A DISCOVRSE OF THE CONFE­RENCE HOLDEN before the French King at Fon­tain-bleau, betweene the L. Bishop of Eureux, and Munsieur du Plessis L. of Mornay, the 4. of May 1600. Concerning certaine pretended corruptions of Authors, cyted by the sayd Munsieur du Plessis in his booke against the Masse.

Faithfully translated out of the French.

LONDON, Printed by E. A. for Mathew Selman and William Ferbrand, and are to be solde in Fleete-streete, next the Inner Temple gate. 1600.

A true discourse of the conference held at Fontaine-Bleau the 4. of May. 1600.

SInce that the Lord Bishop of Eu­reux perswadeth himself, that the dishonor and ouerthrowe of the Doctrine Preached in the refor­med Churches, of the Realmes of Fraunce, Almaine, England, Scot­and, Denmarke, Swethen and Po­and, &c. Dependeth on the con­futation of the Lord Plessis booke, written vpon the Sacrament of the Eucharist (which doc­trine is maintained by this book, as it may be gathered frō his priuate letters to the L. Ples [...]is.) As if the Ministers of all the Kingdomes in this last endeuour, had put all their heads into one body, to be cut off by this new Hercules re­turned from hel. And sith for hauing onely deflowred cer­taine places of the said book, he boasteth of the victory, & causeth Te Deum to be sung in euery place: Let no man blame vs if by this our writing, wee oppose the truth a­gainst those falshoods which haue beene published, since we are thereunto bound by the duety which we owe vn­to God, and for the instruction of his people.

Truth it is, that since L. Plessis booke of the institution of the Sacrament was published, some haue found out no other meanes to trauerse the course thereof, then by pub­lishing [Page 2]both in word and writing, that the places by him alleadged, as wel of holy Scripture as the Fathers, were falcified; yeelding sufficient testimony by this their sinister subtilty, that his allegations auerred & iustified, the doctrine he professed should be both cleare, certaine and inpugnable.

Neuerthelesse he patiently endured this slaunder, partly endeuouring himselfe to ouer-throw it by his answeres, partly trusting that of it selfe at last it would giue place to verity: Vntill he had intelligence that the bruite thereof had come to the Kings eares, yea and got so great creadit as he verily beleeued it. Wherupon agreeued (yea & that iustly) he desired that hee might come to his iustification. And for that there were some that laboured to diuert cer­taine Gentlemen of the religion vnder this pretext; he tooke occasion to request the L. Bishop of Eureux by a priuate letter, that both of them might ioyne together in a most humble petition to his Maiesty, that it might please him to appoint Commissaries, before whome the booke might be therby examined, to whom in especially he ad­dressed himselfe, because the said Bishop was the princi­pall author of the said euill report, & wrote ordinarily to his friends in disgrace of the said L. of Plessis; & by certain his suffragans published the same from house to house, & as it were from doore to doore. By this meanes the L. of Plessis promised himselfe, that the said L. Bishop vpon this priuate letter sent vnto him, by the handes of his brother, would without any further trouble, repayre to Paris; wher­as by accord of both parties, his Maiesty might ordaine such a one of his Priuy counsell as he thought most fitte to deliuer him a true report of their conference. In which case the matter being manadged with this silence and dis­creation, his Maiesty might haue no other interest then the knowledge of the truth: (A care worthy of so a great [Page 3]King and the tytle which he beares) to know aswell the good as the euill fayth of a seruitour, accused of falshood before him: a cryme alwayes haynous, but more hay­nous in respect of the subiect, being matter of Conscience and Diuinity.

Contrariwise the said Lord Bishop tooke a quite oppo­site course, ratling out vppon this priuate and modest let­ter, a publique and insolent booke which he caused to be Imprinted in his owne house, and published at Paris: by which, of this perticuler controuersie, he made a pub­lique quarrell, and of two persons, two factions; calling all the Catholique Romaine Church to warrant: interres­sing the King in all that he might in this cause, and princi­pally to diswade the examining of the booke proposed by the Lord of Plessis, whose iustification he knew too well that he could not ouer-throw. For which cause hee articled falsely against the said booke, to draw vnto him­selfe the tytle and quallity of a Plaintife, and vndertooke to approoue in presence of his Maiesty, fiue hundred heynous and grose errours, manifest and without Hiper­bole: yea such sayth he as they may be iudged by the one­ly looking on, vpon the opening of the booke, without entring into the iudgement of the sence. And notwith­standing he offered himselfe further, besides that to make it appeare, that there was not in that book one onely place but was eyther falsely, impertinently, or vnprofitably al­leaged. These were the very wordes (which the reader may note) vpon what ground hee generally taxed the whole booke.

To this booke notwithstanding the L. of Plessis in re­spect of the King, and according to his owne nature, an­swered with great modesty, reuealing the matter as much as in him lay from a publique to a perticuler triall twixt the Bishop and himselfe, from partyes by him pretended, [Page 4]to their seuerall persons. So that by some, this same simpli­city of his answere was scarce wel interpreted. But for that he knew that the sayd L. Bishop had sent a Coppy of that which he had published, and written with aduantage en­ough vpon the same subiect to his Maiesty, he was coun­sailed likewise to write vnto him, beseeching him most humbly to vouchsafe to enter into the approbation of his sayd book, by the grant of certayne Commissaries of suffi­cient knowledge, that might haue the charge to examine the same, from the one ende to the other: in publishing whereof he protested that he aymed at no other end, but to prepare his subiects heartes, and make them capable of the seede of so holy a reformation in his time.

The Doctors of Sorbonne likewise were sodainely in­censed against this proposition, apprehending a serious examination of this booke, and perceiuing well in theyr consciences, that it could not take effecte, but to their do­mage and indignity: They appointed certaine Deli­gates amongst them to make relation hereof to the popes Nuncio: who fore-seeing too wel to what inconuenience it might tend, sought out the King, to certifie him hereof; Beseeching his Maiesty that it might passe no further: and laying before his eyes the issue therof: Annexing alwaies to all that he had vrged, most instant complaints against the Author and the booke. But hereupon there were some that assured him, that the matter should be carried with such Art, & with such aduantage for the Church of Rome, as the Pope could not but content himselfe therewith, and namely in these wordes: that the disgrace should light vpon the Heretiques, and hence-forward the Nuncio re­mained satissied, who before had been in great perplexty, which is to that ende reckoned vp, that the sequell of the history may be better be comprehended.

Some few dayes after the Bishop of Eureux came to [Page 5]the Court, where hee was entertained of his Maiesty with an extraordinary applause; euery houre whispering in his eare, suggesting him with all those subtilties, w c either hee could inuent or deuise, to bring his enterprize to a good end. On the other side the Lord of Plessis, in what place soeuer hee presented himselfe, eyther his Maiestie spake not vnto him, or if he did, it was so coldely, that he might manifestly perceiue, that hee tooke small pleasure to talke with him; yet notwithstanding the meanes of this pretended conference, was concluded vpon twixt him and his opposite, and the King thought it good to appoint the conference to bee held at Fontaine-Bleau, during the ad­iourniment of his Parlament.

The Lord of Eureux arriued at Fontaine-Bleau the 27. of Aprill, and the L. of Plessis the 28. at noone, vncom­maunded, or vncalled: yet notwithstanding the L. of Eu­reux would already demaund an Acte of his compatitiue against him, for defaulting in his appearance but one day; and yet the Commissaries aboue named, were sent, the day appointed for conference; and all this without eyther giuing him in word or deed notice thereof, yea at the pre­senting himselfe before the King, he neuer spake vnto him of it, nor any one in the behalse of his Maiesty.

These proceedings together with the precedent, be­ing so extraordinary, made him bethinke himselfe; so that hee humbly besought the King to graunt him audience; which hee did the last Sunday in Aprill, after some de­layes.

His purposes were, that nothing had more pierced his heart, then when he was giuen to vnderstand, that his Ma­iesty did beleeue that hee had vsed corruption, especially in a thing so Sacred. That this his iust griefe made him de­sire the meanes whereby his Maiesty might conceiue the truth, which was very easie for him to doe, if so be he had [Page 6]no other intention to know the same: that if the affayres had been contynued in theyr first termes, he should not be in any sort greeued; for that if they had beene managed with silence and discreation, his Maiesty should haue had no other interest, but to haue iudged betweene his vp­ryghtnes and the others slaunders. But since that in truth, by the cunning of the Bishop of Eureux it had been pub­lyshed through the whole Realme, and preuayled so farre as both the Pope and his Nuncio were pryuy thereto, hee saw well that his Maiesty should be made beleeue that it highly concerned him, to sort this action to such an ende whatsoeuer it cost him, that the Pope might be conten­ted, and the Romaine Church aduantaged: Consequent­ly that hee had this ill hap to haue his iudge interessed in this cause, to haue his King and his Master for a party op­posite. That if the question were but of his life and honor; he would cost them at his feete, and Sacrifice them to his seruice: But in that he was bound to the defence of truth, wherin Gods honor was in question, he humbly besought hys Maiesty to pardon him, if he sought iust and reasona­ble meanes to warrant and defend himselfe: and that ther­of his Maiesty had sufficiently informed him, by the aun­sweres which he made him from time to time, that he was truely tryed by the nature of his affayres, to oppose him­selfe against him. The motiues which the L. of Plessis pro­posed to his Maiesty at that time, were these.

The 1. correspondent to the first proposition by him propounded to the L. of Eur. that it might please his Ma­iesty to giue charge to the Commissaries to examine & in order to verifie, al the places of his book, aswel for the opē ­ing of the truth, as the manifestation of his faith & honor, & the rather because the L. Bish. had generally condem­ned his whole booke. This offer his Maiesty was coun­selled to reiect, in that hee was certified by those that di­rected [Page 7]this affayre, that it appertained to the L. of Eu. who accused him to impugne such places as him list, wheras if the matter had bin handled vprightly, the publike interest was to know the truth of the book, & to proceed likewise in termes of iustice, that it ought not to be iudged as a cō ­tract, by some clause; but rather to bee examined as an in­quest, by the deposition of wytnesses, that is to say of the Places of y e Fathers; amongst which if there were some one lesse answerable, it myght not [...]o [...] al that weakē the solide proofe & perfection of the rest. But the truth was, that the perpetual lustre of the truth in the aprobatiō of the places, had made cauil & reproach for shame to hide their heads.

The 2. was, that because some one pretēded that the first was too long, that the Commiss. should examine onely the places of the booke which should be impugned as false by the L. Bish & that those w c he excepted not against, shuld be held for iustifiable as touching the letter; the intire au­thority remaining in the L. of Eur. to examine the sence.

A necessary meanes if it were sought, to attaine vnto the knowledge of the truth, since that it was the question as e­uer to examine y e faith of the L. of Plessis, in the allegations of his book: yet alwaies without preiudice of the doctrine of the Romaine church, since that the L. of Eureux was al­waies in a readines to dispute vpon the sence. Yet was this reiected no lesse then the former, and for the same cause; because the places not impugnable, wold haue bin so ma­ny, as they wold haue ouershadowed the rest; & so strong & eminent y t in presence of their light, some places sought out here & there, eyther indifferent, or of smal importance could not haue appeared.

The 3. that if these two were refused, it might please his Maiesty to appoint the L. Bish. to deliuer to the L. of Ples. such exceptions as he had against his book, but at least the 500. hainous, euidēt & litteral vntruths by him pretēted, & [Page 8]without ouer-vrging them, to the end that the said L. of Plessis might prepare himselfe to giue satisfaction: the which he offered to performe in ten daies, and to the end that no time might be lost, to begin from the next mor­ning, and continue euery day after, in explaining (in his Maiesties presence) so many of his errours as the houres & times would affoord him leasure.

A matter practised ordinarily in all iustice, grounded vpon the offers made vnto him, and the expresse written words of the L. of Eureux, by reason he saith that he hath coated them already: yet contrariwise calumnious, if hee had so said, yea that assuredly in that hee hath them not. And yet notwithstanding all this reiected, vnder some fri­uolous aspectes alleadged by the said L. of Eureux, which some held for sound reasons; that for hauing named 5. hun­dred, he was not bound to particulate them. That he kept his word if he nominated but ten, or lesse; and further that it were too much trouble for him to write them, and such like.

But truely by a former resolution betweene those that managed this affayre, it was concluded, to giue the Lord of Eureux whatsoeuer aduantage he might desire: and to de­ny the sayd Lord of Plessis of whatsoeuer Iustice he could require; so that he might scratch either by right or wrong, some number of places chosen out of fiue thousand and more, to inferre an appearaunce of preiudice against the whole booke.

Thus this three meanes were in all humility proposed vnto the King, by the Lord of Plessis, not onely by word of mouth, but by a most humble petition also, the which his Maiesty commaunded him to giue to the Lord Chaun­cellor. But after he had preferred the equitye of his cause to his Maiesty by all these reasons, which to him seemed most requisite, his aunswere was that he would send for [Page 9]the said Lord Chancellor, and giue him commission to bring the Lords of Plessis and Eureux to agree vp­on the forme: And presently his Maiestie sent for them.

