Caluyns Religion leading to Turcisme or a comparison of Turkish Religion with Caluinisme The other is of the aforesaid Polonian gentleman Stanislaus Rescius Embassadour and Treasorer for his King in the Kingdome of Naplesâ— where his said worke was printed 4. yeares past as hath byn said to witt in the yeare 1596. and yt is diuided into two bookes the title wherof is this De Atheismis Phalerismis Euangelicorum nostri temporis libri duo quorum prior de fide posterior tractat de operibus eorum Which in English is thus Two bookes of the Atheismes and Phalerismes or crueltyes of the ghospellers of our tymes wherof the first treateth of their faith the second of their works This is the title and I do assure the Reader yf he pervse them with attention and indifferency he will remayne informed by their readinge and not a little astonished to behould what is there alleaged out of the wrytings of Protestants themselues and other authenticall witnesses in this behalfe Of the other worke of Maister VVilliam Reynolds prouinge that Caluyns Religion is worse in condition and lesse probable in reason then that of the Turke hath lesse ground substance therin then the other for all this and much more he declareth in this worke I shall not need to treat heere nor yet giue notice of the booke for that it was written printed very lately in Flanders is no doubt or may be easily in England before this day only I will adde this of the iudgment of strangers to witt that by testimony and asseueration of diuers very learned men of other nations there was neuer wrytten a thinge in that kind and of such an argument more excellent in respect of the infinite variety of hereticall books which he sheweth to haue read and well pondered and for the many inuincible reasons demonstrations which he alleageth for his purpose And so much of this And now I will speake somewhat larger of the fourth reproach and shame accompanyinge comonly heretiks and sectaryes and especially the heads and cheefe therof that wryte bookes which is counterfaytinge deceytfull dealinge falsifyinge and open lyinge but principally in alleaginge antiquity for their purpose wherof I haue occasion by this present story of Plessis Mornay to say somewhat and the accusation of ancient Fathers that call heretiks Falsarij that is falsifiars and corrupters of antiquity occurreth euery where in their books So as the spiritt of old heretiks agreeth with this of our new in this point as well as in many others and if we will consider the cause necessityes of this reproach in like manner we shall find them no lesse euident or forcible then the former for that sectaryes pretendinge antiquity in their doctrine for that otherwise yt would haue no credit findinge all antiquity wholy against them except onlyâ— the antiquity of heretiks and sectaryes which they dare not alleage openly though they follow them they are forced to fayne and forge somewhat of their owne as for example some of the ancient Fathers to be with them or els should they remayne without all shew or colour of honest pretence In which point notwithstandinge they do not agree amonge themselues For that first Martyn Luther their great Father forseeinge this difficulty not willinge at the beginninge to cast himselfe into these two troublesome labyrinthes first of shiftinge of by diuised interpretations those manifold authorityes of Fathers that were to be brought against him and then in finding out other Fathers in his owne behalfe he tooke a more briefe and compendious way which was to deny and contemne them all for so he doth in very many places of his workes protesting at the very beginning almost of all his heresies to wit in the yeare 1521. in an epistle wrytten to a German knight that he was tyed by the authority of no Father though neuer so holy yf he were not approued by the authority of holy scriptures wherof you must imagine himselfe world be iudge and addeth in the same place that the fathers wrytings were full of errors contrary often to themselues and disagreeing the one from the other wrestinge scriptures and the like The same also he saith of Councells in the same place and in the next yeare after this wrytinge against K. Henry the 8. he saith I do oppose against all the testimonyes of fathers of men neuer so holy of Angells and of diuells c. Wherby we may see what accoumpt he made of Fathers and Councells when they were against him And the same did Zuinglius Caluyn and others after him for a tyme when Fathers authorityes plainly were against them and could not be shifted of by sleight interpretation as in their works appeareth and Rescius declareth it notably and largely by manifold examples and places in his tenth Chapter and first booke aforesaid But when this audacity grew in tyme to be very reproachfull some later followers of theirs blushinge therat and desiringe to exercise their witts in a higher kind of subtility they betooke themselues to a more plausible but yet more shamefull and desperate course then these their maisters which was to say that indeed the Fathers and ancient wryters were wholy for them not for vs as the philosopher that would defend that swow was blacke not white And this course tooke first of all Peter martyr in the â—yeare 1549. and third of the raigne of K. Edward the 6. as appeareth by Fox in the last edition of his Acts and Monuments And this perhaps Peter martyr was forced to do at that tyme by commaundement of B. Cranmer and others of the priuy Counsell who appointed his disputation for more authorizing of their new decree in Religion scarse two monethes before agreed vpon would perforce haue the Fathers to be of their side But what successe Peter martyr had in this attempt yt may appeare suâ—â—iciently by the places themselues which Fox alleageth for him out of ten or twelue seuerall Fathers wherof the Reader will scarse find one though the said texts be breefely alleaged truly cyted in all respects but that eyther the words next going beforeâ— or immediatly following or both making wholy against them are purposely left out and others put in or mistranslated And let any man who listeth examine the same and conferre them with the authors bookes themselues he shall find this to be true For I haue examined them with some diligence my selfe as vpon some other occasion herafter may chance appeare but now yt were to long to alleage them in this place I meane the manifest falsifications therin vsed But yf any Protestant in defence of Peter martyr and Iohn Fox hâ—s honour will take vpon him to verify the same and their quotations to be good and without fraud lett him wryte a little pamphlet therof as easily he may they being conteyned in lesse then one page he shall presently
which is a most absurd imposture for so he might say also that they doubt whether God be God or whether God can create any thing for that they putt this question Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothinge and presently yt ensueth by way of obiection Videtur quod non yt seemeth that yt cannot be But after all arguments ended they resolue that yt is so to witt that there is a God and can create things of nothinge and do solue all the arguments alleaged by themselues to the contrary And so doth Scotus in this matter settinge downe his full determination in these words Dicâ— quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè realiter est simpliciter de substantia fidei I do say that it is simply a substantiall article of our faith to beleeue that Christs body is truly really there vnder these accidents And he proueth the same by two places of scripture to witt Math. 26. where Christ saith This is my body and Iohn 6. where he saith My flesh is truly foode This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proued to haue vsed in alleadginge Scotus against his owne meaninge discourse and resolution The second is for that he saith that Scotus argumeÌ„ts against the reall presence were the quantity locality and circumscription annexed to a true body wheras these are not argumeÌ„ts of Scotus but of heretiks refuted by Scotus as appeareth by himselfe in the same places where he addeth also these words If heretiks would expound the forsaid words of Christ This is my body to be vnderstood figuratiuely yt is quite against the intention of our Sauiour These 2. corruptions then being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus and shewed that they could not be of ignorance but of willfull malice to deceaue the reader Plessis was sore pressed but yet had diuised a certayne way of some kind of escape yf yt may be called an escape and not rather a greater â—ntanglement which was to say that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the reall presence but rather of the manner of Christs body being there to witt by Transubstantiation and for that respect he named the Councell of lateran in his speach which Councell first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation But the Bishopp shewed this to be a very sleight euasion for that the Councell of Lateran determined as well the article of the reall presence as of Transubstantiation as appeareth in the said Councell and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other And finally that Plessis words before recyted are plaine inough without a comentary that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no vnder the â—ormes of bread wyne yea to dispute that yt was not which words do speake plainly as yow see of the reality Soe as these shifts are but a new abusing of the Reader And as for the places he would seeme to alleage out of Scotus as somwhat soundinge against Transubstantiation yt was told him first that yt was from the purpose for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the reall presence and secondly that these other places made no more for him then the former but wholy against him and so yt was proued by readinge and examininge publikely the said places wherin there was an houre spent And the Bishopp perceauinge that Plessis desired to draw out the tyme vrged the deputyes to giue sentence vpon the falsisication of the places alleaged which they differred to do vntill the next place of Durand was examined for that they vnderstood the case was in a manner all one or much like in both schoolemen And so yt was in deed for that in both of them yow shall heare the sentence giuen afterward that Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution which was a great a disgrace yf you marke yt as could be to such a man that presumed to vnderstand what he read The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation The next place of the 19. chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined was out of Durandus Plessis his words as they ly in his booke pag. 870. are rhese Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor hath these words in his 4. booke vpon the sentences dist 11. To the contrary saith he supposinge the substances of bread and wyne after the consecration do remayne there ensucth therof but one difficulty and this neyther very great nor indissoluble to witt that two bodyes remayne togeather vnder the same accidents but yf yow put the contrary to witt that there is Transubstantiation there ensue more difficultyes that is to say how those species or accidents without their substance can nourish or be corrupted and how any thinge can be generate therof seing all generation is of matter or substance therfore it seemeth that we ought to sticke rather to the first way to witt against Transubstantiation c. So he Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceytfull dealinge as before in Scotus or rather more plaine and euident and consequently more wicked and dishonorable to him for that all these words heere alleaged out of Durandus are not his owne but the words of others that do obiect the same which he dissolueth afterward when he hath put downe his owne sentence in these words Primum est dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi First we must say and hold notwithstandinge the former obiections arguments to the contrary that the substance of bread and wyne are turned into the substance of the body of Christ. This is his resolution quite contrary to that which Plessis would haue him seeme to hold And then hauing set downe this resolution accordinge to the common faith of the Catholike Church he passeth to answere the former obiection sayinge to the former argument to the contrary about difficultyes vve must answere that in those thinges that appertayne vnto faith we must not allvvayes choose that vvhich seemeth to humayne sense to haue lesse difficultyes but we must hould that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers and to the tradition of the Church So Durand Which words being recyted in the hearing of all yow must imagine in what a pittifull plight poore Plessis was to see one man looke vpon another and ether smile or byte their lippes at such manifest grosse trumpery but yet necessity made him take hart to aduenture a new euasion saying that albeit this were but an obiection in Durand yet it seemed to him such an obiection as might hould the place of a resolution yf the authority decision of the Church had not withheld him And for
en ce passage ce que y deuoit estre mis. that is to say That the Lord Plessis had left out in this passage that which ought to haue byn put in which in effect is to call him a falsifier in good and honourable tearmes And so much of this place The fourth place examined out of S. Chrysostome about prayer in like manner to Saints The fourth place was another of S. Chrysostome about the same argument of praying to Saints cyted falsely by Plessis in the 574. page of his booke against the Masse where he maketh S. Chrysostome to speake thus against praying to Saints Chrysostome saith he seemeth to haue attempted the ouerthrow of this abuse assaultinge the fundament therof by all occasions for so much as he saw that the people did thinke more how to help themselâ—es by suffrages of others then how to amend their liues wherfore he did endeauour to batter this opinion saying we are much more assused by our owne suffrages then by the suffrages of others and God doth not so soone graunt our saluation at the prayers of others as to our owne prayers for so he tooke pitty of the woman of Cananaea and gaue pardon to the adulteresse and paradise to the theefe without being moued with intercession of any aduocate or mediator c. Out of which words besides that which was before obiected vpon the precedent place the B. accused Monsieur Plessis that he had dealt fraudulently also in cytinge these words for that he had cutt of the very next words ensuing which made against him declared plainly S. Chrysostomes whole meaning to witt And this we say saith S. Chrysostome not to the end we should not make our prayers or supplications vnto Saints but that we should not therby become slothfull in doing also for our selues To which charge Monsieur Plessis answered that Chrysostome in this place did not speake of dead Saints but of liuinge Saints for proofe wherof he alleadged certayne coniecturall reasons which the B. hauinge refuted as both false and impertinent to the matter he vrged him that this refuge yf yt were true that S. Chrysostome spoke only of lyuing Saints yt was against himselfe and proued two absurdityes in steed of one the first that he deduced a conclusion out of S. Chrysostome against prayinge to dead Saints wheras the Father spake of liuinge Saints only the second that he cutt of from the text the principall words that should haue declared the Fathers meaninge To this replyed Plessis that he brought not this place of Chrysostome against praying to Saints but against them that would help themselues by the suffrages of others Vpon this answere the K. himselfe began to speake saying that the word others was a generall word that might be extented aswell to the dead as to the liue and that Plessis should remember that he had said a little before in cyting S. Chrysostome that Chrysostome attempted the ouerthrow of this abuse And then he demaunded of him what abuse he meant if he meant not the abuse of praying to Saints desceased as impugned by S. Chrysostome which instance of his Maiestie was confirmed by the B. cyting diuers places of Plessis booke where by name he auoucheth S. Epiphanius and S. Chrysostome in the Greeke Church to be aduersaryes of prayinge to Saints which yet now he would not stand vnto But Plessis replyed that he did not alleage S. Chrysostome in this place as directly impugninge prayer to Saints deceased but indirectly in that he saith that we must not put our confidence in the meritts of other men Wherto the Bishop answered that S. Chrysostome said not absolutely that we must not rely at all vpon other mens prayers but that we must not so rely as we be negligent of our owne parts which speach doth neyther directly nor indirectly impugne prayer to Saints especially being ioyned with his plaine declaration