inconueniences but vpon the same that best agreeeth with the sayings of the Saints and the Ecclesiasticall traditions He is wise enough for saying with the tenure of the holy Scriptures or with the nature of the Sacrament And indeed the Lord of Eur. should haue learned of his Bellarmin that Durand dyd not sufficiently beleeue transubstantiation who in his 3. booke of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Chap. xi hath these words h Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. c. 11 Durandus docuit parteÌ„ vnaÌ„ essentialem id est formaÌ„ panis conuerti partem alteraÌ„ id est materiaÌ„ non conuerti Durand hath taught that an essential part of the bread namely the forme is conuerted and that the other part namely the substance is not coÌ„uerted Which he doth expressely confute in the 13. Chapter of his third booke and citeth Durand vpon the 4. booke of sentences Dist 11. q. 3. Heere would our Masters and Commissioners haue referred the iudgement as they had done with the former confessing that the whole question deserued to be read that it might be iudged by the course thereof But then the Lord of Eureux found himselfe agreeued saying that it was in vaine for them to dispute if they wold not iudge sundry tymes speaking to the King to appoynt his pleasure to the sayd Commissioners Whereupon his Maiesty comming vnto them this Article was decided and the Lord Chauncellor pronounced That Durands opposition was alleaged for his resolution Heere let the reader iudge albeit it were so of the wordes of the opposition so playnely repeated in the resolution and Durand speaking no longer in a third person but in his owne person afterward likewise these clauses Durum est Temerarium est Jt is hard It is rash c. Whether in so doubtfull so ticklish so problematticall matter the Lord of Eureux might pretend any haynous vntruthes euen palpably to be iudged at the very opening of the booke at the bare sight thereof where a mans iudgement not his eyes is in daunger of fayling The third place out of Chrisostom vpon the first to the Thessalonians FOr the third they came to a place of Chrisostom vpon the first to the Thessa Hom. 1. Liu 3 de Euchar chap. 11. ed. 1. pa. 5. 7. l. 31. edit 2. p. 538. l. â— ed. 3 p. 498. l. 22. alleaged by the Lord of Plessis in his booke p. 537. li. 31. where hee examineth all the places of Scripture which the aduersaries doe boldely apply to the inuocation of Saints namely this out of Ieremy 15. a Ierem. c. 15. v 1. Si stererint Moyses Samuel coraÌ„ me non est anima mea ad populum istum Though Samuell and Moyses should stand before me yet should not my affection be to this people In which place hauing prooued by S. Hâ—erosme Theodoret S. Gregory Hugo Cardinall yea the glosse it selfe that this place is meant of the intercession of Moses and Samuell when they liued betweene the wrath of God and the sinnes of the people But not of any intercession of the dead Saintes vnto God for the faythfull liuing heere beneath hee withall addeth that heere of Chrisostom gathereth a conclusion cleane contrary to that of the aduersaries namely That wee must not stand vpon the Prayers of the Saints but worke our saluation with feare and trembling Now against this place the Lord of Eureux pretended two thinges The one that the Lord of Plesses had cut him off in the substantiall wordes namely if we be negligent The other that Chrisostom entreated of the intercession of the Saints deceased which the Lord of Plessis denyed To the first the Lord of Plesses aunswered that he alleadged not the expresse wordes of Chrisostom but onely set downe the sence because the discourse contayned twoo or three whole pages which he reduced as it were into a Theses and that indeed he alleaged it after the phrase of the Gramarians Oratione obliqua non recta in an ouerthwart and not direct speech by this word That he c. Therefore that he was not bound to the course of the text To the other that in this allegation he had no other purpose but to shew that Chrisostom out of this place of Ieremy had not gathered as the Church of Rome at this day doth the intercession and inuocation of the deceased Saintes but contrariwise had collected this Doctrine That wee must not generally stand vpon the prayers of the Saintes whether aliue or dead in somme vpon other mens prayers but that we must watch pray and endeuour as the Apostle sayth to make sure our saluation with feare and trembling And indeed that this intent appeared in these words b Chrysostan 1. ad Thessal chap. 1. hoâ— 1. sub fineÌ„ p. 1414 editionts Groeâ— Lat. Hier. CeÌ„melini 1596. Et vt id seras audi Deum dicentem Si steterint Noe Iob Daniel non eripient filios suos