The same day toward euening, the L. Chancellor sent for the L. of Plessis, and began to discourse vnto him, that the King had tolde him that he had commit­ted to him the charge to warne the sayd L. of Plessis to be ready for the sayd conserence: and therefore that it must needs be that eyther his Maiesty had forgotten to commaund him, or himselfe, to speake to the sayd Lord of Plessis. Whereunto the Lord of Plessis aunswered, that it sufficed, in case he would remember (as hee did) that hee had not spoken vnto him.

Thus after some speaches, he deliuered him the peti­tion that he had presented to his Maiesty; and because there was some difference about the forme, he desired him to vouchsafe to consider vpon the three aforesayd offers. But the two formost were absolutelye reiected vnder pretence that the chalenger of falsehood might set vpon his party where he list: without respect that the question concerned the quotation of a booke, which (to speake vprightly) helde of the nature, not of a contract, but of an inquest: the disputation was wholy settled vpon the last. The sayd L. of Plessis pretending that sith this matter was spoken of as to be handled in tearmes of Law, he being the Defendant, was not to be denyed his Aduersaries action of falsehood, that he might an­swere thereunto. sith that vnder pretence of forme of lawe, he had bene denyed the examination of the whole booke, thereby to minister opportunitye to the L. of Eureux to impugne him in what place he list. And that in this matter he looked for Iustice at the said L. Chaun­celors hands, which he assured himselfe he very wel per­ceiued in this his petition: otherwise, that besides that [Page 10]he should haue cause to protest against the sayd Lord of Eureux vpon slaunder, hee should vppon refusall of so lawfull conditions haue no lesse argument to doubt of too manifest partiallity.

The end was this, that the sayd Lord Chauncellor sent for the sayd L. of Eureux, with whom he spent some 3. quarters of an houre; then comming into his Gallery, where the L. of Plessis wayted his answere, he tolde him that the sayd L. of Eur. would not heare of the deliuery of his action of falsehood, much lesse of his fiue hundred places. That he did not thinke himselfe bound therto by his writing; that the writing of them wold aske a month and a halfe, or more: that in tearmes of law to require a condition impossible, and not to yeeld to doe any thing, was all one, and matter alike.

The L. of Ples. replyed, that in his opinion hee craued but right before all Iudges whatsoeuer; that the Lord of Eureux in shrinking from his proposition, for the ex­amination of the whole booke, had bound himselfe to his owne offer, that in truth hee beleeued that hee could not possibly performe the fiue hundred vntruthes by him promised: well might he peraduenture deliuer in fiue hundred pretended, sith he had them ready tolde; sith also that hauing answered his book, he had no more to doe but to draw them out: Otherwise, how could he purge himselfe of slaunder? Finally the L. Plessis con­cluding that he might not depart from this last course, and that the said L. Chauncellor (the next morning) would make report thereof to the King.

Munday the first of May the L. of Plessis heard of nothing, but that the L. of Eureux still stood vpon his denyall to deliuer his fiue hundred places, and still was at the Kinges elbow to make him comprehend that this was not the way to come to his pretended pur­pose: [Page 11]and the same day there arriued the President of Thou, M. Pithou, M. Cas [...]ubon, and the Phisition. Martin whom his Maiesty had most earnestly sent for; The last man of these being brought in by the L. of Eureux, could not conceale his passion in this matter, but bare himselfe as a party. To them did his Maiesty declare, that he cal­led them not to be Iudges, but only interpreters, in case there should grow any controuersie about the speeches, but reserued to himselfe the iudgement. And heere is to be noted, that only Casaubon was of the religion: wherof notwithstanding the L. of Plessis made no instance.

Tewsday the second of May, about eyght of the clocke at night, the L. Chauncellor sent for the L. of Ples. to intimate vnto him the Kinges pleasure. The summe was this, that the King had ordained that the L. Bishop of Eureux should in his Maiesties presence open the booke, & shew vnto him one after another, those places wherein he pretended falsehood, to the number of 50. if time would so permit: whereto he must presently aun­swere in order as they should be propounded: for sayd he, it was to be supposed that the sayd Lord of Plessis hauing produced them, should at all tymes bee ready to answere. (Heere let the reader iudge what memory could bee capable of so many reasons, presently to aun­swere so many obiections; for must hee not by that ac­count be alwayes prouided for all, albeit he were assaul­ted but with some?) Moreouer that if hee could not fit himself to this condition, his Maiesty was resolued in his owne presence to haue the falsehoods by the L. of Eur. pretended, to be verified in his absence, to the end to de­termine therof according as reason required: as also by his standing vpon his words, he gaue him to vnderstand that he concealed more rigour thē he yet shewed; stil vr­ging sundry times y t he had that night to resolue himself.

Neyther did the said L. of Ples. fayle to lay open vnto him the extreamity of this condition, which could not be so precisely imposed vpon him, but with a manifest resolution to oppresse the truth in his person. That if hee did not plainely perceiue a match made, hee could well enough brooke any condition: but that he must needes be blinde, if hee could not perceiue the same throughout the whole progresse of this matter. Likewise that that was the onely cause that hee stood so stedfast vpon his demaund. As for the examining of his booke behinde his backe, so as it might bee duely perfor­med in his absence, the more should bee his honour: if vnduely, the lesse reproach; as also such as should haue charge, should beare the greater burden, as well in ho­nour as conscience.

Neuerthelesse, that all the world might see that hee proceeded beyond all reason, onely vpon a desire that his Maiesty might bee the more plainely enformed of his sincerity and iustice, hee deliuered a fourth proposition, which in writing hee deliuered to the L. Chauncelor, to this effect; That he would bee content that the L of Eureux should consigne into the handes of the Presi­dents, of Thou & Calignos, eyther of the President Thou only (because Calignos was sicke) his 5. hundred preten­ded vntruthes, to the ende that dayly hee might in hys Maiesties presence answere vnto fifty of them, accor­ding to the order of the booke, that so much the more easily he might prepare himselfe for those that follow: with condition likewise that vpon the breaking off of this cōference, the same might be returned into the hands of the Lord Plessis. The which proposition the sayd L. Chauncelor receiued, to report thereof to his Maiesty, & thereof to giue him answere.

This matter thus reported to the King vpon Wednes­day [Page 13]morning the 3. of May, and consunation holden with the Lord of Eureux, they procured the King to bee incensed vpon this; that the sayd Lord of Pless [...]s re­quired that the fiue hundred pretended vntruths should be committed into the hands of my L. the President of Thou; That it might content him to haue them commit­ted into his Maiesties hands, who had trusted him with greater matters; that his enemies had taken no surer gadge then his owne word: much rather therefore should a Seruaunt, yea euen a housholde seruant: thus ouerthrowing the substaunce of his reasons with theyr great words.

Hereupon the L. of Plessis being sent for into the Gal­lery at Fontaine-bleau, receiued this second decree at the mouth of the L. Chauncellor; That he should in the Kings presence aunswere to the places propounded by the Lord of Eureux, vpon the opening of his bookes, as is aforesayd: otherwise that if he would not accept of this condition, his Maiesty would cause the booke to be ouer-looked and examined in his absence, & thereof to determine as he should thinke good.

And indeed so soone as the L. of Plessis had declared that (in regard of his reasons so often propounded) he could not depart from his last proposition, all the Court was warned to assemble in the great Hall, at three of the clocke in the after noone, to be present at this examina­tion; (but it was againe put off vntill the next morning at eyght of the clocke) neyther was there all that day any other speech in Court, but that they would vppon contumacy, proceede with all rygour against both the Author and the booke.

Many circumstances myght heere be added, as to­kens of the stomackes of those men, that had in this matter vndertaken to satisfie the Pope: who also made [Page 14]shew of great commodity to his Maiesty. But it may suffice that the same were noted, euen by the most passi­onate, who by the proceedinges, haue in their mindes weakened the pretended successe, throughout the whole course therof.

Lastly about ten of the clocke at night, the Lords of Castelnau & of Chambaret came to visite the L. of Plessis; and in the Kings name, propounded vnto him that the L. of Eureux was resolued to quote vnto him 60. places in his booke, whereunto hee should in his Maiesties pre­sence aunswere in the morning at eyght of the clocke. The time was short, the houre vnfit, and the match ma­nifestly made: Yet notwithstanding (such was Gods will) the Lord of Plessis shut his eyes agaynst all these foreseene inconueniences, and contrary to hys for­mer resolutions, accepted of the condition; and to the ende that heereafter the force of the truth may appeare, as no doubt it will, in that there was nothing omitted that might darken the same; and yet in it selfe it will finde brightnesse enough to pierce through all darke­nesse.

About one of the clocke after midnight the Lord of Castelnau brought the 60. places: this was but a wast­ing of hys tyme. About two of the clocke he had the bookes of the Lord Eureux brought him: (For ye must note that hee had none there) the places were quo­ted simply, Carolus Magnus p. 816. Scotus p. 869. Durandus p. 870. &c. without note of falsehood, and without any explanation. The Lord of Plessis neuer­thelesse together with the difficulty of his sight, doth in hast peruse them to the number of nineteene. About sixe of the clocke in the morning the Lord of Eureux re­demaundeth his bookes: at eyght of the clocke hee is commaunded to appeare.

Now againe growes another difficulty; the Lord of Ples. telleth the King that hee had no leasure to peruse any more then nineteene, euen such as came first to hand, as he light vpon the bookes: his Maiesty doubt­eth whether the Lord of Eureux will proceede; he hath reason to the contrary, because the Lord of Ples. hath chosen to his aduantage. Heerto the Lo. of Ples. answe­reth that he had the bookes but 4. houres, and that in the night; That out of fiue thousand places the Lord of Eur. had chosen threescore such as liked him, and that it was very likely that he had produced y e most sufficient: so that he besought his Maiesty to pardon him, albeit he were forced to say that this was more then extraordinary ry­gour: Heerupon held they a consultation with the Lord of Eureux for the space of one houre, who in the end accepted of the nineteene places: also to affoord him the more leasure, the conference was deferred vntil after dinner.

This was vpon Thursday the 4. of May in the Bath Hall, in presence of the King, with the assistaunce of the whole Court. To beginne, his Maiesty declared that he had no meaning that they should dispute of the Doctrine, onely he would they should examine the al­legations of the places. Then did the Lord Chauncellor proceede, who briefly did expound his Maiesties mea­ning. Next the Lord of Eureux, who for his argument vndertooke to commend him, in that he would not in­trude into matter appertayning to the Church. And consequently the Lord of Ples. who briefely dyd de­clare that in as much as it was his Maiesties pleasure, he was there ready to aunswere for his booke; that he neuer writ it vpon any ambitious intent, but ra­ther dyuerted him therefro, in regard of the preseruing of his Maiesties most gratious fauour: And also the [Page 16]zeale for to preuayle during his Raygne, for a holy re­formation in the Church, for the which many good men had long grieued. If to that purpose it might doe any seruice, hee should thinke himselfe most happy, with whatsoeuer losse: otherwise, that himselfe could be the first man to wish it burnt, yea euen with his own hand.

Howbeit that he did hope that vpon vpright exami­nation, all the world should finde that hee had vsed all sincerity and great diligence: albeit it was not greatly to be maruailed, that among 5000. places or more, there might passe some few, wherein his eye, his memory, or euen his iudgement might waner: which yet were such as could be of no importaunce, to hurt the truth that he therein handled. For (savd he) were all the bookes of the Doctors of the Romish Church, that haue bin writ­ten within these hundred yeares, as rigorously exami­ned! where should wee finde one that could abide the proofe? Besides (with his Maiesties leaue) he protested, that this was a perticuler action, & consequently could not preiudice the Doctrine of the reformed Churches of the Realme, which was before him, and should be af­ter him, and so continue for euer. And then did they en­ter into the matter.

The first place out of Scotus.

