perceauinge that Plessis desired to draw out the tyme, vrged the deputyes to giue sentence vpon the falsisication of the places alleaged, which they differred to do, vntill the next place of Durand was examined, for that they vnderstood the case was in a manner all one, or much like in both schoolemen: And so yt [Page] was in deed,The sente [...] ̄ce against Plessis. for that in both of them yow shall heare the sentence giuen afterward, that Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution, which was a great a disgrace,Act. fol. 52. yf you marke yt, as could be to such a man, that presumed to vnderstand what he read.

The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation.

The next place of the 19. chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined, was out of Durandus, Plessis his words as they ly in his booke pag. 870. are rhese: Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor, Act. fol. 46. hath these words in his 4. booke vpon the sentences dist. 11. To the contrary (saith he) supposinge the substances of bread and wyne (after the consecration) do remayne; there ensucth therof but one difficulty, and this neyther very great nor indissoluble, to witt, that two bodyes remayne togeather (vnder the same accidents) but yf yow put the contrary (to witt that there is Transubstantiation) there ensue more difficultyes, that is to say, how those species or accidents (without their substance) can nourish or be corrupted, and how any thinge can be generate therof, seing all generation is of matter or substance, & therfore it seemeth that we ought to sticke rather to the first way, (to witt against Transubstantiation, &c. So he.

Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceytfull dealinge as before in Scotus, A dishonorable imposture. or rather more [Page] plaine and euident, and consequently more wicked and dishonorable to him, for that all these words heere alleaged out of Durandus are not his owne, but the words of others that do obiect the same, which he dissolueth afterward, when he hath put downe his owne sentence in these words: Primum est dicendum, Purand. sent. li. 4. dist. 11. q. 1. quod substantia panis & vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi. ‘First we must say and hold (notwithstandinge the former obiections & arguments to the contrary) that the substance of bread and wyne, are turned into the substance of the body of Christ.’ This is his resolution, quite contrary, to that which Plessis would haue him seeme to hold. And then hauing set downe this resolution accordinge to the common faith of the Catholike Church, he passeth to answere the former obiection, sayinge to the former argument to the contrary (about difficultyes): vve must answere, that in those thinges that appertayne vnto faith, we must not allvvayes choose that vvhich seemeth (to humayne sense) to haue lesse difficultyes; Durand. ibid. but we must hould that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers, and to the tradition of the Church. So Durand.

Which words being recyted in the hearing of all, yow must imagine in what a pittifull plight poore Plessis was, to see one man looke vpon another, and ether smile or byte their lippes at such manifest grosse trumpery; [Page] but yet necessity made him take hart, & to aduenture a new euasion, saying, that albeit this were but an obiection in Durand, yet it seemed to him such an obiection, ‘as might hould the place of a resolution, yf the authority & decision of the Church had not withheld him.’ And for proofe of this, he would needs cite diuers other places out of Durand, where he saith; ‘that yf God would he could haue made his body to be in the Sacrament,’ togeather with the substance of bread without Transubstantiation, and that yt should be temerity to hold the contrary: but the Bishop refuted this presently as impertinent matter, and nothinge to the purpose to help his cause: For albeit Durand did hould, that God out of his omnipotency might haue appointed yt so yf he would, that both substances, (to witt both of his body & bread) should haue byn togeather; yet did he it not so de fact [...], as Durand proueth out of his owne words, when he said of bread, this is my body, &c. Math. 19. It was noted also that in the end of the first text alleaged by Plessis out of Durand, the words in vulgar were: Therfore the first way is to be followed, wheras the true words of Durand in Latyn were,Plessis taken in two falfityes at once. ergo (vt videtur) primum est eligendum: therfore (as yt seemeth) this first way is rather to be chosen: so as Plessis of purpose left out the words (vt videtur) that yt might not seeme (as yt was) an obiection, but rather a [Page] resolution, which was another tricke of vnfaithfull dealinge.

Well then after all textes read at large, and examined by the iudges, when Plessis would haue cauilled yet further & drawne out the tyme, as he did in the former place of Scotus; the B. desired the K. that the law of this triall might be obserued, and sentence giuen vpon the matter yt selfe already proposed, without further excursions, whervpon the King willed the deputyes to giue sentence, which they did by the Chancelour, after he had asked euery mans voyce in particular, and the sentence was in these words in French.The sentence of the first two places. Que le Sieur de Plessis auoit pris la obiection pour la resolution. That the L. Plessis had taken the obiection (in Scotus and Durand) for the resolution. And this was the end of this second triall, with shame inough, yow may imagine, to him that professed more learning, then to be deceaued in such a matter, yf he had not listed to haue byn both deceaued and to deceaue.

The third place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about Prayer to Sainctes.

After the former two places of Scotus and Durand dispached,Acts of the conf. fol. 52. the third chosen by Monsieur Plessis, to be defended, was out of S. Chrysostome, in his homily, vpon the first of Saint Paules epistles to the Thessalonians, where handling those words of Ieremy the Prophet:Ierem. 15. If [Page]Moyses and Samuell stood before me, my affection should not bee vnto this people, &c. Plessis saith, that wheras the Papists do alleage this sayinge of the Prophett to proue prayer vnto Saints, S. Chrysostome draweth a quite contrary conclusion from thence, his words are these pag. 537. of his booke against the Masse: S. Chrysostome doth draw from these words of the Prophett a quite contrary conclusion, Chrysost. [...] hom prima in 1. [...]. Thessal. to witt that we must not rest our selues vpon the prayes of Saints, but must worke our saluation (as S. Peter saith) in feare and trembling. &c.

Out of which allegation of S. Chrysostome the Bishopp did shew, and plainly declare, that Plessis had depraued S. Chrysostomes meaninge, for that he did not inferre any such conclusion at all against prayer to Saints, but manifestly the contrary in these words in the very same place, sayinge for his conclusion after a long discourse: These things then being so (as we haue shewed) we must neither neglect the prayer of Saints for vs, Chrysost. ibid. nor yet putt all our hope therin, for that the one would depriue vs of great succours, the other would make vs idle and neglect. VVherfore we must pray to them, to make intercession, and hould vp their hands for vs, and we of our part must liue vertuously.

These are the words of S. Chrysostome truly alleaged, which do euidently shew, that Plessis did notoriously corrupt both S. Chrysostome his words and meaning in his forsaid allegation:Two impostures of Plessis. his words, in that he affirmeth [Page] S. Chrysostome to say: that we must not rest our selues vpon the prayers of Saints: which he doth not say, but that, we must not put all our hope therin. Secondly he leaueth out those words of S. Chrysostome, where he exhorteth vs to pray vnto Saints, and to liue vertuously. He corrupteth also S. Chrysostomes meaning, for that he enforceth vpon him the quite contrary conclusion, to that which he maketh, to witt, that we must not pray to Saints at all, wheras S. Chrysostome saith, we ought to pray to Saints, & not to depriue our selues of so great a succour.

Heere Plessis was in a great Bracke againe, & could not tell which way to wynd himselfe out, yet two leapes he gaue, but neyther did serue his turne.Tvvo vayne leaps of Plessis to gett out of the bracke. The first was, by sayinge, that his intention was not to sett downe Saint Chrysostomes words formally as they lay in the text, for that his discourse was longe, and indured for diuers pages, but only to put downe the some therof. But this was beaten backe by the B. asking him first, why then he sett downe those words in a different letter, as proper words of S. Chrysostome? Secondly, why he left out Saint Chrysostomes true words before recyted, and put in other of his owne, of a cōtrary sense? Thirdly why he changed, & falsifyed Saint Chrysostomes whole meaning, drifte, and conclusion, as hath byn shewed; and finally he told him, that albeit S. Chrysostomes discourse were large in expounding the forsaid verse [Page] of Ieremy the Prophett; yet was his conclusion about praying to Saints very short, and vttered in no more words then before was sett downe; so as this helped him nothing.

His second skip therfore was to say, that S. Chrysostome in this place spoke of prayinge to liue Saints only, and not to dead Saints, but the Bishop replied, that albeit this were true (as it appeareth euidently to be false by the examples of Dauid and Iob, whome Saint Chrysostome there nameth) yet that this releeued him and his falshood nothing at all: For yf he spoke of liue Saints only, then could not Plessis draw an argument from that his speach against the Catholike vse of praying to Saints desceased;Plessis cōcluded by the B. and sentēce giuē against him. and yf he spake of dead Saints, or both of dead and liuinge, then doth he confirme the Catholike vse, & not impugne the same, as Plessis would haue made his reader beleeue. And howsoeuer yt bee, the Bishopp vrged, that he was heere conuinced of diuers falshoods, and so required sentence, whervpon the iudges commaunded two seuerall Greeke textes of S. Iohn Chrysostome to be brought of diuers impressions, the one at Heidelberge, the other at Verona, & conferringe them togeather, found the Fathers words to be iust as before they haue byn sett downe by vs, and falsified by Plessis in his booke, and therfore after euery mans opinion required, & conferred among themselues, the Chancelour pronounced in [Page] all the deputyes names in these words: Que le Si [...]ur du Plessis auoit obmis en ce passage ce que y deuoit estre mis. that is to say: That the Lord Plessis had left out in this passage, that which ought to haue byn put in: which in effect, is to call him a falsifier in good and honourable tearmes. And so much of this place.

The fourth place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about prayer in like manner to Saints.

The fourth place was another of S. Chrysostome about the same argument of praying to Saints cyted falsely by Plessis in the 574. page of his booke against the Masse, where he maketh S. Chrysostome to speake thus against praying to Saints: ChrysostomeChrysost. hom. 5. in Math. (saith he) seemeth to haue attempted the ouerthrow of this abuse assaultinge the fundament therof by all occasions, for so much as he saw, that the people did thinke more how to help themsel [...]es by suffrages of others, then how to amend their liues; wherfore he did endeauour to batter this opinion; saying we are much more assused by our owne suffrages then by the suffrages of others; and God doth not so soone graunt our saluation at the prayers of others,Acts fol. 58. as to our owne prayers, for so he tooke pitty of the woman of Cananaea, and gaue pardon to the adulteresse, and paradise to the theefe without being moued with intercession of any aduocate or mediator, &c.

Out of which words, besides that which was before obiected vpon the precedent [Page] place, the B. accused Monsieur Plessis, that he had dealt fraudulently also in cytinge these words, for that he had cutt of the very next words ensuing, which made against him, & declared plainly S. Chrysostomes whole meaning, to witt: And this we say (saith S. Chrysostome)Chrysost. ibid. not to the end we should not make our prayers or supplications vnto Saints, but that we should not therby become slothfull in doing also for our selues. To which charge Monsieur Plessis answered, that Chrysostome in this place did not speake of dead Saints, but of liuinge Saints, for proofe wherof, he alleadged certayne coniecturall reasons,Two or three scapes of Plessis stopped by the B. which the B. hauinge refuted, as both false and impertinent to the matter, he vrged him that this refuge, yf yt were true that S. Chrysostome spoke only of lyuing Saints, yt was against himselfe, and proued two absurdityes in steed of one, the first, that he deduced a conclusion out of S. Chrysostome against prayinge to dead Saints, wheras the Father spake of liuinge Saints only: the second, that he cutt of from the text, the principall words that should haue declared the Fathers meaninge. To this replyed Plessis, that he brought not this place of Chrysostome against praying to Saints, but against them that would help themselues by the suffrages of others.

Vpon this answere the K. himselfe began to speake, saying, that the word others, was a generall word, that might be extented [Page] aswell to the dead, as to the liue, and that Plessis should remember, that he had said a little before in cyting S. Chrysostome, that Chrysostome attempted the ouerthrow of this abuse. The K. tooke the argument. And then he demaunded of him what abuse he meant, if he meant not the abuse of praying to Saints desceased, as impugned by S. Chrysostome: which instance of his Maiestie was confirmed by the B. cyting diuers places of Plessis booke, where by name he auoucheth S. Epiphanius and S. Chrysostome in the Greeke Church to be aduersaryes of prayinge to Saints,Acts fol. [...]o. which yet now he would not stand vnto. But Plessis replyed; that he did not alleage S. Chrysostome in this place,Another poore shift of Plessis. as directly impugninge prayer to Saints deceased, but indirectly, in that he saith, that we must not put our confidence in the meritts of other men. Wherto the Bishop answered, that S. Chrysostome said not absolutely, that we must not rely at all vpon other mens prayers, but that we must not so rely, as we be negligent of our owne parts; which speach doth neyther directly nor indirectly impugne prayer to Saints, especially being ioyned with his plaine declaration before mentioned, cutt of by Plessis.

Wherfore after diuers such vayne, & impertinent replyes of Monsieur Plessis, the B. required sentence to be giuen; whervpon the texts alleaged being openly read, both in Greeke and Latyn of diuers editions printed both in Paris and Basill, and one Greeke [Page] copy of hand wrytinge out of the Kings library, the words were found as before hath byn cyted, and sentence was giuen by the consent of all deputyes in the same words that the other was before, to witt,Acts fol. 64. that the L. Plessis had left out in this passage, that which he ought to haue putt yn. And with this ended their examen of the fourth place, & the blushing remayned to Plessis as yow may imagine, seeing all his Protestants to hange downe their heads at this successe.

The fifth place examined out of S. Hierome about the same argument, of prayer to Saints.

After the two forsaid places of S. Chrysostome discussed, as yow haue heard, there came in order a place of S. Hierome vpon Ezechiell, cyted by the said Plessis in the 583. page of his booke against prayer to Saints,Hier. in Ezech. lib. 4. cap. 14. and put as yt were for an antidotum to other sayings of S. Hierome in fauour of prayings to Saints, in his books against Vigilantius. The place is cyted in Plessis booke in these words: But Saint Hierome (saith he) in his commentaryes, when he was out of choler and greife, did wryte thus: If we haue confidence in any one, lett yt be in God only, for yt is wrytten, that the man is cursed that confideth in men; albeit they be Saints, & albeit they be Prophets, yet must we not confide in them, nor yet in the Princes of the Church, who though they be iust, yet shall they deliuer but their owne soules, and not those of their children.

[Page]Out of this place the B. obiected, that Plessis had alleaged these words with fraud & corruption, leauing out the clause which made all cleere, and vtterly marred Plessis markett, to witt, Si fuerint negligentes, yf their children be negligent, then cannot Saints saue them: filios autem & filias (saith S. Hierome) quos in Ecclesia genuerim, si [...]uer [...]t negligentes, saluare non poterunt. ‘That is, Saints cannot saue their sonnes and daughters, whome they haue be gotten, by their preachinge in Gods Church, yf the said children be negligent on their parts.’ And the same very exception or restriction had S. Hierome repeated in other words before in the same Chapter,Hier. ibid. saying: Nec principes nos poterunt liberare, nisi filiorum suerit assensu [...], & illorum obsecrationes suis conatibus iuuerint. ‘The very cheefest and principall Saints of the Church cannot deliuer vs, except we their children do giue our consent thervnto, & except we do ayde, by our owne good endeauours, their prayers made for vs.’ Which two clauses she winge euidently, that S. Hieromes former speach was but conditionall, & not absolute, when he said, that we must not put our trust in others, (euen as that of S. Chrysostome was before) yt followeth that the leauinge out of these clauses that conteyne the principall point of all the speach, was willfull fraud, and falsification, endeauouringe to make Saint Hierome to speake against himselfe, about [Page] prayinge to Saints, which he neuer meant.

Heere now Plessis being strayned, as before, ran to his ordinary shift, of sayinge, that S. Hierome spake not of dead Saints, but of liuinge only, which though it were euidently false, as the Bishop shewed by other plaine words of S. Hierome in the same place, and by Plessis himselfe,VVilfull false dealinge against S. Hierome. that cyted this place as an anti [...]otum to other places of his, against Vigilantius, where Plessis himselfe confessed, that he talketh of prayer to Saints deceased: besides all this (I say) wherby this refuge was euidētly knowne to be but a shift, the Bishop pressed him most with this; that of what sort of Saints soeuer S. Hierome speaketh heere, quicke, or dead, he speaketh not simply or absolutely, that they cannot saue vs by their prayers, but with this expresse condition, twise repeated by him, and left out by Plessis: If we be negligent of our owne parts; or as S. Chrysostome said before; yf we rely wholy vpon them, and do nothing of our selues.

Wherfore he prayed the iudges to giue sentence concerninge this place, as of the former; whervpon Plessis began to cauill againe,Acts fol. 69. and to say, as he did in the former passage of S. Chrysostome, that he alleaged not this place of Saint Hierome directly against Saints deceased, but indirectly. But the B. proued that neyther directly, nor indirectly this place of S. Hierome made any thinge against prayers to Saints, but rather for the [Page] same. For he that saith, that prayinge to Saints auayleth not him, that is negligent of his owne part, signifieth in effect, that yf he be diligent, he may be holpen therby, which is S. Hieromes doctrine against Vigilantius, as Plessey confesseth, though he saith that he was then in choler but now out of choler, when he spoke the contrary as he would haue him to seeme.

After this, Plessis leapt to another place of S. Hierome in his cōmentaryes vpon S. Paules epistles to the Corinthians, Another shift of Monsieur Plessis. where he saith: That Saints shall not be able to help at the day of iudgment, &c. Which the Bishop expounded, and graunted, for that then there shalbe no more place for prayer or intercession, but euery one to receaue his reward: yet he added further, that this place of S. Hierome, was brought into examination out of the order of those 19. that Plessis had chosen, and that yf he would be content, to continue the examination of this one page of Saint Hierome, An offer to prooue 4. new falsifications against Plessis in one page. whence this place is drawne, the B. offered to bynd himselfe to shew 4. notorious falsityes committed by him, in this one page: but Plessis refused this combat, & said that he would not interrupt the order sett downe already for examination of his 19. places aforesaid; but yet both the King and rest of the auditory, did well marke and note this offer made by the Bishopp and diuers tymes repeated by him, and that the other durst [Page] not accept therof. Wherfore the iudges being called vpon againe, to giue sentence, conferred togeather, and with one consent gaue this verdict.Acts fol. 97. Que le passage auoit deu estre mis entier. That this place or passage on S. Hierome ought to haue byn sett downe by Monsieur Plessis wholy, and entyre, as yt lay in the author, and not mangled or dismembred, as it was found to be. And yow may imagine how Plessis blushed at this sentence.

The sixt place examined, out of S. Cyrill, about honouringe the holy Crosse.

The sixt place was out of S. Cyrill cited by Monsieur Plessis pag. 223. of his booke in these words: S. Cyrill Cyril. l. 6. contra Iulian. Apostat. answered the Emperour Iulian when he reproached Christians for honour done vnto the crosse, that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse. So saith Plessis: But the Bishopp charged him, that the last words of this sentence, to witt, that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse, were not in S. Cyrill, and willed him to shew them. Plessis answered, that in deed they were not S. Cyrills owne words, and therfore he did not put them in a different letter of quotation, but yet that the sense of them was to be found in S. Cyrill. The B. replyed, that neyther the words nor sense were there, and yet that Plessis pag. 89.The firstly proued against Plessis. of his booke against the Masse had sett downe the same thinge as of S. Cyrills owne words [Page] in a different letter of quotation thus: Cyrill likewise reproached by Iulian the Emperour doth answere flattly, that the Christiās did neither adore, nor honour the signe of the Crosse. So as heer [...] yow see not only these words alleaged as S. Cyrills in a different letter, but also often vrged by Plessis, that for so much as he could not bring forth the words, at least he should shew the sense therof in S. Cyrill.

Plessis answered, that the sense might be gathered out of Cyrill, A friuolous obiection of Plessis answered, and returned vpon himselfe. in that Iulian the Apostata, against whome he wrote, obiectinge vnto him, that the Christians adored the Crosse of Christ, Cyrill did not answere that it was true, which of likelihood he would haue done, yf in those dayes Christians in deed had worshipped the Crosse. But to this the Bishop replyed, that the consequēce was not good, for so much as Christian wryters of that tyme, were wont to goe very reseruedly, in vttering the points & misteryes of our faith vnto pagās, though heere in effect Cyrill did confesse yt, as presently shalbe shewed, for that he yeldeth the reason why they did yt. But on the other side yt is a farre better argument to say: Iulian the Apostata obiected that Christians adored the Crosse of Christ, and painted the images therof vpon their foreheads, & vpon their dores, and S. Cyrill denyeth yt not, but endeauoureth to giue a reason, why they did so; Ergo it is more probable, that Christians [Page] did worshipp the Crosse of Christ indeed in those dayes.

And heere the King tooke vp the argument againe sayinge,The K. reply against Plessis. that yt was very probable, that Iulian would neuer haue obiected this to the Christians, yf they had not done so indeed, for otherwise he should haue byn laughed at by all. Which speach of his Maiestie the B. cōfirmed, by shewing how learned an Emperour Iulian the Apostata was, and how he had byn brought vp from his youth in Christian Religion, and could not be ignorant in so publike a matter as this; and moreouer (said the Bishop) yf yt were true, that S. Cyrill did reprehend the Emperour Iulian, for charginge falsely Christians to worshipp the Crosse, yt is not likely, that other Christian Emperors followinge soone after, as Iustinian and others, would in their lawes haue called the same, Adorandam & honorandam verè crucem, Iustin. Imper. in Authentde Monachis. Si quis aedi [...]icari. the Crosse that is truly to be honoured & adored Which mention of Emperors being heard by the King, he required presently that the books should be brought, and the places read openly, which was done out of the constitutions of Iustinian printed at Geneua, and the words were read there as the B. had alleaged them; and the same shewed out of diuers other authors more ancient then Iustinian, as Rusticus Diaconus, Acts fol. 72. Sedulius presbyter, Athanasius, and S. Chrysostome.

[Page]Which being done, Plessis came out with another obiection of Minutius Foelix, who answeringe to one Cecilius, a pagan, said, Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus. We do neither worshipp nor wish for Crosses; but the Bishop shewed this to be but a rest, and quite against himselfe.A deceytfull reply of Plessis turned vpon himselfe. For that the pagan hauing obiected to Christians, that they honoured Crucem, wherby he vnderstood a gibbett or gallowes, said, Christiani adorant & merentur Crucem, Christians do adore, and do deserue the gibbett, in which sense Minutius answered him: Nos Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus, we do neyther worship nor wish Crosses in your sense, that is to say, gibbetts. And all did maruayle at Plessis, that he would bring in this deceatfull obiection: out of which notwithstandinge the Bishop inferred, that except the Pagan Cecilius had knowen in those dayes, that Christians worshipped Crosses, he would neuer haue obiected the same so confidently against them, eyther in iest, or in earnest.

And this being done the B. demaunded iudgment vpon the place, but there stept vp one Monsieur Mercier, A reply of Monsieur Mercier the Protestants secretary. one of the secretaryes of the conference for the Protestants side, sayinge that by the text of S. Cyrill there lyinge on the table, before them, yt was manifest, that he obiected vnto Iulian extremam imperitiam, extreme ignorance or lacke of skill in Christian affayres, for obiectinge to them [Page] that they honoured the Crosse, and made the signe therof vpon their foreheads and dores, which by likelyhood he would neuer haue done, yf Christians had vsed to do so indeed. Whervnto the Bishop answered, that S. Cyrill did not obiect ignorance about the fact, and custome of honouringe the Crosse, and makinge the signe therof, as is aforesaid, for that this thing was so notoriously knowne, as yt had byn rather lacke of witt or shame, then skill in Iulian to obiect yt, yf no such vse had byn: but S. Cyrill accused him of ignorance, and folly for his illation made thervpon, which was, that Christians were miserable & contemptible therby, to witt, for yelding so much honour to the signe of a crosse or gibbett, so odious to them as nothinge more. And this to be his meaninge is plaine by S. Cyrills whole discourse, which was there read both in Greeke and Latyn in these words: Furthermore (saith he) Iulian calleth vs miserable, Cyril. l. 6. contra Iulian. who are so carefull alwayes to signe our houses and foreheads with the signe of the pretious Crosse, but we shall easily demonstrate vnto him, that such kind of speaches do proceed from vvicked cogitations, and do sauour of extreme ignorance, &c. Which text being pondered,The sentence against Plessis. & the iudges hauing conferred among themselues, this sentence was giuen vpon the place of S. Cyrill before alleaged.Acts fol. 76. Que le passage allegué par le Sieur du Plessis ne se trouoit point dans S. Cyrille. That the [Page] passage alleaged heere by the L. Plessis out of S. Cyrill is not found at all in Cyrill. Of which sentence yow see the consequence that ensueth, to wit, that Plessis had made or diuised yt of himselfe.