before mentioned cutt of by Plessis Wherfore after diuers such vayne impertinent replyes of Monsieur Plessis the B. required sentence to be giuen whervpon the texts alleaged being openly read both in Greeke and Latyn of diuers editions printed both in Paris and Basill and one Greeke copy of hand wrytinge out of the Kings library the words were found as before hath byn cyted and sentence was giuen by the consent of all deputyes in the same words that the other was before to witt that the L. Plessis had left out in this passage that which he ought to haue putt yn And with this ended their examen of the fourth place the blushing remayned to Plessis as yow may imagine seeing all his Protestants to hange downe their heads at this successe The fifth place examined out of S. Hierome about the same argument of prayer to Saints After the two forsaid places of S. Chrysostome discussed as yow haue heard there came in order a place of S. Hierome vpon Ezechiell cyted by the said Plessis in the 583. page of his booke against prayer to Saints and put as yt were for an antidotum to other sayings of S. Hierome in fauour of prayings to Saints in his books against Vigilantius The place is cyted in Plessis booke in these words But Saint Hierome saith he in his commentaryes when he was out of choler and greife did wryte thus If we haue confidence in any one lett yt be in God only for yt is wrytten that the man is cursed that confideth in men albeit they be Saints albeit they be Prophets yet must we not confide in them nor yet in the Princes of the Church who though they be iust yet shall they deliuer but their owne soules and not those of their children Out of this place the B. obiected that Plessis had alleaged these words with fraud corruption leauing out the clause which made all cleere and vtterly marred Plessis markett to witt Si fuerint negligentes yf their children be negligent then cannot Saints saue them filios autem filias saith S. Hierome quos in Ecclesia genuerim si â—uerâ—t negligentes saluare non poterunt That is Saints cannot saue their sonnes and daughters whome they haue be gotten by their preachinge in Gods Church yf the said children be negligent on their parts And the same very exception or restriction had S. Hierome repeated in other words before in the same Chapter saying Nec principes nos poterunt liberare nisi filiorum suerit assensuâ— illorum obsecrationes suis conatibus iuuerint The very cheefest and principall Saints of the Church cannot deliuer vs except we their children do giue our consent thervnto except we do ayde by our owne good endeauours their prayers made for vs. Which two clauses she winge euidently that S. Hieromes former speach was but conditionall not absolute when he said that we must not put our trust in others euen as that of S. Chrysostome was before yt followeth that the leauinge out of
of the same Code or els he is a very superficiall fellow and yf he saw yt and yet alleaged it as he doth his falshood is intollerable But he persisting in denyall that he was bound to looke the law it selfe in the Code but that it was sufficient to follow Crinitus his allegation therof the iudges for compassion as it seemeth after consultation among themselues gaue this sentence Que il auoit veritablement allegué Crinitus mais que Crinitus â—'estoit abusé That Monsieur Plessis had truly alleaged Crinitus but that Crinitus was abused Which had byn some excuse yf Plessis had byn a simple yonge scholler but being the man he is and taketh himselfe to be yt is hard to say where the abuse was greater eyther in him or Crinitus for so much as in his text he alleaged not Crinitus but the Emperors themselues and insulted therby ouer Catholiks as yow haue heard though in his margent he quoted Crinitus which was little to the purpose knowinge that he lyed as must be presumed that he did and cannot well be auoyded The eight Place examined out of S. Bernard about honouringe our Lady The L. Plessis being desirous to make a florish against Catholiks for geuing to much honour as he saith to our Lady he alleageth a sentence out of S. Bernard in the 604. page of his booke in these words S. Bernard saith he wryteth of the virgin her selfe in his 174. epistle that she hath no need of false honours for so much as she is full of true and this is not to honour her but to take away her honour the feast of her conception was not well inuented So he In which words the B. accused Plessis to haue vsed as great falshood as in the former passages for that he had guilfully patched togeather two different sentences of that epistle wrytten in seuerall places to make one to his purpose after the fashion of Centons of Homer Virgill and other poets and had so recyted them as they might seeme but one and moreouer had cutt of the sentence that weÌ„t betwene them was immediatly annexed to the former conteyned the decision of the whole question to witt inventrix of grace mediatrix of saluation c. For better vnderstaÌ„ding wherof must be noted that Mensieur Plessis a little before had accused S. Anselme of impiety for calling the blessed Virgin Inuentricem gratiae mediatricem salutis restauratricem saeculorum sayinge that these praises and honours were false and immoderate For proofe wherof he alleaged Saint Bernard as though he had byn of a contrary opinion to Anselmus and to the Catholiks of these dayes in that he disallowed false honours giuen to our Lady for which he cyted the passage before mentioned made of 2. seuerall sentences tied togeather cutting out from the middle therof these words of S. Bernard Magnifica gratiae inuentricem mediatricem salutis restauratricem saeculorum c. Do thou magnifie this inuentrix of grace this mediatrix of Saluation and restorer of the world c. Which are the very same words that Anselmus did vse before him and for reprouing wherof S. Bernard was alleaged so as two or 3. falshoods were vrged out of this place against him First that of two senteÌ„ces are guilfully made one Secondly that the principall clause was left out of purpose and thirdly that S. Bernard was alleaged to ouerthrow that which expressely he coÌ„firmeth To the first Plessis answered that in leauinge out that sentence he did no more then the Apostles did who alleaged some tymes seuerall sentences of the old testameÌ„t togeather as one text But the Bishop replied that the Apostles might do yt for that they had the selfe same spiritt which the wryters of the old testament had and therfore could not go from their true meaning but that we shall neuer find the Apostles to alleage two places of scripture contrary to the wryters mynd and to leaue out in the middest that which maketh most to the purpose for declaring their meaning as Plessis hath done heere in S. Bernard To the second third points about clippinge of the sentence in the middle and alleaginge S. Bernard against his owne meaninge Plessis endeauoured to make certayne answers to shew that the sentence which he had left out made nothinge to the purpose which he had in hand which the Bishopp graunted yf his purpose was to deceaue his Reader as no doubt but yt was but otherwise yf he had meant truth yt must needs be much to the purpose to putt yt in for that it ouerthroweth directly as yow see all that which Plessis would haue proued by S. Bernards authority against S. Anselme And finally the Bishop after diuers other cauills answered returned to the first matter againe and to affirme as at the beginning that Monsieur Plessis had not dealt truly and sincerely in this allegation of Saint Bernard but that he should haue alleaged the sentences seuerally as they lay in the booke and not haue left out the principall clause that went betwene them yf he had dealt truly Wherfore he desyringe iudgment vpon this passage the Acts do sett it downe in these words Monsieur le Chancelier auec l'aduis des deputés prononâ—a qu'il eust esté bon que il eust fait The L. Chancelour with the aduise of the deputyes did pronounce that yt had byn good that Monsieur Plessis had done so as the Bishop of Eureux required which is as much to say that in not doinge so he behaued himselfe but badly which was a checke of no small moment in such a matter The ninth Place examined out of Theodorete about Images The last place that was tryed in this first daies conference was out of Theodorete vpon the 113. Psalme cyted by Monsieur Plessis in the 118. page of his booke against the vse of Images in these words God maketh what he pleaseth but Images are such as pleaseth men to make them they haue the places or habitations of senses but haue no sense indeed and in this much lesse them flyes and fleas and such other vermine and yt is iust that all that adore them do leese both reason and sense and be like vnto them Heere the Bishopp obiected two manifest and willfull falsifications First for that he had against the expresse meaninge of Theodorete translated the Greeke word Idoll for Image which Theodorete did cleerly distinguish and secondly for that he cut of a plaine clause in the middest wherby the author of purpose did expound himselfe to witt these wordes adored by pagans and adored for Gods so as this declared euidently that he had no true meaninge To this Plessis answered that as for the words Idoll and Image they were all one which he said he could shew both out of scriptures and Fathers The other replyed that albeit accordinge to their Etymologye in Grammer the Greeke word Eicoon and Eidoolon do sometyme signifie the same and
after for in this place he saith no more But neyther doth Caluyn saith he nor any of these Fathers mention eyther the vse of the Apostles or practise of the auncient Church nor doth any Fathers speake of all these ceremonyes togeather nor can the practise of the Roman Church in the signes and formes of these ceremonyes be iustified by Fathers Lo heere 3. or 4. holes opened to runne out at first that albeit Caluyn confesse these ceremonyes to be very auncient and that the foresaid ould Fathers and Doctors do mention them in their writings yet do they not mention the vse of the Apostles or practise of the auncient Church before their dayes Is not this a pretty shift as though themselues were not sufficient witnesses of the ancient Church The second is that albeit the Fathers though dispersedly as occasion was offered mencioned these ceremonyes as vsed in the Church in their dayes yet did they not sett them downe altogeather in one place And is not this a more silly shift as though the Fathers testimonyes of them in seuerall were nothing except they did set them downe altogeather by which reason the Euangelists themselues may be reiected for that they putt not downe all things togeather but many dispersedly as occasion is offered to treat of them The third is that albeit these ceremonyes were in vse in the primitiue Church yet not in the same particular signes and formes of words as they are vsed now in the Roman Church for so he hath a little after that yf we wil be obstinate we must proue that the Fathers prayed in consecratinge lights or vsed the same words in hallowinge water salt which is now set downe in the Roman Missall by these other like shifts which for breuityes sake I omitt he putteth of all that can be laid against him And it is as good a manner of answering as a merry good fellow is said to haue vsed at Oxford in a visitation to auoid the punishment for the breach of certayne Statutes of his colledge in the beginninge of the late Queenes raigne to witt that when the statute was vrged against him which did forbidd schollers vpon paine of expulsion to come in or go out ouer the walles he answered that is true when the gates be open and then being vrged by another statute forbiddinge vnder the same paines to beare any weapons he answered that bearinge is vnderstood in mens hands but not as hanginge at their girdills And by these meanes was he able to answere fully all obiections made against him for breach of statutes And so is Sutcliffe for falsifyinge of Fathers by the like manner of answeringe And this shall suffise for the first place In the end wherof notwithstanding he returneth againe to Caluyn as being more troubled with his authority then all the other Fathers brought against him Maister Caluyn saith he doth not affirme any thinge contrary to my words for albeit he saith that he knew how ancient some of these ceremonyes are vvhich I deny to haue bene vsed in the first Churches yet doth he not expresse how auncient they are nor speake any thinge of their seuerall formes c. Lo shiftinge shufflinge vpon Caluyn also He did graunt they were auncient but did not tell how ancient and Sutcliffe said before that they were not practised in the ancient Church and now he saith that he denyed them to be vsed in the first Churches and though thirdly yow should proue that they were vsed as Caluyn saith in the ancient Church yet will he say that Caluyn doth not affirme them to haue bene in the first Churches of all nor doth he specify the perticular formes of words now vsed by the Roman Church And so will he scape out that way but now I would aske the discreett reader in good sadnes what scriptures what Fathers what most euident truth may not be shifted of and deluded by these kind of illusions Let the reader but looke ouer the sixt Chapter of ceremonyes in the 2. 3. 4. and fifth centuryes of the Magdeburgians and he shall see the antiquity of all these points against Sutcliffe in this place The second place obiected by E. O. to O. E. is in the same page where he saith It is no Catholike doctrine of the Councell of Trent to denounce them accursed that shall not hold baptisme to be necessary to Saluation The words of the Councell are these in the fourth Canon concerning baptisme Si quis dixerit baptismum liberum esse hoc est non necessarium ad salutem anathema sit Yf any man do affirme that baptisme is free that is to say not necessary to saluation lett him be accursed And it is to be vnderstood re vel voto as generally all Catholike diuines do expound to witt that a man be eyther really or actually baptized or at least wise haue a desire therof which desire is to be vnderstood in them that haue yeares of vnderstandinge and are letted otherwise by some extrinsecal meanes from actuall receauinge the same And what Christian man would reprehend this doctrine or call it vncatholike as Sutcliffe doth E. O. assaulteth him with three sorts of weapons as himselfe confesseth First the authority of ancient Fathers that affirme baptisme to be necessary to saluation secondly the words of their owne cōmunion booke where talking of the Sacrament of Baptisme they say that none is saued that is not regenerate by water Thirdly out of his owne words diuers tymes repeated in other places vpon other occasions where he saith that children by baptisme are receaued into the arke of Christ his Church And againe that want of baptisme sendeth infants to hell fire Wherof his aduersary inferreth ergo yt is necessary to saluation for that neither out of the arke nor in hell fire can they be saued which is the same doctrine that the Councell of Trent doth teach and addeth a curse to them that deny yt And these are the charges giuen now lett vs see how Sutcliffe seeketh to runne out of the lists First he standeth much vpon the words lett them be accursed and willeth vs to shew out of the Fathers that they do vse the word accursed Neither doth any Father saith he affirme that such are accursed that hold not baptisme to be necessary Is not this an egregious foolery as though the controuersie were of the word accursed not of the doctrine yt selfe seing that Sutcliffes owne words in his accusation are VVhich doctrine of the Councell doth not saith he appeare to be Catholike and yet now would he hide himselfe vnder the word accursed as though the controuersie were not about the doctrine but about the word and yet of we will stand also vpon the curse Sutcliffe cannot so escape but must vndergoe the said curse in like manner for he shall find the same both condemned and accursed expressely in the Councells of Carthage and Miliuitanum at which