THe first place that the Lord of Eureux did set vp­on, The 4. book of the Eucharist. c. 9 p. 869. l. 26. of the first edi. P. 936. lyne 2. of the 2. edition P. 7 [...]. l. 25. of the 3 edition. was taken out of the 869 Page, lyne 26. of the Lord Plessis booke of the institution of the Eu­charist, namely within eyght leaues of the ende (heere let the reader iudge what methode this is to examme a [Page 17]book) according to the first edition in quarto, which heer we will follow, (sauing that we will also in the margent quote the pages of the second or third editiō) where we read these words. Iohn Duns, called Scot, neere a hundred yeares after the counsel of Latran durst bring into question whether Christes body be really contained vnder the formes; & disputeth that he is not. Against w c place he pretendeth two matters: the one that Scot maketh it not a contro­uersie, whether the body of Christ bee really contained vnder the formes, except in like manner as y e Schoolemē vse to dispute of matters most resolued; as Whether there be a God? Whether there be but one god, &c. The other, that the L of Ples. had taken the opposition for the resolution; & in both these matters he pretended hainous vntruths. To the 1. the L. of Ples. aswered, that wheras he said that Scot had brought into questiō. Whether the body of christ be really contained vnder the formes, he vnderstood it by the way of transubstantiation, and his meaning did suffici­ently appeare, first in that in the Chap, which is the ninth of the fourth booke, he entreateth of the absurdities & con­tradictions proceeding of the transubstantiation. Secondly, because in the same it is sayd, A hundred yeares after the Councell of Latran, that is to say; after the Article of transubstantiation was established. To the second; that albeit the Schoolemen doe dispute their questions, in v­tramque partem, yet doe they withall shew their owne inclination, yea sometimes their perticuler resolution, sauing that they make it to stoop to the Church of Rome. And this did the Lord of Plessis vpholde to appeare in Scot in the de duction of this matter, name­ly where he handleth the second member of this questi­on; Qualiter illud est possibile quod creditur; How the re­alty that is beleeued is possible. For after many disputati­ons, growing to the resolution, he vseth these wordes, [Page 18]which were shewed to the Lord of Eureux; Scorus printed at Paris, by Io. Granion, Spon the 4 of the Sē. dist. 10. quest. 1 pa. 63. b. lit. E. Concer­ning this article, it seemeth vnnecessary to haue recourse to the conuersion of the bread into the body of Christ, especi­ally considering that euen from the beginning, that this mat­ter of the Sacrament was beleeued, it was continually beleeu­ed that the body of Christ altereth not out of his place in hea­uen to be heere, and yet was it not thus manifestly beleeued at the beginning of this conuersion, as it shall bee sayd dist. xi. And let the reader note that ouer agaynst this Arti­cle that beginneth, Quantum ad istum artien' [...], nonvidetur ne­cessarium, su­giendum esse ad conuersionē pan [...]s in corpus Christi, preci­pu [...] cū a pri [...] ­cipio exquo res imius sacramē ­ [...] fuit credita, fuit sempercre ditum, quod corpus Christi [...]n mutatur de loco suo in c [...]elo vt sit hic, & tamen non fuit in principi­o ita manifeste creditū de ista conuersione vt dicetar dist. 11. Quantum; it is quoted in the Mar­gent, Resolutio-Scoti, Scots resolusion. So that by Scots resolution the Church did not alwayes beleeue the con­uertion; the conuersion is not necessary in the Sacra­ment: Therefore did not the Lord of Plessis in this place take Scots opposition insteed of his resolution. And this was gathered very briefe by such as writ for either side, namely the Lords of Grigny, Pasquier and Vassaut, as likewise was all the rest that ensued. Howbeit in that which the Lord of Plessis consequently dyd alleage concerning the xi. Dist. of the 4. booke q. 3. Scots opi­nion did yet more clearely appeare: For after he hath cited Jnnocent the 3. de offic. Missae, par. 3. cap. 26. to prooue three opinions vpon this argument. The first, S [...]ctus in 4. sentent. D. 11. qu. 3. fol. 31. lit. B. Circa hoc erant tres opiniones, Vna, quod panis manet, & ta­mencū ipso vere est corpus Christi: Alia, quod panis non manet, & tamen non cōuer­titur, sed decinit esse, vel per annichilationē, vel per resolutionē in materiam, vel per cor­ruptionē in aliud: Tertia, quod panis transubstantiatur in corpus, & vinum in san­gumem. That the bread remayneth, and yet the body of Christ is with the bread. The second, That the bread remaineth not, and yet is not conuerted, but ceaseth to be, whether by be­ing made nothing, whether by being resolued into the first matter, or corrupted into any other thing. The third, That the bread is transubstantiated into the body, the wyne [Page 19]into the bloud; He consequently commeth to ground the first opinion verye substantially; in that hee sayth, [...] potest [...] ista Tran­substantiatione. That the truth of the Eucharist may be kept without tran­substantiatiō: Secondly, Et pancis in­ter [...]ctis. Sub­stantia pants cum suis acci­dentil [...] a que potest esse sig­num si [...]ut sola accidentia; imò magis, quia substantia pa­nis subspecie­bus magis est nutrimentum, quàm acciden­tia. Ergo ma­gis repraesentat corpus Christi in ratione nu­trimenti spiritualis. That the bread with the accidents thereof doth rather represent the body of Christ by an ano­logie of the bodily sust [...]na [...]nce with the spirituall, then they [...]oe by the only accidents. Thirdly, e That of the transub­stantiation there ensue more inconueniences then of any other opinions. Fourthly, f That it is maruaile (sayth hee) that [...] an article, which is no principall article of sayth, they should affirme a sence or vnderstanding, by the which the fayth is thrust foorth for a scorne to all those that ensue rea­son. Lastly, g That as nothing is to be holden, as of the sub­stance of fayth, that cannot expressely be gathered out of the Scriptures, or that is not expressely declared by the Church, or that is not euidently gathered out of matter at full con­tayned in the Scriptures, or plainely determined by the Church: h Yet it doth not seeme expressely set downe, that the substaunce of bread is not in the Sacrament: but contra­riwise S. Paul 1. Corrin. Cap 11. sayth, The bread that wee breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Ney­there [Page 20]doe we finde where the Church hath solemnly deter­mined of this truth, neyther how it may bee inferred of any thing manifestly beleeued. Then doth hee proceede and ground the second opinion vpon the like reasons: yea and doth earnestly refell the reasons of Thomas as well against thē, as for transubstantiation, which is the third. Lastly, comming to resolue, he wotteth not almost what else to say, but that; Item so. 82. b lit. E. Cōmuni­ter tenetur quod nec pa­nis manet, cō ­tra primam o­pinionem, nec annihilatur, nec resoluitur in materiam primam, sed conuertitur in corpus Christi, &c. Jt is commonly holden that the bread re­maineth not, contrary to the first opinion: And is not like­wise taken away, or resolued into the first matter (namely accor­ding to the second:) But is conuerted into the body of Christ. And by what reason or authority? Surely (saith hee) this doth Mox. Princi­paliter videtur me mouere, quod de Sa­cramentis te­nendum est, sicutsancta Ro­mana Ecclesia, sicut habetur Extra, de haere­tic. Ad obolen­dā. Nunc autē ipsa tenet pa­nē transubstan­tiari in corpus, & vinum in sanguinem, si­cut manifeste habetur Extra. de Summa Tri nit. & side Cathol. Firmitercredimus, vna vero, &c. especially seeme to mooue me, that we must holde of the Sa­craments, as the holy Church of Rome holdeth, as it is set downe Extra. de haereticis. Ad abolendam &c. But she now holdeth that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, & the wine into the bloud, as we haue it manifestly set downe Extra. de Summa Tri­nit. & fide Cath. Firmiter credimus, &c. vna vero; that is to say, in the decree of Latran. But what an answere heere is to that which was so well grounded? That wee must held nothing to bee of the substaunce of fayth. but that which is expressely in the Scriptures, or that is taken out of some what plainely, planè, contayned in the Scriptures, or that hath beene expressely declared by the Church? Truely to this argument, wherin (saith he) consisteth the force, he hath no more to say, but l the Church of God hath decla­red this vnderstanding, or this sence to be the truth of the faith, in that Creed that was formed vnder Innocēt the third in the counsel of Latran, &c. The same we haue in Reportat. dist. 10. q. 1. & dist. 11. q. 3. for hauing argued vpon the 3. opinions, & with the afore named reasons fought with transubstanti­ation, [Page 21]he particularly saith. Idem Repor, in 4. sentent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 20. imprime a Ve­nize apud [...] Bapt. & Ioan. Bernardū Ses­sam. 1597. Di­co quod licet substantia pa­nis maneret, nō auserret vene­rationem ne­que esset occa­sio Idolatriae, &c. I say that albeit the substance of bread should remaine, yet could it not abolish the worship of the Sa­crament, neither be any cause of Idolatry, &c. Againe, Ibid. Dico quod magis substantia pa­nis cum acci­dētibus reprae­sentat corpus Christi, quam accidentia tan­tum eum ma­ior sit conueni­entia substan­tiae ad substan­tiam, quam ad accident. I say that the substance of bread, with the accidents doth better represent the body of Christ then the accidents onely, &c. Heere note that these words are his owne, and so he proceedeth to con­clude simply in these words. Ibidan opinione auctoris. Teneo conclu­sionem, quia Ecclesia tenet, Quia sides Pe­tri nō desiciet. Et iam sub In­nocentio 3. or­dinatum fuit tenēdum, &c. I holde the conclusion, because the Church holdeth it: For the faith of S. Peter shall not fayle, and now vnder Innocent the 3. it was decreed to be thus holden, &c. A most euidentargument, y t the reason, that the nature of the Sacrament, that the faith proceeding from the Church, yea that the holy Scriptures would haue caried it away otherwise, had it not been stayed by the decision of the counsell of Latran. p Consequently, an argument (as the L. of Ples. did maintaine) that that which he said, ten­ded not simply to argue vpon it, but to shew what his re­solution had been, had he not been with-holden with a strong bridle. And indeed ( Dominicus a Soto (one of their most famous Doctors, doth not forbeare to impute vnto Scot, that he held but a hard resolution of transubstanti­ation, as a matter not to bee vpholden by the authority of the Scriptures: And Joseph Angles q a Spanish diuine la­boureth to defend him. Now vpon the difficulty that our Masters y e Cōmissioners found in the resolutiō, they referred the iudgement to an other time, as perceiuing y t it was no matter of audiēce. Neither may we heer forget one Schoole trick that the L. of Eur. played the L. of Ples: for in as much as in Scots booke that he had sent him o­uer night, hee had noted the places which hee purposed to vse to maintaine his allegation, he brought in an other & of an other print to the table, that he might the hard­lyer find it out; which when the said L. told him of, he see­med for the time to make no account, though afterward he boasted of it, & the like he did vpon sundry instances.

The second place out of Durand.

FOr the second, Li [...] 4. de Eu char. c. 9 edi. 1. p. 870. l. 24. edi. 2. pa. 936. l. 31. edi. 3. p. 764. l. 11. followed a place out of Durand of Porcin page 870 line 24. in these wordes, concer­ning the same matter. Contrar [...] wise (sayth he) ad­mitting that the substances of Bread and wine doe remaine, yet doth there ensue but one difficultie, namely, that two bodies be togither, neither too great, nor indissoluble: admit­ting the contrary, we shall finde many; [...]ely, how these ac­cidents may bee nourished, bee corrupted, how some thing may be engendred, considering that all thinges are made of the presupposed matter, and therefore it seemeth better to holde to the first, &c. In which place the Lord of Eureux againe pretended, that the Lord of Plessis had taken Durands opposition for his resolution, and at the first blush with some appearaunce, because these wordes are set downe in the opposition. Heerunto the Lord of Plessis aunswered, that Durand, had he not beene with­held by the counsell of Lateran, did in the deducti­on that he made, sufficiently shew what his opinion was in this disputation of transubstantion; when ha­uing propounded this multiplicity of inconueniences, hee playnely pronounceth, and can not bee weary of it; Durand in 4 sentent. d 11 q. 1. fo. 274. b [...]ar. 9. Lugduni a­pud Gasp. à Porton. triu 1.56. Quamuis iste modus sit de facto, nō est tamen negandum quin alius modus sit Deo possibilis, ita videlicet quod Deus posset sacore, quod remanente subslantia panis & [...]ini, corpus & sanguis Christi essent in hoc Sacramento. Wee must not deny but there is another meanes possible vnto God, the substaunce of bread and wine still re­maining, albeit this meanes be indeed, &c. Agayne, Artic. xi. (omitting these woordes, Albeit this meanes bee in­deed) [Page 23]hee repeateth the same. Item. art. 11. p. 75. Non eit tamen negan­dum quin ali­us. [...]od [...]s, &c. Jt cannot be denyed, &c. Agayne, Artic. xiiii. Item, art. 14. Satis etiam du­rum est, & de­rogare videtur immēsi [...]ati di­uinae potētiae, dicere quod Deus non pos­sit facere cor­pus suum esse in sacramento per alium mo­dum, quā per conuersionem substantiae pa­nis in ipsum: maxime cum ponendo con­uersionē fieri, difficilimū est videre, qualiter ipsa faciat ali­quid ad hoc quod corpus Christi sit in sacramēto, &c. Jt is hard and seemeth to derogate to the infinite power of God, to say that God cannot make his body to be in the Sacrament by any other meanes but by the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine thereinto, especially considering that admitting there bee a connersion made, yet it is very hard to perceiue after what manner hee doth any thing, that the body of Christ may be in the Sacra­ment. Finally, d Jt doth therefore appeare that it is rash­nes to say that the body of Christ cannot by his Diuyne pow­er be in the Sacrament, but onely by the conuersion of the bread thereinto.

All this proceeding, and that stil from his owne sence and not from any other bodies, so greatly doth thys new interpretation set vpon the wordes of the Sacra­ment torment hys mynde! Then comming to shutte vp his opinion, according to the which the bread re­mayneth in the Sacrament, notwithstanding, the reali­ty, without laying away transubstantiation; e If thys meanes (sayth hee) were indeed true, many difficultyes re­mayning in the Sacrament, by holding that the substaunce of bread remaineth not, should bee resolued: for it is doubted after what manner any thing can bee nourished of this Sacrament: also how the formes may be corrupted, and how of the same any thing may be engendred. All which [Page 20]difficulties might naturally be salued by this meanes, euen as they might be salued if the natures of bread and wine were not taken or imployed for the nature of the Sacrament: For by this meanes we doe admit that they doe remaine after the consecration as before.