The seauenth Place examined out of the Code or Imperiall lawes, about paintinge or caruings the signe of the Crosse.

After the place of S. Cyrill examined and found falsified about worshipping the crosse (as you haue heard) there was brought into triall, another place concerning the same argument, about a law of the two Emperors Theodosius, & Valens cyted by Plessis in the 223. page of his booke, against paintinge or caruing the image of the crosse in these words: VVhat wil these men say, (to wit the Catholiks) of the Emperors Theodosius & Valēs, that prohibited expressely by edict, this custome of painting or caruing images of our sauiour. For so much (say they) as we haue care of nothing more then of the seruice of God, we forbidd all sorts of persons to make the signe of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, either in colours, stone, or other matter, either to engraue paint or cutt the same, but rather whersoeuer any such thing shalbe foūd, that yt be taken away vnder paine of greuous punishmēt. So cyteth Plessis the words of the law. But the B. of Eureux shewed that this cytation is full of willfull fraud, and corruption, for that amōg other things it leaueth out the words humi & in solo, which signifie on the ground: [Page] which words conteyne the very life and sense of all the whole text, & law alleaged, & do declare the true meaning of the lawmakers therin, for that the true text of the law in the code lyeth thus:

Cùm sit nobis cura diligens, &c. Cod. Lib [...]tit. 8. nemini licere. &c. Wheras our care is diligent in all things to defend the Religion of almighty God: we commaund that ‘it shall not be lawfull, for any man to carue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ, either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lyinge vpon the ground, &c.’ Which ordination the Bishopp did shew to haue byn made by the Emperors,An egregious corruption. for more honour of sacred images of our sauiour, to the end that they should not be defiled with mens feete, as appeareth by the same prohibition made and confirmed not long after by the Councell of Constantinople, Concil. Constantinop. in Trullo. cap. 73. named In Trullo, where it is said: vve commaund that all the figures of the Crosse, that are made vpon pauiments be taken away or defaced, to the end that the triumphant signe of our victory, be not vnworthily defiled by mens feete.

And at this sore charge Monsieur Plessis seemed much ashtonished, and had no other refuge, but to say that he alleaged the text as he found yt alleaged by Petrus Crinitus: but the Bishopp replyed, that it had byn conuenient for a man of Plessis quality and profession in learning, before he had wrytten and printed this thing, and especially before he [Page] had so insolently asked the question, what Catholikes would say vnto it, to haue seene the place it selfe, knowinge that Petrus Crinitus was but a rash grammarian of later tymes, reprehended of this very falsification by sundry learned men of our dayes, and namely by Alanus Copus, Doctor Sanders, Cardinall Bellarmine and others. Which Plessis could not but know, and haue seene; and moreouer the very title of the law yt selfe is extant in the Code in these words: Nemini licere signum saluatoris Christi humi, vel in scilice, vel in marmore, aut insculpere aut pingere; Plessis either ignorant or strangely malitious. Which is: that it is not lawfull for any man to engraue, or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ on the ground eyther in flint or marble; which title of the law seemeth impossible, but that Plessis must haue seene and read, for so much as he cyteth diuers other lawes out of the same Code, or els he is a very superficiall fellow: and yf he saw yt, and yet alleaged it as he doth, his falshood is intollerable.

But he persisting in denyall, that he was bound to looke the law it selfe in the Code, but that it was sufficient to follow Crinitus his allegation therof, the iudges for compassion (as it seemeth) after consultation among themselues gaue this sentence: Que il auoit veritablement allegué Crinitus, mais que Crinitus [...]'estoit abusé. That Monsieur Plessis had truly alleaged Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abused. Which had byn some excuse yf [Page] Plessis had byn a simple yonge scholler; but being the man he is, and taketh himselfe to be, yt is hard to say where the abuse was greater, eyther in him, or Crinitus; for so much as in his text he alleaged not Crinitus, but the Emperors themselues, and insulted therby ouer Catholiks, as yow haue heard, though in his margent he quoted Crinitus, which was little to the purpose, knowinge that he lyed, as must be presumed that he did, and cannot well be auoyded.

The eight Place examined out of S. Bernard about honouringe our Lady.

The L. Plessis being desirous to make a florish against Catholiks, for geuing to much honour (as he saith) to our Lady, he alleageth a sentence out of S. Bernard in the 604. page of his booke, in these words:Acts fol. 83. S. Bernard (saith he) wryteth of the virgin her selfe in his 174. epistle, that she hath no need of false honours, for so much as she is full of true; and this is not to honour her, but to take away her honour; the feast of her conception was not well inuented. So he.

In which words the B. accused Plessis to haue vsed as great falshood as in the former passages, for that he had guilfully patched togeather two different sentences of that epistle, wrytten in seuerall places, to make one to his purpose, after the fashion of Centons of Homer, Virgill and other poets, and had so recyted them, as they might seeme but [Page] one, and moreouer had cutt of the sentence that wēt betwene them, & was immediatly annexed to the former, & conteyned the decision of the whole question, to witt, inventrix of grace, S. Ansel. accused of impiety by Plessis. mediatrix of saluation, &c. For better vnderstāding wherof must be noted, that Mensieur Plessis a little before had accused S. Anselme of impiety, for calling the blessed Virgin Inuentricem gratiae, mediatricem salutis, restauratricem saeculorum: sayinge that these praises, and honours were false and immoderate. For proofe wherof he alleaged Saint Bernard, as though he had byn of a contrary opinion to Anselmus, and to the Catholiks of these dayes, in that he disallowed false honours giuen to our Lady, for which he cyted the passage before mentioned,Great falshood in alleaginge S. Bernard. made of 2. seuerall sentences, tied togeather, & cutting out from the middle therof these words of S. Bernard: Magnifica gratiae inuentricem, mediatricem salutis, restauratricem saeculorum, &c. ‘Do thou magnifie this inuentrix of grace, this mediatrix of Saluation, and restorer of the world, &c.’ Which are the very same words that Anselmus did vse before him, and for reprouing wherof S. Bernard was alleaged: so as two or 3. falshoods were vrged out of this place against him: First that of two sentēces are guilfully made one; Secondly that the principall clause was left out of purpose; and thirdly that S. Bernard was alleaged to ouerthrow that, which expressely he cōfirmeth.

[Page]To the first Plessis answered, that in leauinge out that sentence, he did no more, then the Apostles did, who alleaged some tymes seuerall sentences of the old testamēt, togeather as one text.A s [...]ift of Plessis shaken of by the B. But the Bishop replied that the Apostles might do yt, for that they had the selfe same spiritt, which the wryters of the old testament had, and therfore could not go from their true meaning: but that we shall neuer find the Apostles to alleage two places of scripture contrary to the wryters mynd, and to leaue out in the middest, that which maketh most to the purpose for declaring their meaning, as Plessis hath done heere in S. Bernard.

To the second & third points, about clippinge of the sentence in the middle, and alleaginge S. Bernard against his owne meaninge; Plessis endeauoured to make certayne answers, & to shew that the sentence which he had left out, made nothinge to the purpose which he had in hand; which the Bishopp graunted, yf his purpose was to deceaue his Reader (as no doubt but yt was) but otherwise, yf he had meant truth, yt must needs be much to the purpose to putt yt in; for that it ouerthroweth directly (as yow see) all that which Plessis would haue proued, by S. Bernards authority against S. Anselme. And finally the Bishop after diuers other cauills answered, returned to the first matter againe, and to affirme as at the beginning, [Page] that Monsieur Plessis had not dealt truly and sincerely in this allegation of Saint Bernard, but that he should haue alleaged the sentences seuerally, as they lay in the booke, and not haue left out the principall clause, that went betwene them, yf he had dealt truly. Wherfore he desyringe iudgment vpon this passage,The sentence giuen against Plessis. the Acts do sett it downe in these words: Monsieur le Chancelier, auec l'aduis des deputés pronon [...]a qu'il eust esté bon que il eust fait. Acts fol. 96. The L. Chancelour with the aduise of the deputyes, did pronounce, that yt had byn good that Monsieur Plessis had done so; (as the Bishop of Eureux required) which is as much to say that in not doinge so, he behaued himselfe but badly, which was a checke of no small moment in such a matter.

The ninth Place examined out of Theodorete about Images.

The last place that was tryed in this first daies conference, was out of Theodorete vpon the 113. Psalme cyted by Monsieur Plessis in the 118. page of his booke against the vse of Images in these words: God maketh what he pleaseth, but Images are such as pleaseth men to make them; they haue the places or habitations of senses, but haue no sense indeed, and in this much lesse them flyes and fleas and such other vermine, and yt is iust that all that adore them do leese both reason and sense, and be like vnto them. Heere the Bishopp [Page] obiected two manifest and willfull falsifications:Acts fol. 90. 91. 92. First for that he had against the expresse meaninge of Theodorete translated the Greeke word Idoll for Image, which Theodorete did cleerly distinguish: and secondly for that he cut of a plaine clause in the middest, wherby the author of purpose did expound himselfe, to witt these wordes; adored by pagans, and adored for Gods, so as this declared euidently, that he had no true meaninge.

To this Plessis answered, that as for the words Idoll and Image, they were all one,The difference betwixt Idoll and Image. which he said he could shew both out of scriptures and Fathers. The other replyed, that albeit accordinge to their Etymologye in Grammer, the Greeke word Eicoon and Eidoolon do sometyme signifie the same, and that some ould heathen writers do vse them so: yet the Ecclesiasticall vse therof both in scriptures & ancient Fathers, doth alwayes distinguish most exactly these 2. words: as for example, it can neuer be found, either in scriptures or ancient Fathers, that the word Idoll is taken in good part, as Image is, nor that they did euer call the Cherubins, Exod 25. 3 Re [...]. 6. 1. Cor. 11. [...]. Cor. 3. & 4. Coloss. 1 [...] and other Images in the Temple of Hierusalem, Idolls; nor do the scriptures call man the Idoll of God, but the Image of God; nor did euer any Christian wryter dare to speake otherwise, nor to call our Sauiour the Idoll of his Father, but only the Image of his Father, and [Page] other like examples, wherby is euident, that both the scriptures, and holy Fathers did obserue a strict distinction betwixt these words: And heervpon was there spent some tyme in certayne vayne replies vsed by Plessis, but no one example could he giue out of the scriptures to the contrary, nor yet out of any Father to this purpose.

And on the other side the Bishop pressed him with the words of Theodorete Theodor. quaest. 38. in Exod. himselfe in his questions vpon Exodus, where he setteth downe expressely the difference betweene Idoll and Image: and besides this, that in his Ecclesiasticall Greeke history of the liues of Fathers, called the Religious history, he recounteth in the life of Saint Symeon Stilites, that the Christian Romans in his tyme did set vp Images for deuotion to the said Stilites, and therby procured to themselues both safegard and protection, as the authors words are, wherof the Bishopp inferred, that for so much as Theodorete did prayse the Romains for this Act, yt cannot be imagined that he held Images to be the same that Idolls, which before he so much detested in the place heere alleaged by Monsieur Plessis, for that so he should prayse the Romans for idolatry.

Heere the deputyes called for Theodorete in Greeke, [...]Another shift t [...] [...]en away from P [...]essis. & examined the place of Stilites, & found it true as the Bishop had alleaged: & Plessis had no other refuge left but to say, that these Images of Stilites were not putt vp [Page] in Churches. But the Bishopp replyed that to be of no importance, whether they were or noe. For yf they were Idolls they were vnlawfull also in priuate houses, and consequently Theodorete would not haue praised them. But yet to shew that in that tyme also of Theodorete & before, Christian Images were accustomed to be sett vp religiously in Churches, the Bishop alleaged many places out of S. Orat. de S. Barl [...]am. Basill, S. Orac. in B. Theod. Gregory Nissen, In Biblioth. cap. 52. Photius, In hym. de S. Cassiano. Prudentius, Ad S [...] uerum sulpit. Paulinus and others, which textes were there brought forth, read, and allowed. And all this ended he required Monsieur Plessis to confesse this first abuse against Theodoretes owne meaninge, and to answere to the second, why he had left out those words, that declared his meaning, to witt, Idolls adored by the pagans, and adored for Gods? He aunswered that he had left them out for breuityes sake, and had sett downe only the substantiall clauses of Theodoretes text. But the Bishop replyed, that this breuity was not commendable, and that the clause left out was the most substantiall of all the rest, for declaringe the truth, and Theodoretes meaninge in the matter in hand. Plessis answered,Many turnings and windings of Plessis. that it appertayned not to his purpose to alleage those words. The Bishop said that yt did, yf his purpose were to deale plainly, & to haue the truth knowne. Then fell Plessis to his ould refuge and said, that he had not alleaged the forsaid text of [Page] Theodorete directly against Images, but indirectly, and by a certayne analogie or consequence, which the Bishop refuted. And finally after all, he demaunded iudgment vpon the place, and vpon both the two corruptions obiected, which after diligent reuew of the place in Theodorete, and aduise taken of all the deputyes, the Lord Chancelour pronounced in all their names in these words.Acts fol. 105. Que ce Passage ne se deuoit entendre que des Idoles des payens, & non des Images de Chrestiens: comme il paroissoit par ces mots; Ador [...]es par les payens, & adorées pour dieux, que auoient esté obmis. Which is to say, that this passage of Theodoret must be vnderstood of Painim Idols, and not of Christian Images, as is plaine by the words:‘adored by Paynims, and adored for Gods,’ which were left out. By which sentence (giuen also by his owne men) he remayned condemned as yow see of both the falsityes obiected at the beginninge by the Bishop.

And heere now it being vpon the point of seauen of the clocke at night, the K. dismissed the company for that tyme, and remitted the continuation of the same conference, to begin againe the next day at seauen of the clocke in the morning,The conference reiourned till the next day. & to endure vntill an eleuen, and then againe after dynner from one to six, and so forward vntill all the places might be examined, and the same was agreed vnto by all the rest. And presently the Bishopp of [...]ureux caused [Page] all the bookes to be carryed to the house of Monsieur du Plessis, to prepare himselfe in the other passages, that were to be examined the day followinge.

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE END OF THIS FIRST DAYES Conference; of Monsieur Plessis his demeanor, and departure: Of the booke he sent forth for his excuse; and what successe hath ensued of mens conuersion thervpon.
CHAP. III.

As soone as the K. Maiestie was departed from the place of conference, euery man began to talke & reason of that which had passed, but especially those that had expected without in other Chambers, and Galeryes round about, and in the K. garden beneath, and could get no place within the Chamber, where the conference was holden; these, I say, as well Catholiks, as Protestants, pressed greatly to know what had byn done, & what had byn the issue of that tryall. And so earnest sute was made vnto the Secretaryes, for copyes of the sentences, as that very night they were geuen abroad in wryting, conteyning as before yow haue heard, to witt that vpon the first 2. places of Scotus and Durandus, the sentence was; that [Page]Monsieur Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution. Vpon the second places of S. Chrysostome; that he had left out that which he should haue put in. A breefe recapitulation of the sentences. Vpon the fifth place of S. Hierome; that he ought to haue alleaged the passage entyre, as yt was in the author. Vpon the sixt place of S. Cyrill: That the passage alleaged out of S. Cyrill was not to be found in him. Vpon the 7. place out of the Emperors Theodofius and Valens; That Plessis had alleaged truly Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abused. Vpon the 8. place out of S. Bernard: That it had byn well, Plessis had cyted the place distinctly as yt lay in the author, without cuttinge of any thinge in the middest. And finally vpon the 9. place out of Theodorete against Images: That the passage alleaged, was not to be vnderstood of Images, but of Idolls, and that this appeared by the words which Plessis had omitted in his allegation.

Which iudgments being read and considered, yt was wonderfull to behould the great diuersity of affections, which they styrred vp, to witt of comfort, and alacrity in the Catholiks, and of confusion & greife in the Hugonotts there present, who being in number aboue 200. considered, that these sentences had passed by the consents aswell of their owne iudges, as of the other, & that there was no way left of tergiuersation. And further that Monsieur Plessis being one of the cheefest men simply of their Religion in France, and most accoumpted of for his [Page] learninge, this his disgrace was the disgrace of all their Religion, and his error inexcusable, in respect of his former bragges, and Protestations, and of the willfull falshood now found in him.Diuers cheefe Protestants began to thinke of their cō uersion. Wherfore diuers of them, and those also of the principall, began soone after, by assistance of Gods holy grace, to open their harts to another cogitation for their conuersion, as a little after yow shall heare.

The Kings Maiestie also was exceedingly moued in mynd, to see what had passed, as may appeare by his affectious speaches, and letter wrytten to Monsieur Espernon that very night after his departure from the conference, which letters we haue recytedSupra cap. 5. before, and the causes of his motion we shall touch a little afterward, when we haue sett downe what ensued immediatly vpon this first dayes conference, which was a great reason also to mooue his Maiesty the more, as presently yow shall see. Wherfore we shall relate the same in the very words of the printed Acts, which are these that follow.

The next morrow,VVhat passed after the first conference ended. which was friday the fifth of May at 6. of the Clocke in the morning, came a gentleman to the Bishop of Eureux, telling him that Monsieur Plessis had byn very euill that night, & that he prayed the Bishop to be content to haue the conference differred for that morninge;Acts fol. 105. but the [Page] Bishop asked him for how longe this delay should be, the gentleman answered vntill that Mōsieur Plessis should be in state of health to prosecute the same. Soone after this, there came to the Kings chamber Monsieur de la Riuiere cheefe phisitian to his Maiestie, tellinge him that the conference was like to be broken vp, by reason of the L. Plessis indisposition, whome he said, that he had left very sicke, with violent vomitts, and tremblings of all the parts of his body; which he King hearinge, comaunded him presently to go, and tell the same to the L. Chancelour, to the end that he and the deputyes should not take their iorney in vaine that day to the pallace; which being told vnto them, and they imagininge, that perhaps Monsieur Plessis his sicknesse might endure longe, sent that very night late to his Maiestie, to know his iudgment & pleasure, whether they should remayne still in Fountayne-bleau, or returne to Paris. The King that he might giue them more certayne answere, willed the Chancelour at ten of the clocke at night, to go and see Plessis, & to know from his owne mouth, what he would do concerning the prosecution of this conference. The Chancelour hauing with him at that tyme, the L. President Fresnes Canay, cheefe deputy for the Protestant party in the said conference, desyred him to go to him which he did, and brought answere, that Plessis was not in state to go [Page] forward now, but he would aduise vpon it in Paris: which answere being related to the Chancelour, by the President, and from the Chancelour, to the King; his Maiestie gaue licence to the iudges, & deputyes to depart to Paris, which they did the next morninge, being the sixt of May, except only the President Fresnes, who remained at Fontayn-bleau with the King.

But the next day at noone, about six houres after the departure of the said deputyes, the President Fresnes, hauing byn to visitt Monsieur Plessis againe, came, and aduertised the Chancelour, that he was much better in health, & that for his part the conference might beginne againe, which the Chancelour hearinge,A new offer of Plessis for continuing the conference, but dured not. sent presently for the B. of Eureux, & in presence of the said president told him the newes, who was gladd therof, and offered himselfe presently, & said moreouer, that as yet his bookes were not sent away. Which the Chancelour hearing, called for the Secretary Monsieur Mercier chosen for the part of Plessis, and willed him presently to go and signifie vnto him, that he had vnderstood, that he was better in health, & contēt to returne to the conference, which if it were so, the B. was also ready & his bookes not yet sent away, & though some of the deputyes were departed, yet the president Fresues their chiefe deputy remained, & others might be nominated at, or vpon the very place it selfe.

[Page]But Monsieur Plessis answered, that he was not maister of his owne sicknes, which grew more and more vpon him, and that he was goinge to Paris from whence he would not depart without seing the L. Chancelour, Plessis fleeth the cōferēce, and slippeth avvay from Paris, without takinge his leaue of any. to informe him of his affayres; & so conforme vnto this he departed the 8. of May being Monday; and the Chancelour hauinge receaued his answere, aduertised the K. therof, and so they went all to Paris, and his Maiestie arryued there vpon the 12. of May. And about some 4. or 5. dayes after, Monsieur Plessis departed to his gouerment of Saumur without takinge his leaue of his Maiestie or seing the L. Chancelour (as he had promised) and without sending any word at all to the B. of Eureux, about the conference or further triall.

Thus farre goeth the narration of the printed Acts, published by authority of the King & deputyes that were present, wherby we see the end of this action, and how the L. Plessis behaued himselfe therin: But about 2. monethes after, came forth the aforesaid little discourse with out name of author,Plessis his new discourse bearinge the title of, true discourse of the conference at Fontayn-bleau, full of elusions, disguisments, and inuectiues (saith the B. of Eureux) sett forth by Plessis himselfe, though dissemblinge his name, to the end he might enioye the fable vnder this maske and ly with out blushing, obtruding to his Reader what he thought best: For so [Page] are the words of the said Bishopp in the refutation of this michinge discourse, which conteyned, as before hath byn shewed three principall points; the one in peruerting the story of the Acts themselues: the second in diuising new shifts and euasions, which occurred not vnto him while he was in the triall: the third, in recriminations, or obiectinge other mens falsityes in like manner. Which kind of proceedinge did more yet discreditt Plessis with the wiser sort of men, then his former ouerthrow in the field, for that this did shew indeed that to be true which Tertullian saith;Tert. de praescript. aduer. haereses. that heretiks may more easily be ouercome, then persuaded; and that Plessis had an obstinate mynd to go forward, notwithstandinge whatsoeuer was, should, or might be proued against him, but yet diuers other of the more learned and grauer sort of his owne side, began, as hath byn said, to enter into another cogitation, & to thinke whether yt were not best by this occasion, to seeke out the truth of matters indeed, and that without pertinacity or passion, for so much as yt was a matter concerninge the eternall saluation or damnation of their soules.

And this happy course amonge others, tooke, (as in part before yow haue vnderstood) the aforsaid noble man of Normandy, Monsieur Sainct-Mary du Mont, who being a great Protestant before, was first moued towards [Page] Catholike Religion, partly by the Sermons of Monsieur Buchage brother to Duke Ioyeus made afterward a Capuchin friar, as hath bynSupra cap. 1. declared (which Sermons were principally against the falsifications of Plessis in his booke against the Masse) partly also by the sight of some of the said falsifications themselues,The conuersiō of Monsieur du Mont, and of Monsieur Fresnes. shewed vnto him in priuate by the said B. of Eureux before the conference, but he was fully conuerted by the trialll it selfe, and became afterward a zealous Catholike. But more notorious and admirable was the conuersion of the L. Fresnes Canay cheife president for the Protestant party, in the parlament Chamber called Demy party in Languedocke & chosen by Monsieur Plessis himselfe for chiefe deputy on his party for this conferēce: who taking the same course in enforminge himselfe, found matters so euident, as he became a Catholike vpon the sight of this triall, and that with such feruour, as he would not be absolued secretly of his heresie before held, (as for respect vnto his dignity and place was offered) but would needs abiure publikely in the hands of the B. of Paris, and so he did, being a very learned man in his profession, & at this day is Embassadour for his Christian Maiestie with the State of Venice, where his wife in like manner the last yeare, by his owne especiall meanes (she being a Lady of much nobility) was conuerted also, & both [Page] of them remayned most zealous Catholiks.

Which two examples of Monsieur Sainct-Mary and Mousieur President Fresnes (both of them being learned and earnest Protestants all their life before) did greatly mooue the King himselfe, for his comfort and confirmation in Catholike Religion, but no one thing so much, as his being present at the forsaid Conference, and so he is said to haue often confessed afterward, for that he saw there, that which he could neuer haue imagined, to witt that men of learning & iudgment, would willfully for maintayninge of faction, wryte and publish that, which they must needs know in their consciences to be false. He cōsidered that these 9. places there examined,Motyues of much consideration to the Kings Maiestie in this Action. were picked out by Plessis himselfe of 60. sent him by the Bishop, and that these 60. were but a parcell of 500. which the said B. had bound himselfe to exhibite in 10. dayes, to be discussed: and that by all probability the forsaid 9. were of the least falsified, and easiest to be defended of all the rest, at least wise of the first 60. for that otherwise Monsieur Plessis would not haue chosen them. Wherfore hauinge seene by experience, that no one of those 9. was able to be defended from plaine and willfull falshood, he imagined what would fall out in the rest, if the conference had gone forward, and if all should passe as in these 9. throughout the 500. there ready to be exhibited, yea [Page] in 3500. more which the Bishop said he had gathered out, and offered to bynd himselfe to conuince them, of no lesse falsity and imposture, then those nyne, and all this out of one boooke. These things (I say) laid togeather, his Maiestie had good cause to thinke, what may be thought of that mans conscience, that wryteth and printeth such a booke in matters of Religion.