filias ruisus Si steterit Moses Samuel Et vide quomodo hoc dicitur duobus Prophetis quoniam ambo pro ipsis togarant noÌ„ eraÌ„t assequuti c. And to the end thou shouldest know namely that the prayers of the Saints doe not profit except we doe conuert and turne vnto God hear what the Lord saith by the Prophet If Noè Iob Daniel stood before me yet should they not saue their Sonnes nor their Daughters And againe Jf Moses and Samuel c. And marke how this is spoken to two Prophets because both of them had prayed but had not obtained c. Thus that this place of Chrisostom was not curtalled neyther could be sith it was but touched by the way and not alleaged Much lesse was it wrested to any contrary sence because generally he speaketh of the prayers of the Saints albeit the examples were of those that are yet conuersant with vs heere beneath Now for the better opening of this point the Lord of Plessis owne words did suffice That we must not stand vpon For what is it to stand vpon but wholy to trust or to relye vpon euen to the exclusion of our owne duety and of all other meanes Hee did then expresse the meaning of Chrisostom that the prayers of the Congregation of the Saints of the faithfull each for other are good are to bee wished But that we should not sleepe vpon them but for our owne parts doe our duetyes Also the course of the text will lead vs thereunto c Et pa. 14. c. 2. Nullus dormiat nullus sit piger ad virtutem Hoc enim est somnus Nescitis quando dormimus quam nostra non sunt in tuto quam facile eis parentur insidiae Quando auteÌ„ vigilamus non opus est nobis tanta custodia Quando dormimus etiam cuÌ„ multa custodia sepe perimus Sunt ostea vectes custodes vigiles tamen fur ingreditur Cur haec dico QuoniaÌ„ si vigilemus non egebimus alioruÌ„
lost the night before to continue the next morning had not God in the night time sent him a great weakenesse of the stomacke with extraordinary vomits not without a Feuer Vpon which accident the Lord of Riuier the Kinges chiefe Phisition counsailed him to haue speedy recourse to some remedyes And therefore the L. of Ples most humbly besought his Maiesty to holde him excused during this sicknessâ— Whereupon the next day the Presidents of Thou Pythou Casaubon and Maâ—tin were lycensed to depart Heere let all such as haue seene the Lord of Eureux writing or heard him speake in company remember whether hee hath produced any thing answerable eyther to theyr conceipt or to his owne speeches to their hope or to his promises For where are these heynous litterall occulary falsehoods and vntruthes which might bee discerned at the first opening of the bookes and found at the first sight Contrariwise which one place is there amongst them all where they were not driuen to enter very farre into the sence of the text and right before they could assesse iudgement Yet in the meane time vppon these great wordes who was not purposed to see the Authors falsely alleaged the supposed places set downe vpon pleasure to deceiue the people Yet who can doubt but that these sixty places by him presented whâ—se force was to bee perceaued in these nyne are the chiefest wherin hee expected greatest adâ—auntage â—ith bee placed them in the fore fronte of his battle and in them chosen from among 5000. or more with so great leasure and labour both of himselfe and others he had reposed his pretended victory Now to come without passion to the very matter what hath he gotten or rather what hath hee not lost with all sound iudgementes in the examination of these places For what one falsehood is there eyther judged or to be iudged among these nyne Or may in some one of them the omission of some word for the most part indifferent with men of iudgement bee of any force against the Author the booke or any part of the booke Yet let vs yeild them what they can aske in these places whereof notwithstanding our selues without contradiction doe retayne the best and chiefe part these places picked out heere and there and in euery place can they relieue Transubstantiation the inuocation of Saynts the worshipping of Images ouerthrowen throughout the course of the whole booke by the authoritye of the Scriptures the practise of the Primatiue Church and the consent of the most notable Fathers Scot Durand and such like who are not alleaged according to the phrase of the Pallace but cumulatiuè as it were to make vp measure which crossed out would bee no weakening to the booke or kept make it not the stronger these are they from whome they hoped for the raysing againe of their Masse for the proofe of Transubstantiation in the Masse notwithstanding argued beaten and ouerthrowen by themselues if they durst haue stood to it