Stil speaking in his owne sence. Wherin we are espe­cially to note, that in his conclusion, and speaking in hys owne person, hee repeateth the same woordes that wee read in the opposition formed in the name of a thyrd. Because these difficultyes, wherein hee findeth no sufficient solution, doe sticke in hys sto­macke. And in the ende, howe dooth hee satisfie hymselfe? Surely euen as Scot hath before done. Et in fine ar. 15. Sed quia hic modus non debet teneri de facto, cum Ec­clesia determi­nauerit oppo­situm, quçnon presumitur er­tare in talibus, ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, re­spondendum est ad argumē ­ta quae sunt in contrarium. But (sayth he) in as much as this meanes must not bee holden in deed, because the Church hath determined the contrary: (Namely in the counsel of Latran) which it is to be presumed doth not erre in such matter, therefore it is that indeed holding the other part, we must answere to the arguments that are to the contra­ry. And this is the answere that he maketh; Idē art. 16. In his quae sunt fidei non sem­per eligendum est eillud ad quod sequū ­tur pauciores dissicultates, &c. Sed est po­nendū magis illud quod est cōsonū dictis sanctorum, & tradicioni Eccleasiasticae. We must not alwaies stand vpon the sence that bringeth fewest inconueniences, but vpon the same that best agreeeth with the sayings of the Saints, and the Ecclesiasticall traditions. He is wise enough for say­ing with the tenure of the holy Scriptures, or with the nature of the Sacrament. And indeed the Lord of Eur. should haue learned of his Bellarmin that Durand dyd not sufficiently beleeue transubstantiation, who in his 3. booke of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Chap. xi. hath these words. h Durand hath taught that an essential part of the bread, namely the forme, is conuerted, and that the other part, namely the substance, is not cōuerted. Which he doth expresse­ly [Page 25]confute in the 13. Chapter of his third booke, and citeth Durand vpon the 4. booke of sentences Dist. 11. q. 3. Heere would our Masters and Commissioners haue referred the iudgement, as they had done with the for­mer; confessing that the whole question deserued to be read, that it might be iudged by the course thereof. But then the Lord of Eureux found himselfe agreeued, saying that it was in vaine for them to dispute, if they wold not iudge; sundry tymes speaking to the King to appoynt his pleasure to the sayd Commissioners. Whereupon his Maiesty comming vnto them, this Article was de­cided and the Lord Chauncellor pronounced That Durands opposition was alleaged for his resolution. Heere let the reader iudge, albeit it were so, of the wordes of the opposition, so playnely repeated in the resolution: and Durand speaking no longer in a third person, but in his owne person, afterward likewise these clauses, Durum est, Temerarium est: Jt is hard, It is rash, &c. Whe­ther in so doubtfull, so ticklish, so problematticall mat­ter, the Lord of Eureux might pretend any haynous vn­truthes, euen palpably to be iudged at the very opening of the booke, at the bare sight thereof, where a mans iudgement, not his eyes, is in daunger of fayling.

The third place out of Chrisostom vpon the first to the Thessa­lonians.

FOr the third, they came to a place of Chrisostom vpon the first to the Thessa. Hom. 1. Liu 3 de Eu­char. chap. 11. ed. 1. pa. 5. 7. l. 31. edit. 2. p. 538. l. [...]. ed. 3, p. 498. l. 22. alleaged by the Lord of Plessis in his booke p. 537. li. 31. where hee examineth all the places of Scripture, which the ad­uersaries doe boldely apply to the inuocation of Saints, [Page 26]namely this out of Ieremy. 15. Ierem. c. 15. v 1. Si stererint Moyses & Sa­muel corā me, non est anima mea ad popu­lum istum. Though Samuell and Moyses should stand before me, yet should not my affection be to this people. In which place hauing prooued by S. H [...]erosme, Theodoret, S. Gregory, Hugo Cardinall, yea the glosse it selfe, that this place is meant of, the intercession of Moses and Samuell when they liued, betweene the wrath of God and the sinnes of the people; But not of any intercession of the dead Saintes vnto God for the faythfull liuing heere beneath; hee withall addeth, that heere of Chrisostom gathereth a conclusion cleane con­trary to that of the aduersaries: namely, That wee must not stand vpon the Prayers of the Saints, but worke our saluation with feare and trembling. Now against this place the Lord of Eureux pretended two thinges. The one, that the Lord of Plesses had cut him off in the sub­stantiall wordes: namely, if we be negligent. The other that Chrisostom entreated of the intercession of the Saints deceased, which the Lord of Plessis denyed. To the first the Lord of Plesses aunswered, that he alleadged not the expresse wordes of Chrisostom, but onely set downe the sence, because the discourse contayned twoo or three whole pages, which he reduced as it were into a Theses: and that indeed he alleaged it, after the phrase of the Gramarians, Oratione obliqua non recta. in an ouer­thwart and not direct speech, by this word, That he, &c. Therefore that he was not bound to the course of the text. To the other, that in this allegation he had no other purpose but to shew that Chrisostom out of this place of Ieremy had not gathered, as the Church of Rome at this day doth, the intercession and inuocation of the de­ceased Saintes: but contrariwise had collected this Doctrine; That wee must not generally stand vpon the prayers of the Saintes, whether aliue or dead, in somme vpon other mens prayers; but that we must watch, pray, [Page 27]and endeuour (as the Apostle sayth) to make sure our sal­uation with feare and trembling. And indeed that this in­tent appeared in these words; Chrysostan 1. ad Thessal. chap. 1. ho [...]. 1. sub finē p. 1414 editionts Groe [...]. Lat. Hier. Cē ­melini 1596. Et vt id seras. audi Deum di­centem. Si ste­terint Noe, & Iob & Daniel, non eripient fi­lios suos, & fili­as, & ruisus. Si steterit Moses & Samuel. Et vide quomodo hoc dicitur du­obus Prophe­tis: quoniam ambo pro ipsis togarant & nō erāt assequuti, &c. And to the end thou shouldest know (namely that the prayers of the Saints doe not profit, except we doe conuert and turne vnto God.) hear what the Lord saith by the Prophet; If Noè, Iob, & Da­niel stood before me, yet should they not saue their Sonnes nor their Daughters. And againe, Jf Moses and Samuel, &c. And marke how this is spoken to two Prophets, because both of them had prayed, but had not obtained, &c. Thus that this place of Chrisostom was not curtalled, neyther could be, sith it was but touched by the way and not alleaged: Much lesse was it wrested to any contrary sence, be­cause generally he speaketh of the prayers of the Saints, albeit the examples were of those that are yet conuer­sant with vs heere beneath.

Now for the better opening of this point, the Lord of Plessis owne words did suffice, That we must not stand vpon. For what is it to stand vpon, but wholy to trust, or to relye vpon, euen to the exclusion of our owne duety and of all other meanes? Hee did then expresse the meaning of Chrisostom, that the prayers of the Congre­gation, of the Saints, of the faithfull, each for other are good, are to bee wished: But that we should not sleepe vpon them; but for our owne parts doe our duetyes: Also the course of the text will lead vs thereunto. Et pa. 14. c. 2. Nullus dormi­at, nullus sit piger ad virtu­tem. Hoc enim est somnus. Nescitis quando dormimus, quam nostra non sunt in tuto, quam faci­le eis parentur insidiae? Quando autē vigilamus non opus est nobis tanta custodia, Quando dormimus, etiam cū multa custodia, sepe perimus. Sunt & ostea, & vectes, & custodes, & vigiles; & tamen fur ingreditur. Cur haec dico? Quoniā si vigilemus non egebimus aliorū auxilio. Sin autem dormiamus, nō multum nobis prodest ali­orū auxilium, sed etiam cum illo perimus. Let no man (sayth he) lull himselfe on sleep, let no man bee slow to vertue; for that is a sleeping. Know you not when we sleep, [Page 28]how small assuraunce we haue, how easie a matter it is to rob vs? and contrariwise when wee watch, there need no such guarde: When wee sle pe, not withstanding all our guard, wee many times perrish; VVe baue gates, barres, boulter, watchmen and sentinels, yet doth the theefe sometimes get in: VVher­fore doe [...] say all this? because if we watch, we shall not neede the helpe of others; but contrariwise, if we sleep, the help of o­thers shall stand vs in small steed, but wee shall perish there­withall. Of others saith he in generall: and what mean­eth he by others? Sequiter im mediatè. Bonū est frui Sācto­rum precibus, sed eum ipsi quoque fueri­mus intenti o­peri. Je is good (sayth he) to haue the pray­ers of the Sayntes, but alwaies prouided that our selues bee attentiue to our owne workes. And did not the Lord of Pl [...]ssis say as much? Not to depend vpon the prayers of the Saints, but to make sure our saluation with feare and trem­bling. And therefore with what conscience can it bee sayd that this place is curtalled? as indeed our Masters the Commissioners did not so iudge. Now for the o­pening of the second, whether this place of Chrisostom doth commend vnto vs the inuocation of the dead Saints, wee must consider what followeth. Mox imme diatè. Et quid mihi, inquit, opus est alio­rum precibus, cum suero in­tentus operi? Ne te eo redi­gas vt opus ha­beas. Nec ego quidē hoc vo­lo sed op [...]s semper h [...]be mus, si sapia mus. And what need I (sayth hee) aliorum precibus, the prayers of others, so long as my selfe d [...]e labour? Now (sayth hee) [...]euer bring thy selfe into that necessity, neyther [...] it my minde [...]ou shouldest: yet if we be wise we doe alwaies stand in need. But of what Saints? of the dead, or of the faythfull that liue? surely there is enough spoken of that: neyther doe wee doubt but the Saynts that tryu nph with Christ, doe pray for the Church milirant heere beneath. But wee are not come to that. For that they pray for the aduauncement of Gods kingdome, or for our perticuler necessityes; that they pray according to theyr charity that quayleth not: or that we may in fayth pray to them, haning no foundation therfore, are very contrary questions. How­beit heere wee shall see that Chrisostom speaketh or the [Page 29]prayers of the Saintes that are conuersant among vs, grounded vpon the expresse word of God, of whome (sayth he) we stand in need; and yet doth he exhort vs not to relye vpon them. Sequitur in­mediatè. Pau­lus nō dicebat, Quid mihi o­pus est preci­bus, etiamsi qui precaban­tur non erātco digni, imó verò ne pares quidē Et tu dices; Quid mihi o­pus est preci­bus? Petrus nō dixit, Quid mihi opus est precibus? Ora­tio enim, in­quit, fiebat sine intermissi­one ab Eccle­sia ad Deū pro eo. S. Paul (sayth he) said not what need I prayers? albeit they that prayed were not worthy, ney­ther equall with him: yet thou saiest what need J prayers? Neither did S. Peter likewise say, what need I prayers? for (saith he) the church doth make prayers for him without in­termission; &c. Many other exāples he doth also alleage. Thus farre then for the Saintes that pray heere beneath for the faithfull, desiring all good men to haue care of them in theyr prayers, which (sayth he) are of efficacy with God. But how? ioyned with our owne, with the duety that we performe in our vocation: according to that which the Apostle sayth. Et pa. 1417. ex 1 ad Cor. cap. 1. Adiuuā ­tibus & vopis in oratione pro nobis. Vt Ex multis personis eius qu [...]in no­bis est donati­onis per mul­t [...]s gratiae a­gantur pro nobis. That yee labour together in prayers for vs, that for the gift bestowed vpon vs for many, thankes may begiuen by many persons for vs. Neyther may we heere forget, that when in this assistance they heard speaking of liuing Saints, it was newes vnto them, as if it were not a common matter, both in the holy Scrip­tures and in the Fathers, to terme the faythfull, Saintes, euen in this life: not for that they are canonized by the Pope, but sanctified by fayth in the bloud of Iesus Christ. Yer vpon this ignoraunce they made sundry ap­plauses. Bu [...]d th he not heere speake expressely of the prayers of the Saints deceased for the liuing? Doth hee not exhort the faithfull aliue to inuocate the dead, to relye vpon they suffiages, vpon theyr passions or vpon their merites? h Surely (sayth he) God said, I will protect [Page 30]this Citty for my owne sake, and for my seruaunt Dauids sake. Namely, because of my couenant in free mercy, that I haue made with Dauid and with his seede. But when? Jn the daies of Ezechias, who was righteous. Againe, Et in sine ei­insdē pag. 1413 Audi Deum dicentem de amice. Iobi; Et orabit; inquit, pro vobis, & dimittetur vo­bis peccatum quoniam pec­carunt quidē, sed non mag­num admise­rant peccatum. Sed hic ipse iustus qui per preces tunc ser­uauit suos ami­cos in tempore Iudaico, non potuit seruare Iudaeos pereū ­ies. Et vt id sci­as, audi Deum dicentem per Prophetam; Si steteris Noe, & Iob, & Daniel; non eripient fi­lios suos & fili­as. And Iob (saith the Lord) shall pray for you. (Namely, he liuing for his liuing friendes) and your sinnes shall bee remitted: But the same righteous (sayth he) that saued his friends by his prayers, in the dayes of the Jewes, cannot saue the Jewes. And that thou maist be the better enformed thereof, heare the Lord, who sayth: Jf Noah, Iob and Da­niel stood before me, &c. And out of this place did the Lord of Eureux argue when he spake of the Saintes de­ceased. But by that which followeth, it shall most plain­ly appeare that he meaneth, if they had been eyther to returne in the dayes of Jeremy, or if they had been in his place; and so did the Fathers vnderstand it. Chri­sostom in the same place, soone after in expresse tearmes sayth. Itē p. 1. 1414. Si steterit Me­ses, &c. qui dixit, Si demittas quidem peccatum, dimitte; sin minus, me quoque dele. Si hîc er­go nunc esset, & haec diceret non impetraret. Et si rursus Samuel, &c. Si isti ergo ste­terint nihil proficient. Jf Moses himselfe (sayth hee) were now heere, and should say vnto me for the people as heeretofore, If thou wilt not forgiue them, blot me out, hee should not bee heard. Also if Samuel likewise: also if these, (Namely Noah, Iob and Daniel) they should not preuaile: that is to say, comming here downe and making intercession as thou dost: least thou shouldst thinke my denyall vnto thee, were in regard of thy person: l Noah neuerthelesse (sayth he) and Iob and Daniel righteous men, irreprehensible, full of godlines, &c. That is to say, Saintes. But if the Lord of Eureux would reply, but to what purpose is this that he speaketh of the liuing, against the inuocation of the [Page 31]Saints deceased? Surely because with greater reason he might haue spoken that of the prayers of the Saintes de­ceased, which hee spake of the liuing: These that are grounded vpon commandement, vpon example, & vpon promise: those that haue no ground at all, because al­so the abuse suppressed in these were of the greater force also against them. In the ende Chrisostom concludeth his Homely in these wordes. Mox. Cum haec ergo scra­mus, neque preces sancto­rum contem­namus, neque totum in eas coniiciamus, tum ne pigri simus & socor­des, temerè & insidiis circum­ueniamur, tum ne a magnolu­cro excidamus: sed & horte mur ad oran­dum, & ad manus pro no­bis porrigēdas; & ipsi virtutem sectemur. And therefore knowing these things, let vs not contemne the prayers of the Saintes, neyther yet wholy relye vpon them: partly least we should bee slouthfull, and suffer our selues rashly to be intangled in am­bushes: partly also least wee should incurre some great losse: (namely, the assistaunce of the prayers of the Saintes or faythfull) but let vs exhort them to pray, and to lift vp theyr handes for vs: where note, let vs exhort, which cannot bee meant but of the liuing, and our selues also ensue vertue. Of the Saintes in the conclusion, as in the promises, of the faythfull praying for S. Paul, for S. Peter, &c. of our selues praying heere beneath the one for the other. For whence should the conclusion grow but from the Pre­mises? And thus, how farre is he from exhorting vs to call vpon the Saintes deceased, or to trust to theyr me­rits? Had our Masters the Commissioners had time to haue read ouer the whole place at length, as the Lord of Plessis did most earnestly request; would they haue stayed vpon that which the Lord of Eureux did vrge? In princi. p [...]. 1414. Iob in tempore Iudaico non potuit seruare Iudaeos pereun­tes, Iob in the daies of the Iewes, could not saue the Iewes that perished; Would they not by that which follow­ed haue noted that he aluded to the place of Ieremy; If Noah, Daniel and Iob stood afore me, &c. Si steterint Noe, Daniel & Iob, &c. Would they not haue perceiued that Sisteterint signified, if they were in place where thou art O Jeremy, when he saith; Sisteterit Moses primus legisla­tor, [Page 32]&c. Againe, Sihic ergomure esset, &c. Et sirursus Sa­muel, &c. If Moses the first law-giuer, &c. Jf be were now lecre, &c. And if againe Samuel, &c. that is to say, in the place where thou art. And so consequently would they haue iudged that Chrisostom in this place, spake of prayer to the Saintes deceased.