Moreouer his Maiestie could not but remember what tales the said Plessis, and other such fellowes had told him against Catholiks & Catholike Religion for many yeares, whilst he was yet a Protestant, to witt, that they had no truth on their side, no antiquity, noe true ancient authority, but all was for them, and their new pretended Religio [...].How the K. was abused by Hugonot [...]s whilst he vvas of their Religion. He could not forgett also, what sollemne protestations they were accustomed to make, of their owne sincerity both in wrytinge, and preachinge, and especially Plessis in this last contētion about his booke, before yt came to the tryall, offering to leese his life and honour, yea to burne his owne hand, yf any one place were proued to be wittingly corrupted, or falsified, which yet was so euidently conuinced by the triall, not in one only, but in euery one of the nine places, as no man of reason could deny yt, and the deputyes of his owne party gaue sentence against him.

Wherfore this hauing so fallen out, and [Page] the Bishop of Eureux protestinge of his side, that the places of greatest corruption remayned yet behind, aboue twenty fold more in number, then those that had byn examined, seing also the shamfull flight of Monsieur Plessis from the continuation of the combatt,His Maiesties comfort in being a Catholike. and the shamelesse discourse cast abroad by him without a name, wherin many matters of fact well knowne to his Maiesty were denied, affirmed, or disguised, according to passion, most contrary to the knowne reall truth therof: All these considerations (I say) & many other concurring togeather, and representing themselues to his Maiesties wisdome, made him to feele infinite comfort in the happy resolution he had taken of being a Catholike, and to contemne from that day forward all contentious wrytings of factious sectaryes, that care not what they say or wryte, so they may therby hould vp their sect and faction.

Neyther did this euent of Plessy Mornayes conferēce, worke those effects only for the openinge his Maiesties eyes and vnderstanding in Religion, but of many more besides throughout France, wherof though I be not so particularly informed, as many others bee; yet diuers persons of marke could I name besides the former two, that receaued like light & grace from almighty God, by the same meanes, and of great Hugonots became good Catholiks; as the L. Baron Saligniac [Page] Liefetennant for the K. of the countrey of Lymoge togeather with his wife,Hugonots conuerted in France by disclosing hereticall fraudes & falsifications. daughter of the Chauncelour intituled Del Hospital, and sister to the Archbishopp of Ais. The L. Baron du Bonneuald a great noble man in Lymosin, togeather with another Baron of Gascoigne, whose name occurreth not at this present, though I haue seene the narration of his conuersion wrytten out of France. Monsieur du Sansay Entendent ouer the Kings Finances in France. Diuers cheefe learned men also, and among them some Ministers, as namely Monsieur Caiette late Minister and Preacher to the Kings sister, marryed to the Prince of Loraine, togeather with diuers of her cheefe officers, amongst which, was Monsieur du lac de Barn, Monsieur Rebeul, & Monsieur Sponde th' elder, two great learned men, and another Sponde brother to the former, no lesse learned, who at this day hath the care of the Popes library in Rome, togeather with a nephew of Iohn Caluyn conuerted, & entertayned like wise by his Holynesse. And in this very yeares, wherin we wryte this, to witt 1603. we haue diuers letters and relations out of France, by which we heare of sundry conuersions of many, wherof before there was little hope, as for example of one Aluarez a learned Spaniard, that had preached many yeares heresie in Languedocke, of one Tirius a Scottishman, Maister of a Colledge in the Citty of Nimis; of a cheefe Minister [Page] in Gascoigny Preacher in times past vnto his Maiestie of France, when he was King of Nauarre. And of a learned schoolemaister, vvhoe amonge other schollers brought vp the children of the cheife Preacher, and Minister of all those parts named Chamier. Letters relating diuerse conuersions of Hugonots in France.

I haue seene letters also, relating the particular conuersions of diuers chee [...]e Protestants in the Citty of Metz in Lorayne, and in the cittyes of Nimis and Mompelier in Languedock, which later two cittyes are in the hands of Hugonotts, and were wont to haue few or no Catholiks in them, and now are so many, as his Christian Maiestie hath byn entreated of late, to name them seuerall Catholike Bishops. And the same letters do report, that there is no one moneth lightly passed, but that in Auinion for example (from whence one of these letters were wrytten) some 20. 25. 30. or 40. persons, comminge from other parts abroad of their owne accord, where heresies do raigne, do abiure the same in the hands of the Catholike Inquisitor, with great zeale and feruour, and detestation of heresie. And that in the Citty of Aubenas, where one P. Iacobus Salesius a Iesuite was martyred by the Hugonots a few yeares gone, aboue 200. haue byn of late cōuerted, & so in other townes there about, where heresies were wont to raigne, & on the other side scarse any one Catholike is [Page] heard of, to be peruerted (God be thanked) in many yeares togeather.

All which in great part is ascribed both to the euent of this conference with Plessis Mornay, & to the diligence of other Catholike wryters and preachers, who euery where in their bookes and sermons do discouer the falshood of heresie, and hereticall authors, which no doubt is a principall point to be vrged against them, though themselues would seeme to make yt a matter of small consideration: But the truth is, that no one thinge doth gaule them more, nor mooue discreet, and ingenuous men to forsake them, then to see that they deale not sincerely, but deceytfully and with false consciences, be they subiect neuer so little concerning Religion.A vvish that his Maiestie of England vvould permitt the like triall. Wherfore if it might please almighty God to mooue the high wisdome of our learned King, to make the like triall in England, I would not doubt of the like successe both in his Maiestie and other well-mynded protestants, especially yf yt might be made with like indifferency of iudges, deputyes, and Secretaryes for both partes. And so much of this matter.

WHAT MONSIEVR PLESSIS DID ANSVVERE, AND CAVSED to be cast abroad after his returne home, from the Conference at Fontayne-bleau.
CHAP. IV.

[Page]

WE haue shewed before how that Monsieur Plessis, after his secrett departure from Paris, and returne to Saumur, calling his Ministers, & frends about him, diui [...]ed how he might repaire the losse of credit receaued at Fountayne-bleau by the conference; and yt seemed good in their eyes, full of passion, & greife, to sett forth a certayne wrytinge intituled: A true discourse of the conference at Fountayne-bleau, putting no certayne name thervnto, but only these 4. letters F. D. L. M. and this discourse was printed, and diuulged with such diligence, for sauing the honour of their cause, as with in 3. monethes after, there were 3. seuerall editions extant therof, as appeareth by the B. of Eureux his citation of the third edition.

The contents of this discourse consisted in three things,Three points of Plessis reply. as before we haue shewed: first in misreportinge and peruertinge, the very history yt selfe, of the conference: The second in diuisinge new shifts, for couering the falsifications before condemned, & sentenced: [Page] the third in recharging the B. with other pretended falsityes, taken out of Gratian, that gathered the canon law, and some other; and some other obiected out of the Bishopp his owne works. All which three assaults are beaten backe by the B. vpon him, with a particular confutation therof printed togeather with the publike Acts: wherin he sheweth that the first of these points is great audacity, to goe about to deny, or disguise that, which the records of 4. seuerall Secretaryes, and the memory of aboue 200. wittnesses, can, and do testifie to the contrary. The second is importunity, to endeauour to call in question and doubte againe matters, so authentically examined, and decyded, & this with lesse reason, then at the beginning. The rhird is impertinency: for that albeit Plessis could proue that others had byn faulty also in their allegations, (as he doth not but only by calumniation) yet was not this any good excuse for him, nor any iust defence of his honour. And for that the said Bishop doth handle largly and learnedly all those three points in his forsaid confutation: I might remit wholy the Reader thervnto: and so I shalbe forced to do for the later two points, for that this briefe defence of myne admitteth not so large a disputation: only I will note heere some few examples of the first point: wherby yow may easily iudge of Monsieur Plessis [Page] manner of proceedinge both in that and all the rest,Necessitas cogit. ad turpia. and how necessity (as the prouerbe saith) enforceth a man oftentymes to shamefull attempts.

First then (saith the Bishop) besides a perpetuall deprauation to be seene in this discourse of Monsieur Plessis of whatsoeuer passed in the conference, and besides his silent passing ouer and dissemblinge so many aduantagious conditions, as were made vnto him,The first point examined. Acts and Refut. fol. 108. besides many intolerable slaunders and calumniations laid by him vpon the K. himselfe, as also vpon the Chancelour & deputyes as partiall against him: he obiecteth diuers things in particular so manifestly false, & to be conuinced by the records themselues, as yt easily declareth, that he had sett vp his rest to continue the defence of his cause, by the same meanes of shameles lying, wherby he had begonne yt.

As for example in the 34. page of his discourse & third edition,1. Deprauation. he wryteth that the Bishop had obiected vnto him, in the examination of the third place which was out of S. Chrysostome, vpon the first epistle to the Thessalonians, that he had left out of the text, these words: (yf we our selues be negligent) and heervpon he insulteth, for that these words are not in S. Chrysostome. But this is great folly: for the Bishopp obiected the leauinge out of those words in the sentence of S. Hierome, Sup. cap. 2. place 5 [...]. and not of S. Chrysostome, as before hath [Page] byn seene in the examination of those places: and the words obiected to be left out of S. Chrysostome, were others no lesse malitiously cutt of then these. As before yow haue seene in the examination of the said third place.

Then passinge to the page 38. of his discourse, Plessis saith (talking of the same place of S. Chrysostome),2. Deprauation. that the andience hearing Chrysostome to speake of preaching to Saints, imagined that he had spokē of dead Saints: and vpon this ignorance (saith he, for so he qualifieth the iudgmēt of all that were present) they gaue an applause, &c. Which is altogeather false, for that the applause giuen, was not vpon this first place of S. Chrisostome vpon the epistle to the Thessalonians, but another out of his homilyes vpon the second epistle to the Corinthians, brought in vpon the examen of the fourth place of the nyne before examined. And the cause of this [...] said applause of laughter of the auditory was this: That Plessis pretending to bring two places out of Saint Chrysostome against prayinge to Saints, which were the third and fourth before examined, and then yt being proued by the Bishopp that both those places were falsified by him, and that they made expressely for prayer to Saints, yf he had put them downe wholy, and truly, he had no other refuge, yf yow remember, but to say, that he had putt downe the true sense of S. Chrysostome, [Page] though not his words: & then being beaten from that with other places of Saint Chrysostome, declaring his owne meaning for prayer to Saints, Plessis was forced to confesse against himselfe (that had alleaged him for impugning prayer to Saints) that indeed Chrysostome allowed prayer to Saints, but yt was to liue Saints only, and not to dead: against which shift the Bishopp recyted this place followinge out of his 26. homily vpon the second epistle to the Corinthians, talking of the pious deuotions of the Emperors of his tyme, in prayinge to S. Peter, and S. Paul, & highly praysing the same in these words: He that is apparelled in purple doth make supplication to Saints, Chrysost. hom. 26. in cap. 2. Cor. & hom. 66. ad Pop Antiochen. that they wilbe his intercessors to God, and he that weareth a diademe, doth pray to a tent-maker, and to a fisher-man now dead, to be his protectors: and will yow dare then to say that their maister is dead, whose seruants now after their deathes, are the Protectors of Emperors liuinge vpon earth? Which place being recyted out of S. Chrysostome, A Cufusion of Plessis. that confirmeth so euidently both prayer to Saints, and to dead Saints, some laughter there was, and strangewondering at the impudency of Plessis, in running so often to his refuge of dead and liue Saints: and he could not but blush to see himselfe so euidently taken. And this is the applause, which he complayneth of, though wrongfully and fraudulently alleaged, as yow haue heard.

[Page]Furthermore the same Plessis passinge on to handle the decision, and sentence geuen vpon the foresaid fourth place, telleth his reader for certayne, that the iudges did not determine that there was any omission vsed therin in cytinge Saint Chrysostomes words. Which is such an impudency,3. Deprauation. as not only the records of all the foure Secretaryes do vniformally conuince,Discours. pag. 36. who haue the sentence of the deputyes thus registred; that Monsieur Plessis had left out that which he should haue putt in: but the very layinge open of the text of Saint Chrysostome doth conuince the same, to him that hath eyes and skill to read.

It followeth vpon the examination of the same fourth place before mencyoned,4. Deprauation. that he chargeth the deputyes of ignorance, in geuinge sentence (as he saith) that the words of S. Chrysostome, there cyted out of his homily vpon S. Mathewes ghospell, ought to be vnderstood of Saints deceased, wheras they gaue no such sentence at all, as the records of all foure secretaryes do testifie,Discours. pag. 46. but only the very same sentence, which was giuen before vpon the third place, to witt; that Plessis had left out, that which he should haue put in: and the Bishop grauntinge in that place, that those words of S. Chrysostome, Acts fol. 59. being indifferent to be vnderstood either of dead, or liue Saints: did vrge, that yf Plessis would vnderstand them only of liue Saints, they made most against himselfe, who had brought that [Page] place of S. Chrysostome to impugne prayer to dead Saints. So as this doth only shew a mynd in Plessis to ly, cauill, and calumniate without releeuing himselfe therby, but rather encreasing his dishonour and shame.

About the fifth place examined out of S. Hierome vpon Ezechiell, 5. Deprauation. he accuseth greatly the B. for that he would not (as he saith) harken to him, when he alleaged another place of S. Hierome vpon the epistle to the Galathians, where he hath these words:Discourse pag. 48. At that day vvhen vve shalbe before the tribunall of Christ, neyther Noe, Iob, nor Daniell, can pray any more for any man, &c. Which charge is euidently false, as beforeSuprae cap. 2. loc. 4. yow haue heard declared in the examination of this place, and may see in the Acts themselues. For that albeit the Bishopp told him, that this place was brought in against order, besides the number of those 19. which Plessis had chosen to be first examined: yet he was content to stand vpon the examination therof, yf Plessis would, & of other places cited in his booke, and to bynd himselfe to proue, that in that only one page he had committed 4. notorious falsificatiōs; but Plessis refused to ioyne with him in that point;Acts fol. 69. and so the Bishopp expounded the place alleaged of S. Hierome, that yt was meant of the day of iudgment, when no more praying to Saints shalbe, nor of Saints for vs, which doth not impugne our present prayinge to them, but rather [Page] confirme the same. For that S. Hierome affirming heere, that there shalbe no more prayinge to Saints, or of Saints for vs at the day of iudgment, doth euidently signifie that before that tyme, both may be vsed.

About the examen of the sixth place,6. Deprauation. out of S. Cyrill, concerning the honouring of the Crosse, Plessis deceaueth notably his Reader, in tellinge him, that falsity being obiected vnto him by the Bishop,Discourse pag. 49. the King spoke in his behalfe, pronouncing with a loud voyce that both partyes had reason: which all men there present know to be false; for that the King did rather the quite contrary, sayinge, that wheras Plessis had brought that place of Cyrills words to Iulian, to proue that Christians in his tyme did not adore the Crosse, yt seemed to him that they proued neyther the one nor the other, (which was a condemnation of Plessis, that had alleaged the same against honouring the Crosse) & then his Maiestie added further, that by the obiection of Iulian, exprobratinge vnto them that they did honour the Crosse: yt seemed to him euident, that he would neuer haue made such an obiection, yf yt had byn altogeather false. Which speach of his Maiestie being publike and registred in the eares of all men, a man may see the modesty of Plessis, that dareth so openly, and in print, to peruert the same.

Vpon the very same place he falsifieth also7. Deprauation. [Page] in like manner, the sentence giuen by the deputyes,Discourse pag. 50. sayinge that the Chancelour pronounced simplely, that the words alleaged out of Cyrill, were not found in him, leauing yt easy to the hearers (saith he) to inferre, that the sense notwithstandinge was to be found in him. Which is a great vntruth, for that the sentence registred by all 4. secretaryes comprehendeth the whole passage in these words:Acts fol. 72. The passage cyted by Monsieur Plessis out of Cyrill, is not found in Cyrill; which sentence conteyneth as yow see both sense and words. And it is a poore shift of Plessis, to go about to help himselfe by so childish an inference, as for that they gaue sentence, that the words alleaged by him were not in Cyrill, yt might be inferred, that the sense was.

After this the Bishopp sheweth diuers other grosse vntruthes in this kind, as namely, that in reportinge the sentence of the Chancelour, 8. and 9. Deprauation. and deputyes vpon the last place examined out of Theodorete, about Idolls, he falsely peruerteth the same, leauing out the principall important words of the said sentence, to witt, adored by Paynims, and adored for Gods, contrary to the faith of the records themselues, vniformally taken by all 4. secretaryes; & then againe to excuse himselfe from a foule disgrace, happened in the examination of the first place about the reall presence out of Scotus, Discourse pag. 60. & 65. whose text Plessis could not read, he telleth in his discourse this notable [Page] lye, ‘that the B. of Eureux had vsed a certayne fraudulent sleight to disgrace him, which was to bring two editions of Scotus, the one fayre to be read, which he sent him ouernight with the 60. places to prepare himselfe, the other he retayned with him of an euill print, which he obtruded to him in the conference.’ But this shamelesse fiction the Bishop refuteth first by the testimony of them, that brought backe againe the bookes from Plessis house to the conference, and then by the wittnesse of 4. seuerall Frenche gentlemen,A foolish calumniation refuted. to witt, Monsieur du Bertant, du Beaulien, du Berulle, and du Salettes, that came with him from Paris, & knew that he brought but one only edition of Scotus with him, which was in folio of the print of Badius Ascensius in the yeare 1519. and lent vnto him by the college of Sorbone in Paris for this conference, which booke being giuen to Plessis to verifie his place alleaged out of him, he could not so much as read, nor turne the booke, for that there were some abreuiations therin after the manner of schoole-doctors, and therby all the lookers on, and hearers well perceaued that he was vtterly ignorāt in reading schoole-doctors, though euery where for ostentation of learning, he was accostomed to cyte them in his bookes. And this shame Plessis had no other way to couer, at that present, before all the auditors, but to say that he was not practised [Page] but in his owne bookes only, though afterward vpon more deliberation, he thought good to deuise this other shift of changinge the booke by the Bishopp, which yet being so malitiously cōuinced of calumniation by the wittnesses before mentioned, did exceedingly tend to Plessis discredit. And this shall suffice for the first point of Plessis reply, wherin yow see, that for defence of his 9. places before conuicted of falsification, he vttereth 9. other great vntruthes, for doublinge the number.

As for the other two points of new shifts and recrimination,The other 2. points of Plessis discourse I will remitt the Reader to the Bishop his owne refutation, for them that vnderstand the french tongue; and for the rest yt will not be hard to ghesse by example of this which we haue alleaged, what manner of stuffe yt is, which Plessis could alleage for his further defence in so manifest conuinced falsifications; and yow shall heare presently what O. E. in England can say for him. And yf yow find him by this little, a man with out faith or spiritt of truth in his assertions, then shall yt be wisdome to beware not only of this his booke against the Masse, wherout so many falsifications haue byn gathered, but of others also wrytten in the same spiritt, and namely of one, that for many yeares hath gone in English, intituled of the Church, which being smothely wrytten, and stuffed out with great shew and [Page] ostentation of Scriptures, Fathers, Historyes, and other such furniture, hath dazeled the eyes of many, as did also this other against the Masse, vntill yt was sifted and examined by learned men. But for the other in English, I can assure the Reader, that yt is a most deceytfull booke, and may be well brother to this against the Masse. A note of Plessis Mornay his booke of the Church. And yt is now very neere twenty yeares gone, that the late Earle of Lecester gaue one of them to a kinsman of his, named Guilford, to read for his satisfactiō in Religion, who conferring the same with another learned gentleman a frend of mine, desired that yt might be examined, which my said frend began to do with such comodity of bookes, as he could procure at that tyme, and found so full stuffed with all kind of deceatfull impostures, and falsifications, as he remayned astonished therat, and conferred the same with a learned Baron of the Realme now dead, and he with another yet liuinge, and neere to his Maiesties person, who did all wonder at so notorious treachery, though th'examē passed not through the greater part of the booke, for that it was interrupted by some trouble fallinge to the examiner; but he hath affirmed many times since, and doth at this day, that yt is incredible to beleeue, what corrupt dealinge there is therin, and exhorteth all those that haue meanes, to try the truth of this his assertion, which I cannot do at this present, [Page] for that I haue not the booke by me; yet I thought it conuenient to giue a note therof, for stayinge of them, that haue, or may be deceaued therby, and for styrringe vp of others to make this examen. And so for this tyme we leaue Plessis to himselfe, and to his shifts in France, and shall passe ouer to consider what O. E. his aduocate can say for him in England.

WHAT O. E. (OTHERWISE MATHEVV SVTCLIFFE) HATH wrytten for defence of Plessis Mornay, concerning the 9. places handled in the former Conference: and how he committeth farre greater faultes then Plessis himselfe.
CHAP. V.

HAVING pervsed what Monsieur Plessis hath byn able to say for himselfe, both in the conference and after, vpon better deliberation: we must now examine briefly what our ould frend O. E. (for vnder that vizard he masketh hitherto) hath diuised for his defence: For that my forsaid breife relation, fallinge into his hands, he thought yt to appertayne to his manhood, as a martiall minister, to proclayme himselfe champion in Plessis quarrell, therby to fullfill the prouerbe; that none so bold as blynd bayard: and [Page] though he be not able to defend his owne head (as after yow shall see) from the same or like blowes which Plessis hath receaued: yet will he needs be doing, & intrude himselfe for a shylde to the other; and this with such violence, or rather virrulency of speche raginge and rauinge at all those, that will seeme to touch Plessis fidelity, in the places alleaged, as he may seeme to need rather byndinge then answeringe: yet somewhat shall we say to him, as the straitnesse of this place and tyme will permitt; and therby shew sufficiently what manner of aduersary he is, and that hauing lost or laid aside (as it seemeth) all manner of respect to shamfastnes and modestie, he may easily lend out his tongue & pen for small hire to any man. And truly I can not but maruayle, that a man of his profession & place, can persuade himselfe that so excessiue a raylinge and opprobrious stile, against all whome he aunswereth, should gayne him credit with any modest or sober sort of men: he will find some in the end that will returne him legem talionis & then he may count his gaine. I for my part am resolued not to be drawen by him to that veine, but to vrge him only with substantiall points of the controuersy in hand, as the reader shall see by that which ensueth.

Wherfore to come to the matter, wheras Monsieur Plessis diuided his refuge into three [Page] points, as before yow haue heard. The first concerninge the history of the conference it selfe;Three partes of Plessis defence. the second in seeking out new euasions, the third in recriminations: O. E. setteth before vs the same Coleworts sodden againe, but guised after another fashion; puttinge recriminations in the first place of all, but much more vaynely then Plessis did in the third. And in the second he taketh vpon him to defend the truth and fidelity of Plessis in all the places before examined. And for that in this point consisteth in deed the only substance of the controuersie: I shall only examine the same in this place, leauing the other to a more full and larger aunswere, when we shall haue vewed a secōd edition, which O. E. is said to haue made of his new chalenge, in fiue seuerall controuersies to N. D. now to the places as they lye in order, with this only aduertisment premised, that it shall be good for the Reader first to looke ouer the examen of each place, handled before in the second Chapter of this defence, where all the 9. places are examined seuerally, and I do meane to remit me often for more breuityes sake, thervnto.

The first Place out of Scotus.

Yow haue heardSuprae cap. 2. before how Monsieur Plessis, was argued by the Bishop of two seuerall impostures in alleaginge one place of Scotus about the reall presence, sayinge: that [Page]Scotus was not afrayd to call in question, Acts fol. 34. yf the body of Christ be really conteyned vnder the species or accidents (of bread) and he disputeth that yt is not, Scot. in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1. & his arguments are, for that the quantity doth not permitt yt, &c. Hence, I say, two deceatfull falsifications are obiected: the first, in that he maketh his reader beleeue, that Scotus his obiection is his resolution: the other, that the arguments of heretiks, brought in by Scotus against the reall presence, and refuted by him; are Scotus his owne arguments. Of which impostures, sentence was giuen of the deputyes against Plessis, as before yow haue seene, neither could the impertinent replies and euasions attempted by him, deliuer him from the shame therof.