follow be extant in the French tongue and consequently like also to be in England before this day yet for that euery man vnderstandeth not that language nor is it so probable that many men will take the paynes to translate diuulge the same to such as may haue neede or desire to reade it I iudged the labour not vnprofitable to performe the same from hence But besides there is another reason of more moment and more peculiar to this place to witt that albeit the former printed chalenges might come to Englishmens hands by other meanes yet the combat it selfe with the true issue therof togeather with the manner of the triall and particulars occurred therin which haue byn wrytten hither by most authenticall partyes as vnto the place where accompt of such affayres concerninge Religion is wont to be giuen could not or would not perhapps so fully and sincerely be related in England as the truth of the whole action requireth the reason wherof each man will easily coÌ„sider These then being the causes that moued me to take this little paine founded as yow see in the zeale of truth and fidelity I haue thought good to deliuer faithfully vnto you such letters as haue come to my hands about this affayre though not all For that diuers letters wrytten out of France by diuers other partyes reportinge the selfe same thing I thought not needful for me to print nor to multiply relations without necessity but to content my selfe only for breuityes sake with the letter of the K. Maiestie himselfe and with one other of the Bishop that was an actor in the cause wrytten to the Kings Embassadour in this place and to some other Cardinalls besides by them to be exhibited vnto his Holynes to whome the Bishopp well knew that the selfe same thing would be wrytten by others also lesâ—e interessed in the matter then himselfe and more then this that his said letters and reporte would be returned to France againe where all aduaÌ„tage would be taken against him by the aduersary yf in any one point he should exceed the bare truth in his narration which consideration may assure vs that he would haue great care to relate all points both truly and modestly as in his letter that ensueth may be seene that he doth and the same may be gathered also plainely by the K. letter it selfe to the Duke of Espernon which after we shall relate But yet besides these two letters there was another wrytten two dayes after the said Bishops letter by the Popes Nuntio in Paris vnto Cardinall Aldobrandino and by him to be deliuered to his holynes wherin is related verified though in very few words the very same narration which the Bishop wryteth as by the extract therof heerafter sett downe appeareth And this now were sufficient for a preface only to this matter were yt not that I haue thought expedient also to touch breifely two other points First what these two persons are which had the combat and then the briefe summe of that which passed betwene them therein For first the L. Plessis Morney his name and person is well knowne in England for that aboue 20. yeares past I saw my selfe a booke of his intituled Of the Church and notes therof translated into English and much esteemed by protestants of that time for that he wryteth more cunningly and couertly and is more plausible in shew both of scriptures Fathers then commonly other wryters of his Religion then were And for that he is a noble man borne and of the laity and not vnlearned in diuers languages and in great creditt for many yeares with this King of France whose Embassadour he was in England whilst he was yet a protestant and his Maiestie King only of Nauarre and now since his comminge to the kingdome of France much trusted also and vsed by him in his ciuill affayres and in gouernment of the towne and country of Saumur For these causes I say and for that he hath wrytten many bookes he is accompted euery where for one of the cheeife champions and head pillars of Protestant Religion in France wherby this his disgrace so notoriously receaued in that thinge wherin he made publike profession to be exact to witt in true and playne dealinge must needs open the eyes of such as are discreet and desirous in deed to follow truth and decline from falshood and so it did vs after yow see The B. of Eureux on the other side named Monsieur Person is a person no lesse eminent markable both for that his parents being great Protestants himselfe also for many yeares he being a man also of great wyet extraordinary memory and by reason of his state of life more occupied in studyes as is probable then the other comminge afterward by readinge and by Gods especiall grace to be a Catholike he became so zealous earnest and ardent therin as none do more when they are full informed that his greatest indeauours since his conuersion haue byn to conuert also others and to impart that light which God hath bestowed vpon him to as many as possibly he can In which respect the K. Maiestie of France hauinge loued him much and esteemed also before when he was a Protestant and no lesse synce that he hath byn a zealous Catholike and knowinge him to be both learned faithfull sincere made choyce of him for his especially Embassadour in Rome in the yeare 1595. to treat his great affayre for his reconciliation to the Catholike Church which hath come to that happy issue which â—ll the world seeth both for the good of his â—arson people and crowne And thus much of these 2. persons who being both of them so gratefull and well liked of the King as I haue shewed his Maiesties indifferency in iudgmeÌ„t also betwene them both the truth of the cause only excepted must needs be voyd of all suspition and consequently his sentence afterward prononced on the one side as by his letter appeareth must in reason be thought to haue proceeded of the manifest difference of the said cause and force of truth it selfe which he discouered vpon that triall Now then to speake a word or two of the action as it passed you must vnderstand that about Christmasse last there came forth a booke in Paris of the aforsaid Monsieur Plessis against the Masse which booke making shew as the fashion is of great aboundance and ostentation of Fathers Councells Doctors and storyes for his purpose great admiration seemed to be conceaued therof and the Protestants euery where began to triumph of so famous a worke published in their behalfe Whervpon diuers Catholike learned men tooke occasion presently to examine the said booke finding many most egregious deceyts shiftes and falsifications therin diuers bookes were wrytten against it one in particular by a French Iesuite discouering at least a thousand falshoods of his part All the preachers of Paris in like manner
the whole lent followinge were occupyed for the most part in refutinge and shewinge the falshood of this booke duringe which tyme many Protestants of accounte were either conuerted or greately moued heer with and amonge other one Monsieur Sainct-Mary du Monte a principal noble man o◠Normandy who frequenting the preaching of one F. Angelus a Capuchin friar borne a great noble man and named before his entrance into Religion Monsieur du Bouchage brother to the late Duke of Ioyeus whose state he had of late inherited his said brother being dead but left the same for that other vocation of a poore and humble seruant of God And albeit afterward vpon necessity of the said temporal state which he had left he was forced for some yeares to take a secular life vpon him againe and to mennage armes as he did by licence of the Supreme Pastor of Gods Church yet after publike affayres once accommodated he retired himselfe backe to his Religious habitt habitation againe where he liueth now a most vertuous life preacheth with great zeale singular edification of all sorts of men well sheweth that his mind is superior to all wordly welth promotion And these are examples that are not found lightly among Protestants but are reserued as peculiar to Christs Catholike Church where the dew of heauenly grace continually falling worketh often such extraordinary effects And thus much of him By this godly mans sermons then was Monsieur Sainct-Mary at length conuerted the experience of this triall not a little helping thervnto as after shall appeare and made a good Catholike with no small edification of all men in respect of the great humility and zeale he vsed in his returne to Gods Church and with much comfort of the K. himselfe to whome first before all other he vttered his resolutiō And heervpon as well his Maiestie as also the noble men that were Protestants and namely the Duke of Bouillon Monsieur Rosny Monsieur Digiers and other began to call vpon this triall of Monsieur Plessis his booke for that it seemed to touch all their honours and of their Religion especially when the B. of Eureux had protested vpon his honour in the pulpit that he could shew more then 500. falsifications in the same booke for his part Vpon which offers made as well by him as others there ensued the chalengs heerafter following The issue wherof was this that when vpon the 4. of May the K. being at his palace of Fountayne-bleau had commaunded both partyes aforesaid to be present and their bookes to be brought with them for this triall to be made in his owne presence Monsieur Plessis seemed to shrinke and to seeke all delayes possible eyther to auoyde the same or to bring it to some longer examination by going ouer all his bookes and works leafe by leafe lyne by lyne as you shall heare him demaund presently but this being denyed by the B. cut of by the K. expresse cōmandement he appeared at last vpon the day aforsaid with some 4. or 5. Ministers on his side But the day precedent before this the B. to deale more plainly and shew frendshipp sent vnto him threescore places taken out of his booke vpon which he meāt to presse him and as his words are to begin the play wishinge him to come well prouided in the same Of which threescore Monsieur Plessis chose out nynteene that seemed to him most defensible and vpon which he said he would ioyne the combat adding moreouer that he would leese his life yf he were conuinced therin But the next day the triall being begon vpon the first place and that found false he would haue passed to the second but the B. refused so to do except the deputyes and iudges there present would first subscribe and testifie that this first place was falsified which at length they did as well in this as in the rest there examined and Monsieur Plessis remayned in that pittifull plight which afterward yow shall heare by the B. and other mens letters vnto which I remitt yow beseechinge almighty Cod that this so notorious an accident may worke that consideration with yow as the moment importāce of the marter requireth And so to his holy prouidēce I commit yow from Rome the 10. of Iune 1600. THE CHALENGE OR PROVOCATION MADE BY THE L. Plessis Mornay vnto the L. Peron Bishopp of Eureux the 20. of March 1600. CHAP. II. THE L. of Plessis doth demaund and require that my L. Bishop of Eureux and all other that blame or accuse him to haue vsed in his bookes sett forth any false citations will vouchsafe to ioyne with him for subscribinge and presenting a most humble request vnto the K. Maiestie to intreate him most humbly to ordaine and name such and so many as shall please his Maiestie being men of sufficient learning vertue before whome the said L Plessis may verifie from leafe to leafe from lyne to lyne all authorityes which he hath cited in his said books And that this triall be made by such copyes and bookes as haue byn printed in those places and in those vniuersityes which they of the Roman Church hould not for suspected In wittnesse wherof I the aforesaid Plessis Mornay haue heere put to my hand seale At Paris the 20. of March in the yeare one thousand six hundred THE ANSWERE OF THE B. OF EVREVX to the former Chalenge the 25. of March 1600. CHAP. III. HAVING receaued good Reader this Chalenge wherof not only the report and brute but the copyes also themselues and already spread abroad wrytten and subscribed by the L. of Plessis and consideringe that this is not a chalenge of one priuate man to another but rather of one party or side against the other it seemed that the interest of the commō cause of Gods Church did not permitt eyther to lett it passe without answere or to answere it secretly For as the end of this his offer is in case it be refused by such refusall and sylence of Catholiks to gaine a publike iustification of his books and wrytinges so ys it conuenient that may answere to the same be also publike that the enemyes of Gods Church do not gett that aduantage as to publish one thing conceale the other And therfore to the end that both heauen and earth may see and behould how I do proceed in this matter I make yt knowne by this my hand wryting both to him and to all other that shall read the same that I do accept of his offer and chalenge and do require of him againe to cause the same to be put in execution and not to end only in words And for my part that all hinderance therof may be remoued I protest that I am presently ready and do desire out of hand to come to the very point of shewinge the falshoodes without byndinge my selfe to that large wearisome methood of examining his late
THE FORMER answere published by the B. of Eureux vpon the Chalenge made vnto him by the said Plessis CHAP. IV. WHEN I had vnderstood gentle Reader the L. B. of Eureux gaue forth that the places of the fathers quoted by me in my books were falsely cited I sent him a certayne Chalenge wrytten and subscribed by my owne hand of the date of the 20. of March 1600. The which since that time the said B. hath caused to be printed published though I sent the same to him priuately by the way of his owne brother Heerevpon notwithstanding my L. Bishopp hath caused to be printed a certayne aduertisment to the Reader of the date of the 25. of March the which is now cryed about the streets in this citty and this in steed of sendinge me his priuate answere by the same way I sent to him Iudge Reader whether in matter of prouocation for so he calleth my chalenge this manner of proceeding be to be receaued and not rather subiect vnto sinister interpretation Yet notwithstanding the euent perhaps will make men iudge better of his intention whervnto willingly I reserue my selfe And of this my priuate chalenge to him as of one particular man to another he maketh by by a publike defiance of one part to another as they which in an army do make their priuate quarrells to be the publike cause of the whole natioÌ„ Iudge heere againe Reader of this manner of proceeding in a conference of Religion the which should tend to reniute and ioyne togeather mens mynds and not to disunite their affections Consequently he flyeth the examination vnto the which I do submitt my books before the K. deputyes from leafe to leafe and from lyne to lyne and fayneth that he feareth the wearynesse of the deputyes Iudge heere againe Reader yf this triall may be made with more comodity or lesse labour then I haue offered Wherfore to this againe I answere that we will hould heerin so easy short method of triall that I dare bragg that this other paine shal be turned into pleasure most gretefull But that which greueth him neyther can he dissemble yt is that he feareth as he saith that of some false citations whose falshood is lesse euident if he passe them ouer I wil take witnesse as though they granted them to the preiudice of the Catholike Church But the truth is that he doubteth least by his flyinge of my manifest verityes I will make a preiudice against his cauillations calumniations For seeing this difference betweene vs may be decyded by only true readinge of that which is wrytten what means shall I haue in this triall to deceaue the iudgment or rather the sight of the deputyes He skyrmisheth finally sayinge that he will shew me 500. false citations by number but men will not easily beleeue him who know that such bragging without effect hath continued already 20. yeares and more And therfor heervnto I haue but one word to answere which is that when we meete we shall see what he can doe And therfore not to make many words which serue for nothinge but to put of the things themselues I will notwithstandinge all this take myne offer as accepted by him And euen now to this intent I haue intreated my L. Mareshall of Bouillon who goeth to take his leaue of the K. at his pallace of Boys de Vincens to present vnto his Maiestie my most humble request to this effect by the which I do beseech this Maiestie that it will please him to ordaine some deputyes to the end aboue mentioned Which petition if it please God to prosper and blesse I hope it wil proue a good preamble for some greater designment worthy the magnanimity of our King towards some holy reformation of the Church in his Kingdome by the meanes wherof we shall see in this our one only King three most great Emperours and their vertues represented to wit a Caesar in conqueringe an Augustus in pacifyinge of his estate one that flieth higher then any Constantine in restoringe the whole Church of Christendome by the example of his owne reformed Kingdome This our requeste recommended by me to the said L. Mareshall was yesterday the last of March so earnestly by him presented to his Maiestie as by his answere he giueth me no small hope that very soone he will giue vs meanes to effectuate our desires And the more to hasten the matter I haue againe this morninge intreated most humbly his Maiestie by my letters so as now there remaineth nothing but to beseech the same of God as I do withall my hart for his glory for the instruction of his people And so heerafter an end of al words about this matter Wrytten at Paris the first of April 1600. Plessis HItherto are the chalenges answers and replies of these two partyes which the K. Maiestie hauinge pervsed and seeing so great shew and confidence to be in both for entring the combatt he gaue very nobly Christianly his royall assent thervnto as by the ensuing letters of the whole fact circumstances therof doth appeare And finding presently some relenting and drawing backe in the one party as by the said letters yow shall see he further layd his full commandement vpon them both for performance of their offers and consequently the triall was made at Fontayne-bleaâ— some foure or fiue dayes after in the presence of his Maiestie Princes of bloud with many of the greatest nobility with those particularityes which the said ensuing letters will represent vnto yow But yet before all I haue thought good to sett downe the K. owne letter though short and briefe yet very substantiall and pithy relatinge very prudently in few words the successe of that triall with the good effect that might be hoped therof for conuersion of many Protestants that are not peruerse and willfull It was wrytten at Fontayne-bleau where the meeting was the very day of the triall and for the worthinesse therof and due respect to so great a personage yt shall go both in French English for them that vnderstand both languages COPPIE DES LETTRES DV ROY A MONSIEVR D' ESPERNON CHAP. V. Mon amy LEdiocese d' Eureux agaigne celuy de Saumur la doulceur dont onâ—y a procedâ— oste â—occasion a quelque Huguenot que cesoit de dire que rien y eut force que la verité Ce porteur y ostoit qui vous contera comme i'y ay faict merueilles Certes c ' est vn des plus grands coups pour l' Eglise de Dieu qui s' est faict ily long temps suyuant l' eclarcissement de cest erreur Nous rammeinerons plus de separez de l' Eglise en vn an que par toute autre voy en cinquante Il y a vn long discours d'vn chascun qui seroit trop long a discourir par escript Il vous dira la façon