And the like let vs say of the most part of the rest Who therefore cannot see that where hee seeketh to make most best of his force he hath made most demonstration of his weaknesse where hee looked to haue bleamished the sinceritye of his aduersaty hee hath caused it to breake foorth and to shine more cleare and bright Surely for wee may say it truely there was neuer Booke eyther in our age or in the formerages no not the quoyne in the generall essayes examined so seuerely or putto so rygorous tryall And yet when they that haue been made drunke with this smoke shall growe sober agayne when they shall bee disposed earnestly to consider what they haue seene what they haue done that the deep wounds which this pretended Goliab promised are lesse then small scratches his blowes with his club lesse then phillips what shall they catch vnlesse by the affected reprehension of friuolous matters they tooke stâ—edfast assurance of the infallible truth of the principals of the most firme of the strongest To speake Lawyer-like what can they iudge but that these slight exceptions haue strengthned the rule as a great man of our age sayd very well It is no good proofe of a matter that there is nothing to be repugned but rather an argument to the contrary that it hath been but superficially looked into but that is wel tryed wherin they reprooue what they may and finde but little to be reprooued Were we to examine with like authority and rigour not the books of their perticuler Doctors but euen their Cannon law theyr decree it selfe confirmed Canonized and verified by the Popes what one distinction shall escape notable falsehoods both in number and without number wherein wee shall not finde the places both of the Fathers counsailes curtalled of their most essentiall words falsified supposed composed vpon pleasure to fit them to the profit authority or doctrine of the Popes For to set downe some example leauing the Donation of Constantine the oath Ego Ludouicus with many others disavowed by the learned In the 3. famous Counsaile at Carthage where S. Augustine was in personâ— the 31. Canon speaketh directly against the vsurpings enterprises of the Church of Rome a Concil Carâ—â—ag 3 c. 31. â—imiliter plaâ—â—ut vt presbiâ—eri diaconi reliqui infetiores clerici in t is quas habent causis si de propriorum Episcoporum iudiciis queraÌ„tur vicini Episâ—opi cos audiâ—nâ— c. Ne appellent ad iudiciuÌ„ quod est extra mare sed ad primares suaruÌ„ proâ—inciarum quemadmoduÌ„ de Episcopiâ—â—â—â—e de sinitâ— eâ—â— Qui autem ad trans marina iudiâ—ia prouocant a nullo in Afâ—iâ—an ad communionem reâ—â—pâ—â—ntâ—r That the Priests shall not appeale to any iudgement beyond the Seas but to the Primates of their owne prouince as the Bishops haue often defined likewise that such as should appeale to any iudgement boyond the Seaâ— should not by any bee receiued into the Communion in Affricke This Cannon employed in the b 〈…〉 Decretall 2. q. 6. Placuit vt presbyâ—eri with what coÌ„science could they adde these words Nisi fortè Romanam sedem appellauerint vnlesse perâ—duenture they appeale to the Sâ—â— of Rome which viterly ouerthroweth the meaning of the Counsell In the 73. Canon it was said c Concil ciuâ—dem c. 73. Placuit vt Presbyteri Episeopi Diaconi propriis terminis etiam a suis absâ—niant â—xoribus quod nisi fecerint Ecclesiastico ordine moueantur It hath seemed good that the Priestes Bishops Deacons in their proper turnes should abstaine euen from theyr wiues Wherein it appeareth that they were maried notwithstanding theyr orders kept their wiues but as their course came about to serue they did abstaine according likewise to the Canon of the sixt Counsaile With what credite haue they inserted it into the decrees d C. Plaâ—â—â—â—t dist 32. d. 32. Cha. Placuit cutting of these wordes Propriis terminis in their proper
A DISCOVRSE OF THE CONFERENCE HOLDEN before the French King at Fontain-bleau betweene the L. Bishop of Eureux and Munsieur du Plessis L. of Mornay the 4. of May 1600. Concerning certaine pretended corruptions of Authors cyted by the sayd Munsieur du Plessis in his booke against the Masse Faithfully translated out of the French LONDON Printed by E. A. for Mathew Selman and William Ferbrand and are to be solde in Fleete-streete next the Inner Temple gate 1600. A true discourse of the conference held at Fontaine-Bleau the 4. of May. 1600. SInce that the Lord Bishop of Eureux perswadeth himself that the dishonor and ouerthrowe of the Doctrine Preached in the reformed Churches of the Realmes of Fraunce Almaine England Scotand Denmarke Swethen and Poand c. Dependeth on the confutation of the Lord Plessis booke written vpon the Sacrament of