Now lett vs heare what O. E. his spokesman, hath diuised for a new supply of holes to run out at.O. E. in his Refutation. pag. 12. First (saith he) though Scotus had not so spoken (as Maister Plessis hath set downe) yet could not Maister Plessis be charged with falsification, seing he doth not quote his words, but setteth downe his owne collection: The most that could be said, was, that he had mistaken the meaning of Scotus. The 2. first shifts or startinge holes. These are two shifts, poore ones as yow see. For first, the Bishop did not charge Plessis for misciting Scotus words, but for peruertinge of his meaning, in settinge downe his obiection for his resolution. Secondly, yf Plessis be a man of any learninge or common sense at all, this his mistakinge of Scotus meaning, (which heere O. E. would haue to by so [Page] called) cannot be censured for lesse then willfull imposture. For yf he had not so much iudgmēt, as to discerne an obiection from a resolution, then was he a simple fellow to wryte books: and yf he did discerne yt, and yet sought to deceaue his Reader in so weighty a matter, as is the controuersie of the reall presence, he was and is a willfull imposter.

These then are the 2. first points of our English Aduocates defence; lett vs heare how he goeth forward.Refut. ib. And yet (saith he) yf Peron had charged him only with mistakinge, himselfe bad byn mistaken, and greatly had he wronged his aduersary. For that yt cannot be denyed, but that Scotus did indeed call into question, whether Christs body be really, (by These tvvo vvords are put in by O. E. Transubstantiation) conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wyne, and disputeth that yt is not; which is all that the L. Plessis doth say of Scotus, for which he is chalenged by his wrangling aduersary, &c. Is it all Syr Mathew? As truly as yow are trew of your word.Sup. cap. 2. He that shall read the examen of the place rehearsed before, shall find that his aduersary chalengeth him not for saying that Scotus made this obiection for the reall presence, or disputed against yt after the fashion of schoolemen; but for that persidiously he alleaged the place, as though Scotus had byn of that negatyue opinion, and that the arguments obiected had byn his owne, and not of heretiks, & solued by him. This is the charge [Page] of the Bishop against him. And what will yow say to Maister Sutcliffe auouchinge the contrary? But lett vs see what manner of proofe he will bring for his assertion, for that he durst not lett so grosse an absurdity passe without some shadow of reason, which yet yow shall see to be farre worse, then if he had passed it ouer in silence. Heare then his euasion.

Neyther is it materiall (saith he) that this is the vse of schooles, Refut. ib. pag. 12. first to obiect against the truth, and afterward to resolue what is true, and to answere the obiections, for that doth not disprooue Monsieur Plessis his assertion, seeing Scotus, doth not only in his obiections, but also in his resolution of that question, say as much as M. Plessis collected out of him, &c. Yf this can be proued I will call O. E. a cunning aduocate indeed. But if it cannot, then is he to to forgetfull of his credit to auouch this againe so boldly, after he hath seene yt conuicted before out of Scotus owne words,Sup. cap. 2. pl. 1. in the resolution of that very question sayinge. I do affirme, that yt is simply a substantiall point of our faith, Scot. in 4. Sent. dist. 10. q. 1. to beleeue that Christs body is truly and really vnder those accidents of bread, &c. Which resolution he hauing proued out of diuers places of scripture, as namely Math. 26. and Iohn 6. he dissolueth the arguments made before to the contrary. Which being so, what shall we say of Maister Sutkliffe that after all this seene and read, auoucheth the very same againe, that M. Plessis did before?

[Page]But how doth he go about (thinke yow) to proue, that Scotus in his resolution touchinge the reall presence did hold the same, that in his obiection against yt? Yow shall heare his owne words immediatly following in the same matter.In Refat. ibid. Nay (saith he) Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise. Behold heere the trew dealinge of M. Sutkliffe who giueth vs quid pro quo as Apothecaryes are wonte. He should haue proued that Scotus determined in his resolution against the reall presence, and now he saith that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise. So as for the reall presence, Sutcliffe giueth quid pro quo. heere is thrust in Transubstantiation, and for determination and resolution is shuffled in a seeminge to dislike rather then otherwise. Was there euer any such good Apothecary that gaue quid pro quo? And if heere to help himselfe out he will say, that the reall presence and Transubstantiation is all one controuersie, he impugneth himselfe in the very next place of Durand, as you shall see when we come to it, where he affirmeth Durand to hold (and yt is true) and Scotus holdeth the same also, that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacramēt, might haue byn by other meanes, then by Transubstantiation, yf God would haue had yt so: and consequently are distinct things.

And heereof also I do conuince O. E. of another false tricke of thrustinge in the words (by Transubstantiation) a little before in recytinge [Page] the question of Scotus, which is not in S [...]otus himselfe, nor in his words more truly alleaged in this behalfe by Plessis as before yow may see, for that Scotus question is, whether Christs body be really conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wyne? Deceatfull dealinge. And this fellow proposeth yt thus. VVhether Christs body be really by Transubstantiation conteyned, &c. And this to the end he might deceaue his Reader, as heere he doth by leapinge from the one to the other, when he is pressed or gauled, wheras Scotus doth handle these two controuersies of the reall presence, and Transubstantiation as different and distinct things, not only in sundry questions, but in sundry distinctions also, to witt the first in the tenth, the second in the eleuenth distinction vpon the Maister of the Sentences: So as heere I must represent vnto you the boldnes or ignorance of O. E. to exceed much that of Maister Plessis his Client.

And thus much of the controuersie about the reall presence. But now least yow might thinke he had somewhat more to say, to proue Scotus to be against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence, VVhither Scotus helde Transubstantiatō & how? for that he so leapeth from the one to the other, lett vs heare his arguments, though yow must note by the way his nice assertion in saying: that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise, and his arguments are two obiections of Scotus against Transubstantiation [Page] as the other were before against the reall presence.

The first obiection First obiection. of Scotus against himselfe is, for that bread, togeather with his accidents or species, do more represent vnto vs the nature of spirituall food without Transubstantiation, then the bare accidents by and after Transubstantiation; ergo the nature of the Encharist in this respect of nourishmēt, might haue byn conserued, though God had not appointed Transubstantiation, but his body to haue byn togeather vvith the substance of bread. Which argument yow see maketh against the alleager O. E. flatly, for that yt proueth the Reall presence, and Transubstantiation to be distinct things, and that the one might haue byn without the other, and therfore it was folishly brought by O. E. seing it is not only an obiection and no resolution, but also an obiection that impugneth his assertion.

The second obiection2. obiection. of Scotus against Transubstantiation, is [...] that in misteryes of our faith, that interpreta [...]ion seemeth most to be admitted, which requireth least miracles for maintayninge therof; but fewest miracles seeme to be required without Transubstantiation, then with Transubstantiation, ergo we should rather admitt the reality of Christs body, togeather with bread without Transubstantiation, then the same body with only accidents of bread by Transubstantiation. These be two obiections among others made by Scotus against Transubstantiation, aboue fifty leaues after his former obiectiōs against the reall presence. [Page] Which obiections after his resolution sett downe for Transubstantiation he answereth & solueth, beginning thus: Ad argumenta, &c. Now must we answere the argumēts made to the contrary, &c. But yet about the first obiection he repeateth againe: Dico quod bené fuisset Deo possibile instituisse, Scot. 4. in sent dist. 11. q. 3. quod corpus verè esset praesens, substantia panis manente, &c. ‘I say that if God would, he had byn well able to haue appointed his body to haue byn present in the Sacrament togeather with the substance of bread, without Transubstantiation, &c. But hauinge appointed otherwise (as appeareth by the declaration of the Church) we are not to respect more or fewer miracles, &c.’

And hence now yow see, that O. E. endeauoringe to deliuer Plessis from the shame of cytinge Scotus his obiection for his resolution, in the cōtrouersie of the reall presence, himselfe bringeth forth tow more obiections for resolutions, without seeing the shame therof about the article of Transubstantiation, Refutat. pag 12. yea & further blusheth not to inferre thervpon this conclusion; That Scotus plainly misliked that interpretation, that without diuers miracles cannot be maintayned, &c. Two Rotorious lyes. And that albeit he was content to subscribe to the Popes determination, & durst not do otherwise; yet that he himselse thought otherwise, &c. O Iesus! what shall a man say of these manner of people? Let vs heare Scotus his owne words, in the same [Page] place where he talketh of the Churches determination & exposition of scriptures, for this point of Transubstantiation. Dico (saith he) quod eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae quo conditae; Scot. in 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 3. & ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est nobis fides, spiritu scilicet veritatis, &c. ‘I do day that the scriptures are expounded by the same spiritt, by which they were wrytten, and so we must suppose that the Catholike Church hath expounded them vnto vs (to wit the scriptures that concerne this mistery of Transubstantiation) with that spiritt wherwith our faith was deliuered vnto vs, that is to say, by the spiritt of truth, &c.’

Lo heere, Scotus foundeth the truth of Transubstantiation not vpon the Popes determination, or vpon the authority of the Church only, as falsely O. E. chargeth him; but vpon the truth of scriptures expounded by the Church, with the same spiritt of truth wherby they were wrytten, and consequently is farre of from plainly mislikinge this interpretation, as O. E. affirmeth, but for that amonge other arguments, Scotus named the determination of the Church, the calumniator, that could not abide the word, charged him presently, to be moued only with that reason. What would he haue babled against him yf he had left written as S. Augustine hath done,August. cont. epist. fundamēti cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the ghospell, yf the authority of Church did not mooue him thervnto? And do [Page] you note further that Scotus in the same place affirmeth, that albeit this verity about Transubstantiation, was declared first in the Councell of Lateran, yet was the substance therof beleeued also from the beginning, Hovv Transubstantiatiō vvas beleued from the beginninge. vnder other words of cōuersion Transmutation, Exchange of substances, and the like. Which he sheweth out of the ancient Fathers, yea and that yt was included implicite in all th' old creeds of th' Apostles, & others Ponitur (saith he talkinge of the Councell of Lateran) veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicitè, Scot. ibid. dist. 11. q. 3. quàm habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum, vel Athanasij, vel Niceni. ‘In this decree of the Coū cell of Lateran the truth of certayne articles belonging to faith, is more cleerly & particularly set downe, then yt was before in the Creed of the Apostles, or of S. Athanasius, or of the Nicene Councell.’ So as by this it appeareth, that Scotus did not beleeue the truth of T [...]ransubstantiation as a thinge determyned only by the Councell of Lateran, but as conteyned in the scriptures, and beleeued in substance from the very beginning, and declared or expounded only by the Councell of Lateran, directed by the spiritt of God. And this is sufficient to conuince O. E. of plaine calumniation; and though he say in the end of his defence, that Dominicus Soto and Iosephus Angles, are at some difference about Scotus his meaning: yet are his words & whole discourse cleare inough, without any commentary of others, as yow haue seene. And [Page] quently this shall suffice for the examen of this first place.

The second Place out of Durand.

For that we haue byn longer in the first place, to shew therby some portrayture of O. E. his manner of answeringe and defendinge his Clyent; so shall we be bree [...]er in the remnant. The charge vpon the second place was (yf you remember) that Plessis had abused Durand, as he had before done Scotus, but most of all his Reader by them both, in alleaginge an obiection for a resolution; which is euident, for that Durand beginning to comment vpon the 11. distinction of the fourth booke of the Maister of Sentēces, which distinction is about. Transubstantiation (as the former is about the reall presence) he frameth his first question thus: Primo quaeritur, &c. Durands obiectiō li. 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 3. First yt is demaunded, whether the body of Christ be in the Sacrament by conuersion of the substance of bread into yt, &c. Et arguitur quod no [...], &c. And yt is obiected that yt is not, but rather the substance of bread remaineth, for that sewer difficultyes do follow that way, then by putting Transubstantiatiō, &c. And after this he setteth downe his resolution to the contrary,The Summe of the [...] controuersie. Sup. cap. 2 [...] and answereth this obiection as before yow haue heard: whervpon after diuers shifts attempted by Plessis for some euasion, he found none to the purpose, and so had sentence against him.

And what now doth his aduocate thinke [Page] yow bring to releeue him? truly nothing at all. For first he doth not so much as mention this place of Durand, wherof the controuersie was; but another where Durand saith (as Scotus also did before) that God by his omnipotency might haue ordayned, that his body should haue byn in the Sacrament without Transubstantiation, yf he had would. Which no man denyeth. But heare his words: The second place (saith O. E.)O. E. his reply Refut. pag. 13. was taken out of Durand, who saith that yt is rashnesse to affirme that the body of Christ, may not by the power of God be in the Sacrament, by other manner, then by the conuersion of bread into his body, neither can it be denyed that Durand hath these words, and why then is Maister Plessis charged with falsification? Fersooth because they say he tooke the opposition for the resolution. Thus he. Wherto I answere, that he is grossely deceaued, for that Plessis is not charged for settinge downe the obiection in steed of the resolution out of this place of Durand, but in the former place by me alleaged, which he hath heere omitted. For of this place there was neuer any question or difficulty of the Conference, though yt was alleaged to another purpose, as before is mentioned. Yow will aske me perhaps, & why then doth O. E. O. E. his errour in parte excused, & in parte aggrauated. alleage this wronge place of Durand, leauinge out the other, wherof the controuersie is? Surely I must in part excuse him, for that he erred also heerin, who set forth the particular passages without the Relators knowledge, after [Page] the relation ended and printed, as before hath byn signified, and is testified in the preface to the said passages: yet was his error much more pardonable then this of O. E. for that he had only a wryttē copy of a particular frend from Paris, & had not seene the publike Acts printed, nor Plessis reply, as this other had done, writing more then a whole yeare after they were published; & therfore for him to come now, and dissemble the true place in controuersie, and deceaue his Reader with a new fraud, sayinge that we accused Plessis with falsification, for takinge the obiection for the resolution in this place, (wheras as all men do know yt was in another) sheweth as well his condition deuoted to continuall shiftinge, as also his weaknesse to defend his clyent in the former charge, he being glad to slipp out & runne away vnder the shadow of an other mans error.

And yet to leaue behind him some sente of what he is, he would needs vtter two other notorious vntruthsTwo notorious vntruths about Durand. at his parting: the one, where he saith: that yt may plainly be gathered by Durands words, that the determination only of the Councell of Lateran, & the Romish Church moued him to hould Transubstantiation. Wherof there is no such word in Durand but rather the plaine contrary, for so much as he proueth Primum patet authoritate Sanctorū, & ex determinatione Ecclesiae [...] dist. 11. q. 1. n. 9. Transubstantiation not only by the Councell of Lateran, but also by diuers cleere sentences of ancient Fathers, namely S. Ambrose,[Page]S. Augustine, Prosper and Eusebius which were long before the Councell of Lateran. The other vntruth is, where he saith, that not only they, but Bellarmine also doth note the same in Durand, taxinge him for hard beleefe of Transubstantiation. Wheras Bellarmine in the place cited doth expressely say,Bellar. I. 3. de Eucharist. c. [...]1. Durand to hold conuerti panem in corpus Christi per consecrationem: that the bread is conuerted by the words of consecration into the body of Christ, but yet that he hath a certayne particular opinion about the manner therof, which is nothinge to our controuersie: So as O. E. not hauinge releeued his client any thinge at all in this point, hath loaded himselfe with 2. or 3. faults more then he had on his backe before, And so he passeth from this place to the other that followeth.

The third Place out of S. Chrysostome.

The charge giuen vpon Plessis in this place, is as before yow haue seene, for that he going about to alleage S. Chrysostome against prayer to Saints,Acts fol. 52. said that his conclusion vpon the words of Hieremy was quite contrary to that of Catholiks at this day, to witt, that we ought not to rest our selues vpon the prayer of Saints, Sup. cap. 2. but worke our saluation with feare and tremblinge; wheras the true words and meaning of S. Chrysostome are quite contrary, who saith in the very place: Let vs not contemne the prayers of Saints for vs, nor yet place all[Page]our hope therin: the first not to depriue our selues, Chrysost. [...]om. in [...]. epist. ad Thessal. of so great a succour, the second not to make our selues negligent, &c. As before yow haue Supra [...] cap. 2. heard [...] which words being discussed, and all Plessis shifts and turnings examined, sentence was giuen of falshood against him. Now lett vs see how O. E. will releiue his cause: The third place (saith he) was drawne out of Chrysostome, but neyther can his aduersary proue this place to be falsified by him, not impertinently alleaged: not the first, O. E. Refut. pag. 13. for that he doth not alleage Chrysostomes words, but maketh a collection vpon them: not the second, for that as Maister Plessis affirmeth, yt may euidently be gathered out of his words; that we must not rely vpon the prayers of Saints, but worke our saluation with feare and tremblinge.

Behould heere a quicke dispach of matters, and no maruayle yt is, though O. E. do lend his labour to many in answeringe for them, seing yt costeth him so little, and he doth yt with so great facility: but I must returne vpon him in both these points, and do say to the first, that Plessis in his collection hath falsified both the words and sense of S. Chrysostome, 2. falsifica [...]iōs, of Plessis. as before in the second Chapter hath byn shewed. The words, in leauing out those that expressely made against him, the sense, in drawing a quite contrary conclusiō to that, which S. Chrysostome did make. For that he exhorteth men to pray to Saints to be intercessors for them, and withall to liue well themselues: but Plessis by including [Page] the one would exclude the other. And as for impertinency, there is little accoumpt to be made, where there is imposture, and open cōtrariety to the authors meaning, as heere, and therfore impertinently doth O. E. goe about to excuse impertinency, where we obiect greater crimes: but marke his reason, why yt is not impertinent,Tvvo falshood of O. E. for that (saith he) it may be euidently gathered out of Chrisostomes words, that we must not rely vpon prayers to Saints.

But why doth the craftie minister, leaue out the word (wholy) which maketh or marreth the whole sense, for to rely, and to rely wholy are two different things. Why also doth he leaue out the other words added by Saint Chrysostome for explication of his owne meaninge,Chrysost. ibid. to witt, So as we be not negligent of our owne part? Yow shall heare his graue answere. Neither is it materiall (saith he) that these words: O. E. Refut. ibid. yf we be negligent, are omitted, for they are not to purpose, seing Chrysostome would not haue vs rely vpon the intercession of Saints, albeit we be diligent to do our endeauour our selues. This now is to to shamelesse, for yt is the quite contradictory to that which S. Chrysostome in expresse words exhorteth, to witt: to the end we do not depriue our selues of so great a succour, lett vs pray vnto Saints to be intercessors for vs, and of our owne parts, lett vs liue vertuously, &c. And who then is more shamelesse heere, eyther the clyent or the aduocate? but let vs heare out the rest of this defence. It is also obiected (saith [Page] he) That Chrysostome aloweth intercession of Saints, Refut. ibid. but be yt he did so, yet doth not this conuince that he is falsely alleaged by Maister Plessis, seing that which he gathered, may be true, albeit this were graunted, &c.

Heere I would haue the Reader to stand attent, and marke the conueyance of these deceytfull maisters in deludinge men. Plessis gathered out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints deceased: and now faith O. E. that albeit Chrysostome did allow prayer to Saints, yet that which Plessi [...] gathered may be true: But I would aske how Plessis could truly gather out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints,Impudētinglinge of Plessis & of his Attornay O. E. yf he allowed intercession to Saints, except yow will say that S. Chrysostome both allowed and impugned one and the selfe same thing. It followeth in O. E. for the conclusion of his defence. How much then (saith he) is it more vnlikely, Another contradiction betwene O. E. and Plessis. that Maister Plessis shalbe conuicted, seing Chrysostome in that place hath nothinge which doth not appertayne rather to the prayers of holy men liuing, then of holy men departed. These are the last words of his defence immediatly followinge vpon the former, and all that he saith in this cause. And yow will easily consider how they hange togeather; I only will say this. That yf this place of S. Chrysostome alleaged by Plessis against prayer to Saints departed, doth rather appertayne to lyuinge Saints then to dead, as O. E. heere affirmeth (and hath bynSupra cap. 2. loc. 3. before refuted) [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] then eyther Plessis was ignorant or maliious to alleage yt against prayers to Saints departed as he did: so as yow see, that O. E. doth rather impugne his client then defend him; & so not worthy any see at all.

The fourth Place out of S. Chrysostome.

The falsifications obiected vnto Plessis vpon this other place of S. Chrysostome, out of his commentary vpon S. Mathew, was, that the said Plessis hauinge told his reader in his booke against the Masse, Acts fol. 57. that S. Chrysostome was carefull euery where to ouerthrow the foundatiōs of the abuse of prayer to Saints, said:Chrysost. hom. 5. in Math. that vve haue more assurance by our owne prayers, then by the prayers of others, &c. leauing out his vvords immediatly followinge, which declared his meaning, to witt; we do not say this to the end we should not make our prayers to Saints, but to the end wshould not be slouthfull, our we selues. Which being proued after diuers euasions in vayne attempted by Plessis, to be a plaine willfull corruption and falsification of the authors meaninge; sentence was geuen against him, as before yow haue heard. Lett vs heare what the poore Aduocate hath to bringe of new.

And first yow must note,O. E. seeketh to be obscure oftentymes of purpose. that whensoeuer he is puzeld, & findeth himselfe entangled, so as he seeth not which way to turne or gett out; his custome is, to make himselfe obscure of purpose, that so by casting some [Page] mistes before his Readers eyes, he may escape away; & heerof you shall haue frequent examples yf yow stand attent. Now then O. E. hauing recyted part of the former text of S. Chrysostome, as Plessis had sett yt downe; he entreth thus into his defence: This (saith he) the aduersary himselfe cannot deny to be truly alleaged (by Maister Plessis) how then came yt to passe, that he dealinge thus iustly and truly, O. E. Refut pag. 14 he should notwithstanding be charged with falsification? Forsooth saith his aduersary for that he left out the words followinge; to witt and this we say not, that we would deny prayer to Saints, &c. And for that he applyed Chrysostomes words against prayers, to Saints departed.

Lo heere, yow haue first a Iustification of Plessis, that he had dealt iustly and truly videlicet in alleaginge S. Chrysostome, and then two obiections of his aduersary brought in with a forsooth, as though they had byn trifles. The first was, that he had cut of certaine words of the sentence that made most to the matter: the other, that he had alleaged S. Chrysostomes words quite against the authors drift & meaning, &c. Let vs see how his aduocate will answere the two charges: yow shall heare him in his owne words:Refut. [...]ib. As yf (saith he) yt were so haynous a matter, not to set downe words altogeather impertinent. This is to the first obiection, & he hath no one word more. Wherfore it is to be considered, whether the aforsaid words left out were altogeather [Page] impertinent or no, which we shall briefly examination.

The question was whether S. Chrysostome in his commentaryes vpon S. Mathew did go about to ouerthrow the foundation of prayinge to Saints,The state of the question and O. E. his impertinency. as Plessis said that he did, & for proofe therof he alleaged the forsaid words: that we haue more assurance by our owne prayers & good life, then by the prayers of others, &c. And presently after the said Father adioyneth for his explication the other words left out by Plessis: vve do not say this, that vve should not pray to Saints, but to the end that our selues be not slouthfull for our selues. And now I would aske: were these words altogeather impertinent to haue byn put in or no? Or is not O. E. an impertinent fellow, not to blush to make such an aunswere? Seing these words yf they had bene expressed, doe vtterly ouerthrow Plessis whole drifte & argument. And thus is the first obiection aunswered or rather shamelesly shifted of by him, lett vs see the second, whither he will aunswere it more substantially.