que ie suis d'auis que mes seruiteurs tiennent pour tirer fruict de ce saincte oeuure Bon soir mon amy Sachant le plaisir que vous en aurez Vous estes seul a qui l'on le mande Le 5. de May. 1600. Henry Au dessus de la lettre A mon Cousin le Duc d' Espernon THE COPIE OF THE K. OF FRANCE HIS FORMER LETTER TO the Duke of Espernon concerninge the late triall had betwene the B. of Eureux and the Lord Plessis translated into English CHAP. VI. MY Friend The Diocesse of Eureux hath ouercome the Diocesse of Saumur and the sweet manner of proceedinge that hath byn vsed hath taken away all occasion to any Hugenot whatsoeuer he be to say that any force hath byn vsed beside the only force of truth The bearer heerof was present at the combatt who will informe yow what maruayles I haue done therin Certanily it is one of the greatest blowes that hath byn giuen for the Church of God this long while for the manifestation of this error By this meanes we shall reduce more in one yeare of them that are separated from the Church then by any other way in 50. yeares There were a large discourse to be made of each of their actioÌ„s but the same were to long to wryte The bearer shall tell you the manner which I would haue all my seruants to obserue for reapinge fruite of this holy worke Good night my friend And for that I know what pleasure yow will take heerof yow are the only man to whome I haue wrytten yt This 5. of May. 1600. Henry The superscription To my Cosyn the Duke of Espernon EXTRICT DV POSTSCRIPTVM DE LA LETTRE DE CELVY QVI enuoy a ceste Coppie dela lettre du Roy a Rome CHAP. VII Monsieur Iâ— vous enuoyé la coppie de la lettre du Roy qu'il a enuoyé a Monsieur d'Espernon sur la dispute de l'Euesque d'Eureux contre du Plessi-Mornay pour verifier son liure qui s'est de tout trouué faulx s'en est allé cacher comme vn regnard Dieu conduise tout a bonne fin a sa gloire salut des ames An extract of the Postscript of the letter of him that sent this coppy of the forsaid K. letter to the French Embassadour in Rome My Lord. I do send yow heere the coppy of the Kings letter wrytten to the Duke of Espernon about the disputation of the B. of Eureux against Plessis Mornay for iustifyinge of his booke found altogeather false and he is gone to hide him selfe like a Fox God conduct all to a good end for his glory and saluation of mens soules Thus much do wryte the King and his secretary the one to the Duke of Espernon the other to Monsieur Sylary Embassador in Rome both of them present at the conference The Kings letter as yow see is very substantiall yt seemeth his Maiestie was greatly moued himselfe by the seeing and hearing of this combatt For so much as he affirmeth so resolutely that yt was one of the greatest blowes that had byn geuen for the Church of God a long while for discouering the erroneous proceedings of Protestants The secretary also auoucheth as yow see the falshood found in Mornayes booke and that for shame therof he was gone to hide himselfe like a Fox Now shall yow heare three other letters relating more particularly the circumstances of this conference with the Acts successe therof though all very breifely in respect of the Acts themselues THE COPIE OF THE LETTER OF MONSIEVR PERON B. OF EVREVX to the L. Silary Embassadour for the K. of France in Rome the 10. of May 1600. CHAP. VIII My Lord. AT length the victory of the combat betwixt the L. Plessis and me remayneth to the Catholike Church and after many tergiuersations which he vsed for the space of 5. or 6. dayes at Fontayne-bleau I sent him on wednesday the third of May threescore falsifications taken out of his booke to begin the play withall for him to prepare himselfe to answere the next day Of them he chose out 19. the which he went told the King the next day that he had chosen forth examined and found true and that he would loose his life yf any one of them were proued to be falsely cited After dynner the same day in the same place he came forth in the presence of his Maiestie and of 7. or 8. Princes and of the L. Chancelour of France and other officers of the crowne and Counsellors of State Where first his Maiestie declared both by himselfe and by the L. Chancelour that he would not in any wise that in this confereÌ„ce should be handled any point of Catholike Religion wherof he doubted nothinge and knew also that the iudgment therof pertained vnto the Sea Apostolike but only of the particular busynes of the L. of Plessis whether he had falsified the texts of the Fathers or no I added that when Hunnericus K. of the Vandalâ—s would haue had the Catholiks dispute with the Arrians Eugenius Archbishopp of Carthage as Victor of Vtica rehearseth answered that he could not do yt without the consentment of other Bishopps chiefly of the Church of Rome which is head of all others that this my entring into the present conference was not for that I bare lesse respect vnto the Seat Apostolike then that holy Bishop did But because there was no questions of Religion heere to be discussed but only to shew the falsifications of the L. Plessis about the which I was well content to haue the iudgment of the assistants for as much as appertained to the knowledg of Grammer to witt whether the L. Plessis had corrupted the words of the authors or no but not as touching points of diuinity the which the K. Maiestie had already very wisely forbidden vs to treat for that he will not heerin follow the example of K. of Iuda which vsurped the incensour and the function of priesthood but rather of Constantyne Theodose and other religious Emperors in remittinge the decision of Ecclesiasticall matters vnto the Church This done we began to dispute I began to obiect vnto him those places which himselfe had chosen out amongst threescore sent to him by me the day before following therin the same order that he had taken in choosing them out the which all were conuinced of falshood in order as they were proposed sentence was pronounced against him vpon euery place by the heretiks themselues which assisted him there and all with one voyce condemned him The King in this conference hath shewed himselfe so wise so intelligent so affectionate so zealous taking vp the argument against him at euery occasion and pressing him by disputation and so conuincing him of diuers falshoods as he hath shewed manifestly his witt and affection towards the Catholike Religion admirable
about the premisses I haue not thought amisse to resent in part by this postscript what occurreth vnto me in this behalfe And first of all is the wonderfull prouidence of almighty God in conseruation and continuation of the ould ancient Catholike Apostolike vniuersall faith left at the assension of our Sauiour vnto his followers and visible Church that then was and spread by them miraculously in very short space ouer all the world and continued euer since by tradition and succession of one age to another vntill our tyme vnder the protection and mighty powerable defence of the same Lord and Sauiour and vnder the gouernement of his only espouse the said Catholike Church Against which Church discent of faith therin though many new fantasyes and deuises of particular men which holy scriptures call heresies haue spronge vp in euery age with fresh and glisteringe titles of pure ghospell of new reueyled truth of godly reformation and other like pretenses and that God for more triall and exercise of his said Church for the speedier redresse perhaps of some abuses and corrupt manners crept into some part therof hath permitted the said new inuentions to preuayle grow and ruffle for a tyme as by experiēce of all ages we haue seene yet euer in the end he bringeth the same to confusion and shame accordinge to those words of the Psalme Percussit inimicos suos in posteriora opprobrium sempiternum dedit eis He striketh his enemyes in the hinder parts that is towards the end of their ruffle and confoundeth them with euerlasting shame Which prophesy of the Psalmist is principally to be vnderstood of hereticall enemyes as Tertullian Epiphanius other anciēt Fathers wryting against them do interprete and the experience of like end in all heresies past doth make yt playne And this shame and confusion of heresies heretiks which Gods prouidence doth heere fortell and in tyme also bringeth to passe so manifestly as the whole world may be wittnesse therof consisteth principally in foure points as holy Fathers do note First that euery new sect diuideth it selfe quickly into many others sects and heresies which S. Augustine sheweth largely of the Arrians and Donatists and Staphilus Lyndanus and other wryters of our time do shew the same of Luthers sect diuided into so many sects branches in so few yeares as all the world seeth And Stanislaus Rescius a learned man of Polonia◠in his late booke of the Atheisine of haeretiks sheweth out of the wrytings of protestants themselues that in the yeare 1596. when he wrote his booke which was but 4. yeares past that there were now extant in the world 270. different sects all risen out of Luthers from the yeare 1517. wherin Luther began All which he declareth at length the reason of this so great multiplication is giuen by Tertullian in his booke Of prescription against heretikes aboue 1400. yeares past sayinge That for so much as euery scholler of a sectary knoweth that his maister inuented his opinions of his owne head he will inuent also somethinge himselfe therby to shew that his witt is not inferiour to that of his Maisters And heerby they come to such confusion in the end that one destroyeth the other Wherof Luther himselfe is a good witnesse when he wryteth these words Truly God doth not fight by any other meanes with heretiks then by permittinge among them a certayne seditious spiritt of dissention by which their ouerthrow also and perdition doeth ensue So he who is a wittnesse in this cause without exception as yow know The second reproach followinge sectaryes is Contradiction to themselues in their owne wrytings and sayings and shamfull inconstancy in their doctrine The reason wherof is for that the said doctrine consystinge only in the inuention iudgment and memorye of the sectarye himselfe that inuented yt or chose to follow yt though inuented by another for whatsoeuer they alleage of scripture or other antiquity must depend of their owne new inuented interpretation of necessity it must follow that as their talents and witts discourse or memory do alter change or faile in tyme so must the doctrine also therof dependinge be altered And so eyther forgetting what they said in one time or place or matter or hauing altered their iudgment or opiniō vpon some further reason which then they saw not they must needs come to say cōtrary to that they did before In which kind of contradiction some thousands haue byn noted by learned men in Luther himselfe no maruayle seeing he was the first of that sect that inuented new opinion◠dayly And the same is obserued in Caluyns wrytings by VVestphalus Hesshusius and other Lutheran Protestants that wrote against him The third confusion that followeth commonly vpon heresie is coldnes doubtfulnesse in Religion and at length also plaine atheisme and contempt and thervpon dissolution of life neglect of conscience and other sutable effects which therfore among heretiks principally do ensue For that heresie callinge into question and shaking the very pillars and strongest meanes wherby men remayned assured before of their faith to witt the number quality and right vnderstandinge of holy scriptures tradition of the Church from whome we receaued them the verity of Ecclesiasticall storyes Christian miracles authority of generall Councells creditt of ancient Fathers and the like and breakinge downe besides the hedges and walles that were wont to be bulwarks to good life as Confession Restitution Satisfaction fastinge vowinge and other helpes of that quality this I say being once done which is the proper worke of heresy a man runneth naturally into doubt contempt of all and consequently leesing by little and little both feare and shame geueth himselfe ouer easily to all licentious liberty and sensuality of life which the Apostle calleth Desperation And thus much of the cause of this third reproach For as for the effect yt selfe to witt that these fruits haue followed in the world since heresies came in much more then euer before I could alleage both Luther himselfe and Erasmus Roterodauius and other authors of most creditt with Protestants testifyinge of their dayes and as for England yt selfe the present knowledge experience of thousands will beare me witnesse Wherfore I meane to prosecute no further these first 3. reproaches followinge heresies and heretiks to witt◠diuision among themselues contradiction to themselues and dissolution of life or propension to Atheisme though for the Readers fuller instruction therin yf he vnderstand the Latin tongue I must needs giue him notice of two famous bookes wrytten of late of that argument by two excellent learned men of our tyme taken out of the works themselues of all the Sectaryes of this age The one is of our contreyman Maister VVilliam Reynolds once fellow of new-colledg in Oxford a Protestant Preacher intituled Caluino◠turcismus that is of