The fourth place out of Chrisostom vpon Mathew.

NOw followeth another of the like nature, Liu. 3, de Eu­char. c. 13. adit. 1. pa. 574. l. 16. edi. 2 p. 617. l. 1. edi. 3, p. 507. l. 39. taken out of the page 574. line 16. where the Lord of Plesi [...]s sayth as followeth. Chrisostom seemeth to haue tasked himselfe to beat downe this abuse, so carefull is he to vndermine the foundations vpon euery occasion. (Namely, the inuocation of Saintes deceased, founded vpon the pre­tended merites of others.) He perceaued (sayth hee) that the people trusted more to the helpe of other mens prayers, then to the amendment of their owne liues: And therefore fighteth against this opinion. (Namely, to depend vpon any other whoso­euer.) But (saith Chrisostom) we haue much more assuraunce through our owne prayers, then through the prayers of others, ney­ther doth God so soone graunt our saluation at others intreatie, as at our owne: For so tooke he compassion of the woman of Cha­naan; gaue faith to the Adultresse, and Paradice to the Theefe; and thereto neuer entreated at the intercession of eyther aduocate or mediator. Against this place the Lord of Eureux pro­pounded falsehood by omission: Namely, because the Lord of Plessas had omitted these words following; Chrian Mat. hom. [...]. pag. 59 edit. Basi. apud Froben. 1558. Et haec non eò dicimus vt sup­plicandum esse sanctis nege­mus, sed ne torpeamus ne­ue supini ipsi & dormieates, alus tatum mo do nostra cu­randa mande­ [...]. Neyther [...]e we speake this to denie that wee should pray to Saints, but that wee should not be negligent or slouthfull, and so f [...]lling on sleepe, or being benummed, we should commit the managing of our affaires to others. Where wee are to note [Page 33]by the way, that the coppy which Chemnicius cyteth hath these wordes; Non quod negemus sanctus orare debere pro peccatoribus; Not that wee deny that the Saints should pray for sinners. Where by the sence should differ very much; & in this case hee would not haue made such hast to taxe him for omission because hee should haue gained no­thing thereby. But taking law of the common lesson; eyther S. Chrisostom in this Homely speaketh of praying to the liuing Saintes, to remember vs in theyr prayers; eyther else of inuocation of the Saints deceased. If of these, then doth the L. of Plessis confesse the omission, and graunteth that hee hath done amisse. If of the o­thers, what wrong hath he done, sith they both agree, for there is no controuersie in the matter? But surely it is most euident by the whole course of all the Home­ly, and by the examples produced, that hee there speak­eth onely of the holy men that make intercession heere beneath in theyr prayers, to God for his people, and of the faythfull praying each for other. In this Homely doth S Chrisostom handle this poynt, that euen our Lords bretheren belieued not in him. And thereout ga­thereth this conclusion; That it is in vaine to haue any familiarity, eyther of Country, Family or Parentage with the Lord, vnlesse wee labour to conforme our selues vnto him. And therefore he sayth, Ibid. p. 54. Nemo de se desperet, &c. neevila in re a­lia spem suam, quam post Dei misericordiam in vertute sua collocet. Let no man settle his hope in any thing, but next vnto the mercy of God, in his owne vertue. To the same purpose he alleageth; Et mox. Nam & propheta id ipsum signi­ficans ait, Fra­ter non redimet homo? Frater non re­dimit, redimet homo? The brother redeemeth not, man shall re­deeme, &c. d Now (sayth hee) albeit Moses and Samuel were present and should pray for that people, yet would I not receaue their prayers. Like wise the more plainely to shew [Page 34]vs, that hee speaketh of those men, returning into the estate of this life. [...] paulo post; Et si Samuel [...]msum pro ali­quo indigno deprecetur, [...]ntinuo ad ip­ [...]m diect Deus Ne lugeas pro­pter Saul. Eti­amsi pro soro­re quupiam in­competēcur o­rauerit, audiet quod Moses &c. And if Samuell (sayth hee) should pray againe for any vnworthy person, God would strayght­way say vnto him; Mourne not for Saul: Likewise if one should pray vnreasonably for his Sister, beholde heere what aunswere was made vnto Moses, &c. Then dooth hee adde, Sequitu [...]; Ha­bent enim vim pro nobis, & quidem maxi­mā, orationes supplicationes quae Sanctorū, sed tune cū nos quoque poeni­tentiam egeri­mus, & melio­res reddemur. For the prayers and supplications of the Saintes for vs are of great force, but when our selues also doe repent and amend. And of what Saintes? That shall indeede ap­peare by that which immediatly followeth. Sequiter im­mediatè. Nam etiā Moses qui sratrem suum, & sexcenta illa milia armatorū à tam dira liberauit ira, sorrem tamen suam nequiuit eripere, non quippe erat aequale pec­catum: Illa enim iniuriosius de Mose fuerat quiddā locuta, illic vero impietas erat quod perpetratum erat. For Moses himselfe (sayth hee) who deliuered his brother and his 600000. armed men from the fearefull wrath of God: could not neuert helesse warrant his Sister, albeit the sinne were not equally alike, for she had spoken iniuriously of Moses: and on the others behalfe the sinne that had been committed, was meere impiety: Then was it of the liuing Saints, & of the faithfull that praye for the sinnes each of other. There also followe many other examples of the like nature: Of Samuel praying and being heard for Israell: praying also, but not heard, for Saul. Of Jeremy heard when he pray­ed for some: and when hee prayed for the people, not heard: Of Daniel praying for the people, and not heard: and heard when he prayed for the Heathen, &c. h Where­by (saith hee) wee doe learne that if our selues be slouthfull [Page 35]and negligent, we cannot be saued, no not by the merds of others: But if wee siue soberly, wee may by our selues, and much rather by our selues then by others: For God will also shew mercy not so much for then sakes that pray for vs, as for our owne; that wee might vse the libertie of speaking with God, and labouring to recencile our selues to him, might a­mend our bu [...]s, &c. Which againe he prooueth by the example of the Cananite, of the euill liuing woman: of the theefe, &c. Sic Chananae­am illā aliquā do miseratus est: sic etiam meretrici do­nauit salutem, sic latro [...]ē nul­lo mediatore intercedente. I [...]o whome (saith he) God gaue saluati­on, not that any Patron or Mediator made intercession for them. Where then hytherto, where is any other inuoca­tion, or intercession, other then the liuing Saintes? not one word of the deceased. Now doe immediately fol­low the wordes now in question, & let vs take them euen as he list. Sequitur im­mediatè. Et haec non eo di­cimus, vt sup­plicandum esse Sanctis nege­mus, sed ne torpeamus, nevesupini ipsi & dormietes aliis, tantūodo nostra curanda mandemus. But we speake not these thinges to denye that we should pray to the Saints, but that we should beware that we suffer not our selues to be ouertaken with slouth and carelessenes: and so falling on sleep, commit the mannaging of our matters to others. And then as in all other places, the liuing Saintes, not the deceased. Heere will the Lord of Eureux say againe. Why should he alleage this place a­gainst the inuccation of Saintes deceased, sith heere is no mention but of the prayers of the liuing Saintes? Surely because he meant to vndermine the very foun­dation of that confidence, that men doe repose in the holynesse and merites of others: as also, as wee sayd before, that if wee may not repose our selues vpon the prayers of those that doe conuerse with vs, whose conditions we doe know, and they ours; and to whom in charity we are commended by the Lord, and they to vs: much lesse vpon the prayers of those that rest aboue (as saith Saint John) from all their labours; who (sayth S. Angustine vnto vs) doe not inter meddle [Page 36]with the affayres of this world: the measure of whose knowledge we know not, as likewise they knewe not the perticular necessities of our conditions. Otherwise, should they not be Gods? Whereof moreouer we haue neyther in the Olde Testament, nor in the New, ey­ther commaundement, example or promise: Whereas the prayers of the Saintes conuersant heere among vs, one for an other, stand both vpon expresse commaun­dement and ordinary practise. All which notwithstan­ding, sentence passed for the omission: that these words, Et haec non eo dicimus vt supplicandum sanctis esse negemus: Neither doe J speake these thinges to deny that we should pray vnto Saintes, &c. ought to haue beene added, for the ground-worke; that this Homely is to be vnderstood of Saintes deceased. And all for want of reading the Text throughout, as the Lord of Plessis instantly required: but the common error carried it away, as if there had neuer been mention of any other Sayntes but of the deceased. As if Caris Dei adgeniculari; Sanctorum vincula deosculari; To kneele to the beloued of God; To kisse the bondes of the Saintes, in Tertullian, and a thousand such other places in the Fathers, could be vnderstood of others, then those that are conuersant heere beneath among vs.

The fifth place out of Hieromy.