The second obiection was,The second charge more foolishly aunswered then the former. that Plessis had wrongefully alleaged the forsaid words of S. Chrysostome, (vve must haue more assurance in our owne prayers, then in other mens) against prayer to Saints desceased, wheras S. Chrysostome expressely protesteth in the very same place, as now yow haue heard, that he meaneth not so, and so consequently Plessis did [Page] abuse him egregiously to force him against his owne meaninge, words, & protestation. How aunswereth O. E. vnto this thinke yow? yow shall heare:O. E. Refut. pag. 1 [...] As yf (saith he) yt did not follow, that we are not to rely vpon Saints prayers, and therfore we are not so continually to pray to Saints, and so to trust in their intercession as the Church of Rome doth, that maketh prayer to Saints a great peece of their Church seruice. Marke heere two points (gentle Reader) first that albeit S. Chrysostome do say and protest, that by his words; we must confide more in our owne diligence, then in others, he meaneth not against prayer to Saints: yet O. E. saith that yt followeth of his words, that we must not rely vpon Saints prayers, whome shall we beleeue, either Chrysostome of his owne meaninge and intent, or O. E. that will force him to say that which he denyeth? Secondly do yow marke that O. E. seemeth heere to admit some certaine measure of prayer to Saints, so yt be moderate: for he saith that, we must not so continually pray to Saints, nor so trust in their intercessions, as the Church of Rome doth, &c.

But heere (perhaps) some man will aske me, is it possible that O. E. hath so little iudgement as not to see this absurdity, to force S. Chrysostomes meaninge against his owne protestation? Wherto I aunswere that at length he saw yt, and went about to remedy the same, thus:O. E. Refut. ibid. But were yt (saith he) that the argument were not good (to witt of Plessis [Page] collection out of S. Chrysostome) and his consorts do commit falsifications, as often as they bring weake or euill shapen arguments. Wherto I aunswere, that yf they should be so mishapen as yours (Syr Mathew) are, that do bely the author to his face, and will beare him downe that he meaneth the plaine contrary to that which he protesteth in expresse words, I would not only say that they were weake and mishapen, but false and malitious also; and the authors worthy to leese their creditt for euer.

Finally O. E. hauing no more to say about this place,A false and ridiculous conclusion. concludeth his whole defence in these words: Yt was also (saith he) further answered (videlicet in the conferēce by Plessis) that Chrysostome had nothinge in this place, that might force vs to beleeue that he taught or beleeued prayers to Saints departed, which may serue fully to answere all the aduersaryes vaine cautillations. Wherto I reply, that I know not what may be sufficient to force O. E. and his faithlesse bretheren, to beleeue that S. Chrisostome approued prayers to Saints: but yf his owne words often repeated may be sufficient, yow haue heard them before sufficiently out of him selfe, & consequently the iudicious Reader will easily discerne, where substantiall proofes and where vaine cauillations do lye & so much of this place.

[Page]

The fifth Place out of S. Hierome.

The fraud and vnfaithfull dealinge obiected vnto Plessis vpon this place,Acts fol. 65. was like to that of the former; to witt, that he had cyted certayne words out of S. Hierome vpon the Prophett Ezechiell as makinge against prayer to Saints, leauinge out those words that immediatly followed, and declared his whole meaning. The words alleaged were: that we must confide in God, Hier. l. 4. in Ezech. cap. 14. and not in other mens prayers: for albeit they be Saints and Prophetts, yet shall they deliuer but their owne soules, and not those of their children, yf their children be negligent. Which last words (if their children be negligent) Plessis craftily cutt of, and being pressed therwith and not able to cleere himselfe, had finally, after many shifts reiected, iudgement geuen against him of falshood, as before you haue heard. Let vs see now,Sup. cap. 2. how O. E. will recouer his creditt againe, and remember what I noted before of his willing obscurity, when he hath no list to be vnderstood, as I presume the ordinary Reader will hardly vnderstand him in this passage,VVillfull obscurity of O. E. yf this explication of mine were not premised, which seemeth to be the thinge he most desireth in this place: For yow shall see him pittifully plunged in the puddle of contradiction, before he gett out, thus then he beginneth his defence.

The fifth obiection was (saith he) for that in [Page]Plessis citing these words out of Hieroms comment aryes vpon Ezechiel lib. 4. cap. 14. O. E. Refut pag. 14 bonum est confidere in Domino, &c. He left out those words. Sincgligentes fuerint. But no falsifications can be without fraude: now what fraud could be immagined in omitting words that make nothing for his aduersary, nor against himselfe? Thus he,An obscure narration of the state of the question. makinge his exordium with an interrogation as yow see. But before I aunswere yt, I would first aske him, why he putteth downe the state of this controuersie so darkely? for yf I had not explaned the matter somewhat before, who would heere haue vnderstood wherin the difficulty lieth? for what sense do make those words in Latyn, and not englished, bonum est confidere in Domino, &c. and si negligentes fuerint? but all this is of art and fraud to dazell the Readers eyes, that he vnderstand not the falsity wherin Plessis was taken. For yf his proctor O. E. had sett downe the true words of the controuesie, as I did before, his question had byn aunswered of it selfe: for who but a simple fellow will put in doubt, but that the words before rehearsed (yf their children be negligent) be of cheife importance to be putt in, or left out, seing they do solue all the difficulty? For yf the children of Saints be negligent (saith Saint Hierome) then vvill not the only prayers of their parents saue them: Hier. ibid. but yf they be diligent, and do cooperate also of their owne parts, then will they auayle them, as S. Chrysostome in like manner declared in the [Page] former passage. Consider then how true, & substantial this first defence of O. E. is, which maketh his entrance with so blynd & false relation of the controuersy it selfe, and how well he deserueth to be an aduocate for others, that so marreth his cliēts cause euen at the beginning. But let vs heare his second defence of the same charge, or rather his second euasion yf it be better then the first.

Besides (saith he) the ordinary glosse doth rehearse these words no otherwise then the L. Plessis quoteth them, whome I thinke the Mathureux Bishopp of Eureux will not charge with falsification. Discourse veritable pag. 148. This supply is taken out of Plessis owne discourse sent from Saumur after his flight from Paris, and it sheweth that O. E. had read the same, and therby is inexcusable when he dissembleth yt, as before in voluntary mistakinge the second place out of Durand, and vpon diuers other occasions, but to the point. Yf the glosse vpon Ezechiel did cyte the words of S. Hierome dismembred as Plessis doth, yt were in no wise a iust excuse for him. First, for that the glosse vseth to cyte short peeces of sentences, as yt serueth to purpose for explicatiō of words in the text, but Plessis tooke vpon him to sett downe a whole place out of S. Hierome, for impugning prayer to Saints desceased, and so cyted them verbatim and at large, vntill he came to the words that made against him:Gloss. in cap. 14. in Ezech. to witt, that Saints prayers will not help their children, yf they be negligent, which [Page] condition yet the glosse omitteth not but expresseth yt in other equiualent words thus: yf they follow not the faith and works of their parents. Wherfore this shift helpeth neyther Plessis nor his proctor any thing at all. And as for the Malheureux B. of Eureux, The B. of Eureux Vnlucky only to hugonots. he may perchance, be called malheureux, that is to say vnluckie to the Hugonots of France, for that hauinge byn once so cheefe a man of their party, hath since his conuersion so learnedly & luckily battered their sect, as no man more in France, nor perhaps in Europe, and they do well feele the blowes, but otherwise the reproach is foolish to call him vnlucky.

And this is all which O. E. can diuise to bring forth for defence or excuse of the falsification obiected in leauinge out S. Hieroms restriction (yf children be negligent): but now let vs heare another obiection made by the Bishop & answered by O. E. It was also heere obiected (saith he) that Hieromes words in Ezechiel make nothing against prayers to Saints: O. E. Refut. ibid. but it must be remembred [...] that the controuersy heere was not whether [...] M. Plessis had vvell concluded out of that place but vvhether he had rightly alleaged yt, &c. Well Syr; and we haue shewed now, that he alleaged it not rightly, hauinge left out the principall clause, that he should haue put in: and if yow graunt also, (as yow seeme thervnto enclyned), that he hath not rightly concluded; then is he dooble false, to witt, both in alleagation & conclusion: but somwhat [Page] I hope yow will diuise to excuse his collection and conclusion, though the authors words themselues be against it. Lett vs see then what yt is.O. E. taken in most cleere absurdity. Besides that (saith he) vve answere, that it is no vveake argument to conclude thus: (as Plessis doth out of S. Hierome) vve must not trust in the prayers of men, and therfore are not to rely vpon the prayers of men departed this life. But I say to the contrary, that it is a weake and wicked argument to conclude thus, as the words lye in S. Hierome, vve must not rely vpon the prayers of men though neuer so holy, yf vve be negligent of our owne parts, ergo vve must not trust in the prayers of Saints departed, though vve be neuer so diligent, to liue vertuously our selues; this I say were an absurde manner of argument and conclusion,Eureux in Refut. of Plessis false discourse fol. 141. 132. 243. & de inceps. and yet this is the argument and conclusion of Plessis and of O. E. for impugning prayers to Saints deceased, against which false conclusion the Bishop in his refutation of Plessis reply, doth alleadge aboue a dozen most plaine and effectuall places, out of S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, and other Fathers, which plainly and perspiciously do approue the doctrine and practise of prayer to Saints deceased in their dayes, and O. E. durst not take vpon him to aunswere any one of them, but pullinge downe his hatt ouer his eyes, passed by them as he had not seene them. But let vs heare his last conclusion.Hier. l. 2. in epist. ad Gala. Finally (saith he) Hierome wryting vpon the epistle to the Galathians doth flatly [Page] demne prayers made to Saints departed and for dead men, sayinge, Dum in hoc saeculo sumus, &c. VVhilst vve are in this vvorld, vve may help one another by prayers or counsells, but vvhen we come before the trihunall of Christ neither Iob, nor Daniell, nor N [...] can pray for any man, but euery one shall beare his owne burden. And do you see what plaine places these fellowes bring forth and how flatly they conclude? This place yf yow remember, was alleaged by Plessis in the conference & answered by the Bishop, that being meant euidently of the day of iudgement, made nothinge against prayer before that day, nor could he reply any thinge at that tyme, nor did he afterward in his discourse, as appeareth by the Bishops refutation fol. 146.Disecous du Pless. pag. 4 [...]. Refut. fol. 144. & 146. 147. and 147. but only stood vpon his vaine distinction and refuge of lyuinge and dead Saints, which shift to auoyde most euident authorityes of the Fathers, the Bishopp refuteth dy diuers places alleaged out of S. Hierome himselfe, & one namely against Vigilantius, where he obiecteth to that heretike the very same words, vsed heere by his scholler O. E. Hier. ep. 2. cont. Vigilant Anotable place of S. Hier. against the heretiks of this time. Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum viuimus, &c. Thou saist (saith he) in thy booke, that vvhilst vve are in this life vve may pray one for another, but that after death no mans prayer shalbe heard for other, &c. but yf the Apostles and Martyrs being vpon earth in flesh, could pray and be heard for others, when they had need, yet to pray also for themselues, how much more now after their victoryes,[Page]crownes, and triumphes, &c. S. Paul saith of himselfe, that 276. soules, were geuen him at his prayers in the shipp, vvhen he vvas aliue, and dost thou think [...] he vvill be mute now after he is gone to Christ, and vvill not dare to open his mouth for them that haue beleeued his ghospell throughout the vvorld? and shall Vigilantius a liue dogge, be better then Paul a dead Lyon? So S. Hierome: meaning that Vigilantius presumed, that himselfe being a liue Saint could be heard for others, but S. Paul being a dead Saint, could not, and O. E. presuminge the same also of himselfe (as yow may well imagine that he doth) may in like manner apply the same aunswere of S. Hierome to himselfe, being in this point no lesse a barkinge dogge against prayer to Saints, then was Vigilantius. And so much of this place.

The sixt Place out of S. Cyrill.

The falshood obiected to Plessis vpon this place,Acts fol. 70 & Refut. fol. 148. was, that wheras he had alleaged the authority of S. Cyrill against worshippinge the Crosse, sayinge: S. Cyrill answered the Emperour Iulian, vvho reproached the honour done to the Crosse by Christians: that Christians did not geue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse, &c. It was obiected, I say, that the last words of this sentence, which are of most moment, to witt;Lib. 6. cont. Iulian. that Christians did not giue adoration or Reuerence to the signe of the Crosse; are not in S. Cyrill, albeit Plessis vsinge often to repeate [Page] those words as the words of S. Cyrill, had putt them downe also (in one place) in a different letter: which charge Plessis being not able to auoyde, after diuers shifts, turnings, and wyndings, was condemned as before yow haue seene, neyther was he able to reply any thing of moment afterward in his discourse from Saumur, Refut. of discourse fol. 147. as appeareth by the Bishops refutatiō, all which O. E. hauing perused, and thought well vpon, lett vs see what he bringeth for releefe of his clyent, and I shall sett downe all his words togeather, as they ly in his answere, for that they conteyne not many lynes, he knowinge not well which way to turne himselfe, but yet must needs say somewhat, for that he could not well hold his peace.

‘The sixth place (saith he) vvhich the L. of Plessis was charged to haue corrupted,O. E. Refut. pag. 15 was drawne out of Cyril contra Iulian, 1. 6. & why was he charged thinke you? forsooth by cause he alleaged him to proue that adoratiō was not to be yealded to the signe of the Crosse, A very poore defence of Plessis by O. E. but heerin there could not be any falsification vsed: and that first, for that he did not alleage the authors words; and secondly for that he doth well conclude according to Cyrills meaning; for where Iulian obiected to Christians that they worshipped the crosse; Cyril answereth, that these words proceeded of badd thoughts & extreeme ignorāce; so likewise saith Minutius Foelix in his Apologie Cruces nec adoramus, nec optamus, that [Page] is we neyther worshipp nor desire Crosses.’

This is his whole discourse, full wise and learned as yow see, which the poore man hauinge seene refuted particularly in the Acts themselues of the conference, and after more largely in the refutation of Plessis michinge discourse without a name, he bringeth it in heere againe, as though it had neuer byn heard of or refuted before, without adding one word of help or new supply for poore Plessis, but only some new vntrew lyes of his owne, as his fashion is: as first of all, where he saith, that forsooth Plessis vvas charged with falsification, Three new vntruthes brought for a supply by O. E. to help out his cliēt. because he alleaged Cyrill to proue; that adoration vvas not to be yelded to the signe of the Crosse. I say forsooth yt is an euident vntruth; for he was so charged for that he alleaged that out of S. Cyrill which was not in Cyrill. And againe it is another vntruth, to affirme; that Cyrill obiected extreeme ignorance to Iulian, for that he reproached Christians for honouring the Crosse. Seing it was for another distinct cause, asSupra cap. 2. lo [...]. 6. A fraudulent equiuocation of the word Crosse taken of the author for a gibbet or gallowes. before hath byn shewed: to wit, for a false inference or collection made therof. And it is a third vntruth, that Minutius Foelix did say in our sense, vve neyther vvorshipp nor desire Crosses, that is to say, as they signify, the Crosse of Christ, & not gibbets as his pagan aduersary obiected vnto him; & O. E. deserueth some such Crosse, for impugninge the other of Christ, and for deluding his Reader in this place with so grosse [Page] an equiuocation, yf his other Acts and Gests by sea and land do not meritt also the same.

And I do call these later two, proper vntruthes of O. E. though they were obiected before by Plessis in the Conference, for that he hauinge seene them euidently answered, & refuted before, bringeth them in againe, and dissembleth the refutation, as yow haue seene in the second Chapter of this defence, where all these nine places are examined particularly, as they were handled in the conference it selfe.

The seauenth Place out of the law of the Emperours Theodosius and Valens.

The legerdemayne obiected vnto Plessis vpon this place, was, as before yow haue seene, that pretending to alleage a certayne law or imperiall institution against paintinge and caruinge of imoges, he left out the words humi & in solo, Lib. 1. Cod. tit. 9. Nemini licere vel in sol [...] vel in marmoribus humi positis sculpere, &c. that is to say vpon the ground, which did make or marre all the markett. For that the Emperors for reuerence of images, forbiddinge them to be painted vnder mens feete, Plessis alleaged them against images absolutely: and not being able to defend this falsification, but by layinge the fault vpon one Petrus Crinitus a new author of our tymes, whome he had quoted in the margent, but not named in the text, he was cōdemned at length of this forgery. Lett vs see how his aduocate will [Page] defend him, I shall sett downe his whole defence togeather as in the former place.

The seauenth place (saith he) vvas out of Petrus Crinitus where the Lord of Plessis is charged to leaue out the word (humi) alleaginge the lawe of Theodosius and Valens against the making of the signe of the Crosse,O. E. Refut. pag. 15. but his accuser should haue remembred, that he did alleage not the words, as now they are found in bookes falsifyed by Idolaters and Crosse worshippers, but out of Petrus Crinitus which cyteth the law out of authenticall records. Our wise relator heere,An other defence of O. E. to make the matter seeme more heynous, saith, he falsifyeth the law of Theosius, Valens, and Iustinian, as if they had byn ioint authors of that law: when as Iustinian was not yet in the world, when that law was made. Neyther is it much materiall if Tribonian, in the Emperours name, had putt in the word (humi,) for wee are rather to rely vpon the Originals then vpon Tribonians honesty, that put words in & out, and altered lawes at pleasure.An obscure defence by O. E. Neyther was the law of Theodosius and Valens to be reputed new, albeit the word (humi) had bin left out, seing both Epiphanius, and the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine, and diuers other Fathers had condemned paintinge of images.

Thus pleadeth O. E. for his client, but in such sort, as I thinke verily heerafter few will entertayne him for their aduocate, and though he thrust himselfe in, as he hath [Page] done in this cause, he wilbe reiected and thrust out againe, and barred of all practise, as a puny pettifogger, that doth more hurt then help his clients cause, we shall make a few notes vpon this his answere, wherby, and by readinge the examen made before vpon this place,Sup. cap. 2. in the conference yt selfe, yow will easily see the vanity therof. First then yt is false, that Plessis alleaged Petrus Crinitus, though he quoted his name in the margent, there being great difference betweene allegation and quotation.Acts. fol. 77. As all men know that are learned the text of Plessis went thus: vvhat vvill they say (to witt the Papists) to the Emperors This is false for it was Theodosius the second &. Valentinian the third. Theodosius and Valens, vvho by an expresse edict, did forbidd the paintinge of images. Thus he did triumphe, with the Emperors themselues in the text, though in the margent he quoted Crinitus for his refuge, when he should be pressed. Secondly, where he saith; that Crinitus cyteth the law out of authenticall records, and not as they are found now falsified by Idolators, yt is a notorious vanity, and this audacious Iconoclast should haue cyted some proofe out of some one author or other for yt, and not so boldly of him selfe, without all reason or authority auouch so vntrew a paradox. Plessis himselfe in the cō ference, could only say that Crinitus alleaged them Ex libris Augustalibus, out of the Emperors bookes, which bookes the Bishop shewed euidently, to be no other, but the Codes [Page] now extant,Pet. Crinit lib. 9. de honest [...] disciplin [...] cap. 9. conteyninge the Emperors lawes and constitutions, and this by the words of Crinitus himselfe, referringe his reader thervnto: Si quis (saith he) authorem desiderat, &c. Yf any require the author of this [...] alleage, lett him reade the decrees and Edicts of the Emperors, gathered by most learned men Trebonianus, Basilides, Theophilus, and Dioscorus, especially vnder Iustinian, &c. Thus Crinitus of the Emperors constitutions. Out of which he cyteth this law by memory as yt seemeth, erringe as well in the Chronologie, as also in the names of Theodosius and Valens, who did not liue togeather, nor made lawes togeather, wheras he should haue said in deed Theodosius and Valentinian, as also leauing out the words humi & in solo. And yt is a desperate defence of O. E. to call in doubt the truth of all the Emperiall lawes for this thousand yeares & more, gathered by Trebonianus and other learned men, before named, & read in all schooles & vniuersityes without note or corruption, vntill now that this new academike minister O. E. will needs call them all in question and suspition, so as nothing heerafter shalbe of certayne credit.

And yf this had byn so as O. E. affirmeth, that the Emperiall lawes had bin corrupted, and that Trebonian that liued aboue a thousand yeares past vnder Iustinian the Emperour, had pu [...] in, and put out, and altered lawes at his pleasure, was there no man to haue noted [Page] yt in so many ages before Sutcliffe? Cuias a learned lawyer noted only, that Trebonian by consent of the Emperour Iustinian changed the word crux, A vayne calumniation of O. E. against Treboniā. that before Constantine, signified a gibbett or gallowes in the old pagan Emperors lawes, into the word furca. But what is this, that O. E. should say so boldly, that he altered lawes at his pleasure? but this is the spiritt of heretiks to bring all things in doubt, & to take away fidem publicam all creditt from all things but their owne sayings, and then he that can talke most, shalbe most credible; & this is one ground of their new ghospell.

Thirdly wheras O. E. endeauoureth to tripp the Relator for ascribinge this law to three Emperours iointly, Theodosius Valens, & Iustinian, which Iustinian liued after the former two; he sheweth more will then skill to be reuenged, for as Iustinian could not make a common law with the former two Theodosius and Valens, Lib. 1. cod. tit. 8. Nemini licere, &c. for that they liued not togeather; so neither could the former two make any common law betweene semlues, for that they raigned not iointly, Valens being slayne a dozen yeares before Theodosius the first came to be Emperour, wherfore yt is to be vnderstood of Theodosius the second, and Valentinian the third, and so yt appeareth by the Code yt selfe, which Code for that yt was gathered by Iustinians order, and authority, beareth the name in like manner of Iustinians[Page]Code, Another Cauill returned vpō O. E. and by that reason this law also may be called in this respect Iustinianus Law, and consequently O. E. was much ouerseene in running so hastily vpon the relator, who yet was not he that did sett forth these particular passages in print, as before hath byn said.

Fourthly I would haue yow to note, the arrogancy of hereticall writers in contēning learned men when they stand in their way,About olde originalls pretēded by O. E. as heer Trebonian. Vir doctissimus (saith Crinitus) a most learned man that gathered the lawes togeather with others, vnder Iustinian. But what saith O. E. of him? yow shall heare. Neyther ys yt much materiall (saith he) yf Trebonian in the Emperors name had putt in the word humi, for vve are rather to rely vpon the originalls, them vpon Trebonians honesty, &c. Heere to say nothinge of the difference of honesty, honour, learninge & dignity, betweene Trebonian and Sutcliffe, for that comparisons are odious, I would aske what originalls are those that O. E. saith we must rely vpon? Crinitus out of whome he would seeme to gather them saith (as yow haue heard) that they are the Emperiall constitutions conteyned in the Code, Crinit. l. 9. de hom. disciplin [...] cap. 9. and gathered vnder the Emperour Iustinian, which constitutions haue continued now in diuers editions ouer all Christendome, for more then a thousand yeares without any difference in this behalfe, yea the edition of Geneua it selfe produced in the [Page] conference hath the text of this law as the rest, with the words humi & in solo. The ancient commentaryes, and Glosses also made aboue 300. [...]eares past vpon this law, as that of Azo, Salicet, & others, haue the same words and do note no difference euer to haue byn in this point. Whence then or where are Mathew Sutcl [...]ffes originalls, O E. foy [...] about his ne [...] originals. corrupted as he saith) by Idolators & Crosse worshippers? Crinitus is but a late writer, and saith he hath none but out of the Code, and these are all against the Minister; what will he do? or what shall we say to such people? are not our poore deceaued contreymen in a good state, to depend vpon these mens words and assertions in matters of Religion.

But let vs see the end of his defence vpon this place.O E Refut. pag. 15. Neyther vvas (saith he) this law of Theodosius and Valens, to be reputed new, albeit the word hum [...] had byn left out, seing both Epiphanius, and the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine & diuers other Fathers had condemned Images before. But why had not O. E. cyted the places out of Epiphanius, & those other Fathers which condemned paintinge of Images, that we might haue read them.Acts fol. 8 [...]. 2 83. & Refut. fol. [...]69. 170. The B. of Eureux did cyte both in the conference it selfe, and in his refutation of Plessis discourse, many auncient Fathers expresse words, both before, and after this law was made of Theodosius, and Valen [...]inian, (named heere againe ignorantly by O. E. as the law of Theodosius and Valens) [Page] to witt, the authorityes of Eusebius, Chrysostome, Hierome, Cyrill, Prudentius, Paulinus, S. Gregory Nissen, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and others, all allowinge the pious vse of images in their dayes; yea and an other expresse law of the same Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Cod Theod. lib. 16. tit. 10. is also of him alleaged, cōmaunding the signe of the Crosse to be put in Churches; & how chaunceth it that the Minister heere also pulleth downe his hat ouer his eyes, and will not see, nor aunswere any one of these authorityes? yow may easily gheasse the reason.