be answered albeit yf he do but sett downe the whole places themselues as they ly in the Fathers books whence they are cut they will need no answere but will answere themselues and confute the alleager and shew the shamlesse dealinge eyther of Peter martyr or Iohn Fox or of both in cytinge them The like deceytfull dealinge was vsed by Nicolas Ridley B. then of Rochester and after of London the next moneth following in the Cambridge disputation about the same controuersy of the reall presence wherof he being president Martyn Bucer refusinge vtterly to deale in that controuersie he affirmed to the whole vniuersity that he had fiue sure grounds for the opinion of Zuinglius wherof the first was to vse his words the authority Maiestie and verity of holy scriptures the second the most certayne testimonyes of the ancient Catholike Fathers c. Wheras the truth is that both these foundations are most euidently against him as much the one as the other which Bucer well kâ—ew therfore would not take part with him in that matter though soone after to remedy this breach he putt vp three other impertineÌ„t questions to be disputed against Catholiks but in this other article he know that Ridley lyed shamfully against his owne conscience for that all Farthers are against him most euidently so do the Magdeburgians their cheefe Protestant Chroniclers shew declare in euery age or century of their Ecclesiasticall history And yt shal be sufficient for the reader to cast his eye ouer the 4. Chapters only of euery century intituled of doctrine And thus much for K. Edwards dayes when Zuinglian Religion first peeped vp in our countrey After this man stepped to Paules Crosse in the beginninge of this Queenes dayes about the yeare 1559. and 1560. Maister Iohn Iewell otherwise called B. of Salisbury and he proceeded yet further in this bragg or fiction For he protested there euen with feigned teares that yf any one authority place sentence or asseueration of any one Father Doctor Councell or authenticall history within the first 600. yeares after Christ could be brought forth by any man liuinge for any one of those points of Catholike Religion which he there recyted to be in controuersie that then plainely and sincerely he vvould subscribe Against which vayne and shamlesse bragg when Doctor Harding and diuers other learned men of our side began to wryte from Louayne and to bring forth authorityes of all Fathers Doctors Councells and historyes in great aboundance the first effect of this chalenge that appeared to the world was a seuere proclamation that no such bookes wrytten in English by the Catholike party should be receaued or read in England vnder great punishments by which prouision Maister Iewell thinking himselfe meetly well deâ—enced he plyed the pulpitt often and renewed his chalenges many tymes and perceauing notwithstaÌ„ding that Doctor Hardings confutation was come into England he answered the same with a longe volume of Rhetoricall words stuffed the margents therof with the shew of infinite authors as though the whole world had byn for him and none for the other side and with this he deceaued the people then and doth to this day such I meane as haue not commodity or learninge or other meanes to examine those places and to find out the manifold lyes and falsifications therin conteyned And this was the gaine by all likely hood that Maister Iewell preteÌ„ded to his cause by that worke knowing full well that this sort of men is farre the greater which would be gayned and setled in his doctrine before the learneder sort who are but few in comparison of the other could haue tyme books and commodity to discouer refute him when they should do yt they should hardly be beleeued And in this conceate he was not deceaued yf we respect that present tyme and many yeares after as also yt is probable the L. Plessis Mornay had the like designment in stuffing vp his bookes with the like authorityes of Fathers but yf we consider the continuance of tyme wherof truth is said to be the daughter yt hath succeeded vnto him as yow haue heard and will do more and more dayly as to such shifts is wont to happen that is to say accordinge to Kinge Dauids sayinge before recorded â—pprâ—brium sempiternum dedit eis God layeth euerlastinge shame vpon them For how many learned men lightly of our nation haue taken vpon seriously to go ouer that booke of Maister Iewells to examine yt by the authors themselues with any indifferency of mynd haue for the most part byn therby conuerted to Catholike Religion though neuer so great Protestants before of which sort I haue heard relation of many but of some I can testify my selfe for that I haue heard it from their owne mouthes who of earnest Protestants were made most zealous Catholikes by that meanes principally of which number I thinke yt not inconuenient to name hâ—â—re some 2. or 3. omittinge others which for iust respects may not to be named The first of them is Syr Thomas Copley made Lord afterward in his banishment by the K. of France who often tymes hath related vnto me with much comfort of his soule how that being a zealous Protestant and very familiar to the late Earle of Licester in the beginninge of this Q. dayes when Maister Iewells booke was newly come forth he being also learned himselfe in the Latyn tongue tooke paines to examine certayne leaues therof and findinge many falshoods therin which were in excusable as they seemed to him he conferred the same with the said Earle who willed him that the next tyme Maister Iewell dyned at his table he should take occasion after dynner to propose the same which he did soone after and receauing certaine triflinge answers from Maister Iewell he waxed more hoate and vrged the matter more earnestly which Iewell perceauinge told him in effect That Papists were Papists and so they were to be dealt withall and other answere he could not gett which thinge made the good Gentleman to make a new resolution with himselfe and to take that happy course which he did to leaue his countrey and many great commodityes which he enioyed therin to enioy the liberty of conscieÌ„ce for saluation of his soule and so he both liued and died in voluntary banishment for confession of that truth which his Sauiour by occasion of Maister Iewells falshood had reueyled vnto him The second example which I remember of my owne knowledge is Maister Doctor Steuens a learned man yet aliue who being Secretary or Chaplyn to Maister Iewell for I remember not well whether and a forward man in Protestant Religion at that tyme espied certayne false allegations in his Maisters booke whilst yt was yet vnder the print in London wherof aduertisinge him by letters for that he supposed yt might be by ouersight the other commaunded notwithstandinge the print to goe forward and passed it ouer
as it was which this man seeing that had a conscience and sought the truth indeed resolued to take another way of findinge yt out and hauinge found yt in the Catholike Church where only it was to be found he resolued also to follow yt and so he did and went voluntarily into banishment for the same where yet he liueth vnto this day in France with good reputation both of learninge and godlynes The third example that I call to mynd is the worthy man before named Maister VVilliam Reynolds who being first an earnest professor and Preacher of Protestant Religion in England and much engaged amonge the Puritans in Northampton-shire as he was wont to tell he fell in the end to read ouer Maisters Iewells booke and did translate some part thereof into Latyn but before he had passed halfe ouer he found such stuffe as made him greatly mislike of the whole Religion and so he leauing his hopes commodityes in England went ouer the sea into these parts and the last yeare of Iubiley to witt 1575. he came to Rome and brought that booke with him and presented both himselfe and yt to the Tribunall of Inquisition of his owne free motion and accord where I ghesse the booke remayneth still yf yt be not burned and himselfe after absolution receaued from his former errors which he with great humility and zeale required my selfe also at that tyme spake with him in that place he returned into France and Flanders and there liued many yeares with singular edification for his rare vertue learninge and how hartily indeed he was conuerted may well appeare by his zealous wrytinge both in Latyn English in defence of Catholike Religion in confutation of Protestant errors which himselfe before had held for verityes And thus much of the falshood of Maister Iewells wrytyngs wherof he that will see more lett him read Maister Hardings returne of vntruthes but especially yt would import him that hath learninge leasure and commodity to examine the quotations themselues by a good library but in this kind of false dealinge I can giue Maister Iewell a compagnion as good as himselfe yf not exceedinge him which is Iohn Fox who aboue all that euer wrote perhaps may be recorded for notorious in this behalfe I haue had occasion these monethes past to peruse a great part of his last edition of Acts and Monuments printed the fifth tyme in the yeare 1596. and do find it so stuffed with all kind of falshood and deceytfull manner of telling tales as I could neuer truly haue beleeued yt yf I had not found yt by my owne experience And I do persuade my selfe fully notwithstandinge all his hypocriticall words and protestations which are more and oftener repeated by him then in all the wryters togeather that I haue read in my life that there is scarse one whole story in that huge volume told by himselfe except when he relateth other mens words out of records and therby is bound to the formality therof but that it is falsified and peruerted one way or other eyther in the beginning middle or end by adding cutting of concealing false translating wrong cyting or cunning iugling and falsification which I do not speake for any tooth against the man that is dead and whome I neuer knew but in respect of truth only and of so many deceaued soules as are in danger to perish by his deludinge them Nor when I speake of Maister Fox his falshoods do I make accompt of any errors or ouersights though neuer so grosse that are found in him as to reckon some for Martyrs that were aliue at the making of his booke for this he excuseth in his later edition in that he was deceaued by false informations nor do I vrge that others are made Calendar-martyrs by him whome he cannot gainsay but that they were malefactors and some of them eyther madde or denyed Christ himselfe and yet placeth he them in his Calendar for Saints These escaped I say are not heere to be vrged by me now but rather in another place The points that I for the present accuse him of are willfull corruptions and falsifications that cannot be excused as among other things and for examples sake when he recyteth any point in controuersie of the Catholiks doctrine he putteth yt downe commonly in plaine coÌ„trary words sense to that which he must needs know that they holde and teach for so much as their publike books are extant in euery mans hands to testifie the same Of this kind a certaine learned student of diuinity brought to me of late 30. places taken out of two only leaues of Fox his booke to witt from the 12. to the 14. which I looking vpon found them all most euident by conference of the Catholike authors alleaged by the said student and moreouer besides these thirty I did discouer so many other plaine falshoods and manifest willfull lyes in those only two leaues as might well double the former number and I do offer to proue them one by one yf any frend of Iohn Fox will ioyne issue with me vpon this point And then yf by Arithmetique a man will multiply these lyes falsifications of two leaues only with a thousand and more which Fox hath in this last volume and will adde afterward to euery two leaues so many falshoods the number will rise to so huge an accoumpt as were a shame to sett downe and would much surpasse Iohn Sleyâ—ans Story in this kind though he be the Protestants Protochronicler out of which an eleuen thousand lyes were only gathered by the Catholike wryters of Germany And this is so much as for the present seemeth needfull to be said about this matter The end of the relation there followeth the defence A DEFENCE OF THE PRECEDENT RELATION against the shiftes calumniations and tergiuersations as well of the L. Plessis himselfe and some of his Hugonotes in France as of their Proctor O. E. in England The Preface concerninge the authority of the Actes sett forth in France THE former relation being sett downe wholy and entirely as yt was printed in the yeare 1600. though somwhere more explaned and towards the end made sâ—orter I am first to yeld a reason in this place why the passages or points accused of falshood that vvere handled in the conference ensue not heere as they did in the former edition wherof the cause is for that those passages indeed were neuer seene or viewed by the relator himselfe but added only by a frend as in the preface therof is signified according to his wrytten copy receaued from Paris which copy though it agree in truth and substance with the publike Acts themselues of that confereÌ„ce which afterward haue byn authentically 〈◊〉 sorth yet for that the points are not so cleerly laid open as some men perhaps would require I haue thought good to relate the same againe in this my defence out of the said Acts
PRINT ABOVT THE fact it selfe of the Conference had at Fountayne-bleau then is comprehended in my former Relation CHAP. I. FOR that my briefe narration before recited was founded only vpon certayne letters sent from Paris to Rome presently after the conference had as by pervsing therof yow haue seene and my purpose also was to be very briefe I could not sett downe so many particularityes as these acts do now represent yet do I find that whatsoeuer I related before is now confirmed againe by these acts and diuers things added wherof some principall I shall heere touch in few words cytinge the leafe of the said Acts wherin they may be read more largely The title of the said Acts is this Actes de la conference tenue c. Acts of the conference held betweene the L. Bishop of Eureux and the L. Plessis in presence of the King at Fountayne-bleau the fourth of May 1600. published by the permission and authority of his Maiestie c. the same yeare 1600. And thus much of the title now to the contents The first occasion of this combatt sett downe in these Acts is that vpon the 20. day of March anno 1600. a great noble man of Normandy named Lord Sainct-Mary du Mont a Protestant at that tyme but soone after conuerted meetinge with Monsiear Plessis at the lodginge of the Lady Princesse of Orange in Paris told him how he was cryed out of euery where about the falsifications found in his booke lately printed against the Masse that himselfe had seene some shewed vnto him by the B. of Eureux which he could not solue Heervpon Monsieur Plessis thinkinge himselfe touched greatly in honour did iudge yt the best way to make a publike Chalenge to the said B. of Eureux which he wrote and gaue abroad the very same day and the L. Sainct-Mary sent one of them presently to the B. wherevnto he made answere acceptinge of his Chalenge vpon the 25. of March which letters before I haue alleaged and soone after the said Bishopp thinking yt conuenient to print and publish the same did so and sent a copy therof to the King togeather with a letter of his owne hand of the 28. of March wherin amongst other words he saith thus I do send vnto your Maiestie a Chalenge of Monsieur Plessis made about the examen of his allegations in his booke against the Masse togeather with my answere to the same I should be vnworthy to serue so great and noble a King and of so high courage at your Maiestie is yf I should refuse such a Chalenge especially in a quarrell that may be ended without bloud and tend much to the glory of almighty God and to the saluation os him that shal be ouercome and therfore I do most humbly beseech your Maiestie to permitt this triall c. Heervpon Monsieur Plessis vnderstandinge that the B. had wrytten to the King he wrote also another to his Maiestie to the same effect returned likewayes an answere to the Bishop shewinge himselfe willinge to goe forward in the said triall but with diuers exceptions and diuersions as in the said letter appeareth which we haue related before The King hauinge receaued these letters from both partyes and conferred the same with his Counsell resolued to permitt the triall demaunded as also to be present theratt himselfe and so gaue order to the L. Chancelour of France vpon the second of Aprill to warne the partyes to prepare themselues and to be ready for the beginninge of the next moneth with all prouision necessary for that Triall In the meane space the Popes Nuntius that lay in Paris hearinge of an appointment for triall of matters in Religion began to make some difficulty to permitt any such publike act appertayning to the vniuersall cause of Christendome without licence and approbation of the Sea Apostolike and proofe of the persons that must dispute alleaginge that it was a thinge inconuenient to lay the creditt of so great and generall a cause of Religion vpon the learning of any particular man whatsoeuer without necessity But when he was answered by the B. and after by the K. himselfe and others that their meaninge was not to dispute of controuersies but only to examine places cited by Monsieur Plessis whether they were truly and faithfully calleaged or no and that this should be sett downe and obserued as the first law of this conference the Nuntius was satisfied and so the day was appointed his Maiestie commandinge expressely that the conference should be made with all sweetnesse and courtesie c. So in the meane space diuers things were set in order necessary for that conference as namely for choosinge the iudges on both sides and principall assistance without all partiality to witt learned wise and graue men to the end that all might passe with indifferency loue and charity as much as might bee namely for the Catholiks was chosen the president of Tou a great learned man vpright constant and a neere kinsman and frend to Monsieur Plessis The second was Monsieur Pitheu aduocate in the Court of Parlament of Paris a man both graue and generally well learned and a â—amiliar frend also to Monsieur Plessis The third was Monsieur le Feure Maister of the Prince of Condie And on the other side were named the President Calignon Chauncelour of Nauarre and the Lord de Fresne Canaye president of the Chamber of Parlament appointed for them of the new Religion in Languidoc and Monsieur Cazaubon Reader of his Maiestie in Paris all earnest learned and iuditious Protestants The K. departed from Paris the 21. of Aprill to Fountayne bleau to hold there the confereÌ„nce leauing order with the L. Chancelour that the next weeke followinge he with the rest of the iudges and deputyes should follow and bringe the B. of Eureux with them so they did arriuing at Fountayne-bleau the 27. of Aprill and the next day arriued also Monsieur Plessis but brought no books with him sayinge that he had not byn warned to do so and so the next day after that againe he presented a new petition to the Kinge in wrytinge by the Chancelour askinge 4. thinges which his Maiestie caused presently to be conferred with the B. to take his answere thervnto The first was that wheras the B. had giuen outâ— that he had obserued aboue 4000. falsifications in his booke Against the Masse and therby infamed the same that yt might be examined page by page and leafe by leafe as before he had demaunded but the B. refused this for the same reasons which he had alleaged before in his letter to Monsieur Plessis principally for that yt was but a refuge to draw out tyme he well knowinge that yt would neuer be ended The second demaund was that all such places of his booke as the B. did not accuse of falsity might be esteemed as allowed and approued after this conference But