the Eucharist which doctrine is maintained by this book as it may be gathered froÌ„ his priuate letters to the L. Plesâ—is As if the Ministers of all the Kingdomes in this last endeuour had put all their heads into one body to be cut off by this new Hercules returned from hel And sith for hauing onely deflowred certaine places of the said book he boasteth of the victory causeth Te Deum to be sung in euery place Let no man blame vs if by this our writing wee oppose the truth against those falshoods which haue beene published since we are thereunto bound by the duety which we owe vnto God and for the instruction of his people Truth it is that since L. Plessis booke of the institution of the Sacrament was published some haue found out no other meanes to trauerse the course thereof then by publishing both in word and writing that the places by him alleadged as wel of holy Scripture as the Fathers were falcified yeelding sufficient testimony by this their sinister subtilty that his allegations auerred iustified the doctrine he professed should be both cleare certaine and inpugnable Neuerthelesse he patiently endured this slaunder partly endeuouring himselfe to ouer-throw it by his answeres partly trusting that of it selfe at last it would giue place to verity Vntill he had intelligence that the bruite thereof had come to the Kings eares yea and got so great creadit as he verily beleeued it Wherupon agreeued yea that iustly he desired that hee might come to his iustification And for that there were some that laboured to diuert certaine Gentlemen of the religion vnder this pretext he tooke occasion to request the L. Bishop of Eureux by a priuate letter that both of them might ioyne together in a most humble petition to his Maiesty that it might please him to appoint Commissaries before whome the booke might be therby examined to whom in especially he addressed himselfe because the said Bishop was the principall author of the said euill report wrote ordinarily to his friends in disgrace of the said L. of Plessis by certain his suffragans published the same from house to house as it were from doore to doore By this meanes the L. of Plessis promised himselfe that the said L. Bishop vpon this priuate letter sent vnto him by the handes of his brother would without any further trouble repayre to Paris wheras by accord of both parties his Maiesty might ordaine such a one of his Priuy counsell as he thought most fitte to deliuer him a true report of their conference In which case the matter being manadged with this silence and discreation his Maiesty might haue no other interest then the knowledge of the truth A care worthy of so a great King and the tytle which he beares to know aswell the good as the euill fayth of a seruitour accused of falshood before him a cryme alwayes haynous but more haynous in respect of the subiect being matter of Conscience and Diuinity Contrariwise the said Lord Bishop tooke a quite opposite course ratling out vppon this priuate and modest letter a publique and insolent booke which he caused to be Imprinted in his owne house and published at Paris by which of this perticuler controuersie he made a publique quarrell and of two persons two factions calling all the Catholique Romaine Church to warrant interressing the King in all that he might in this cause and principally to diswade the examining of the booke proposed by the Lord of Plessis whose iustification he knew too well that he could not ouer-throw For which cause hee articled falsely against the said booke to draw vnto himselfe the tytle and quallity of a Plaintife and vndertooke to approoue in presence of his Maiesty fiue hundred heynous and grose errours manifest and without Hiperbole yea such sayth he as they may be iudged by the onely looking on vpon the opening of the booke without entring into the iudgement of the sence And notwithstanding he offered himselfe further besides that to make it appeare that there was not in that book one onely place but was eyther falsely impertinently or vnprofitably alleaged These were the very wordes which the reader may note vpon what ground hee generally taxed the whole booke To this booke notwithstanding the L. of Plessis in respect of the King and according to his owne nature answered with great modesty reuealing the matter as much as in him lay from a publique to a perticuler triall twixt the Bishop and himselfe from partyes by him pretended to their seuerall persons So that by some this same simplicity of his answere was scarce wel interpreted But for that he knew that the sayd L. Bishop had sent a Coppy of that which he had published and written with aduantage enough vpon the same subiect