NOw followeth the fifth taken out of S. Hierom vpon Ezechiel lib. 4. Ca. 14. Lib. 3. of the [...]uchar. ch. 14. edir. 1. p. [...]. l. 8. edit. 2. p. 626. l. 15. edit. 3. p. 502 l. 16. alleaged by the L. of Plessis. p. 583. li. 8. against prayers to Saintes, in these words. Haerony in Ezechiele lib. 4. c. 14. ex edi­tione Christ. Plantini 1578. Quod si in ali­quo fiducia est insolo domino considamus. Maledictus .n. omnis homo qui spē habet in homine, quā uis sancti sint, quamuis Pro­phete, Legimus Nolite cōsidere in homimbus. Et iterum. Bo num est consi­dere in Domi­no quam cōsi­dere in princi­pibus. Nō in, princip ibus tantū scaeculi, sed & in principibus Eccleasiarum, qui suas tāium aoimas si iusti suerint, liberabun [...]. Filios autem ac silias quos in Ecclesia genuetint, si fuerint negligentes, saiuare non poterunt. If trust (sayth he) bee to bee reposed in any, let vs repose our trust in one only God; for cursed is the man that trusteth in men, be they Saints, be they Prophets. Wee must not trust Principtbus Ecclesiarum, in the Principles of the Church, who albeit they bee righteous, shall deliuer but their owne soules, not the soules of their children. Against this place also the L. of Eureux pleaded omission, because these word. (Sinegligentes fuerint, if they be negligent) were omitted. Which the L. of Plessis consesseth to be true (as he will alwaies do, where like matter failes our) not of a­ny bad intent, for what should he get by it? but because (as it seemeth) he relyed vpon the aduersaries owne al­legation. For in their ordinary glosse, euen vpon this very place of Ezechiel, this place is alleaged, and these very wordes omitted; and as we may well thinke with­out fraude. b It is good (saith he) to trust in the Lord, rather then to trust in Princes, not of the world onely, but euen of the Churches: who albeit they be righteous, shall deliuer but theyr owne soules, not their Sonnes nor their daughters, whom they haue begotten in the Church. Also this place of Ezechul doth [Page 38]S. Hierome vnder-stād in like sence, as Chrisostom doth the place of Noah, Daniel and Job, returning into this world. Heere againe did the L. of Eureux instantly vrge; what maketh this place against the inuocation of Saintes de­ceased, sith it speaketh properly of the liuing? Whereto he was answered as in the former; but the rather, because in the L. of Plessis booke, entreating vpon this place of S. H [...]rame vpō Ezechiel, ensued these words that answered him. [...] Obseurch­ [...], docentur [...] haue sentē ­ [...]lam nou [...] quod lautat. Deum in praesenti sae­culo sumus, si­ue orationibus, siue consiliis in­ui [...]ē posse nos coadiunari. Cū autem ante tri­bunal Christi, venerimus, nō [...]ob, non Daeni­el, nec Noe ro­gare posse proquoquam; sed vnumquem­que portare o­nussuum. And to the end we should not thinke that he meant not to speake but of the liuing, writing vpon the Epistle to the Ga­lathians vpon these words; Euery man should beare his bur­den, marke what he saith: By this short sentence we doe learne, albeit darkely, a new Doctrine that is hidden, that so long as we remaine in this world, wee may bee holpen by the prayers and counsailes one of an other; But when wee come before the Tribunall seate of Christ, neither Iob, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can pray for any man, but euery man shal beare his owne bur­den. Now the L. of Plessis vrged him to way these words; siue orationibus, siue consiliis: Whether with prayer, or with coun­sell: But he would not heare him, saying hee had not to doe but with this place.

The sixt place out of S. Cirill.

THe sixt was a place out of S. Cirill of Alexandria, in his sixt booke against Iulian, [...] 2 de Eu­ [...]. c. 3. ed. 1. p. 233. l 5. edit. 2. p. 239. l. 30. ed. [...]. p. 139. l. 25. taken out of the pa. 223. l. 5. where the L. of Plessis sayth. That he an­swereth the Emperour Iulian, who obiected the honour done to the Crosse; That the christians doe yeeld neither adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse. Ouer largely peraduen­ture for the words, though surely not for the sence. And therefore the L of Eur. pretending vntruth, grounded [Page 39]vpon these wordes; He answereth, because he answereth not precisely in these wordes. Heereto the L. of Ples. an­swered, that by his owne text it appeared, that he neuer meant to alleage the wordes of Cirill, onely hee gathe­red the sence out of a discourse, of a leafe in quantity: that indeed the oration was not direct, but by the way, the Character of the text, not of any allegation. There­fore that they ought to seeke the sence and not the wordes: and the rather because it hath been often sayd, that the vntruth should not be concluded vpon the di­uersitie of woords, in case the sence were to be found. And as for the sence, sayth hee, Julian sayd vnto the Christians. Cirill. Alena. contra Iulianū lib. 6. p. 134. to. 3. Basill. apud Ioan. Heruagi­um. 1566. Et ô miserihomi­nes, cum seruē ­tur arma qure magnus demi­sit Iupiter, hoc est, pater Mar­tis, pignore da­to non verbo, sed re, quod ci­uitatem nos­tram perpettio protecturussit, cessatis adora­re & colere & interim crucis lignum adora­tis, imagines illius in fronte & antedomus pingentes. Yee wretches as yee are, yee worship not Anci­lia de coelo lapsa, & our bucklers fallen from heauen, which Iu­piter hath giuen vs for the protection of our Citty, and yet yee worship the tree of the Crosse, and paint the Images thereof in the forefronts, and before your houses. Heereunto if the Christians in those daies had worshipped the tree of the Crosse, what was there to be said, sauing, we worship it because it deserueth worship, and not Dulia onely, but also Hiperdulia, a more especiall seruice, euen so forre foorth as to bend both the knees, yea to bow with the belly to the earth, euen to inuocate it as liuing, &c. But what aunswere doth S. Cirill make him? Et paucis in­teriectis. Abs­que labore demonstrabimus elusmodi sermones à malis cogitationibus profectos, ex­tremam sapere imperitiam. But (sayth he) we can easily proue that these speeches proceed of bad thoughts, and relye vpon extreame ignoraunce. And wherein? Sauing in that hee did imagine that because they painted the Crosse, they did it to worship it? And therefore euen at once he bringeth him backe from the Crucifixe to the crucified: from the signe to the thing signified: from the pretended oderation of the wood, to the mistery of [Page 40]our redemption, [...], Nam [...] & do­ [...], qua [...] omnibus [...] aequalia [...], & indi­ [...]unitatis solio considere, non capinam tamē arbitratus est se esse aequalem Deo, sed serp­sum humilia­uit, formam serui accipiens, contemtaque ignominia cru­cem sustinuit vt corruptionis abolueret po­tentiam: Vnus pro omnibus moriuus, & ex­citatur vt à mortis laqueis humanum eri­peretgenus. &c Vt spirituales saceret adoratores, mortuumque faciens in nobis sensum carnis, filios essi­ceret Dei eos qui in se crediderunt, &c. &c. Our Lord and Sauiour (saith hee) might doe equally with the Father, hee might sit vpon the Throne of the [...], and yet neuer be imputed vnto him for theft, in that he made him elfe equall with him: but hee humbled himselfe; hee tooke vpon him the shape of a Ser­uant; hee contemned ignominy that hee might beare the Crosse, to take away corruption, and alone for all men to dye & rise againe, to deliuer mankinde out of the shares of death. &c. To procure to himselfe worshippers in Spirit. Note, in Spirit, and not worshippers of flockes and stones; to the end to make vs the children of God, by killing the motions of the flesh in vs, &c. And as concerning this wood, he sayth. d This healthfull wood putteth vs in minde of all these thinges, and exhorteth vs to remember the saying of S. Paul. One only dy­ed for all, to the end that liuing they should not heereafter liue to themselues, but to him that dyed and rose againe for them. Againe, e Wouldst thou (saith he) wish vs to reiect this wood, that putteth vs in minde of all goodnes? and to set before our wiues and children thy paintings. Namely, as hee did a little before discourse, the patrons of all vncleanenesse and polution? Of the worshipping therefore, or adora­tion of this wood (albeit this was the very fit place) not one word. And indeed saith the L. of Ples. why should it seeme more strange in Cirill then in Minutius Felix, who doth expressely say; f We doe neither worship nor wish [Page 41]the Crosse. Then in S. Ambrose, who speaking of Helen the mother of Constantine, saith. [...] non in­num vtique, quia lib. [...] eti error & [...] impio­rum. Hellen worshipped [...] the wood for that had been an error and heat burnish [...]. Where the question concerned not the Crosse onely, but the true Crosse. Heereto the Lord of Eureux replyed, that these places were to be vnderstood by the distincti­on of Dulium and Latria. The L. of Ples. old vphold that this distinction was friuolous, vnknowne in the holy Scriptures, or Fathers; imposed vpō S. Angustive who [...]e­uer vnderstood it. But he ere into would the Lord of Eur. neuer enter. Lastly, that this great [...] (for he took pleasure in his [...],) who had been a Christian, and was acquainted with the Christian mi­steries, would neuer [...] puted it [...] them, [...] it not been liue. But let the L. of Eu. marke, what preiud [...]e he hath here wrought to the sacrisice of the M [...]sse, before he was a [...]e. And euen there where Julian obiecteth to the Christians, that they sacrificed not; saying vnto thē; Cyrill Alex­and. cōtra Iu­lian. lib. 9. Vos antem inuento nouo sacrificio non vltra indi­gentes Hieru­salem, quare non sacrificatis And you my masters that haue no more to do will Hieru­salē, why doyou not sacrifice, in finding out some new sacrifice? He wil beare vs witnes y t the christians in those daies did not sacrifice; that in hewe of the Iewish sacrifices, which thē they had giuen ouer, they had not as yet brought in any new sacrifice: Euen he, let vs say with the L. of Eu. who should not haue forgotten the ordinary sacrifice of the Sonne of God, dayly reiterated by the Priestes, had it been at that time in vse in the Church. Heere the King himselfe perceiuing that they could pretend no vntruth against this place, pronounced aloude that both sides had reason. And therupon the L. Chauncellor pronoun­ced simply; That the words are not to be found in S. Cirill. So leauing matter sufficient to inferre, that the sence was neuerhelesse to be gathered.

The seauenth place out of Peter Crinitus.

THen they came to the seauenth place out of Peter Crinitus that the L. of Eur. and his side had made so much adoe of, Lib. 2. de Eu­char c. 3. edit. 1. p. 223. l. 10. edit. [...]. p. 239. l. 3 [...]. edit. 3. p. 199. l. 29. taken out of the 223. pag. lin 10. Where the L. of Ples. alleaging this Crinitus, de honesta dis­ciplina, lib. 9. in the Margent for his author, saith; That the Emperors Theodosius & Valens had made an edict in these words. Fet. Crinitus. li. [...]. de honesta discipl. cap. 9. Lugd. a [...]u. Se­bast. Gryphiū 1543. Cum sit nobis cura di­li [...]s in rebus ōnibus superni numinis religi­onem tue [...]. sig num Saluato­ris Christi ne­mini quidem concedimas coloribus, lapi­de, aliaue mate ria s [...]ingere, in­sculpere, aut pingere. Sed quodeumque reperitur tolli iubemus; gra­uissima poena eos multando. qui contrariū deceretis nos­tris & impetio qu [...]equain ten­tarint. Because our greatest care concerneth the seruice of God, we forbid all persons that they shall not make the signe of our Lord Jesus Christ, neyther in colour, in mettall, or in any other matter; that they shall not graue, paint or carue it: but wee will wheresoeuer it may be found, that it be taken away, vnder paine that all offenders to the contrary, shal be most grieuously punished. Heere against the L. of Eur. pretended falsehood, because (said he) this law was otherwise set downe in the Code; namely, that it is prohibited to paint or carue the Crosse vpon the earth, humt, in which word consisteth the force of this law. The L. of Ples. answereth; There can be no falsification, because in Crinitus whom he hath alleaged it is so set downe; that Crinitus sayth that he tooke it (ex libris Augustalibus) out of the Imperiall bookes, others peraduenture then the cōmon sort: & it may be himself hath read sundry sorts of the common sort. That he cited Valens and Theo losius, who rai [...]ned not together, and so hee might confound their edictes into one: That these wordes in Crinitus. Nemini concedemus coloribus, lapide, ali­ [...]e materia singere, insculpere, aut pingere, can no way bee entred into the place of these of the Code. li. [...]. c. nemi­ni lic. sig. salu. &c. Lib. 1. tit. 7. leg. 1. where we read, Nemins licere vel in solo, vel in silice, velta marmoribus humi positis insculpere, vel pingere: too far from the letters or sillables, also from the text, to bee [Page 43]eyther ingengred or corrupted the one by the other. Contrariwise, that it was more likely that as superstition encreased in the Church in the dayes of Iustinian, that Tribonian accommodated that law of Valens and Theodo­sius to his time, by adding humi: Which the learned Cuiatius, and after him, all other lawyers had noted in sundry lawes, as well of the common wealth as of the Empyre. Whereof likewise we haue one testimony in matter of the Crosse: for the punishment by the Crosse being by all Christian Emperours forbidden, in euery place where the Romaine lawes had Crucem, Tribonian put in Furcam. Infinite other like examples might wee alleadge. Besides there was no cause that this law should seeme more strange then the 36. Canon of the Eliber­tin counsell. Concil Eliber. c. 36. Placuir picturas in Ec­clesiis esse non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Jt hath pleased, or it hath been thought good, that there should be no painting in the Churches, to the ende that which is worshipped, should not be painted on the walles. For (sayth the L. of Ples.) if the Crosse or Crucifixe were worshipped, they were not then painted in the churches: if they were painted, they were not then worshipped. To this latter reason the L. of Eureux did reply, that this Canon was otherwise to bee vnderstood; namely, that they should not be paynted vpon the walles, but vpon loose tables that might be fastned to the walles. Also that that was theyr manner still in the Diocesse of Eliberis in Spaine. But heereof let the reader iudge by these words, Picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, for the question is, that there should bee no paintinges in the Church, eyther painted or fastned. And so did the Elders vnderstand it. As also our Agobard Bishop of Lyons, who writ since the yeare 800. Agobardus Episc. Lugdu­nensis contra e­orum supersti­tionem qui pic­turis & imag­inibus sanctorū adorationis ob­sequium de­ferendum pu­tant. Qui liber manuscr. extat in Biblioth. S. Victoris. Si vi­derimus pen­natos Angelos pictos, praedicā ­tes Apostolos. martyres tor­menta patien­tes, nullum ab imaginibus, quas aspicimus, auxiliū sperate debemus, quia nec bene, nec malè possūt facere. Rec­te nimirū adeiusmodi euacuandā superstitionē ab Orthodoxis Patribus definitū est, Picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus de­pingatur. Albeit wee see the Angels painted with [Page 44]their winges, the Apostles preaching, the Martirs suffering their torments, yet are wee not to hop, for any succour from the Jmages that we see, for they can doe neither good nor euill. And therefore to roote out this superstition, the Orthodorall Fathers haue very well decreed, that there should bee no pain­tings in the Church: that that which is serued and worshipped should not be printed vpon the [...]. Alleaging the words of this Counsell. All which notwithstanding the L. of Eur. grew out of patience, that this place that hee had made so great account of, was not condemned of falsehoode: And therefore most importunately both with hand and voice vrgod the Commissioners. Where­vpon the L. Chauncellor procounced, That indeed the L. of Plessis had truely quoted the place of Crinitus, but that Cri­ritus was deceiued.