And as for the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine, yt being a prouinciall Councell of 19. Bishops only, about the yeare 305. they prohibited nothing, but that Images should not be painted in those dayes vpon walles, both in respect of the indecency & corruption that came therby vnto them,The Canon of the Coū cell of El [...]eris a [...] red. by the moisture of the said walles, somewhat contemptible to the pagans and heretikes, yet liuing among them; as also to the end, that being painted in tables rather then vpon the said walles, Christians might carry them away, as they did other Ecclesiasticall ornaments when persecution fell out, and not leaue them to the spoyle and dirision of the persecutors. And this reason is gathered out of the words of the constitution it selfe, confirmed by the practise, both of that t [...]me & after. And so much of this place, O. E. hauing [Page] borrowed this obiection of the Councell of Eliberis, out of Plessis reply in his discourse vpon the place, though in the Conference he came out with yt,Discourse pag. 55. and had his full answere vpon the 9. place out of Theodorete, which O. E. heere dissembleth and replyeth no one word, (as hath bene said) to this or to any of the authorityes alleaged there by the Bishop, for the auncient vse and honour of Images.

The eyght Place out of S. Bernard.

First yt is to be noted that this 8. passage, being by error of the aforsaid french wrytten copy sent from Paris, placed in the 9. roome by him that sett forth the said passages, is restored heere by vs againe vnto his proper place, accordinge to the Acts of the conference, and Plessis reply, which O. E. also followeth without mencioninge the error, which is an argument that he had read all, and so much greater is his shame, that he commeth so bare & weake to play the Aduocate, after much better matter vttered before by Plessis himselfe, who was accused vpon this place (as before yow haue seene) for tyinge togeather fraudulently two different places of S. Bernard, as making against the honouring of our blessed Lady, and persidiously leauinge out in the myddest that clause of the Father,Acts fol. [...]3. which being in the text annexed to the former of the two sentēces, [Page] made all cleere (yf yt had byn left in) and ouerthrew the whole drift of Plessis cauill, the clause was: Magnifie the inuentrix of grace, Ber [...]. ep. 174. the mediatrix of Saluation, and the restorer of the world. Vpon which deceytfull dealing, after many corners sought in vaine to runne out and escape, Plessis had sentence against him. But lett vs see what releefe the new attorney bringeth.

As yf yt were necessary (saith he) vvhere diuers places are alleaged out of one author, O. E. Refut. pag. 16. to wryte out all that cometh betwixt one & the other. Lo a quicke dispatch of the matter. But I would aske O. E. a case of conscience as professinge also diuinity, which is this: yf when that which goeth betweene, conteyne the very substance & soule of the matter or controuersy (as heere yt doth) whether in such a case yt be lawfull to leaue yt out, or noe? or whether this be properly falshood and falsification? For yf yt be not, then we may peruert the Pater noster or any prayer, or peece of scripture, and make yt seeme blasphemous. And let the reader marke that O. E. hath no euasion heere, but most absured. Yet lett vs heare him further for Plessis excuse. He alleageth Bernard (saith he) not as an authenticall witnesse,O. E. Refut. ibid.but as a man fauouringe his aduerse party being nourished in monasticall errors and superstitions. Well Syr, and for that S. Bernard did not fauour him in Religion (as no Saint euer did) is it therfore lawfull to falsifie and corrupt [Page] his words and sense? We know well that both yow and hee do alleage the words of S. Bernard, and other Catholike wryters, as the diuell doth scriptures, which bynd not him, but others against whome he alleageth them;How heretiks do alleage Cath. authors. and so Plessis alleaged Scotus and Durandus before, but as the prouerbe is: A man should not bely the diuell. And no lesse falshood, and corruption of mynd is discouered, in falsifyinge authors whome they creditt not, as others whome they credit. Wherfore let vs heare his conclusion vpon this place. He saith that S. Bernard and we do not agree about honors to be giuen to our lady, as in the feast of her conception, in callinge her Mediatricem salutis, and that both he and Epiphanius wrytinge against the heretiks called Collyridians, do much mislike the honours which we giue to the blessed Virgin. All which are toyes, & answered before in the examen of this place, for so much as concerneth S. Bernards agreement and ours; but for the foolish women called Collyridians condemned by Epiphanius, and by the whole Church for offeringe sacrifice to our Lady, this cauiller hath byn answeredSee the confutation of O. E. his chalenge by VV. R. Chal. 3. [...]. 9. n. 61. 62. and 3 conuers. of England part. 2. cap. 2. [...]. 21. 22. so often (to witt that yt appertayneth nothinge to our controuersie) and this in diuers bookes now out against him, as only lacke of iudgment & matter (as it seemeth) haue induced him to obiect yt heere againe, he hauinge byn foyled therin, and made to see, that Epiphanius [Page] expressely in that place honoureth highely our El. Lady. and denyeth only diuine honour vnto her. And not that which the Catholike Church doth giue vnto her.

The 9. and last Place out of Theodorete.

The charge of falsifying laid to Plessis vpon this passage of Theodorete, Acts fol. 90. was, that he cyting a place of this author in his commentary vpon the Psalmes,Theodor. com. in Psal. 113. against pagan Idolls, Plessis did fraudulently so alleage the same, as yf he had spoken yt of Christian Images, for which purpose he vsed two sleights, the first in translating the Greeke word Idoll by the Latyn word Image; the second by cutting of these words: Idolls adored by pagans, and adored for Gods. For excuse of which two fa [...]sifications, when Plessis had vsed diuers shifts as well by some shew of proofe, that Idolls and Images may somtymes be taken for the same, and then that the clause omitted was not of such importance, & after both these refuges largely confuted by the Bishopp,The state of the question. as in part yow may see before vpon the examen of this place, sentence was giuen against him by consent of all the deputyes, which O. E. would now gladly haue reuersed. Let vs see his good reasons and arguments he bringeth for the same.

To the first obiection of Translating falsely Images for Idolls,O. E. pag. 17. of his Refut. O. E. first answereth thus: As yf euery one (saith he) that doth translate [Page]amisse, were to be charged with falsification, or as yf all badd translations of the old Latyn interpreter of the Bible, were so many falsifications. And is not this a substantiall answere? we do not say (Syr Mathew) that all erroneous translations be falsifications, yf they be of meere error, without malice, but yf yt be with plaine intention to deceaue the reader, and to make him apprehend one thing for another in fauour of their heresies, then can yt not be denyed, but that yt is falsification and wicked deceyte, as heere now to translate the word Idoll in Theodorete by the word Image, & leauinge out those other words, adored by the pagans for Gods, wherby his meaninge was declared, that he meant not of Christian Images, but of pagan Idolls. Was not this deceyt in Plessis, and was not this cosenage in willfull corruption? resolue yow the case out of your diuinity.

And where our English Sectaryes at this day in their translatiōs of scripture, in their Bibles do translate one and the selfe same word out of Hebrew,Heretical corruptiō in Translatinge. Greeke, and Latyn, diuersly, accordinge as yt serueth to their purposes, is it not truly falsification? as for example, the selfe same Greeke word Idoll and Idolator they translate in some places so, and in other, Image, and Imageworshippers: the Greeke word signifyinge tradition, whersoeuer traditions are reprehended, they translate yt tradition; but whersoeuer they are [Page] commended, yt is turned into ordinances, instructions, &c. Whersoeuer Priests are reprehended or spoken euill of, there the word Priest is neuer omitted, but where they are spokē well of, there must come in the words Elders, Ministers and the like. Though the Greeke & Hebrew words be the selfe same as in the other place. And almost infinite other such examples you may read, learnedly laid togeather in the discouery of Maister Gregory Martyn, M. Martins discouery printed as 1582. cap. 1. of hereticall corruptions in translation of the scriptures. And thus much to O. E. his first answere, let vs see his second.

Besides this (saith he) Maister Plessis offered to prooue, and most true it is, that euery Image hauing idolatrous or heathen worshipp done vnto yt, is Idolum. And who denyeth this (Syr Mathew)? can yow or yours proue that the reuerence we do to the sacred Images of Christ, & his Saints is idolatrous or heathenist? Then may yow condemne all those auncient Fathers, with the vniuersall Church of their tyme for heathenist Idolators, which are alleaged by the Bishop in his reply to Plessis discourse, and shewed out of their owne words & testimonyes,Refut. of discours. fol. 184. 155. &c. that they vsed Images with this Christian hononr [...] and worshipp, which we talke of, in the most florishing time of Gods Church, wherof themselues were the cheefest flowers, as namely (to recyte some as they ly in his booke.) Prudentius, Cassianus, Paulinus, Gregorius Nissenus, Basil, Theodorete, [Page]Hierome, Gregorius Turonensis, Gregory the great, Euagrius, Chrysostome Bede, Damascen; and others, to whose authorityes and sentences O. E. answereth heere not one word, but letteth them slipp, as though he had neuer heard of them; and this is his common tricke when he hath nothing to reply: yet notwithstanding shall yow heare him bragg, and vaunt anon when the skyrmish is ended, as yf he had fully answered all, and playd his prise with great manhood.

And thus much about the first falsification in translatinge Image for Idoll, wherin O. E. hath valiantly holpen his client as yow see. Lett vs now examine what succour he geueth him for the second charge, to witt, for leauinge out the words: adored by pagans for Gods, which should haue explicated Theodoretts plaine meaning, that he vnderstood not of Christian Images, when he spake against such kind of Idolls. To the second (obiection) is answered (saith he) that the vvords [...] gentibus culta being sett downe in the allegation, O. E. Refut ibid. do rather hurt, A notorious shifting answere. then help the Papists, that vvorshipp Images vvith kissinge, croachinge, censinge prayinge, as the gentills did their Idolls: those reasons therfore that are forcible against the Idolls of the Gentills, are also most forcible against the Popish vvorshipp of Images. So saith he. And this is all the substance of his aunswere to this obiection, wherin to omit his intemperat raylinge I would haue euery man of reason to consider the folly & [Page] falshood of his answere; falshood in tellinge vs only that these words à gentibus culta, were left out, wheras Theodoret saith à gentibus culta, & pro dijs culta, worshipped by pagans, and worshipped for Gods, wherin standeth the whole point of the controuersie. His folly is apparant, in telling vs, that if these words had byn truly sett downe, and not left out by Plessis, yt had byn worse for vs, geuinge vs therby to vnderstand, that Plessis of compassion not to hurt vs more left them out; but yet at leastwise this good we should haue had therby, yf he had left them in, as he found them; that the place of Theodorett cyted by him against Images, would plainly haue appeared impertinent to the purpose, for that yt treated only of pagan Idolls, and this had b [...]n help inough for the Papists against Plessis and O. E. who from this place of Theodorete corrupted by them, would impugne Christian Images, now let the Christian reader iudge what help Plessis and O. E. had need to haue to deliuer them from the note of so false dealinge.

And this shalbe sufficient for this briefe examen of the 9. places aforesaid, out of which O. E. being once gotten; harken I pray yow how he craketh,O E. Refut. pag. [...]7. boasteth and vaunteth: If then (saith he) the aduersary could not gett any ground of Maister Plessis in these places, vvhich vvere See this to be fal [...]e cap. 1. chosen as principall, and placed first as places of most aduantage, we may well suppose yf [Page]the triall had proceeded, that he would haue receaued farre more disgrace, Ibid. p. 19. &c. And againe yf a gentleman no professed diuine, vpon such vnequall tearmes, was able to make A brokē head. head against his aduersaryes; much better I hope should we be able to resist, yf professed diuines might procure an indifferent triall, &c. And yet further:Ibidem. most ridiculous it is to thinke, that this Thrasonicall Chalenger was able to make good that cause, which neyther with lyinge, forginge, facinge, nor any witt or pollicy, Great bragges. the greatest clarks of that faction are able to maintayne. And in his preface to the refutation of my relation: It will plainly appeare by examination of the particulars, that the L. of Plessis vvas most vniustly charged vvith falsification, &c. And vve vvill plainly proue that the Popish sect hath gained nothing by this conference, but shame, and confusion, &c. And finally (saith he) yf Persons meane to reply, let him pull of his vizard, and come barefaced into the field, and he shall not vvant those that vvill encounter him, &c. Thus he, as a cocke of the game that croweth when his head bleedeth; and yow must further note, that whilst he cryeth heere to other men, to put of vizards, and to come bare faced into the field, himselfe lay yet hidden vnder the vizard of O. E. so as that which he reprehendeth in others, he practiseth in himselfe, which is the worst, and weakest kynd of persuasion, that may be. Christ Iesus inspire his harte with his holy grace, & myne also to consider, not so much what maketh for the maintenance of any part or [Page] faction, as for simple truth, wherby both of vs must be saued, which saluation I desire to him, as to my selfe, and this is all the hatred I beare him, notwithstandinge all his scolding, & with this would I end, but that an others booke of his is come to my hands, wherof I must say a word or two briefly in the next Chapter for conclusion of all.

THE CONCLVSION OF THIS TREATISE, VVITH THE notice of another booke sett forth by Mathew Sutcliffe, and the contentes and partes therof examined.
CHAP. VI.

AS I was drawinge towards the end of this Treatise, I had the sight of a second edition of O. E. his chalenge, printed againe vnder the name of Mathew Sutcliffe, wherby we see, that now at length himselfe confesseth, to haue gone hidden hitherto vnder the veyle of those two letters, which he so much obiected to others for a fault in his wrytings. I had heard of this new edition before, but had not had the vew vntil now, and I do thinke, that yf the author had stayed a little longer, and seene the answere that is now out against yt, he would haue lost much of his appetite to publish yt [Page] againe;The cause of the second edition of S [...]tcliffes fond chalenge. but the cause of this hasty resolution was for that one E. O. opposinge himselfe to O. E. sett forth a certaine detection, of diuers notorious vntruthes, corruptions, and falsifications, found in the former edition of this vayne chalenge, which so greatly troubled O. E. being otherwise cholerike & impatient, both by nature and custome, as yt draue him not only to runne out of his name O. E. but neere also out of his witts & right senses, in diuulginge that which must needs turne to his vtter discreditt, yf I be not deceaued: I meane his former ridiculous chalenge, very learnedly & substantially refuted as I haue said by VV. R. & therewithall this his new answere to E. O. who if he reply againe (as I presume he will, if the inequality of tyme & place, or contempt of the author, do not let him) he is like to take exceedinge aduantage against him, as in part may be seene by that little, which afterward I do examine out of the first two or three places obiected by him.

And wheras to make vp a more complet ostentation of defence, O. E. turned now into Mathew Sntcliffe, hath thought good to adioyne another supplement also of recriminations against diuers sorts of men: this of all other things is like most to disgrace him, when yt commeth to examinatiō, for heere wilbe fulfilled the poets sayinge: Vana & sine [...]iribus ira; much malice and little power; all [Page] which will in part appeare by some short notes,4. partes of Sutcliffes new edition. which in this place I meane to make vpon euery part of this worke, which are foure: to witt, the Epistles and prefaces, the chalenge renewed; the defence against O. E. and the recriminations against diuers.

To begin then with the first part,1. parte. this whole worke is dedicated, to Sr. Robert Cecill, now L. Cecill, but with what reason, euery man will easily consider, that knoweth the author, and whome and what courses he hath followed, and is acquainted with his speaches of him, whilst his best maister was in authority. For my part I refuse not the noble mans iudgement in this controuersie betweene vs, of false and true dealinge, for that I assure my selfe, that howsoeuer otherwise in affection he may stand auersed from our Religion: yet cannot his vnderstanding (being such as yt is) swarue in so euident a matter of fact, as heere we are to handle. Wherfore lett vs make (yf he please) the L. Cecill iudge, and vmpire in this our contention de crimine fal [...]i, desiringe his honour to take so much paines, as first to looke backe vpon that, which hath hitherto byn treated about Monsieur Plessis, and then to stand attent to that, which in this Chapter we are to handle of Mathew Sutcliffe, and so to giue sentence, accordinge to his wisdome, and verity of the cause.

One principall point in his epistle dedicatory, [Page] as also in his preface to the Reader is, extraordinary vauntinge, as though no man could match him, or durst appeare in his sight, wherof you haue seene what cause hitherto he hath had, & shall do more heraafter.Sutcliffes foolish vaūting. I haue wrytten diuers treatisses (saith he) not only against Robert Parsons, but also against Robert Bellarmine, and their consorts the Papists; yet do I not find any that dare incounter me hand to hand, nor haue I receaued any answere to any purpose, nor haue I yet encountred any, that hath opposed himselfe to any discourse or argument of myne, &c. This to Syr Robert; but much more earnestly after in his preface to the Reader: Yf Persons haue not leasure to answere me, let Garnet or Blacke well that are neerer supply for him; yt is a shame to beginne a quarrell and to giue yt ouer first; for one bout they haue no reason to refuse me.

Heere now I suppose my L. Cecill must needs smile, to see the mā so earnest to haue one boute, especially when he shall haue vnderstood, that some fiue or six books are out against him vpon the suddayne, & each one of them geuinge him so many boutes, as at length by reelinge, the poore fellow is on the ground: albeit I must confesse, that Catholike writers are come now in such a loathinge and contempt of this mans works & writings, both for the vanity of the matter therin conteyned, and perpetuall scurrility of words infecting the same, as few are willing to leese tyme in answering him, he [Page] bringinge nothinge commonly but absurd shifts, foolish euasions, old worn-out allegations of others, and such excessiue turpitude of tongue, as is loath some to any man to aunswere him, wherof yow are like to haue some little last in this place, as occasion is offered.

There followeth in the same epistle dedicatory another complaint, apprtayninge to the same veyne of vauntinge, Sutcliffe accounteth falsifications for trifles ad bymatters. to witt, that Catholiks do now fly the mayne point of ioyninge with him, and his fellowes vpon the triall of controuersies, and do runne to trifles & by-matters; let vs heare his words: My base and vnworthy aduersaryes pleasure is (saith he) to contend with me about certayne small quyrks, and questions, about certayne pretended vntruthes, and falsifications, &c. And againe. Your honour shall perceaue the great weaknesse of our aduersaryes, and the pouerty of the principall actors in the same, vvho abandoninge the mayne points in controuersie, begin now to picke quarrells at words, allegations, points, quotations, and other by-matters, and ceasing to ioyne with vs and like diuines to argue and dispute, fall to plaine calumniation and rayling. Thus he.

And heere againe I doubt not but the Lord Vmpyre, will laugh to heare Sutcliffe accoumpt the falsification of Fathers, Doctors, and auncient wryters, and this both in words & sense, alleaging them expressely against their owne meaninge, to be but quirkes, quarrells and questions about words, points, [Page]quotations, and other such by-matters, as yf two contending about some great inheritance, and the one obiectinge that his aduersary had falsifyed the euidences, whereby the whole controuersy must be tryed; the other should answere, that these are but quirks and by-matters. And this is the accoumpt, which Maister Sutcliffe and his people do make of false or true dealinge, or changinge, choppinge, alteringe, or peruertinge the authors, whome they alleage, as yt maketh best for their purpose: But we on the contrary side must heere professe, as men bound to strict truth,Of what importance Catholiks doe hold false dealinge to be. that we esteeme highly of these matters, not only in cheefe points of controuersies, the beleefe wherof concerneth our soules, but euen in lesse matters also, for that they discouer a badd mynd, & wicked conscience, whersoeuer they are found wittingly, and willingly comitted; and yet are not we so rigorous in this point, but that we do easily allow vnto Maister Sutcliffe, that which in this epistle to Syr Robert he demandeth for himselfe sayinge: Do what a man can, yet may [...]ther marginall notes be misplaced, or words stand-disorderly, or things be mistaken.

This I say we easily graunt; neither was there euer (I thinke) any controuersie hitherto betweene vs, about misplacinge of marginall notes, or disorderly standinge of words (so they altered not the true sense of the authors) which yet yt hath pleased Maister[Page]Sutcliffe disorderly to bring in, to the end he might seeme, that the accusations laid against him, are for such trifles: but neither these trifles, nor the mistakinge of matters themselues (so yt be without fraud) are vrged by vs against them, but only where wilfull deceyt is euident, and where the deceauer cannot morally be thought to haue byn ignorant of his deceyt. These (I say) are the faults which we obiect vnto Maister Sutcliffe and his fellowes, and not misplacing of marginall notes, or mistandinge of words, points, or quotaetions; nay we may ad a further degree of false dealinge, that hath no excuse in the world, which is,Diuerse degreas of falshode & falsifications. that where the falshood is euidēt, and cannot be denyed, nor by any probable meanes defended, yet not to confesse the same, nor to excuse yt by ignorance, forgetfullnes, trust vpon other men, or by any like error, but to continue, and bolster out the same by other sleights and new frauds: this I say is the highest degree of all falshood and impudency, & vsed as now yow haue seene both by Maister Plessis in his reply after his first confutation; and much more by Maister Sutcliffe his aduocate in his broken defence, and the like we shall see practised againe by him afterward in this Chapter, vpon like occasions of defendinge himselfe, and his owne wrytings.

Concerninge which wrytings, he demaūdeth in his said epistle to Syr Robert Cecill, [Page] as also in his preface to the reader a certaine priuiledge from the ciuill law, which is, that when diuers cases are proposed by one party in law to be admitted, or excepted against by the other, and that the other excepteth only against some, and letteth passe the rest; then yt is to be vnderstood (saith the law) that those which are not excepted against, are admitted. Which benefitt Maister Sutcliffe would haue allowed to his chalenge; that is, wheras E. O. hath excepted only against some 26. places of Fathers and Doctors corrupted and falsifyed by him; all the rest besides these 26. might be held as free from corruption.Decius in I. 1. ff. de Reg. iur. Yf lawyers say true (saith he) that exceptions confirme the rule in cases not excepted, then hath my aduersary confirmed the mayne discourse against Persons, and his adherents, hauinge not said any thing vnto yt, but only excepted against a few places, wherof he taketh 13. to be vntruly alleaged, and 13. to be falsifyed. And againe in his preface to the reader: yf he be not able to except against more places then 26. or ther about, yt is cleere that I haue said true in the rest, and that I haue argued and alleaged authorityes to good purpose. Sutcliffe would authorize the rest of his booke by a priuiledge of the ciuill law. So he. And will not heere our iudge laugh againe thinke yow, to see this poore man endeauour so diligently to authorize his booke, by the accusations of his aduersary, and by a priuiledge drawne from the Ciuill law? The rule alleaged of exceptions doth hold only where some few cases are proposed to be [Page] excepted against, by the aduerse party, but it holdeth not in a mayne booke, where the points are many, and almost infinite that are handled and proposed, and out of which is lawfull for any accuser to take his accusations where he will, without authorizinge or ratifyinge the rest, and in our common law of England no man can be ignorant, but that yf one should be accused (for example) for stealinge of 5. sheepe, and should acquitte himselfe therof: yet this would not barre any other accuser, that would afterward call him into tryall for hauing stolen fiftye more.

Wherfore Maister Sutcliffe can not shroud himselfe by this, but that other men also may examine his chalengeChalleng. 3. cap. 9. besides E. O. as we haue seene that VV. R. hath done, and gathered out an infinite huge heape of vntruthes, and if I ghesse not amisse, not much lesse then a hundred in one Chapter. Wherfore seing Sutcliffe is so earnest to prouoke & intreate aduersaryes to wryte against him, yt is reason he prepare himselfe to answere all commers, & not to slipp away vnder the shaddow of a Ciuilian rule or priuiledge, for so much as he is an Englishman, & consequently must be tryed by the common law of the land.

And this may suffice for this first part of his new worke, standinge in epistles & prefaces, except yow would haue a breefe example [Page] represented yow heere at this very beginning, of the manner of answering and shiftinge, which he meaneth to vse afterwards in his whole discourse, and therby know the man & his talent euen at his first entrance. Heare then how he answereth a speach of his aduersary touching the continuance of Catholike Religion.In his preface to the Reader. My aduersary (saith he) calleth Popish Religion Catholike, & affirmeth it was plāted heere by Gregory the great, &c. and that it was alwayes visible since Christ, &c. but he should do well to shew how true Religion can be visible, for our Sauiour Christ saith: that true vvorshippers vvorshipp God in spiritt, and truth, but spirituall vvorshipp and true internall deuotion, is not so easily seene; vnlesse therfore our aduersary suppose Popish Religion to consist in the Popes myter, and in cooles of monks, and such like externall matters, he shall hardly proue Religion to be visible.