to his Maiesty he was counsailed likewise to write vnto him beseeching him most humbly to vouchsafe to enter into the approbation of his sayd book by the grant of certayne Commissaries of sufficient knowledge that might haue the charge to examine the same from the one ende to the other in publishing whereof he protested that he aymed at no other end but to prepare his subiects heartes and make them capable of the seede of so holy a reformation in his time The Doctors of Sorbonne likewise were sodainely incensed against this proposition apprehending a serious examination of this booke and perceiuing well in theyr consciences that it could not take effecte but to their domage and indignity They appointed certaine Deligates amongst them to make relation hereof to the popes Nuncio who fore-seeing too wel to what inconuenience it might tend sought out the King to certifie him hereof Beseeching his Maiesty that it might passe no further and laying before his eyes the issue therof Annexing alwaies to all that he had vrged most instant complaints against the Author and the booke But hereupon there were some that assured him that the matter should be carried with such Art with such aduantage for the Church of Rome as the Pope could not but content himselfe therewith and namely in these wordes
some held for sound reasons that for hauing named 5. hundred he was not bound to particulate them That he kept his word if he nominated but ten or lesse and further that it were too much trouble for him to write them and such like But truely by a former resolution betweene those that managed this affayre it was concluded to giue the Lord of Eureux whatsoeuer aduantage he might desire and to deny the sayd Lord of Plessis of whatsoeuer Iustice he could require so that he might scratch either by right or wrong some number of places chosen out of fiue thousand and more to inferre an appearaunce of preiudice against the whole booke Thus this three meanes were in all humility proposed vnto the King by the Lord of Plessis not onely by word of mouth but by a most humble petition also the which his Maiesty commaunded him to giue to the Lord Chauncellor But after he had preferred the equitye of his cause to his Maiesty by all these reasons which to him seemed most requisite his aunswere was that he would send for the said Lord Chancellor and giue him commission to bring the Lords of Plessis and Eureux to agree vpon the forme And presently his Maiestie sent for them The same day toward euening the L. Chancellor sent for the L. of Plessis and began to discourse vnto him that the King had tolde him that he had committed to him the charge to warne the sayd L. of Plessis to be ready for the sayd conserence and therefore that it must needs be that eyther his Maiesty had forgotten to commaund him or himselfe to speake to the sayd Lord of Plessis Whereunto the Lord of Plessis aunswered that it sufficed in case he would remember as hee did that hee had not spoken vnto him Thus after some speaches he deliuered him the petition that he had presented to his Maiesty and because there was some difference about the forme he desired him to vouchsafe to consider vpon the three aforesayd offers But the two formost were absolutelye reiected vnder pretence that the chalenger of falsehood might set vpon his party where he list without respect that the question concerned the quotation of a booke which to speake vprightly helde of the nature not of a contract but of an inquest the disputation was wholy settled vpon the last The sayd L. of Plessis pretending that sith this matter was spoken of as to be handled in tearmes of Law he being the Defendant was not to be denyed his Aduersaries action of falsehood that he might answere thereunto sith that vnder pretence of forme of lawe he had bene denyed the examination of the whole booke thereby to minister opportunitye to the L. of Eureux to impugne him in what place he list And that in this matter he looked for Iustice at the said L. Chauncelors hands which he assured himselfe he very wel perceiued in this his petition otherwise that besides that he should haue cause to protest against the sayd Lord of Eureux vpon slaunder hee should vppon refusall of so lawfull conditions haue no lesse argument to doubt of too manifest partiallity The end was this that the sayd Lord Chauncellor sent for the sayd L. of Eureux with whom he spent some 3. quarters of an houre then comming into his Gallery where the L. of Plessis wayted his answere he tolde him that the sayd L. of Eur. would not heare of the deliuery of his action of falsehood much lesse of his fiue hundred places That he did not thinke himselfe bound therto by his