The eight place out of S. Bernard.

THen followeth a place of S. Bernard, Lib. 3. de Eu­char. ch. 15. e­dit. 1. p. 60 p. l. 9. [...]. 2. p. 648. l. [...]. edit. 3. p. [...]. 12. taken out of his 174. Epistle to the Canons of Lyons, alleaged by the L. of Ples. pa. 604. li. 9. (for thus they leapt from one to another) where he entreeteth of the con­ception of the Virgin Mary. Out of this Epistle against the false honours attributed to the holy Virgin, be took these words. She need no false honours, being as she is, at the fith [...]s thereof: It is no honour, but a taking away of her honour. The feast of her conception was neuer well instituted. Which propositions the L. of Ples. gathered out of sun­dry places of this Epistle. And the L. of Eur. pretende. falsehood against this place: because (said he) the Lord of Ples. had omitted that which came betweene the two clauses. Magnifica gratiae inuentricem, mediatricem salutis, [Page 45]restauratricem saeculorum. Magnifie the inuentrix of grace, the mediatrixe of saluation, the restoratrixe of the world, &c. The Lord of Plessis vpholdeth that in this allegation, he vseth neyther mayming nor fraude: No fraude, for he doth not dissemble the commendations that S. Ber­nard attributeth to the Virgin Mary, where. soone after he sayth; That in other places S. Bernard helpeth to ad­uaunce the same abuse, where he saith. O man, thou hast a sure accesse to God, where the Mother is before the Sonne, the Sonne before the Father, the Mother shewing her Sonne her bosome and brestes; the Sonne shewing the Father his side and his woundes. What could be spoken more sincerely? and dooth not this import more aduantage, then the words that the Lord of Eureux tooke holde of? Me­diavicem salutis, the mediatrixe of saluation, which cannot be borne, but so sarre forth as the Virgin was the instru­ment of saluation; Neither truely any mayming, for the clauses are distinguished by great letters; and which is more the same that concerneth the feast of the concep­tion is repented in sundry places, both before and after the same, whereby the allegation dooth beginne. Shee need no false honours, &c. Neyther hath the Lord of Plessis heerein hurt any but himselfe, in that labouring [...] after breuity he sayd not enough. baint Bernard sayth to the Chanons of Lyons. Bernard. epist 174. edit. Pa­risions. a [...]nd Gu [...]. [...]. 1566. Mira­mur saris quid visum sucrit hoc te [...] pore quibu [...]ā ves­trum voluisse mutare colorē optimum, no­nam inducendo celebritatem, quam ritus Ecclesiae neseit, non probat rario, non com­mendarantiqua traditio. Numquid Patribus doctiores aut deuotiores sumus? Pericu­lose praesumimus quicquid ipsorum in talibus prudentia praeteriuet. Nec ver [...]d tale est quod nisi praetereundum sucrit, Partum quiuerit omnino diligentiā praeteriisic. At val­de honoranda es, inquis, mater Domini. Bene admones, sed honor Reginae iudicium deligit. Virgo regia falso non eget honore, veris cumulata honorum titulis, &c. We doe surely maruatle what toy hath taken some of you in the heades to alter your good colour, by bringing in (note for the conception) a new feast which the Co­remonies of the Church know not, which reason alloweth not, [Page 46]which auncient tradition doth not recommend. Are we ey­ther better learned, or more deuout then the Fathers? Shall wee presume or dare to vndertake with perrill, all that in such mat­ters their discretion hath omitted? Neyther is this matter of so small importaunce, that their dilligence would in any wise haue omitted it, if it had not been to be omitted: But thou wilt say, the Mother of our Lord must bee honoured. Thou giuest vs good warning, but the honour of the Queene must bee done vnto her with iudgement. The royall Virgin (note for vn­meete honours) needed no false honours, being as she is, laden with the true tytles of honour. Wherein wee are then to note the true periods cyted by the Lord of Plessis, euen that which concerneth the conception, and the other that toucheth the false honours attributed to the holie Virgin, immediately and in one sequence, whereby hee was not bound to adde that which followed farre en­ough off, Magnifica gratiae inuentricem, &c. For had hee vndertaken to set downe the whole Epistle, hee prose­cuteth the reasons, in regard wherof the feast of the con­ception hath no reason, in a long discourse, and toward the conclusion redoubleth the same sentences, that hee had set at the beginning in his preface; Ibidem, sub sinem pag. Di­co gloriosam de Spiritu S. concepisse, non autem & con­ceptam fuisse: dico peperisse virginem, non tamen & par­tam a virgine. Alioquin vbi e­rit praerogatiua matris Domini &c. Nō est hoc virginem ho­norare, sed honori detrahere &c. I say (sayth he) that the glorious Ʋirgin conceiued of the holy Ghost, but not that she was conceiued: That she a Virgin brought foorth a childe, not that shee was childed of a Ʋirgin. Otherwise what prerogatiue were it to the Mother of the Lord? &c. This is no honouring of the Virgin, but rather an abasement of her honour, &c. And therefore sayth he: c Things being at this [Page 47]passe, what reason can there be to celebrate the conception? J say, how can we affirme the conception to be holy, which is not of the holy Ghost, J will not say which is of sinne? Or howe shall we sanctifie this conception which cannot bee holy? Surely the holy Virgin can be content to forbeare this honour, whereby her sinne shall be honoured, or a false holines brought in. In another place; No noueltie presumed without reason, contra­ry to the custome of the Church, can she like of, Mother of rashnesse, Sister of superstition, Daughter of inconstancie or lightnesse. Then dooth he afterward referre himselfe to the decision of the Church of Rome, which belonged not to our purpose. Nowe let any vpright minde iudge, whether there were any holde to bee taken a­gaynst this place, whereupon notwithstanding for the satisfying of his importunity it was pronounced; That it had beene good to distinguish the two places of S. Ber­nard in one selfe booke (namely of this selfe Epistle) by one, &c. Which neuerthelesse albeit repeated in two seueral pla­ces, doe immediatly follow each other.

The ninth place out of Theodoret.

THe ninth was taken out of Theodoret vpō the 113 Psalme, alleaged by the Lord of Plessis pag. 218. lyn. 9. in these wordes. Lib. 2. de Eu­char. ch. 2. e­dit. 1. p. 218. l. 9. edit. 2. p. 234. l. 21. edit. 3. p. 195 l. 13 God (sayth he) dooth what he pleaseth, but Images are made as it pleaseth men: they haue the habitation of the sences, but sences they haue none: being heerein inferiour to the flyes, flease, and all vermine: and it is meete that they that worship them should loose both reason and sence. And the Lord of Plessis had taken the most substantiall clauses of this Psalme. But the Lord of Eur. pretended falsehood in two respectes: In the translati­on, [Page 48]because he expressed Simulacra [...] by Images: for hee would haue it Ido [...] In omission, because he had not set downe a Gentibus cul [...]a, worshipped or s [...]ued by the Gen­ [...]s: to distinguish them (sayd hee) from the Images of the Christians. To the first the Lord of Plis [...]is answered that these wordes [...], Simulach [...]a, Imagines did vsual­ly passe for one. And this did the Lord of Plis [...]is offer him to prooue; but he would not enter thereinto. And indeed in the 40. of Esay where the olde interpreter sayth, Si­mulacrum the Septuaginte say [...], Image. And in the 4. of Deutronomy, the olde interpreter tr [...]nslateth the woord [...] Imaginem, the Septuaginte [...]. That the same olde interpreter translateth in the 33 of the C [...]o­nicles Simulacrum that which the Septuaginte [...]. And the first of the Romaines where S. [...]a [...] saith [...]; Lombard, Caietan, Stapuiensis, Osor [...]us, &c. [...]ue translated Simulacrum. In the Scriptures they are therefore in­different. For the Fathers, Iust. Martyr in Tryphone. pag. 251 edit. Hierca. Com­mel. Grae. Lat. Qut per Mo­se [...]sanxit [...], ne qua omnino sieret vel imago, vel simditudo, ne­que corū quae in coelo sunt. &c. Iustm Martir layth, That God forbad Moses to make any Image or similitude: where the Septuaginte say [...], hee sayth [...]. Tertullianus de Idolelatria ch. 3. Ex edit. Pa [...]chi. Ad hoc necessaria est vocabusi in­ [...] pret [...]tio; [...] Graece f [...]rm [...]m sonat; ab eo per diminutionem [...] deductum, aeque apud nos formu [...]. Igitur omnis forma vel sormulo, Idolu se dici expos [...]it, inde Idololatria om­nis circa omne Idolum samulatus & seruius. Tertullian; E [...]s, in Greeke, signifieth forme or figure; whereof com­meth the diminutiue [...], which we doe interpret a small forme or figure; therefore euery forme or small sor [...]ne must bee called Idolum. And thereof Idolatrie, all honour and ser­uice that is done, circa omne Idolum, to any forme or figure. Againe, c You that serue the stones, and that make Jmages of golde, and of siluer, and of wood, and of stone, &c. And a­gaine, speaking of the Gentils; d Their Images are Jdols, the conse [...]ratioon of Images is Jdolatry. Minu [...]ius Fel [...]x [Page 49]vpon the reproach of the Heathen Celsus, cast in his dish, that the Christians had no Images. Min [...]. [...]e­lix pag [...]5. e­dit. Heidelberg Quis dubitat hotum imagi­nes cons [...]ratas vulgus orare & publice colere. Who doubteth (sayth he) but the Heathen direct their prayers to the Images, that these men haue consecrated, as also that they honour them pub­liquely with religious seruice? and within three lynes after, he calleth them notwithstanding Simulachra; Mox. Quod si in animum quis inducat tormentis qui­bus, & quibu [...] machinis si­mulacrū om­ne formetur, erubescet &c. If a man should imagine with what tooles euery Image is fra­med, &c. Wherefore also it commeth that Jsidore mea­neth no other subtilty; Isider. Ori­ginū li. 8. ca. 8. Simulacra (sayth he) a similitu­dine nuncupata, eo quòd manu artificis ex lapide, aliàue materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem firguntur; Jma­ges so called in regard of the similitude, because by the worke­mans hand, whether of stene or other substance, they imitate the countenaunces of those to whose honour they are fayned. Euen among the Schoole-men, Thomas calleth that Thomas in 1. ad Corinth. cap. 8. lect. 1 Simulacrum quod ad simi­litudine alicu­ius rei natrua­lis fit. Jmage, that is made to the resemblaunce of any natural thing. Also Durand, Durand. lib. 1. c. 3. in sum­mario, art. 4. Idolorum im­modicus vsus reprobatur, modicus pro­batur. The immoderate vse of Jdols is reprooued, the moderate approoued, 1 of Images. And in the same Chap. Nonsacies Idolum, thou shalt not make thee any Idoll. Also, Simulachra Gentium Argentum & Aurum, the Jmages of the Gentils are siluer and golde, &c. By such authorities (sayth he) the excessiue and immoderate vse of Images is con­demned, &c. Holcor likewise expounded a place of the booke of Wise [...]ome, Chap. 3. against the Idolaters; l In this part doth the holy Ghost beginne to condemne Jdolaters, and those that doe honour and serue Images and artificiall figures. Againe, m Thou shalt not make thee any Image, &c. translating [...], for Image. So new a matter is this distinction betweene Idoll and Image among the Christians; Idē lib. 1. c: 3 Ex his & simi­libus auctoritatibus reprobatur nimius imaginum vsus. Holcot in lib. Sapien. lect. 157. in vers. 10. cap. 13. In hac parte Spiritus S. consequenter aggreditur repro­bare Idololatras qui colunt Imagines & artificiales figuras. yea [Page 50]euen so farre foorth that Pope Pius the fifth, expoun­ding the ten commaundements, confoundeth them in these words; Pius Quin­tus in Exp [...]ca. de [...]l [...]gi [...]ae­ [...]pto 2. In [...]cripturis ius­su D [...]i simula­ [...]ra & imagi­nes e [...]ictas le­ [...]us, Cheru­ [...], serp [...]ntis [...]ei. Jn the Scriptures we d [...]eread that by Gods commaundement they made Images and likenesses, as of the Cherubins. of the serpent &c. Now against these authori­tyes, which the Lord of Plessis would haue alleaged to the Lord of Eur. he appealed for help to Henry Stephens Thesaurus (he shuld haue ioyned with it the Card. of Sens, his Calepine) where against they might with more reason haue opposed the olde Glosser: S [...]mula [...]rum, [...], Lakenes, Jmage, Jdoll, Picture, where all these wordes are confounded together. Thus much for the falsehood committed in the translation. Now for the second, in the omission of these words, a Gentibus cul­ta, worshipped or serued by the Gentils; The L. of Pl [...]. answe­red that of themselues they did sufficiently supply, in that the Psalme spake directly against the Images or I­dols of the Gentils; considering also that in those dayes the Christians had no Images, as is already sufficiently prooued: which notwithstanding was no let, but that that Psalme and text might at these dayes be applyable against the Images of the Christians, euen as wel as they were or might haue been in the olde Testament against Images of the Iewes, when after the imitation of the Heathen, they diuerted to Idolatry. As indeed the argu­ments did equally concurre each with other; that they were made, but not made; that they receiued honour of their colour & mettal, & shape from the hand & plesure of the painter; that they had the seates of the sences, but were insencible, &c. Hereto the L. of Eu. replyed that the deuils or demons inhabited in the Idols of the Heathen; which was graunted him in regard of some, but few, and denyed in the most part and ordinary. The L. of Eur. a­gaine replyed, that in those dayes, and before the Chri­stians [Page 51]had Images: witnesse (saith hee) Theodoret [...] vesti­bu [...]is & porti­cibus ei paruas posuerint ima­gines, hine sibi praesi [...]ium & tutelā paren­tes. Cum ergo venirent innu­merabiles; co­nabantur autē omnes cōtrec­tare, & expelli­ceis illis vestibꝰ aliquam preci­pere benedicti­onem; primū quidem absur­dum & alienu existimans tā insignem sibi haberie hono­rem, deinde [...] ­tiam rem ae­gre ferens vt nimis laborio­sam, machi­natus est illā in columna stati­onem: primū quidē iubens aedificari sex cubitorum, deinde duodecim postea autem: vigin [...]iduorum, &c. who in the history of Saintes, telleth vs that Simon surnamed Stilites, was so famous in Rome, that in the porches of all their shops they had set him vpsmal Images, hoping for suc [...]oura [...] their hands; And this did the assistants receiue with great ap­plause. Heere let the reader note that the Author saith [...], [...]en say: Also, in the porches of their shops, not in the Churches. Againe, Posuerunt, they planted the common people, [...]ot the Church: But which is more, that these honors thus done vn­to him did so grieue him, that hee det [...]rmined to cause the piller to be built, vpon the top whereof he purposed to ende his life, that so he might sequester himselfe from the world. Finally the L. Chauncellor pronounced, That this place could not be vnderstood but of the Jdols of the Gentils, and not of the J­mages of the Christians, as appeared in these words; a Gentibus culta; & quae in Gentibus adorantur, that had bin omitted. But in conscience of a Diuine, is this any let why by Anology the same may not be alleaged against y • Images of y e christians?