And is not this matter subtilly shifted of thinke yow? or may not this man play his prize in this kind of fensinge, in what place soeuer? True Religion (saith he) is not visible. What then? yet men that professe true Religion are visible,The confutation of a ridiculous answere of Maister Sutcliffe. and by them may the continuance of true Religion be visibly deduced; and this was that which his aduersary meāt when he said, that the visible Church or Congregation of Englishmen, comming downe visibly from the tyme of S. Gregory vnto oures, and professing alwayes one and the selfe same faith & Religion, did make a [Page] visible Church, and therby a visible deduction of Catholike Religion, for the space of a thousand yeares to geather, and that this was not only to be seene or proued by the Popes myter, or cooles of monkes, (as this merry madd minister iesteth) but by all English Kings crownes, and coronations, by all parlament robes, and other honourable testimonyes of our nobility both spirituall and temporall, and by whatsoeuer other most authenticall proofe this scoffer can diuise. And who then will not laugh to see him, for ouerthrow of all this demonstration, to start out behind a bush, and say: Lett him shew vs yf he can, that true Religion is visible. Wherby yow may somewhat see into the man, and his witt & talent; Let vs passe to the second part of his booke.

The second part of this new edition conteyneth (as before hath byn shewed) a renewinge of his former chalenge,The secōd part of his edition. wherof yt shall not be needfull for me to speake any more in this place, hauinge declared before the causes and speciall motiue [...] of this needlesse renouation, only I will say, that whosoeuer will take the paynes to reade the briefe & learnedIntituled a briefe & cleere cō futation of avaine & vaunting chaleng of O. E. minister, &c. By VV. R. 1603. answere of VV. R. against the same, and the multitude of errors, ignorances, lyes, and frauds therin conuinced, he will blush in Sutcliffes behalfe, yf he be his frend, or laugh and insult ouer him yf he be his enemy: and whensoeuer he shall make [Page] his reply for the first edition already answered, I do not thinke but that VV. R. (yf the thinge it selfe be not to contemptible) will vouchsafe to returne his full reioynder, both to that and this, or at least wise to the most principall points of them both. Wherfore we shall leaue this, & passe to the third part, wherin we shalbe forced to stay and entertaine our selues somwhat longer, for examination of certayne places obiected against Maister Sutcliffe by E. O. and therby see his talent in answe [...]inge for himselfe, whether yt be better then for his client before, and albeit I shall not be able to stand vpon the siftinge of many places heere; yet will the vew of some two or three of the first, giue a good coniecture of all the rest.

Wherfore the third part of this new edition comprehendeth (as before hath byn signified) the shew of a certayne answere,The third part of this edition. or defence of Maister Sutcliffe his truth and honest dealing in 26. places, or therabout, obiected to him by E. O. as fraudulently handled. And albeit before he come to the combat, he do send forth those excessiue vaunts, and bragges, which in part you haue heard: yet in the conflict yt selfe, yow are like to see the poore man not a little daunted, and encumbred. The difference also of speach betweene him & his aduersary will appeare notoriously markeable,Sutcliffes immodestie. for so much as himselfe recytinge his aduersaryes words and [Page] arguments (for besides his owne relation we haue nothinge therof) doth scarse euer note hard speach or phrase, vsed by him against himselfe, wheras, the others answere is a perpetuall inuectiue of intemperate scoldinge, asse, dolt, dizard in grayne, franticke, lunatike, estaticall, owleglas, and like tearmes,Sutcliffes scolding. ate the ordinary and cheefe flowers of his phrases, and yet notwithstandinge yf yow stand attent to the matter, and marke what passeth in the combatt, yow will quickely lay the truth of these reprochefull phrases vpon Sutcliffe himselfe, and say that he deserueth them, for contemning so lightly, so graue, modest and learned an aduersary, as his seemeth to be.

And surely yf he be the man in deed, whome Sutcliffe aduentureth to name in some partes of his annswere, that is to say Maister Ph. VV. I haue knowne him for such, many yeares, and he may hold Sutcliffe to Schoole, as many yeares more in discretion, vertue, and true skill of diuinity, yf a man may iudge of him accordinge to his wrytings: but this shall appeare better by the examination of the places, which I [...]aue promised to discusse. And yet heere yow must be aduertised, that we shall not be able to make this examē so exactly in all points as otherwayes we would desire, for that we haue not the treatise yt selfe of E. O. his accusations, for which cause we are forced to [Page] alleage things only as Sutcliffe is content to cyte them, whome in euery thinge lightly we find both faulty, false, and faithlesse, and therfore yf he be conuinced heere by his owne relation, yow must be sure that yt is with more then euident reason.

The first place then obiected by E. O. against O. E. (now discouered to be Mathuw Sutcliffe) ys taken out of this chalenge of the first edition cap. 1. pag. 20. num. 10. The first places of Sutcliffes [...] where he auoucheth boldly; that the vse of exorcisuis, blowinge, salt, spittle, ballowed water, annoyntments, lights, and other such ceremonyes (as his words are) vvere not practized by the auncient Church, &c. Against which false assertion E. O. [...] obiecteth first Iohn Caluyn his maister, who confesseth these ceremonyes to be very ancient. And secondly he alleageth diuers Fathers, that make mentiō of the same, each one in their tymes, Origen, Nazianzen, Ambrose, and others. Lett vs see now how this minister will deliuer himselfe of this first charge, and do you marke his shifts, for neuer mouse in a trapp, nor dogge in a cannase did seeke more holes to runne out at, th [...] this slippery fellow.

First about Caluyn he seemeth to be most troubled, esteeminge more of his authority perhaps, then of all the rest alleaged, and therfore he saith. How leglasse doth affirme (for so he teasmeth his aduersary, without comparison more learned then himselfe) that [Page]Caluyn doth confesse yt (to witt the antiquity of these ceremonyes) but vvhat yf yt be true? Answere to Except pag. 1. and vvhat yf Maister Caluyn do not confesse that vvhich I say to be vntruth? Marke good reader, do you not see heere a sound beginninge of answeringe by contrary interrogations, to witt, what yf yt be true? and what yf yt be not true? but yow will aske me what in the end is his resolution about Iohn Caluyn. Yow shall heare yt many lines after, for in this place he saith no more. But neyther doth Caluyn, (saith he) nor any of these Fathers mention eyther the vse of the Apostles, or practise of the auncient Church; nor doth any Fathers speake of all these ceremonyes togeather, nor can the practise of the Roman Church, in the signes and formes of these ceremonyes be iustified by Fathers.

Lo heere 3. or 4. holes opened to runne out at;The holes opened by Sutcliffe to runne out at. first, that albeit Caluyn confesse these ceremonyes to be very auncient, and that the foresaid ould Fathers and Doctors do mention them in their writings: yet do they not mention the vse of the Apostles, or practise of the auncient Church before their dayes. Is not this a pretty shift? as though themselues were not sufficient witnesses of the ancient Church? The second is, that albeit the Fathers, though dispersedly as occasion was offered, mencioned these ceremonyes as vsed in the Church in their dayes, yet did they not sett them downe altogeather in one place. And is not this a more silly [Page] shift? as though the Fathers testimonyes of them in seuerall were nothing, except they did set them downe altogeather; by which reason, the Euangelists themselues may be reiected, for that they putt not downe all things togeather but many dispersedly, as occasion is offered to treat of them. The third is, that albeit these ceremonyes were in vse in the primitiue Church, yet not in the same particular signes and formes of words, as they are vsed now in the Roman Church; for so he hath a little after, that yf we wilbe obstinate, we must proue that the Fathers prayed in consecratinge lights, or vsed the same words in hallowinge water & salt, which is now set downe in the Roman Missall; & by these & other like shifts, which for breuityes sake I omitt, he putteth of all, that can be laid against him.

And it is as good a manner of answering, as a merry good fellow is said to haue vsed at Oxford, The interpretation of statutes by a good fellow studēt in Oxford. in a visitation to auoid the punishment for the breach of certayne Statutes of his colledge, in the beginninge of the late Queenes raigne; to witt, that when the statute was vrged against him, which did forbidd schollers vpon paine of expulsion to come in or go out ouer the walles; he answered: that is true when the gates be open: and then being vrged by another statute forbiddinge vnder the same paines to beare any weapons; he answered: that bearinge is vnderstood[Page]in mens hands, but not as hanginge at their girdills. And by these meanes was he able to answere fully all obiections made against him for breach of statutes. And so is Sutcliffe for falsifyinge of Fathers by the like manner of answeringe. And this shall suffise for the first place. In the end wherof notwithstanding he returneth againe to Caluyn as being more troubled with his authority, then all the other Fathers brought against him.

Maister Caluyn (saith he) doth not affirme any thinge contrary to my words, Ansvvere to except. pag. 5. for albeit he saith, that he knew how ancient some of these ceremonyes are, vvhich I deny to haue bene vsed in the first Churches; yet doth he not expresse how auncient they are, nor speake any thinge of their seuerall formes, &c. Lo shiftinge & shufflinge vpon Caluyn also. He did graunt, they were auncient, but did not tell how ancient; and Sutcliffe said before, that they were not practised in the ancient Church, and now he saith; that he denyed them to be vsed in the first Churches; and though thirdly yow should proue that they were vsed as Caluyn saith in the ancient Church; yet will he say that Caluyn doth not affirme them to haue bene in the first Churches of all; nor doth he specify the perticular formes of words, now vsed by the Roman Church. And so will he scape out that way; but now I would aske the discreett reader in good sadnes what scriptures, what Fathers, what most euident truth, may not be shifted of, and deluded [Page] by these kind of illusions. Let the reader but looke ouer the sixt Chapter of ceremonyes,Magdeburg. cent. 2. 3. 4. cap. 6. in the 2. 3. 4. and fifth centuryes of the Magdeburgians, and he shall see the antiquity of all these points against Sutcliffe in this place.

The second place obiected by E. O. to O. E. is in the same page, where he saith: It is no Catholike doctrine of the Councell of Trent, Examination of the secōd place. to denounce them accursed, that shall not hold baptisme to be necessary to Saluation. The words of the Councell are these in the fourth Canon concerning baptisme: Si quis dixerit baptismum liberum esse, Sess. 7. Can. 5. hoc est, non necessarium ad salutem, anathema sit. ‘Yf any man do affirme that baptisme is free, that is to say, not necessary to saluation, lett him be accursed.’ And it is to be vnderstood re vel voto, as generally all Catholike diuines do expound, to witt that a man be eyther really or actually baptized, or at least wise haue a desire therof, which desire is to be vnderstood in them that haue yeares of vnderstandinge, and are letted otherwise by some extrinsecal meanes from actuall receauinge the same. And what Christian man would reprehend this doctrine, or call it vncatholike, as Sutcliffe doth? E. O. assaulteth him with three sorts of weapons, as himselfe confesseth. First the authority of ancient Fathers, that affirme baptisme to be necessary to saluation; secondly the words of their owne cōmunion booke, [Page] where talking of the Sacrament of Baptisme, they say, that none is saued that is not regenerate by water. Thirdly out of his owne words, diuers tymes repeated in other places vpon other occasions, where he saith, that children by baptisme are receaued into the arke of Christ his Church. And againe; that want of baptisme sendeth infants to hell fire. Wherof his aduersary inferreth: ergo yt is necessary to saluation; for that neither out of the arke, nor in hell fire, can they be saued, which is the same doctrine that the Councell of Trent doth teach, and addeth a curse to them that deny yt. And these are the charges giuen; now lett vs see how Sutcliffe seeketh to runne out of the lists.

First he standeth much vpon the words lett them be accursed, and willeth vs to shew out of the Fathers that they do vse the word accursed: Answere to except. pag. 5. Neither doth any Father (saith he) affirme, that such are accursed that hold not baptisme to be necessary. Is not this an egregious foolery? as though the controuersie were of the word accursed, & not of the doctrine yt selfe, seing that Sutcliffes owne words in his accusation are:The first notable shift. VVhich doctrine (of the Councell) doth not (saith he) appeare to be Catholike, and yet now would he hide himselfe vnder the word accursed, as though the controuersie were not about the doctrine, but about the word, and yet of we will stand also vpon the curse, Sutcliffe cannot so escape, but must [Page] vndergoe the said curse in like manner, for he shall find the same both condemned and accursed expressely in the Councells of Carthage and Miliuitanum, at which S. Augustine was present: and vpon both the said Councells earnest request, the same was accursed also by Pope Innocentius the first, as testifyeth S. Augustine epist. 90. 92. & 93. And this is the first shift.

Secondly, of all the Fathers that spake of this matter against him, and S. Augustine by name in almost infinite places, he maketh his aduersary to alleage only one text out of the said Father (and we must beleeue him for that we haue not his aduersaryes treatise) S. Augustines place is lib. 3. de anima cap. 9. Aug. l. 3. de orig. animae ad Vinc. Vict. cap. 9. but cyteth not his words, yet aunswereth them thus: To S. Augustine I answere, that he speaketh of such as dy in originall sinne, and seeme to contemne baptisme. Asnamelesse shifting of, of S. Austen. and the rest of the Fathers. This is the most blockish refuge, that possibly can be imagined: for first all men before baptisme dy in originall sinne, and secondly S. Austen speaketh of infants that haue not capacity to contemne baptisme, his words are these: Noli credere, noli dicere, noli docere, &c. do not thou beleeue, do thou not say, do thou not teach, yf thou wilt be a Catholike, that infants preuented by death, before they be baptized, can come to receaue pardon of originall sinne. Behould then the forehead of Sutcliffe that would wype of both this, and infinite places of S. Augustine more expressely auouchinge [Page] the same doctrine by such a sensles sleight. Damnari animas [...] (saith he wryting to S. Hierome) [...] Aug. epist. 28. ad Hieron. si sine baptismo de corpore exierint, & sancta scriptura, & sancta testis est Ecclesia. that the soules are damned, that passe out of this world without baptisme, both holy scripture and holy Church is wittnesse: now would I demaund of Sutcliffe whether euer he read these places or not? yf he did not, then must he confesse himselfe to be ignorant or willfull, in that he would aunswere S. Augustine without lookinge vpon him: yf he did and aunswered as he doth, then is he both malitious and shameles.

But now thirdly to the authority of their communion-booke brought against him by E. O. sayinge; that none is saued, The 3. shift. that is not regenerate by baptisme, he answereth thus: It is impious to tye Gods grace to Sacraments, &c. VVe exclude not extraordinary courses. Wherin first (as yow see) he reiecteth plainly the authority of the said Communion-booke, that tyeth saluation to regeneration by baptisme, & secondly yow must remember, that the question, whether this doctrine of Sutcliffe of extraordinary courses, and sauinge men without baptisme be Catholike, & conforme to the vniuersall doctrine of ancient Fathers or noe, wherof he speaketh not one word, nor alleageth any one testimony to prooue his opinion Catholike, that is to say generall and vniuersall, but only saith: vve exclude not extroordinary [Page]courses, and telleth vs not who these: (vve) are, for that it cannot be the Church of England which set forth the said communiō booke, and consequently hauing neyther the auncient Church, nor our Church at this day, nor the Church of England to stand with him, I would gladly know how he will make his opinion Catholike, that is vniuersall. And thus much of the third shift.

The fourth is in his answere to his owne words, alleaged against him by E. O. whervnto he aunswereth thus:The fifth shift and cosenage I do confesse that infants dyinge in originall sinne are damned to hell fire, but I hope no man will say, that all that dy before baptisme, albeit they much desired yt, and beleeued in Christ Iesus, died in originall sinne. O slippery euasion? our questiō heere is Sir Mathew of infants that cannot desire baptisme. For as for others that be of age, and do desire yt, they may be saued by baptisme in desire, as before is graunted. Againe your immediate words before in this very sentence, doe speake of infants: for you say; I do confesse that infants are damned to hell fire; and what a fellow are yow then, which say in the second part of the same sentence, albeit they much desire yt and beleeue in Christ Iesus. Thirdly yow said a little before, that vvant of baptisme did soud infants to hell, and now yow say, that infants dying in originall sinne are damned to hell fire, which though in our sense is all one, that hold infants dying without baptisme, do dy in originall [Page] sinne, yet in your sense, that hold that infants may dy before baptisme, & yet freed from originall sinne, is altogeather differēt, & consequētly a meere consenage, so to alter your words for deceauing your reader.

But now we come to the last shifting answere of all, which is such, and so vnintelligible, as no man reading & considering the same can otherwise thinke, but that the author was either distempered, or bereaued of his senses, when he framed it. I shall relate it in his owne words, & lett the reader iudge of it.The fi [...]th absurde euasion vpon this place. He concludeth finally (saith he to wit E. O.) that seing the vvant of baptisme doth send infants to hell (these are Sutcliffes owne words before recyted) ergo baptisme is necessary to Saluation; but his consequent is weake and of no valew,Ansvvere to except. section. 4. pag. 13.for many dy for want of knowledge, and for want of small matters and not only of baptisme; and yet God is not necessarily tied to saue none, but such as are baptized: sicke men dody for want of phisicke, and yet is not phisicke absolutely necessary. In this place therfore the detector wandreth out of his way, & yet effecteth nothinge. Thus he; and heerwith endeth his whole defence vpon this second charge giuen him by E. O. and suerely yf he wrote yt not more then halfe a sliepe, or when he was greatly distracted in other matters, I know not what to thinke or say of yt. Many (saith he) dye for want of knowledge & for want of small matters, & not only of baptisme. Eyther he meaneth heere of eternall or temporall death? [Page] yf of eternall, how can yt be caused by the want of small matters? yf of temporall, how is it caused by want of knowledge? or how agrees it with the death caused by want of baptisme, which is eternall? how agreeth yt also with sendinge to hell, which is to endure euerlastingly? againe yf a man dy precisely or only for want of phisicke, then was phisicke absolutely necessary to saue that mans life, otherwayes he did not dy absolutely for want of phisicke; & so wheras he accuseth the detector for wandringe out of the way, and effectinge nothinge, this man reeleth vp and downe in the way, and effecteth his owne disgrace and shame with all readers and lookers on.

And now by the examination of these 2. places yow may see the fashion of this mans answering, and how easy a matter it is, and may be for any man to take vpon him the answering of all aduersaryes whatsoeuer in this manner; and by these two examples yow may ghesse at all the rest. And albeit I would gladly end heere, hauing byn longer then I purposed; yet can I not without examining one place more, which is the fourth in order, concerning prayers & sacrifice accustomed to be offered in ould time,Examination of the 4. place about masse & prayers for the dead. for such as were departed this life; in which place Maister Sutcliffe, being taken trip by E. O. and much pressed with the authorityes of diuerse ancient Fathers about that matter, he [Page] beateth himselfe vp and downe pittifully; to gett out of the lists, but cannot, and as a hare in the nett mesheth himselfe more and more by struglinge: Yow shall haue the commedy (for so it is in deed) as himselfe setteth it downe in his owne words, which we must beleeue, for that (as often hath bene aduertised) we haue not the treatise it selfe of E. O. and albeit the falshood of this minister discouereth yt selfe by so many wayes in euery thinge, as I am forced to stand in iealosy of all that he relateth of others, yf yt be not for his owne profitt; yet must we take his word, as I haue said, and therfore lett vs he are him tell the story.

VVhere I affirme (saith he) that the Papists say masses and prayers for soules departed, Answere to Except. pag. 11. and for the dead haue appointed speciall offices, and that my aduersary shall neuer be able to proue, that such masses, prayers, and offices haue ben frequented by true Catholiks, there howleglasse stormeth and sheweth great impatience. This is the beginning of his narration, which I cannot otherwise but suspect of calumniation, in that he talketh of impatience in his aduersary, for that he sheweth no particulars at all of any such matter; and he that shall see the euent of this combatt will iudge (I trow) the cause of impatience to fall rather vpon Sutcliffe then his aduersary, yf shame and confusion may cause impatience: lett vs passe then to the matter and points themselues as Sutcliffe relateth [Page] them. First E. O. alleageth (saith he) the testimony of S. Chrysostome, S. Chrysostomes sentence of prayinge for the dead in the masle. Chrysost. hom. 69. ad Pop. that saith, that not without cause it was ordeyned by the Apostles, that in the dreadfull misteryes commemoration should be made of the dead, knowinge therby that much gayne and profitt doth come vnto them: secondly he alleageth EpiphaniusAntloch. S Epiphanius. haeres. 75. and Augustine do haeresibus haer. 53. that seeme to say, that Aërius vvas condemned for denying that sacrifices and oblations were to be offered for the dead, or that prayers vvere to be made for them. Thirdly he alleageth Caluyns confession, that saith yt was a receaued custome thirteene hundred yeares agoe,10. Calni [...].to pray for the dead, and reproueth S. AugustineS. Augustine.and Monica for yt; finally he calleth out my brother WillettVVillett. for a wittnes against me, in that he saith, that diuers ancient wryters enclyned to maintayne and commend prayers for the dead. Hitherto Sutcliffe, relatinge the words of his aduersary E. O. now lett vs see how handsomely he will aunswere the same, and do yow note his art, for yt is excellent, and to the purpose.

First (saith he) in all these proofes is no mention of speciall offices for the dead. Sutcliffes first shift. Do yow see which way the hare will go away? as though the question or controuersie betweene vs and Protestants, were about speciall offices for the dead, and not whether we ought or may pray for the dead or noe? But yet do yow heare more of these his escapes, for he setteth them forth by articles.2. shift. Secondly (saith he) there can no masses be shewed like vnto the masses of [Page]Requiem aternam. Do yow see the folly of the man? Tell me, (I pray yow) what importeth yt, with what words the masse beginnes or endes (which the Church vpon particular deuotion may institute, change, or alter diuersly) so that the substance remayneth, which is, that soules departed were prayed for in S. Chrysostomes dayes in tremendis mysterijs, in the dreadfull misteryes, as his words are? and that deduced from the Apostles tyme, as by this very place of his heere alleaged is euident: so as the particular forme of the masse, little importeth, but only for Sutcliffe to runne out vnder the shaddow therof, for that neyther Catholike Priests now at this day, are bound to say masses beginning with Requiem aeternam. when they pray for soules departed, so they do remember the substantiall point, which is to pray for them in the masse,Masses for the dead in the primitiue Church. or ad altare (as S. Augustines phrase is) dum offertur pro eis sacrificium, August de cura pro mortuis cap 1. at th' Altar whilst sacrifice is offered for them, or as S. Cyprian before them both said, dum sacrificium pro dormitione corunt celebratur, whilst sacrifice is celebrated or solemnized for their departure.9. Conf. 110 Cyp. epist. 66 ad Clerum.

And these two examples shalbe sufficient to shew in generall his manner of euasions, what they are and how wittily inuented. For albeit he go forward in diuisinge diuers other, as that there were no Speciales missae votinae at these tymes, and that the commemoration made for the dead then, was but a bare recytall of their [Page]names, & other the like, without so much as offering to prooue any one point therof, or to alleage any one author before himselfe; yet do I not meane to stand vpon these toyes to refute them in particular, the iudicious reader will easily discerne of himselfe what substance they haue, wherfore lett vs passe to see how he answereth the foresaid authorityes of Fathers alleaged against him.

To the place of Chrysostome (saith he) I do answere, Sutcliffes shiftinge answere to Saint Chrysostome. that he meant only that the dead should be remembred in celebration of the misteryes, & was vncertayne what good yt did vnto them. But this last part of the comentarye is plaine contrary to the text yt selfe, which saith yf yow remember, that much gaine and profit doth come vnto them therby, though the words themselues as they ly in S. Chrysostome are yet more significāt, for that talking of the Apostles, whome he affirmeth to be the authors of this custome of praying for the dead in time of the deadfull misteryes, he saith: Sciunt enim indè illis multum contingere lucrum, vtilit atem magnam. The Apostles did know, that the soules departed were to receaue much gaine, and great vtility by that remembrance made for them. The former part also of the aunswere, is cleerly false, to witt, that S. Chrysostome meant only, that the dead should be remembred without praying for them, which the whole text, & his drift in the same place doth euidently conuince, and the very next words [Page] immediatly followinge vpon his former by me alleaged are these: Cum enim, &c. For when all the whole people meetinge togeather and holdinge vp their hands (in the Church) as also the Sacerdotalis plenitudo constiterit. fullnes of Priesthood being there with them, and that the dreadfull sacrifice is proposed, how can yt be but that vve shall mooue God, vvhen vve pray for them; to witt the dead, of whome he speaketh. Consider then good Reader) the shamelesse dealinge of this cauiller in peruertinge S. Chrysostome so manifestly: and yf thou wilt see more places, where that Father explaneth himselfe at large in this matter, read the 41. homily vpon the first to the Corinthians, and his 21. vpon the Acts of the Apostles, and then yow will confesse, that these are egregious companions, in so deluding their readers by shamefull shiftinge. And this of S. Chrysostome: now lett vs see what he saith to S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine about Aërius condemned of heresie well neere 1300. yeares past for denying sacrifice and prayers to be offered for the dead.