writing that the writing of them wold aske a month and a halfe or more that in tearmes of law to require a condition impossible and not to yeeld to doe any thing was all one and matter alike The L. of Ples replyed that in his opinion hee craued but right before all Iudges whatsoeuer that the Lord of Eureux in shrinking from his proposition for the examination of the whole booke had bound himselfe to his owne offer that in truth hee beleeued that hee could not possibly performe the fiue hundred vntruthes by him promised well might he peraduenture deliuer in fiue hundred pretended sith he had them ready tolde sith also that hauing answered his book he had no more to doe but to draw them out Otherwise how could he purge himselfe of slaunder Finally the L. Plessis concluding that he might not depart from this last course and that the said L. Chauncellor the next morning would make report thereof to the King Munday the first of May the L. of Plessis heard of nothing but that the L. of Eureux still stood vpon his denyall to deliuer his fiue hundred places and still was at the Kinges elbow to make him comprehend that this was not the way to come to his pretended purpose and the same day there arriued the President of Thou M. Pithou M. Casâ—ubon and the Phisition Martin whom his Maiesty had most earnestly sent for The last man of these being brought in by the L. of Eureux could not conceale his passion in this matter but bare himselfe as a party To them did his Maiesty declare that he called them not to be Iudges but only interpreters in case there should grow any controuersie about the speeches but reserued to himselfe the iudgement And heere is to be noted that only Casaubon was of the religion wherof notwithstanding the L. of Plessis made no instance Tewsday the second of May about eyght of the clocke at night the L. Chauncellor sent for the L. of Ples to intimate vnto him the Kinges pleasure The summe was this that the King had ordained that the L. Bishop of Eureux should in his Maiesties presence open the booke shew vnto him one after another those places wherein he pretended falsehood to the number of 50. if time would so permit whereto he must presently aunswere in order as they should be propounded for sayd he it was to be supposed that the sayd Lord of Plessis hauing produced them should at all tymes bee ready to answere Heere let the reader iudge what memory could bee capable of so many reasons presently to aunswere so many obiections for must hee not by that account be alwayes prouided for all albeit he were assaulted but with some Moreouer that if hee could not fit himself to this condition his Maiesty was resolued in his owne presence to haue the falsehoods by the L. of Eur. pretended to be verified in his absence to the end to determine therof according as reason required as also by his standing vpon his words he gaue him to vnderstand that he concealed more rigour theÌ„ he yet shewed stil vrging sundry times that he had that night to resolue himself Neyther did the said L. of Ples fayle to lay open vnto him the extreamity of this condition which could not be so precisely imposed vpon him but with a manifest resolution to oppresse the truth in his person That if hee did not plainely
the which many good men had long grieued If to that purpose it might doe any seruice hee should thinke himselfe most happy with whatsoeuer losse otherwise that himselfe could be the first man to wish it burnt yea euen with his own hand Howbeit that he did hope that vpon vpright examination all the world should finde that hee had vsed all sincerity and great diligence albeit it was not greatly to be maruailed that among 5000. places or more there might passe some few wherein his eye his memory or euen his iudgement might waner which yet were such as could be of no importaunce to hurt the truth that he therein handled For savd he were all the bookes of the Doctors of the Romish Church that haue bin written within these hundred yeares as rigorously examined where should wee finde one that could abide the proofe Besides with his Maiesties leaue he protested that this was a perticuler action consequently could not preiudice the Doctrine of the reformed Churches of the Realme which was before him and should be after him and so continue for euer And then did they enter into the matter The first place out of Scotus THe first place that the Lord of Eureux did set vpon The 4. book of the Eucharist c. 9 p. 869. l. 26. of the first edi P. 936. lyne 2. of the 2. edition P. 7â—â— l. 25. of the 3 edition was taken out of the 869 Page lyne 26. of the Lord Plessis booke of the institution of the Eucharist namely within eyght leaues of the