this also the B. said was no reason for that perhapps other men would find other faults in other places which he had not examined and that after these first 500. now obiected were examined he offered to be bound to go ouer his whole booke page by page and lyne by lyne as Plessis desired The third petition was that if this might not be graunted that at least the Bishopp would giue him in wrytinge the first 500. places that he had noted togeather with his proofes against the same and that he might haue tyme to examine them before hands to cutt of long disputes before his Maiestie But to this the Bishopp aunswered in like manner that if he did so the other would aske so much tyme to examine them as he would delude this conference now appointed Wherfore he offered that yf the present triall might go forward he would send him 50. places the day before to prouide himselfe for the first day and so 50. the next day for the second conference and so forth for 10. dayes togeather vntill all the 500. were examined The fourth demaund was that the same order might be held in examininge his booke which he had held in wrytinge the same to witt beginninge from the first part therof c. But this also the Bishopp refused sayinge that it was only a shift for that Plessis comonly had haÌ„dled only light points in the first part of his booke wheron it was no reason to stand and leese tyme but rather as an accuser he might begin where he would and that Plessis was bound to aunswere him yet for the last vpshott to end all he offered the King to giue the whole 500. places presently into his Maiesties hands in wrytynge so to take them from him euery day by 50. at once to be examined in ten dayes as is afore said and after this he said he would bynd himselfe to remaine a whole moneth with him in Paris or els where he should thinke best to examine the rest of the 4000. After this vpon the second day of May all the iudges and comissaryes being now arriued except the President Calignon that remained sicke in Paris Monsieur Plessis gaue vp another Memoriall to the King requyring yet once againe that the Bishop would giue him in wrytinge the 500. places gathered against him or at least wayes deliuer them vp into the hands of the Iudges with commission that yf this conference were broken of they should deliuer them into the hands of the said Plessis and that duringe the conference they should deliuer him only 50. a day Whervpon the King calling the Bishop into his great gallery in the presence of the Chancelour and of Monsieur Rosny president of the finances as also of the president of Tou Cazaubon and others asked him why he would not yeld to this demaund whervnto he answered as before saying that this was but a new delay therby to gett into his hands the whole 500. places and then to seeke to answere them rather by wrytinge then by present confereÌ„ce which he might breake of by diuers occasions yf once he were sure to haue therby the places into this hands and therfore he desired his Maiestie to admitt no further delayes now but that the appointed triall might go forward which being once ended he promised most faithfully that he would stay to examine the whole booke as longe as his Maiestie should appoint or Plessis desire Whervpon the Lords present as well Protestants as Catholiks said that the Bishopp had good reason in his answers to Plessis his demaunds and thervpon the Chancelour was coÌ„manded by the King to goe pronounce this arrest vnto the said L. Plessis and that yf he would not go forward as he had promised his Maiestie would take another course proceed to the examination of his booke in his absence which message the Chancelour hauing done Plessis answered that he could not accept of yt wherat the Chancelour told him that he should looke well to his creditt for that if he should be found to be a falsifier in matters of diuinity his booke condemned in his absence yt would be a great shame vnto him whervnto the other replayed that he had rather yt should be condeÌ„ned vniustly in his absence then in his presence which answere being carried to the K. by the Chancelour his Maiestie commaunded that the examine should begin that very afternoone at three of the clocke but after vpon other busines that fell out it was deferred vntill the next day at 7. of the clocke in the morning which determinatioÌ„ of the K. being knowne there was great dealing with his Maiestie by diuers of the pretended Religion that the matter should not go forward and new articles demaunds were proposed in the behalfe of Monsieur Plessis and namely two noble men Protestants named Castelnau Chambaret as also the president Fresne Canay cheefe deputy of their side tooke in haÌ„d to deale betwene the King Plessis the Bishop after many goings commings messages answers replyes it was agreed that the B. should giue him presently 60. places in wryting of the 500. promised to prepare himselfe for the next day which the Bishop did out of those 60. Plessis chose 19. which seemed to him most defencible with which he weÌ„t to the King protesting as followeth Syr of the 60. passages sent me by the Bishop of Eureux I haue had tyme only to examine and verifie 19. and of these I will leese my honour and life yf he fynd one false I shall proue my selfe this day before your Maiestie to be another manner of man then he esteemeth me These were his words Which being heard the King sent presently for the Bishop and gaue him the list of the 19. places which Plessis had chosen to defend which list when the Bishopp had read he tould the King the deputyes that stood present with him that he found deceatfull dealinge in euery point for that these 60. places being gathered in hast and tumultuously as his Maiestie knew himselfe in lesse then halfe an houres space by his commandemeÌ„t out of certaine loose papers where aboue 800. corruptions were noted of Monsieur Plessis and put togeather as they lay in order he had chosen to defend them not as they stood in the Catalogue but by particular election to witt the 27. 39. 44. 50. 53. 56. c. And whereas there were most of the ancient fathers named in this list as corrupted by him only two schoolmen among the rest for example sake to witt Scotus and Durandus he had guiâ—fully placed them in the first ranke of his 19. placed to begin withall as captaynes of the rest therby to disauthorize the whole conference and to weary the hearers as though the cheefe moment of the triall had byn about Scotus and Durandus The K. answered that it should be good to giue
contentment to Plessis and those of his party wherein it might be for which cause he said further as before that he desired this conference might passe with all quietnesse possible and that the Bishop should abstayne as much as he could from vsing the word false or falsification and other such like as might be offensiue for that his intent was to pacifie and gaine men by this triall and not to exasperate And the same he said also vnto the Lords deputyes there present requiring them that yf they should see any man wax into bitternesse choler they should restraine him seeke to end all with good words and substantiall matter After dynner about one of the clocke the said conference was begone in presence of his Maiestie and of a great number of the cheefe nobles of France which were long to name for before the K. satte the L. Chancelour and the deputyes of both partyes before named and at his right hand satt the Archbishopp of Lyons and sundry other Bishopps and on his left hand the 4. secretaryes of State behind the King sate the Princes namely the Dukes of Vaudemont Nemeurs Mercury Dumayne Niuers Elbeuse Aignilon Ianuile and others and after them againe the officers of the crowne Counselors of State and others of the nobility and about 200. other hearers within the chamber aboue 500. in a gallery and garden without expecting the resolutiō from passage to passage wherof there were many Protestants and diuers Ministers of the new Keligion All being sett the L. Chancelour made first a briefe speech confirmed afterward by the King himselfe that the meaning of this meeting was to try out the truth of certaine allegations that were called in controuersy in the L. Plessis booke and not to dispute of any article of Religion at all to which effect also the Bishop had a breefe speech alleaging the example of Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage who being required by Hunnericus King of the Vandalls in Africa to dispute with the Arrians he refused the same without consent of other Bishopps and especially of the B. of Rome as head of all Monsieur Plessis also made a very short preface saying that as he had wrytten his books with intent to do God seruice for the reformation of his Church and would thinke himselfe happy yf he could help any thing therin so was he so farre of from all intention of willfull falsifyinge that yf he knew his right hand to haue done yt he should be the first to burne the same He made mention againe and shewed greefe that 4. thousand places should be noted as falsified by him in his booke and finally protested that howsoeuer it succeded with him his cause was particular and touched not the reformed Churches in France which were before him and would be after him c. The B. repeated againe the matter of 4000. places corrupted and offered to stand vnto yt and to verifie them as well as those 500. new agreed vpon and repeated againe breifely the whole story of this action and how guilfully Plessis had proceeded in cullinge out 19. places only of 60. offered him and of these had put in the first ranke Scotus and Durand two schoolemen about the controuersie of the Sacrament leauing out other places of S. Cyprian S. Cyrill S. Chrisostome other ancient Fathers obiected to haue bin corrupted by him in the very same controuersie of the reall presence amongst the number of these three score which fraud to the end the iudges and deputyes might see and behould he laid downe vpon the table that stood before them the whole Catalogue of the said 60. places sent the day before to Plessis which being done the King comaunded the foure secretaryes of the crowne to wryte only the conclusions and iudgments that should be giuen and not the whole speaches for yt would be ouerlonge and so the conference began the B. sayinge at the opening of the first booke Domine labi◠mea aperies os meum annunciabit laudem tuam Monsieur Plessis also prayed briefly with his hatt before his face c. OF NINE PLACES EXAMINED IN THIS FIRST DAYES conference and how they were all iudged by sentence of the deputyes to haue byn corrupted by Monsieur Plessis CHAP. II. IN this first dayes conference which endured 6. houres there could be examined only 9. places of the 19. which Plessis had chosen to defend of which nine also the first two by his art and fraude as in the former Chapter hath byn seene were of 2. schoolemen or scholasticall wryters Scotus and Durandus which being only named for exāple sake by the B. of Eureux in his catalogue of 60. places but yet after many more important then they of the anciēt Fathers which Plessis thought good to thrust backe all the said ancient Fathers and namely S. Cyprian S. Cyrill of Ierusalem S. Iohn Christostome and others cited in the same controuersie and many more in other questions to aduāce forward to the first second places of triall the said Scotus and Durandus thinking therby partly to weary his Maiesty the audience and to make the conference lothsome and contemptible by so base a beginning partly also presuming that he might more easily trifle out the tyme in wranglinge about these as he did a whole houre about the first place only of Scotus and would haue done the whole day yf he might haue byn permitted but the Bishop discouering this fraud vnto the auditorye shewed withall that his deceyt and false dealing was all one in corrupting meane authors as the best and greatest therfore that it was not so much to be cōsidered by the iudges what the wryter was that was falsified but how much with how great fraud he is falsifyed And with this they passed to the particulars The first place examined out of Scotus about the reall presence This preamble being made the B. began to read out of Plessis booke pag. 869. accordinge to his forsaid edition in 4. printed at Rochell by Hierome Hautin these words out of Scotus about the Sacrament of the Altar Iohn Duns saith he called Scot almost 100. yeares after the Councell of Lateran was not afraid to call in question if the body of Christ be really conteyned vnder the species or accidents of bread and he disputeth that it is not and his arguments are for that the quantity doth not permitt yt nor yet the locality and circumscription annexed to the nature of a true body such a one as Christ had c. Thus he And then for proofe he quoteth in the margent Scotus vpon the 4. booke of Sentences dist 10. quaest 1. Out of which place the B. did inferre two willfull and malitious deceyts of Plessis the first that he would make his Reader beleeue that Scotus the rest of the Schoolemen when they propose any matter to be disputed to and fro do doubt of the truth therof
these clauses that conteyne the principall point of all the speach was willfull fraud and falsification endeauouringe to make Saint Hierome to speake against himselfe about prayinge to Saints which he neuer meant Heere now Plessis being strayned as before ran to his ordinary shift of sayinge that S. Hierome spake not of dead Saints but of liuinge only which though it were euidently false as the Bishop shewed by other plaine words of S. Hierome in the same place and by Plessis himselfe that cyted this place as an antiâ—otum to other places of his against Vigilantius where Plessis himselfe confessed that he talketh of prayer to Saints deceased besides all this I say wherby this refuge was euideÌ„tly knowne to be but a shift the Bishop pressed him most with this that of what sort of Saints soeuer S. Hierome speaketh heere quicke or dead he speaketh not simply or absolutely that they cannot saue vs by their prayers but with this expresse condition twise repeated by him and left out by Plessis If we be negligent of our owne parts or as S. Chrysostome said before yf we rely wholy vpon them and do nothing of our selues Wherfore he prayed the iudges to giue sentence concerninge this place as of the former whervpon Plessis began to cauill againe and to say as he did in the former passage of S. Chrysostome that he alleaged not this place of Saint Hierome directly against Saints deceased but indirectly But the B. proued that neyther directly nor indirectly this place of S. Hierome made any thinge against prayers to Saints but rather for the same For he that saith that prayinge to Saints auayleth not him that is negligent of his owne part signifieth in effect that yf he be diligent he may be holpen therby which is S. Hieromes doctrine against Vigilantius as Plessey confesseth though he saith that he was then in choler but now out of choler when he spoke the contrary as he would haue him to seeme After this Plessis leapt to another place of S. Hierome in his coÌ„mentaryes vpon S. Paules epistles to the Corinthians where he saith That Saints shall not be able to help at the day of iudgment c. Which the Bishop expounded and graunted for that then there shal be no more place for prayer or intercession but euery one to receaue his reward yet he added further that this place of S. Hierome was brought into examination out of the order of those 19. that Plessis had chosen and that yf he would be content to continue the examination of this one page of Saint Hierome whence this place is drawne the B. offered to bynd himselfe to shew 4. notorious falsityes committed by him in this one page but Plessis refused this combat said that he would not interrupt the order sett downe already for examination of his 19. places aforesaid but yet both the King and rest of the auditory did well marke and note this