Vnto the places (saith he) of Epiphanius and Augustine (I answere) that Aërius was condemned for disalowinge the order of the Church in this commemoration for the dead, Hovv Sutcliffe shisieth of Epiphanius & S. Augustine about Aërius & prayer for the dead. and geuing thanks for their blessed end, and this is that prayer which Caluyn and we confesse to haue byn in the Church a long tyme. Heere yow see that he taketh vpon him to aunswere to three seuerall partyes, to witt S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine and Iohn Caluyn, and [Page] that with the same truth that he answered before S. Chrysostome: to witt, with plaine cosenage and shiftinge. For vnto the two Fathers he saith (yf he say any thinge) that they affirmed Aërius to haue bin condemned as an heretike, not for denyinge sacrifice or prayer for the dead, but for disallowing the order of the Church in their commemoration & geuing thanks for their blessed end, which comme moration he expoundeth a little before, to haue byn a recytall only of dead mens names, without any prayer for remission of sinnes, which yf yt were so, and that Sutcliffe will graunt as he seemeth to do, that Aërius was iustly condemned and held for an heretike, for disallowinge this commemoration or recytall of dead mens names, why do the Protestants also disallow the same, or at leastwise do not vse yt in England in their communion, and so by omittinge the same doe participate with him in the same heresie.

But all this is shamefull shifting, turning and wyndinge of a leud and lost conscience to deceaue the reader, for the words of Saint Epiphanius and S. Augustine are most plaine & euident that Aërius was condemned of heresie, for denyinge prayers and sacrifices to be offered for the dead:Aug. haer. 53. orare vel offerre pro mortius non oportere (saith S. Augustine) he held that prayers and oblations ought not to be made for the dead, and do yow note that this was [Page] not yeaster day but in the tyme of Constantine the great, when Aërius was condemned as an heretike by the whole Church of that tyme, for denyinge these points which our Protestants deny also, & blaspheme at this day. Magnum mundo malum (saith Epipbanius of Aërius) suriosus mente, Epiphan. haer. 75. elatus opinione, &c. Aërius was a great plague of the world, furious in mynd, and proud in his opinion, &c. What would he haue said of Sutcliffe at this tyme, who sheweth himselfe no lesse proud then he, and auoucheth the same heresyes, and many more besides?

But to returne to Sutcliffes answere to the forsaid two Fathers concerning Aërius. First yow may see & consider, that in his former relation of the matter, he vseth a sleight of his budget, when he saith: that Epiphanius and Augustine seeme to say that Aërius was condemned, &c. for they do not only seeme to say so, The beginning and cause of Aërius his heresie. but do absolutely affirme yt, and S. Epiphanius maketh a longe discourse therof, shewinge the beginninge and occasion of Aërius fall into this heresie, to witt, that he being a Priest, could not be made a Bishopp (which S. Augustine also toucheth) and that vpon this enuy, spite & mallice, he beganne to obiect against the cleargy, that they ought not to offer sacrifice or prayer for the dead, but only for the lyuinge, and consequently for the same was condemned, and held alwayes after for an heretike by the Church of that, [Page] and all other ensuinge ages. Secondly yt is another sleight to say, that Aërius was condemned for disallowing the order of the Church in this commemoration of the dead, as though Aërius his fault had not byn against any point of Catholike and vniuersall doctrine of the Church, but disobedience only against some Ecclesiasticall order; and therfore yf yow marke yt, he neuer nameth him heretike, as indeed disobedience to orders is not properly heresy, if it be not against some article of doctrine.Three seuerall shifts of Sutcliffe to deceaue his Reader. And all these are shifts and conueyances of Sutcliffe to dazell the readers eyes, wheras the forsaid Fathers say plainly, that he was condemned for hereticall doctrine. And S Chrysostome, as you haue heard, before alleaged, affirmeth the contrary doctrine of prayinge for the departed in tyme of the dreadfull misteryes, to haue come downe from the Apostles themselues, and the same in effect saith Epiphanius,Ibid. pag. 13.traditione a patribus accepta, by tradition receaued from their forefathers.

The third shift is, that Sutcliffe in this his shufflinge aunswere foisteth in these words, commemoration of the dead, and geuinge thanks for their blessed end: as thongh Saint Epiphanius or S. Augustine had said or meant so: which is quite contrary, for they expressely affirme, that this commemoration was to pray for them, that is to say for those that are synners, and haue need of our prayers, which [Page] Epiphanius expresseth in these words:Ibidem. pro iust is & precatoribus memoriam facimus, peccatoribus quidem misericordiam Dei implorantes: we make commemoration of iust men, and for synners, desiringe Gods mercy for those that be in synne, &c. Which is the very same that S. Chrysostome distinguisheth in the place before alleaged of his 69. homily to the people of Antioch: that some are greater sinners, some lesse, some perfect and holy. But S. Augustine (accordinge to his manner) more cleerly & perspicuously in these words: Non omnibus prosunt,Aug Enchirid. cap. 110.&c. ‘our prayers and sacrifices offered for the dead, do not profitt all sorts of men; And why do they not profitt all but only for the difference of life, which euery man hath lead in this body? Wherfore when sacrifices eyther of the Altar, or of any other almes are offered vp for Christians departed, yf they be very good men, for whome they are offered, they are thanke geuings,Three sorts of men desceased. & for them that are not very euill, they are propitiations or appeasings with God; but yf they be very wicked, then though they be no helpes to the dead: yet are they some kind of comfort for the liuinge, and vnto those deceased, whome they do profitt, they are profitable in this, that eyther they procure them full remission, or at least wise, that their punishment or condemnation, be therby made more tolerable.’

[Page] So S. Augustine, who explaneth as yow see most perspicuously the Catholike doctrine, and cutteth of all shifts from cauillinge heretiks, about the different sorts & qualityes of men desceased, & with what distinction the Catholike Church doth make commemoration for them in the publike sacrifice, either by praying, or praising God for them. And thus much of his shuffling and shifting away the Fathers authorityes, lett vs now come to consider, how he will put of his Maister Caluyn, Hovv Sutcliffe shifteth of Caluin and VVill [...]tt. and his Brother VVillet alleaged also yf yow remember against him. But as for VVillett he maketh him not worthy of a seuerall answere, but presumeth him to be of his opinion in all points, and the like he would also force Caluyn vnto, for that hauinge said, that the commemoration of the dead (for deniall wherof Aërius was condemned) was but a thankesgeuing for their blessed end, he saith immediately: And this is the prayer which Caluyn and we confesse to haue ben in the Church a longe tyme, but maketh nothinge for Howleglasse his purpose. Which I thinke also, nor yet for Sutcliffes purpose, yf he haue any purpose but only to play the foole, and to mocke and delude his Reader. For first we haue shewed, that Aërius was not condemned for denying thankesgiuing, but sacrifice & prayer for the dead. And secondly Caluyn is not alleaged by E. O. as confessinge only the vse of thankesgeuing, or bare recytall of [Page] their names to haue byn in vse aboue thirteene hundred yeares past, but of prayinge for the dead, and for reprouing S. Austen, and S. Monica for that custome, and how chaunceth then that Sutcliffe aunswereth not vnto this obiection, which himselfe had sett downe before with his owne pen, but slideth away in silence, as though he had neuer spoken yt, nay he dissembleth and omitteth the quotation of Caluyns place, to the end we should not find yt out, but I haue thought good to note the place in the margent, whose words are;Calu. 3. Iustitat. cap. 5. §. 10. ante mille & trecentos annos vsu receptum fuit, vt precationes fierent pro defunctis: yt was receaued by common custome aboue a thousand, and three hundred yeares agoe, that prayers should be made for the desceased: and a little after he saith, that they were all deceyued in that doctrine.

Now then do yow looke in Sutcliffes face, and see what countenance he will set vpon this notorious cogginge: this is that prayer (saith he) vvhich Caluyn, and vve confesse to haue byn in the Church a long tyme, but maketh nothinge for howleglasse. What prayer Syr? commemoration only of names with thankesgeuinge? This first is no prayer at all. Neyther do eyther the Fathers aforecited, or Caluin call this a prayer, or treat of this, as by there words yow haue seene. How then can it be said that Caluyn, Sutcliffe, and his brother VVillett, doe agree in this confession of this prayer [Page] to haue bene in the Church for so longe time? But if he speake of true prayer in deed for the dead, as both Caluyn and the Fathers do, then how maketh this nothinge for his aduersaries purpose, whome fondly he tearmeth by the name of Hovvleglasse; himselfe being the true owle indeed, and worthy to be bayted by all the byrds of the ayre, for his ridiculous behauiour in this his answere; for yt maketh expressely and directly for E. O. his purpose and principall cōclusion, to witt that prayers for the dead, were frequented by true Catholiks aboue thirteene hundred yeares gone, except Sutcliffe will say, that the cheefe Fathers of that age were no true Catholiks, or that Aërius was no true heretike.

And this shall suffice for this tyme and place, though I might presse the poore fellow with many other absurdityes, and ridiculous refuges in his defence of this charge, as that he leapeth disorderly to a place of S. Chrysostome, Hom. 30. in epist. ad Phillippens. where he saith, that iust men whether lyuinge or dead are vvith Christ. Which is true in spiritt, and then to another place, where he saith;Hom. 69. ad Pop. Antio [...]hen. that iust men dying, see God face to face; which is true in the first sort of those three before mentioned by Saint Augustine, which is yf they be very iust. And yet out of these two places would this simple disputer inferre, that Saint Chrysostome beleeued not purgatory, which is expressely agaidst [Page] S. Chrysostomes owne words and discourse, in this very place by Sutcliffe alleaged, but lett vs passe to his conclusion & so make an end.

Lastly (saith he) in auncient tyme, A notorious vntrut he about praying a for Patriarkes and not to them. they made commemoration of the patriarks, of the blessed Virgin, of the Apostles, Martyrs, and others, now they pray to them, not for them as in tymes past. And why doth not this simple shamelesse fellow alleage some one author, some one testimony, wittnesse, or authority for so bold an assertion? Now they pray to them, and not for them (saith he) as in tymes past: But what auncient Father, Doctor or historiographer can he cite, that euer said so, or mētioned any such practise eyther of himselfe or others, that prayed for the blessed Virgin, Apostles, Martyrs, or the like in those ancient dayes? But we haue manifest proofes to the contrary, that they were prayed vnto in the masse of old tymes, not prayed for. S. Cyrill B. of Hierusalem that liued aboue twelue hundred yeares agone, hath these words talking of the masse:Cyrill. Cath. Myst. 5. Cùm hoc sacrificium offerimus, &c. VVhen vve offer vp this sacrifice, vve do make mention by name of those which died before vs, and first of Patriarks, Prophetts, Apostles, and Martyrs, that God vuill receaue our petitions by their prayers and deprecations for vs: Behould heere, S. Cyrill did make a commemoration of the Patriarks, Prophetts, Apostles and Martyrs, as praying vnto them, and not for them, in his masse and sacrifice.

[Page] The like saith S. Basill both in his liturgy and elswhere affirminge the very same, for that speakinge of the forsaid cōmemoration of Patriarks, Prophetts, Apostles, &c. in his masse he prayeth thus: [...]asel. liturg. & in Anaph. Syriaca. Per cos audeamus ad te accedere & tremendo hoc sacro munere defungi. Let vs presume by them and their intercession to come vnto thee (o Lord) and to exercise this dreadfull and holy office. And finally S. Augustine, not only affirmeth this doctrine, but yeldeth a reason also therof, to witt of the different commemoration, that is made in the masse of desceased Saints, and disceased sinners in these words:Aug. tr [...]ct. 84. in Ioan & serm. 17. de verbis Apostol. Ideo quippe ad ipsam mensam, &c. Therfore do we not at the Altar make like commemoration of Martyrs, as we do of others that are desceased in peace; so as vve pray not for them, but rather that they do pray for vs. So S. Augustine. And the same he repeateth againe in diuers other places; so as this is cleerly conuinced against Sutcliffe by testimony of antiquity which he presumeth to name, but cyteth no wittnesse at all.

Now then to conclude this whole matter,A consideration about Sutcliffes maner of vvryting. lett the Reader by this little make some ghesse, what he may iudge of the whole. And yf in the examination of these two or three places only, so many falshoods, frauds, sleights, shifts, contradictions, and impudencyes haue ben discouered, what would be found, yf the whole number of six and twenty obiected by E. O. should be discussed? [Page] yea the whole chalenge diligently skanned? consider also I pray thee good reader, whether in defence of these 9. places Sutcliffe haue not vsed the highest degree of falshood before described of witting & willing deceyte, seing that before he did sett downe this article in his first chaleng about masses and prayers for the dead, yt is probable, that he had read some auncient Fathers that made mention therof, and yet would he auouch that no true Catholike had vsed the same, but being reprehended for yt, and told of his lyinge by his aduersary, & diuers Fathers cited for proofe therof, and his owne Maister Caluyn, and his brother VVillett for acknowledginge the same, yet commeth he now to affirme and print yt againe in his second edition of his chalenge, and dissembleth, peruerteth and shifteth of the authorityes both of the said Fathers, & Caluyn himselfe, as though they had neuer ben obiected against him. And what will yow say to this manner of dealinge? will you aduenture your soule with such a man? or will yow giue creditt any more to his fond crakinge or vauntinge aboue mentioned?

But we are ouerlong in this third part,The 4. part or principal member of this edition. & cannot well get out of it, through the multitude of aduantages that Sutcliffe geueth vs in pursuinge him in this his chase of defendinge himselfe; yet must we sound retreat, [Page] and say only a word or two of the fourth part of this his new booke, conteyninge, as yow haue heard, a heap or fardell of recriminations gathered togeather against auncient Popes, Councells, synods, historiographers, and other Catholike wryters, and lastly against Cardinall Bellarmyne, Cardinall Baronius and F. Parsons; by which ostentation of names and authors, he would make men beleeue, that all the world were full of corruptions and falsifications in wrytinge, and consequently that those of his, and of his fellowes are little to be respected; but when the occasion shall come to aunswere this second edition at large, the differences wil be shewed, and how vainly this little enuious mouse, hath gone about to gnibble at Catholike authors edges of their garments, & particularly at the wrytings of the most famous, learned, and honourable men of our tyme, Cardinall Bellarmine, and Cardinall Baronius, who haue so beaten downe heresy with their most excellent works, as by allusion we may say of them in respect of Sutcliffe, ipsi conterunt caput tuum, tu vero insidiaris eorum calcaneis, they haue broken thy head, and thou doest byte at their heeles. Of the third which is F. Persons and the obiections heere brought against his wrytings, we had thought to haue spoken somewhat more particularly, but lacke of tyme and roome maketh vs also to albreuiate this, yet [Page] somewhat for example sake shalbe said.

Sutcliffe nameth two books of his,Sutcliffes obiectiōs to two of F. Persons bookes. the first entituled. A briefe discourse conteyninge reasons, why Catholiks refuse to go to Church. The next is called: A Christian directory, and commonly knowne by the name (saith he) of Parsons Resolution. Against the former booke he bringeth two reasons, as wise as his head can deuise: the one, that he promised to make three parts of that booke, and performed but one,Ansvvere to except. pag. 182. abusinge (saith he) both his frends and aduersaryes with his false promises: The other reason is (saith he) for that to persuade men not to go to Protestāts Church must needs stand vpon this supposition, that the Popes Religion is true, and therfore he should first haue proued this principle before he had gone about to giue reasons, to stand stedfast therin. But now (saith he) yf Parsons can say nothinge why the Religion in England is not Catholike and Apostolicall, then all his reasons fall to the ground. These two reasons do well declare what a man of worth Sutcliffe is. And not to shew on my parte distrust in the Readers iudgement, I will not go about to refute such vanityes. For if this last reason haue any force, yt proueth also that no Protestant Preacher or wryter, may exhort any of his Religion to constancy, perseuerance, patience, humility, or any other vertue, except he proue first all that Religion to be true. But lett vs passe to the other booke, perhaps his [Page] obiections wilbe stronger against that.

His directory also (saith he) is a most idle, Ansvverē to except. ibid. and vayne discourse (so idle and vaynè do seeme all treatises of piety to this prophane minister) yt should consist of three parts, but as the fashion is, of three promised, he keepeth backe two, performeth the third very simply. Eight fond obiectiōs against the booke of resolutiō. This is his censure of that booke. And presently (as he is fertile in inuention, though foolish in his election) he commeth with eyght choise accusations against yt. The first is, for that he proueth 1 there is a God, and that Christian Religion is true aboue all other Religions, and that he treateth against dispayre of Gods mercyes, tentations, and too much feare of persecution: VVhich rather doth hinder a man (saith Sutcliffe) from leading a Christian life, then help him 2 to resolue. The second. That the greatest part (saith he) is taken out of Loartes, Stella, Granatensis,3 and other such authors. TheThis was only set downe for yovv and yours to dravv them frō atheisme third. for that yt argueth Catholikes to be badd Christians, that they must be taught there is a God, hell, heauen, and the like. The fourth: That Sutcliffe doth not find, that yt hath made hitherto any one Christian, or directed him to the way of lyfe, but many yong men to the gallowes. The fifth that yt 4 hath not brought Father Persons him selfe yet 5 to a good resolution, nor to enter into Religion. 6 The sixt. For that his discourse to proue that there is a God, and but one true Religion, and that there is a heauen, & hell [Page] among Christians already well persuaded, is impertinent. The seauenth. For that yt 7 is diuided into speculation and practice: as yf (saith he) a man could practise that is not entred into the exercise of Religion; or as yf resolution were not farre differēt from practise. The eight & last,8 for that yt is fraught with idle discourses, & the principall point so weakely proued, that yt will rather make Christians to doubt of Religion, then atheists to beleeue.

These are Sutcliffes reasons,The conclusion. which shew the mans depth; and conforme to these, are his obiections picked out of the forsaid two books about allegation, wherof I would gladly haue sett downe some halfe adozen at least for example, so to haue seene the weight and substance therof, but that I am forced to make an end, referring my selue to a fuller examē when his reply shall come forth. Now then only I am to aduertise the Reader, that he weigh with himselue what manner of man Sutcliffe is, in these his wrytings, he vaunteth and chalengeth as yow see, as yf he were agyant, and when he cometh to the gryping he is iust nothing: he offereth to answere for all, as Iewell, Fox, Peter Martyr, Ridley, Fulke, Sutcliffe a Knight of the post in being suerry for many. Plessis Mornay, & whome els yow will besides, but when yt cometh to the triall, he is able neither to make good for them, nor for himselfe, and is iust like a knight of the post, that will offer to be surety for ten thousand pounds, when all his [Page] owne substance is not worth ten shillings.

His writings are loose, ragged, negligent, barr [...]n, obscure, and vnsauery, without substance either of learning, prudēce, sharpnes, or good stile:A censure of Sutcliffes writings. yf yow looke them ouer, yow shall find them for the most part fraught, & furnished only with bare assertions of his owne, cast out without proofe or authority, wittnesse, or testimony, in margent or text; except in his vaine and vaunting chalenge, where hauing to speake of matters testified by Catholike wryters both ancient and new, he maketh ostentation of many quotations, and allegations of authors, (though little to the purpose) and might haue done of many more out of euery one of his fellowes note-bookes; but when he goeth from that fountaine, & must add any thing of his owne inuention, there shall he find him, very cutted, obscure, dry, and barren, as may appeare by his aunswers before examined, both of Plessis Mornay & himselfe: and yow may see the same confirmed more largely, by only lookinge ouer the pages of his feeble defence of Syr Francis Hastings, now battered againe to the ground by the recharge of the VVarn-word.

The principall talents then of this man seeme to be extreeme vaunting and rayling, wherof I haue laid yow downe some examples before, and might do many more especially in the later, to witt of rayling, for [Page] I thinke scarse euer any ciuill man tooke pen in hand to wryte, with that a cerbity & scurrility of stile, which this man vseth against all with whome he dealeth, and seemeth to putt his cheefest glory therin. And not to goe out of the present example in hand of his answere to E. O. who being a modest man hath dealt with him very temperatly, for so much as we can gather by Sucliffes owne reply: yet harken I pray yow what manner of speech and threat he vseth towards him, and to all Catholikes for his cause, and this for some kind of rusticity (as yt seemeth) committed against Sutcliffes person: I will sett (saith he) a fellow to answere him, (to witt Maister Sutcliffe Sutcliffes raylinge in Praefat. to the Reader. himselfe vnder some maske or vizard) that shall so curry him, and his consorts the Papists, and that shall in such sort ripp vp their villanyes, that the whole fraternity of asses shall curse him for brayinge so vnciuilly. Consider I pray yow, whether this be not a fitt speach for a minister of malediction? yf E. O. should returne vpon him againe and say: I could ripp vp also for my part, yf I were delighted with this kind of reuenge, for I know what hath passed both in England, Ireland, and other Ilands, I know of the matter of Castle Cary; of the arraignment and sentence geuen in Dublyn; the knights that did accuse or beare wittnesse; the words touching the bowling greene of Exceter, what they were, whome they concerned, the manner of the [Page] mans returne from Ireland, & dep [...]rtement in England, and other such particularityes: Yf E. O. (I say) should make such a reply, & offer to stand to yt in deed, and to take out records as he may; what would O. E. gaine by this vnciuill prouocation, of the whole fraternity of asses? but these so vntemperate and vnaduised speaches, are but impotencyes of an vnbrideled mynd, and therfore rather to be pittyed or contemned, then reuenged or further answered, except further necessity be laid vpon vs therof.

Wherfore to end all at this tyme,Sutcliffes barbarous conclusion against Catholikes blood. Ansvvere cap. 13. we do pardon also his vncharitable conclusion, exhortinge the prince that then was, and the State to shed more bloud of Priests, Iesuits, and Catholiks; impiety proceedinge of the same passion, and distemperature of iudgement and affection which the other did, we passe ouer with like contempt: we disdayn in like manner his false and wicked, yf not madd accusation, that the last noble Queene of Scotland of most pious memory, was ruyned by Priests and Iesuits; wheras no man knowinge the affayres of England can be ignorant, but that whilst Priests and Iesuits, and all other English Catholiks forrowed hartily, & prayed most earnestly for her Maiestyes preseruation, this fellow and his companions barked dayly at her most bitterly and spitefully, and neuer ceased or could be satisfied vntill they had seene her [Page] most noble blood shed for stoppinge their mowthes, yea and for drawinge her into more certaine daunger therof, their custome was to vrge Priests and other Catholiks at their very deathes, and places of execution, when they prayed for the Queene, to explane what Queene they meant, either that of Scotland, or the other of England, so iealous they were of Catholike Priests affections towards that renowned Princesse, now with God in glory, whose death and other iniuryes, yf his diuine iustice shall thinke conuenient not to leaue vnpunished: we beseech him, that yt may fall rather vpon such as were the styrrers thervnto, then vpon others deceaued by them, and vpon those also rather in this life temporally, then in the next euerlastingly; and so to his high tribunall we commit the whole.

FINIS.

Information about this book

Title statement

A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.

Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.

Edition statement

1604

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A09107

ID [STC]

STC 19413

ID [STC]

ESTC S121884

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99857043

ID [PROQUEST]

99857043

ID [VID]

22711

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A09107)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 22711)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1078:05)

Source

— A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D., Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610..

Extent

237, [1] p.

F. Bellet],. [Saint-Omer :: Imprinted vvith licence. Anno M. DC. IIII. [1604]. (N.D. = N. Doleman, i.e. Robert Parsons.) (Place of publication and printer's name from STC.) (Also issued as part 3 of STC 19416: Parsons, Robert. A treatise of three conversions of England.) (Reproduction of the original in the Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.