Thus were these nine places examined, and no more, be­cause it grew late: where may bee easily discerned that the L. of Ples. who had strained him in the arguing of the for­most, finding that he was disgraced by thy Kings presence, whose religion, albeit not directly, he did impugne; & gree­ued with the applause that seconded all his his aduersaryes sayings, withall seeing that they permitted not the Com­missioners time enough to read and consider of the places; and euidently perceiuing by all the countenaunces and cir­cumstances, that this action was prepared (notwithstan­ding whatsoeuer he could doe) to his disaduantage, did to­ward the ende seeme to sertle to yeelde more force to this contestation; Vnprofitably indeede imployed, in that it had been in vaine more earnestly to defend the truth, already condemned vpon the file. Yet was he prepa­red for it, and had watched very late oue: night (albeit hee [Page 52]had lost the night before) to continue the next morning, had not God in the night time sent him a great weakenesse of the stomacke, with extraordinary vomits, not without a Feuer.

Vpon which accident, the Lord of Riuier, the Kinges chiefe Phisition counsailed him to haue speedy recourse to some remedyes. And therefore the L. of Ples. most humbly besought his Maiesty to holde him excused during this sick­ness [...]. Whereupon the next day the Presidents of Thou, Pythou, Casaubon, and Ma [...]tin, were lycensed to de­part.

Heere let all such as haue seene the Lord of Eureux wri­ting, or heard him speake in company, remember whe­ther hee hath produced any thing answerable eyther to theyr conceipt, or to his owne speeches, to their hope, or to his promises. For where are these heynous, litterall, oc­culary falsehoods and vntruthes, which might bee discer­ned at the first opening of the bookes, and found at the first sight?

Contrariwise, which one place is there amongst them all, where they were not driuen to enter very farre into the sence of the text; and right, before they could assesse iudgement? Yet in the meane time vppon these great wordes who was not purposed to see the Authors falsely alleaged, the supposed places, set downe vpon plea­sure to deceiue the people? Yet who can doubt but that these sixty places by him presented, wh [...]se force was to bee perceaued in these nyne, are the chiefest, wher­in hee expected greatest ad [...]auntage, [...]ith bee placed them in the fore fronte of his battle, and in them cho­sen from among 5000. or more, with so great leasure and labour both of himselfe and others, he had reposed his pre­tended victory?

Now to come without passion to the very matter, what hath he gotten, or rather what hath hee not lost with all [Page 53]sound iudgementes in the examination of these places? For what one falsehood is there eyther judged, or to be iudged among these nyne? Or may in some one of them, the omission of some word, for the most part indifferent with men of iudgement, bee of any force against the Author, the booke, or any part of the booke? Yet let vs yeild them what they can aske in these places, (where­of notwithstanding our selues without contradiction doe retayne the best and chiefe part;) these places picked out heere and there, and in euery place, can they relieue Transubstantiation, the inuocation of Saynts, the worship­ping of Images, ouerthrowen throughout the course of the whole booke by the authoritye of the Scriptures, the practise of the Primatiue Church, and the consent of the most notable Fathers? Scot, Durand and such like, who are not alleaged, according to the phrase of the Pallace, but cumulatiuè, as it were to make vp mea­sure: which crossed out, would bee no weakening to the booke: or kept, make it not the stronger: these are they from whome they hoped, for the raysing againe of their Masse, for the proofe of Transubstantiation in the Masse, notwithstanding argued, beaten and ouerthrowen by themselues, if they durst haue stood to it. And the like let vs say of the most part of the rest. Who therefore cannot see that where hee seeketh to make most best of his force, he hath made most demonstration of his weak­nesse? where hee looked to haue bleamished the sin­ceritye of his aduersaty, hee hath caused it to breake foorth and to shine more cleare and bright. Surely (for wee may say it truely) there was neuer Booke eyther in our age or in the formerages (no not the quoyne in the generall essayes) examined so seuerely or putto so ry­gorous tryall. And yet when they that haue been made drunke with this smoke shall growe sober agayne, when they shall bee disposed earnestly to consider what [Page 54]they haue seene, what they haue done, that the deep wounds which this pretended Goliab promised, are lesse then small scratches: his blowes with his club lesse then phillips; what shall they catch, vnlesse by the affected reprehension of fri­uolous matters, they tooke st [...]edfast assurance of the infalli­ble truth of the principals, of the most firme, of the strong­est? To speake Lawyer-like; what can they iudge but that these slight exceptions haue strengthned the rule? as a great man of our age sayd very well. It is no good proofe of a matter, that there is nothing to be repugned: but rather an argument to the contrary, that it hath been but superficial­ly looked into: but that is wel tryed wherin they reprooue what they may, and finde but little to be reprooued. Were we to examine with like authority and rigour, not the books of their perticuler Doctors, but euen their Cannon law, theyr decree it selfe confirmed, Canonized and verified by the Popes; what one distinction shall escape notable false­hoods, both in number and without number? wherein wee shall not finde the places both of the Fathers & counsailes, curtalled of their most essentiall words; falsified, supposed, composed vpon pleasure, to fit them to the profit, authority or doctrine of the Popes? For to set downe some example, leauing the Donation of Constantine: the oath Ego Ludouicus with many others disavowed by the learned. In the 3. famous Counsaile at Carthage where S. Augustine was in person [...] the 31. Canon, speaketh directly against the vsurpings & enter­prises of the Church of Rome. Concil. Car­ [...]ag. 3 c. 31. [...]imiliter pla­ [...]ut vt presbi­ [...]eri & diaconi & reliqui infe­tiores clerici, in tis, quas ha­bent, causis, si de propriorum Episcoporum iudiciis querā ­tur, vicini Epis­ [...]opi cos audi­ [...]n [...], &c. Ne appellent ad iudiciū quod est extra mare, sed ad prima­res suarū pro­ [...]inciarum, quemadmodū & de Episco­pi [...]e de sini­t [...] e [...]. Qui au­tem ad trans marina iudi­ [...]ia prouocant, a nullo in Af [...]i­ [...]an ad com­munionem re­ [...]p [...]nt [...]r. That the Priests shall not ap­peale to any iudgement beyond the Seas, but to the Primates of their owne prouince, as the Bishops haue often defined: likewise that such as should appeale to any iudgement boyond the Sea [...], should not by any bee receiued into the Communion in Affricke. This Cannon employed in the [...] Decretall 2. q. 6. Placuit vt presby [...]eri, with what cōscience could they adde these words. Nisi fortè Romanam sedem appellauerint, vnlesse per [...]duenture they appeale to the S [...] of Rome, which viterly ouerthroweth [Page 55]the meaning of the Counsell? In the 73. Canon it was said; Concil. ciu [...] ­dem. c. 73. Placuit vt Pres­byteri, Episeo­pi & Diaconi propriis termi­nis etiam a su­is abs [...]niant [...]xoribus: quod nisi fecerint Ecclesiastico ordine moue­antur. It hath seemed good that the Priestes, Bishops & Deacons in their proper turnes should abstaine euen from theyr wiues. Wherein it appeareth that they were maried, & notwithstanding theyr orders, kept their wiues, but as their course came about to serue, they did abstaine, according likewise to the Canon of the sixt Counsaile: With what credite haue they inserted it into the decrees? C. Pla [...]t. dist. 32. d. 32. Cha. Placuit, cutting of these wordes, Propriis terminis, in their proper turnes, in the course of their seruice, which make the whole sence to bring in sin­gle li [...]e insteed of marriage. S. Augustine likewise decla­ring which were Canonicall Scriptures, whereupon euery Christians faith should depend: sayd, August. de. doctr. Christ. lib. 2. c. 8. In Canonicis au­t [...]n: Scripturis, Eccles [...]arum Catholicatum quamplurium sequatur auct­orita [...]em, in­ter quas san [...]. illae sunt, quae Apostolica [...] [...]e­des h [...]bere & Epistolas ac­cipere merue­ [...]unt. Tene­bitigitur hune modū in Scrip­turis Canoni­cis, vt eas quae ab omni­bus accipian­tur Ecclesiis Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt, &c. In the Canon [...]cal Scrip­tures of the Churches, let them follow the authoritie of the most part, among the which (namely Churches) those indeed are, which haue deserued eyther to be the Seas of the Apostles, or to receiue Epistles, (as Rome, Ephesus, Corinthus, Thessolonica, &c.) to pres [...]r those that all the Catholike Churches do receiue, before such as some doe not receuie, &c. With what shamelessenes could they cyte this place in these wordes. f Among which indeed let those be which the Apostolike Sea hath deserued to re­ceiue, and which the other Churches haue deserued or had the fauour to receiue from her: So to make S. Augustine, who neuer thought of it, to Canonize the Decretals of all the Popes: and that, euen by quoting this Cannon by name out of S. Augustin 2. booke de Doctrina Christiana. To bee short, g The Decretall Epistles are accounted among the Cano­nic [...]ll Scriptures, falsehoodes indeed, truely litteral, & indeed destroyers of the sence, such indeed as the L. of Eur. did promise, not such as he did produce. And of this quote only in the decree we may shew them whole hundreds, whole Chiliade [...] & (to stand vpon the very termes of the Lord of [Page 56] Eureux) of persect tale without amplification. The like may we say of the Master of the sentences, whome the Schoole­men haue taken for theyr text of all their commentaries, for the argument of all their studies; at euery fields length cor­rupting the places of the Fathers, to accommodate them to the doctrine of his time. And in three leaues that the L. of Eu. hath put to printing in all his life (how may it then bee in these great volumes?) hee cannot scape free from the like cryme.

Thus haue you heard y e true proceedings & history of this Conference, which I was forced to set downe because the people were brought into a wrong immagination, vnder co­lour of the coppy of a certaine letter that was printed and published all about, read in the Pulpits, and distributed through all the parrishes in the Realme: euen so farre foorth that the L. of Ples. comming to Saumur, found there aboue 100. Coppies, part printed at Teurs, part coppyed by the commaundement of some of the bench, by all the notaryes in the towne, whereby the inhabitantes began to murmure one against another. It is therefore but a sinall matter to let the L. of Eur. flye passe for an Elephant, and an illusion that shall goe: Truth will ouercome in a short time. But let his Maiesty in discretion, take order that this sparke, cast out at aduenture, and husbanded contrary to his meaning, by the enemies of quietnes, proceed not to a fire of sedition among his people. And God of his grace, grant him long to Raigne, in all felicity and peace to his glory, and the quiet of the kingdome. Amen.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.