offer made by the Bishopp and diuers tymes repeated by him and that the other durst not accept therof Wherfore the iudges being called vpon againe to giue sentence conferred togeather and with one consent gaue this verdict Que le passage auoit deu estre mis entier That this place or passage on S. Hierome ought to haue byn sett downe by Monsieur Plessis wholy and entyre as yt lay in the author and not mangled or dismembred as it was found to be And yow may imagine how Plessis blushed at this sentence The sixt place examined out of S. Cyrill about honouringe the holy Crosse. The sixt place was out of S. Cyrill cited by Monsieur Plessis pag. 223. of his booke in these words S. Cyrill answered the Emperour Iulian when he reproached Christians for honour done vnto the crosse that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse. So saith Plessis But the Bishopp charged him that the last words of this sentence to witt that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse were not in S. Cyrill and willed him to shew them Plessis answered that in deed they were not S. Cyrills owne words and therfore he did not put them in a different letter of quotation but yet that the sense of them was to be found in S. Cyrill The B. replyed that neyther the words nor sense were there and yet that Plessis pag. 89. of his booke against the Masse had sett downe the same thinge as of S. Cyrills owne words in a different letter of quotation thus Cyrill likewise reproached by Iulian the Emperour doth answere flattly that the ChristiaÌ„s did neither adore nor honour the signe of the Crosse. So as heerâ— yow see not only these words alleaged as S. Cyrills in a different letter but also often vrged by Plessis that for so much as he could not bring forth the words at least he should shew the sense therof in S. Cyrill Plessis answered that the sense might be gathered out of Cyrill in that Iulian the Apostata against whome he wrote obiectinge vnto him that the Christians adored the Crosse of Christ Cyrill did not answere that it was true which of likelihood he would haue done yf in those dayes Christians in deed had worshipped the Crosse. But to this the Bishop replyed that the consequeÌ„ce was not good for so much as Christian wryters of that tyme were wont to goe very reseruedly in vttering the points misteryes of our faith vnto pagaÌ„s though heere in effect Cyrill did confesse yt as presently shal be shewed for that he yeldeth the reason why they did yt But on the other side yt is a farre better argument to say Iulian the Apostata obiected that Christians adored the Crosse of Christ and painted the images therof vpon their foreheads vpon their dores and S. Cyrill denyeth yt not but endeauoureth to giue a reason why they did so Ergo it is more probable that Christians did worshipp the Crosse of Christ indeed in those dayes And heere the King tooke vp the argument againe sayinge that yt was very probable that Iulian would neuer haue obiected this to the Christians yf they had not done so indeed for otherwise he should haue byn laughed at by all Which speach of his Maiestie the B. coÌ„firmed by shewing how learned an Emperour Iulian the Apostata was and how he had byn brought vp from his youth in Christian Religion and could not be ignorant in so publike a matter as this and moreouer said the Bishop yf yt were true that S. Cyrill did reprehend the Emperour Iulian for charginge falsely Christians to worshipp the Crosse yt is not likely that other Christian Emperors followinge soone after as Iustinian and others would in their lawes haue called the same Adorandam honorandam verè crucem the Crosse that is truly to be honoured adored Which mention of Emperors being heard by the King he required presently that the books should
Cyrill were not found in him leauing yt easy to the hearers saith he to inferre that the sense notwithstandinge was to be found in him Which is a great vntruth for that the sentence registred by all 4. secretaryes comprehendeth the whole passage in these words The passage cyted by Monsieur Plessis out of Cyrill is not found in Cyrill which sentence conteyneth as yow see both sense and words And it is a poore shift of Plessis to go about to help himselfe by so childish an inference as for that they gaue sentence that the words alleaged by him were not in Cyrill yt might be inferred that the sense was After this the Bishopp sheweth diuers other grosse vntruthes in this kind as namely that in reportinge the sentence of the Chancelour and deputyes vpon the last place examined out of Theodorete about Idolls he falsely peruerteth the same leauing out the principall important words of the said sentence to witt adored by Paynims and adored for Gods contrary to the faith of the records themselues vniformally taken by all 4. secretaryes then againe to excuse himselfe from a foule disgrace happened in the examination of the first place about the reall presence out of Scotus whose text Plessis could not read he telleth in his discourse this notable lye that the B. of Eureux had vsed a certayne fraudulent sleight to disgrace him which was to bring two editions of Scotus the one fayre to be read which he sent him ouernight with the 60. places to prepare himselfe the other he retayned with him of an euill print which he obtruded to him in the conference But this shamelesse fiction the Bishop refuteth first by the testimony of them that brought backe againe the bookes from Plessis house to the conference and then by the wittnesse of 4. seuerall Frenche gentlemen to witt Monsieur du Bertant du Beaulien du Berulle and du Salettes that came with him from Paris knew that he brought but one only edition of Scotus with him which was in folio of the print of Badius Ascensius in the yeare 1519. and lent vnto him by the college of Sorbone in Paris for this conference which booke being giuen to Plessis to verifie his place alleaged out of him he could not so much as read nor turne the booke for that there were some abreuiations therin after the manner of schoole-doctors and therby all the lookers on and hearers well perceaued that he was vtterly ignorāt in reading schoole-doctors though euery where for ostentation of learning he was accostomed to cyte them in his bookes And this shame Plessis had no other way to couer at that present before all the auditors but to say that he was not practised but in his owne bookes only though afterward vpon more deliberation he thought good to deuise this other shift of changinge the booke by the Bishopp which yet being so malitiously cōuinced of calumniation by the wittnesses before mentioned did exceedingly tend to Plessis discredit And this shall suffice for the first point of Plessis reply wherin yow see that for defence of his 9. places before conuicted of falsification he vttereth 9. other great vntruthes for doublinge the number As for the other two points of new shifts and recrimination I will remitt the Reader to the Bishop his owne refutation for them that vnderstand the french tongue and for the rest yt will not be hard to ghesse by example of this which we haue alleaged what manner of stuffe yt is which Plessis could alleage for his further defence in so manifest conuinced falsifications and yow shall heare presently what O. E. in England can say for him And yf yow find him by this little a man with out faith or spiritt of truth in his assertions then shall yt be wisdome to beware not only of this his booke against the Masse wherout so many falsifications haue byn gathered but of others also wrytten in the same spiritt and namely of one that for many yeares hath gone in English intituled of the Church which being smothely wrytten and stuffed out with great shew and ostentation of Scriptures Fathers Historyes and other such furniture hath dazeled the eyes of many as did also this other against the Masse vntill yt was sifted and examined by learned men But for the other in English I can assure the Reader that yt is a most deceytfull booke and may be well brother to this against the Masse And yt is now very neere twenty yeares gone that the late Earle of Lecester gaue one of them to a kinsman of his named Guilford to read for his satisfactiō in Religion who conferring the same with another learned gentleman a frend of mine desired that yt might be examined which my said frend began to do with such comodity of bookes as he could procure at that tyme and found so full stuffed with all kind of deceatfull impostures and falsifications as he remayned astonished therat and conferred the same with a learned Baron of the Realme now dead and he with another yet liuinge and neere to his Maiesties person who did all wonder at so notorious treachery though th'examē passed not through the greater part of the booke for that it was interrupted by some trouble fallinge to the examiner but he hath affirmed many times since and doth at this day that yt is incredible to beleeue what corrupt dealinge there is therin and exhorteth all those that haue meanes to try the truth of this his assertion which I cannot do at this present for that I haue not the booke by me yet I thought it conuenient to giue a note therof for stayinge of them that haue or may be deceaued therby and for styrringe vp of others to make this examen And so for this tyme we leaue Plessis to himselfe and to his shifts in France and shall passe ouer to consider what O. E. his aduocate can say for him in England WHAT O. E. OTHERWISE MATHEVV SVTCLIFFE HATH wrytten for defence of Plessis Mornay concerning the 9. places handled in the former Conference and how he committeth farre greater faultes then Plessis himselfe CHAP. V. HAVING pervsed what Monsieur Plessis hath byn able to say for himselfe both in the conference and after vpon better deliberation we must now examine briefly what our ould frend O. E. for vnder that vizard he masketh hitherto hath diuised for his defence For that my forsaid breife relation fallinge into his hands he thought yt to appertayne to his manhood as a martiall minister to proclayme himselfe champion in Plessis quarrell therby to fullfill the prouerbe that none so bold as blynd bayard and though he be not able to defend his owne head as after yow shall see from the same or like blowes which Plessis hath receaued yet will he needs be doing intrude himselfe for a shylde to the other and this with such violence or rather virrulency of speche raginge and rauinge at all those
that will seeme to touch Plessis fidelity in the places alleaged as he may seeme to need rather byndinge then answeringe yet somewhat shall we say to him as the straitnesse of this place and tyme will permitt and therby shew sufficiently what manner of aduersary he is and that hauing lost or laid aside as it seemeth all manner of respect to shamfastnes and modestie he may easily lend out his tongue pen for small hire to any man And truly I can not but maruayle that a man of his profession place can persuade himselfe that so excessiue a raylinge and opprobrious stile against all whome he aunswereth should gayne him credit with any modest or sober sort of men he will find some in the end that will returne him legem talionis then he may count his gaine I for my part am resolued not to be drawen by him to that veine but to vrge him only with substantiall points of the controuersy in hand as the reader shall see by that which ensueth Wherfore to come to the matter wheras Monsieur Plessis diuided his refuge into three points as before yow haue heard The first concerninge the history of the conference it selfe the second in seeking out new euasions the third in recriminations O. E. setteth before vs the same Coleworts sodden againe but guised after another fashion puttinge recriminations in the first place of all but much more vaynely then Plessis did in the third And in the second he taketh vpon him to defend the truth and fidelity of Plessis in all the places before examined And for that in this point consisteth in deed the only substance of the controuersie I shall only examine the same in this place leauing the other to a more full and larger aunswere when we shall haue vewed a secōd edition which O. E. is said to haue made of his new chalenge in fiue seuerall controuersies to N. D. now to the places as they lye in order with this only aduertisment premised that it shall be good for the Reader first to looke ouer the examen of each place handled before in the second Chapter of this defence where all the 9. places are examined seuerally and I do meane to remit me often for more breuityes sake thervnto The first Place out of Scotus Yow haue heard before how Monsieur Plessis was argued by the Bishop of two seuerall impostures in alleaginge one place of Scotus about the reall presence sayinge that Scotus was not afrayd to call in question yf the body of Christ be really conteyned vnder the species or accidents of bread and he disputeth that yt is not his arguments are for that the quantity doth not permitt yt c. Hence I say two deceatfull falsifications are obiected the first in that he maketh his reader beleeue that Scotus his obiection is his resolution the other that the arguments of heretiks brought in by Scotus against the reall presence and refuted by him are Scotus his owne arguments Of which impostures sentence was giuen of the deputyes against Plessis as before yow haue seene neither could the impertinent replies and euasions attempted by him deliuer him from the shame therof Now lett vs heare what O. E. his spokesman hath diuised for a new supply of holes to run out at First saith he though Scotus had not so spoken as Maister Plessis hath set downe yet could not Maister Plessis be charged with falsification seing he doth not quote his words but setteth downe his owne collection The most that could be said was that he had mistaken the meaning of Scotus These are two shifts poore ones as yow see For first the Bishop did not charge Plessis for misciting Scotus words but for peruertinge of his meaning in settinge downe his obiection for his resolution Secondly yf Plessis be a man of any learninge or common sense at all this his mistakinge of Scotus meaning which heere O. E. would haue to by so called cannot be censured for lesse then willfull imposture For yf he had not so much iudgmēt as to discerne an obiection from a resolution then was he a simple fellow to wryte books and yf he did discerne yt and yet sought to deceaue his Reader in so weighty a matter as is the controuersie of the reall presence he was and is a willfull imposter These then are the 2. first points of our English Aduocates defence lett vs heare how he goeth forward And yet saith he yf Peron had charged him only with mistakinge himselfe bad byn mistaken and greatly had he wronged his aduersary For that yt cannot be denyed but that Scotus did indeed call into question whether Christs body be really by Transubstantiation conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wyne and disputeth that yt is not which is all that the L. Plessis doth say of Scotus for which he is chalenged by his wrangling aduersary c. Is it all Syr Mathew As truly as yow are trew of your word He that shall read the examen of the place rehearsed before shall find that his aduersary chalengeth him not for saying that Scotus made this obiection for the reall presence or disputed against yt after the fashion of schoolemen but for that persidiously he alleaged the place as though Scotus had byn of that negatyue opinion and that the arguments obiected had byn his owne and not of heretiks solued by him This is the charge of the Bishop against him And what will yow say to Maister Sutcliffe auouchinge the contrary But lett vs see what manner of proofe he will bring for his assertion for that he durst not lett so grosse an absurdity passe without some shadow of reason which yet yow shall see to be farre worse then if he had passed it ouer in silence Heare then his euasion Neyther is it materiall saith he that this is the vse of schooles first to obiect against the truth and afterward to resolue what is true and to answere the obiections for that doth not disprooue Monsieur Plessis his assertion seeing Scotus doth not only in his obiections but also in his resolution of that question say as much as M. Plessis collected out of him c. Yf this can be proued I will call O. E. a cunning aduocate indeed But if it cannot then is he to to forgetfull of his credit to auouch this againe so boldly after he hath seene yt conuicted before out of Scotus owne words in the resolution of that very question sayinge I do affirme that yt is simply a substantiall point of our faith to beleeue that Christs body is truly and really vnder those accidents of bread c. Which resolution he hauing proued out of diuers places of scripture as namely Math. 26. and Iohn 6. he dissolueth the arguments made before to the contrary Which being so what shall we say of Maister Sutkliffe that after all this seene and read auoucheth the very same againe that M.
humâ— had byn left out seing both Epiphanius and the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine diuers other Fathers had condemned Images before But why had not O. E. cyted the places out of Epiphanius those other Fathers which condemned paintinge of Images that we might haue read them The B. of Eureux did cyte both in the conference it selfe and in his refutation of Plessis discourse many auncient Fathers expresse words both before and after this law was made of Theodosius and Valenâ—inian named heere againe ignorantly by O. E. as the law of Theodosius and Valens to witt the authorityes of Eusebius Chrysostome Hierome Cyrill Prudentius Paulinus S. Gregory Nissen S. Gregory Nazianzen and others all allowinge the pious vse of images in their dayes yea and an other expresse law of the same Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian is also of him alleaged coÌ„maunding the signe of the Crosse to be put in Churches how chaunceth it that the Minister heere also pulleth downe his hat ouer his eyes and will not see nor aunswere any one of these authorityes yow may easily gheasse the reason And as for the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine yt being a prouinciall Councell of 19. Bishops only about the yeare 305. they prohibited nothing but that Images should not be painted in those dayes vpon walles both in respect of the indecency corruption that came therby vnto them by the moisture of the said walles somewhat contemptible to the pagans and heretikes yet liuing among them as also to the end that being painted in tables rather then vpon the said walles Christians might carry them away as they did other Ecclesiasticall ornaments when persecution fell out and not leaue them to the spoyle and dirision of the persecutors And this reason is gathered out of the words of the constitution it selfe confirmed by the practise both of that tâ—me after And so much of this place O. E. hauing borrowed this obiection of the Councell of Eliberis out of Plessis reply in his discourse vpon the place though in the Conference he came out with yt and had his full answere vpon the 9. place out of Theodorete which O. E. heere dissembleth and replyeth no one word as hath bene said to this or to any of the authorityes alleaged there by the Bishop for the auncient vse and honour of Images The eyght Place out of S. Bernard First yt is to be noted that this 8. passage being by error of the aforsaid french wrytten copy sent from Paris placed in the 9. roome by him that sett forth the said passages is restored heere by vs againe vnto his proper place accordinge to the Acts of the conference and Plessis reply which O. E. also followeth without mencioninge the error which is an argument that he had read all and so much greater is his shame that he commeth so bare weake to play the Aduocate after much better matter vttered before by Plessis himselfe who was accused vpon this place as before yow haue seene for tyinge togeather fraudulently two different places of S. Bernard as making against the honouring of our blessed Lady and persidiously leauinge out in the myddest that clause of the Father which being in the text annexed to the former of the two senteÌ„ces made all cleere yf yt had byn left in and ouerthrew the whole drift of Plessis cauill the clause was Magnifie the inuentrix of grace the mediatrix of Saluation and the restorer of the world Vpon which deceytfull dealing after many corners sought in vaine to runne out and escape Plessis had sentence against him But lett vs see what releefe the new attorney bringeth As yf yt were necessary saith he vvhere diuers places are alleaged out of one author to wryte out all that cometh betwixt one the other Lo a quicke dispatch of the matter But I would aske O. E. a case of conscience as professinge also diuinity which is this yf when that which goeth betweene conteyne the very substance soule of the matter or controuersy as heere yt doth whether in such a case yt be lawfull to leaue yt out or noe or whether this be properly falshood and falsification For yf yt be not then we may peruert the Pater noster or any prayer or peece of scripture and make yt seeme blasphemous And let the reader marke that O. E. hath no euasion heere but most absured Yet lett vs heare him further for Plessis excuse He alleageth Bernard saith he not as an authenticall witnesse but as a man fauouringe his aduerse party being nourished in monasticall errors and superstitions Well Syr and for that S. Bernard did not fauour him in Religion as no Saint euer did is it therfore lawfull to falsifie and corrupt his words and sense We know well that both yow and hee do alleage the words of S. Bernard and other Catholike wryters as the diuell doth scriptures which bynd not him but others against whome he alleageth them and so Plessis alleaged Scotus and Durandus before but as the prouerbe is A man should not bely the diuell And no lesse falshood and corruption of mynd is discouered in falsifyinge authors whome they creditt not as others whome they credit Wherfore let vs heare his conclusion vpon this place He saith that S. Bernard and we do not agree about honors to be giuen to our lady as in the feast of her conception in callinge her Mediatricem salutis and that both he and Epiphanius wrytinge against the heretiks called Collyridians do much mislike the honours which we giue to the blessed Virgin All which are toyes answered before in the examen of this place for so much as concerneth S. Bernards agreement and ours but for the foolish women called Collyridians condemned by Epiphanius and by the whole Church for offeringe sacrifice to our Lady this cauiller hath byn answered so often to witt that yt appertayneth nothinge to our controuersie and this in diuers bookes now out against him as only lacke of iudgment matter as it seemeth haue induced him to obiect yt heere againe he hauinge byn foyled therin and made to see that Epiphanius expressely in that place honoureth highely our El. Lady and denyeth only diuine honour vnto her And not that which the Catholike Church doth giue vnto her The 9. and last Place out of Theodorete The charge of falsifying laid to Plessis vpon this passage of Theodorete was that he cyting a place of this author in his commentary vpon the Psalmes against pagan Idolls Plessis did fraudulently so alleage the same as yf he had spoken yt of Christian Images for which purpose he vsed two sleights the first in translating the Greeke word Idoll by the Latyn word Image the second by cutting of these words Idolls adored by pagans and adored for Gods For excuse of which two faâ—sifications when Plessis had vsed diuers shifts as well by some shew of proofe that Idolls and Images may
therof and yet would he auouch that no true Catholike had vsed the same but being reprehended for yt and told of his lyinge by his aduersary diuers Fathers cited for proofe therof and his owne Maister Caluyn and his brother VVillett for acknowledginge the same yet commeth he now to affirme and print yt againe in his second edition of his chalenge and dissembleth peruerteth and shifteth of the authorityes both of the said Fathers Caluyn himselfe as though they had neuer ben obiected against him And what will yow say to this manner of dealinge will you aduenture your soule with such a man or will yow giue creditt any more to his fond crakinge or vauntinge aboue mentioned But we are ouerlong in this third part cannot well get out of it through the multitude of aduantages that Sutcliffe geueth vs in pursuinge him in this his chase of defendinge himselfe yet must we sound retreat and say only a word or two of the fourth part of this his new booke conteyninge as yow haue heard a heap or fardell of recriminations gathered togeather against auncient Popes Councells synods historiographers and other Catholike wryters and lastly against Cardinall Bellarmyne Cardinall Baronius and F. Parsons by which ostentation of names and authors he would make men beleeue that all the world were full of corruptions and falsifications in wrytinge and consequently that those of his and of his fellowes are little to be respected but when the occasion shall come to aunswere this second edition at large the differences wil be shewed and how vainly this little enuious mouse hath gone about to gnibble at Catholike authors edges of their garments particularly at the wrytings of the most famous learned and honourable men of our tyme Cardinall Bellarmine and Cardinall Baronius who haue so beaten downe heresy with their most excellent works as by allusion we may say of them in respect of Sutcliffe ipsi conterunt caput tuum tu vero insidiaris eorum calcaneis they haue broken thy head and thou doest byte at their heeles Of the third which is F. Persons and the obiections heere brought against his wrytings we had thought to haue spoken somewhat more particularly but lacke of tyme and roome maketh vs also to albreuiate this yet somewhat for example sake shal be said Sutcliffe nameth two books of his the first entituled A briefe discourse conteyninge reasons why Catholiks refuse to go to Church The next is called A Christian directory and commonly knowne by the name saith he of Parsons Resolution Against the former booke he bringeth two reasons as wise as his head can deuise the one that he promised to make three parts of that booke and performed but one abusinge saith he both his frends and aduersaryes with his false promises The other reason is saith he for that to persuade men not to go to ProtestaÌ„ts Church must needs stand vpon this supposition that the Popes Religion is true and therfore he should first haue proued this principle before he had gone about to giue reasons to stand stedfast therin But now saith he yf Parsons can say nothinge why the Religion in England is not Catholike and Apostolicall then all his reasons fall to the ground These two reasons do well declare what a man of worth Sutcliffe is And not to shew on my parte distrust in the Readers iudgement I will not go about to refute such vanityes For if this last reason haue any force yt proueth also that no Protestant Preacher or wryter may exhort any of his Religion to constancy perseuerance patience humility or any other vertue except he proue first all that Religion to be true But lett vs passe to the other booke perhaps his obiections wil be stronger against that His directory also saith he is a most idle and vayne discourse so idle and vaynè do seeme all treatises of piety to this prophane minister yt should consist of three parts but as the fashion is of three promised he keepeth backe two performeth the third very simply This is his censure of that booke And presently as he is fertile in inuention though foolish in his election he commeth with eyght choise accusations against yt The first is for that he proueth there is a God and that Christian Religion is true aboue all other Religions and that he treateth against dispayre of Gods mercyes tentations and too much feare of persecution VVhich rather doth hinder a man saith Sutcliffe from leading a Christian life then help him to resolue The second That the greatest part saith he is taken out of Loartes Stella Granatensis and other such authors The third for that yt argueth Catholikes to be badd Christians that they must be taught there is a God hell heauen and the like The fourth That Sutcliffe doth not find that yt hath made hitherto any one Christian or directed him to the way of lyfe but many yong men to the gallowes The fifth that yt hath not brought Father Persons him selfe yet to a good resolution nor to enter into Religion The sixt For that his discourse to proue that there is a God and but one true Religion and that there is a heauen hell among Christians already well persuaded is impertinent The seauenth For that yt is diuided into speculation and practice as yf saith he a man could practise that is not entred into the exercise of Religion or as yf resolution were not farre differeÌ„t from practise The eight last for that yt is fraught with idle discourses the principall point so weakely proued that yt will rather make Christians to doubt of Religion then atheists to beleeue These are Sutcliffes reasons which shew the mans depth and conforme to these are his obiections picked out of the forsaid two books about allegation wherof I would gladly haue sett downe some halfe adozen at least for example so to haue seene the weight and substance therof but that I am forced to make an end referring my selue to a fuller exameÌ„ when his reply shall come forth Now then only I am to aduertise the Reader that he weigh with himselue what manner of man Sutcliffe is in these his wrytings he vaunteth and chalengeth as yow see as yf he were agyant and when he cometh to the gryping he is iust nothing he offereth to answere for all as Iewell Fox Peter Martyr Ridley Fulke Plessis Mornay whome els yow will besides but when yt cometh to the triall he is able neither to make good for them nor for himselfe and is iust like a knight of the post that will offer to be surety for ten thousand pounds when all his owne substance is not worth ten shillings His writings are loose ragged negligent barrâ—n obscure and vnsauery without substance either of learning prudeÌ„ce sharpnes or good stile yf yow looke them ouer yow shall find them for the most part fraught furnished only with bare assertions