ende heere let the reader iudge what methode this is to examme a book according to the first edition in quarto which heer we will follow sauing that we will also in the margent quote the pages of the second or third editioÌ„ where we read these words Iohn Duns called Scot neere a hundred yeares after the counsel of Latran durst bring into question whether Christes body be really contained vnder the formes disputeth that he is not Against which place he pretendeth two matters the one that Scot maketh it not a controuersie whether the body of Christ bee really contained vnder the formes except in like manner as the SchoolemeÌ„ vse to dispute of matters most resolued as Whether there be a God Whether there be but one god c. The other that the L of Ples had taken the opposition for the resolution in both these matters he pretended hainous vntruths To the 1. the L. of Ples aswered that wheras he said that Scot had brought into questioÌ„ Whether the body of christ be really contained vnder the formes he vnderstood it by the way of transubstantiation and his meaning did sufficiently appeare first in that in the Chap which is the ninth of the fourth booke he entreateth of the absurdities contradictions proceeding of the transubstantiation Secondly because in the same it is sayd A hundred yeares after the Councell of Latran that is to say after the Article of transubstantiation was established To the second that albeit the Schoolemen doe dispute their questions in vtramque partem yet doe they withall shew their owne inclination yea sometimes their perticuler resolution sauing that they make it to stoop to the Church of Rome And this did the Lord of Plessis vpholde to appeare in Scot in the de duction of this matter namely where he handleth the second member of this question Qualiter illud est possibile quod creditur How the realty that is beleeued is possible For after many disputations growing to the resolution he vseth these wordes which were shewed to the Lord of Eureux a Scorus printed at Paris by Io. Granion Spon the 4 of the SeÌ„ dist 10. quest 1 pa. 63. b. lit E. Concerning this article it seemeth vnnecessary to haue recourse to the conuersion of the bread into the body of Christ especially considering that euen from the beginning that this matter of the Sacrament was beleeued it was continually beleeued that the body of Christ altereth not out of his place in heauen to be heere and yet was it not thus manifestly beleeued at the beginning of this conuersion as it shall bee sayd dist xi And let the reader note that ouer agaynst this Article that beginneth Quantum ad istum artien'â— nonvidetur necessarium sugiendum esse ad conuersioneÌ„ panâ—s in corpus Christi precipuâ— cuÌ„ a priâ—cipio exquo res imius sacrameÌ„â— fuit credita fuit sempercre ditum quod corpus Christi â—â—n mutatur de loco suo in câ—elo vt sit hic tamen non fuit in principio ita manifeste credituÌ„ de ista conuersione vt dicetar dist 11. Quantum it is quoted in the Margent Resolutio-Scoti Scots resolusion So that by Scots resolution the Church did not alwayes beleeue the conuertion the conuersion is not necessary in the Sacrament Therefore did not the Lord of Plessis in this place take Scots opposition insteed of his resolution And this was gathered very briefe by such as writ for either side namely the Lords of Grigny Pasquier and Vassaut as likewise was all the rest that ensued Howbeit in that which the Lord of Plessis consequently dyd alleage concerning the xi Dist of the 4. booke q. 3. Scots opinion did yet more clearely appeare For after he hath cited Jnnocent the 3. de offic Missae par 3. cap. 26. to prooue three opinions vpon this argument The first b Sâ—ctus in 4. sentent D. 11. qu. 3. fol. 31. lit B. Circa hoc erant tres opiniones Vna quod panis manet tamencuÌ„ ipso vere est corpus Christi Alia quod panis non manet tamen non coÌ„uertitur sed decinit esse vel per annichilationeÌ„ vel per resolutioneÌ„ in materiam vel per corruptioneÌ„ in aliud Tertia quod panis transubstantiatur in corpus vinum in sangumem That the bread remayneth and yet the body of Christ is with the bread The second That the bread remaineth not and yet is not conuerted but ceaseth to be whether by being made nothing whether by being resolued into the first matter or corrupted into any other thing The third That the bread is transubstantiated into the body the wyne into the bloud He consequently commeth to ground the first opinion verye substantially in that hee sayth c 〈…〉 potest 〈◊〉 ista Transubstantiatione That the truth of the Eucharist may be kept without transubstantiatioÌ„ Secondly d Et pancis interâ—ctis Substantia pants cum suis accidentil 〈◊〉 a que potest esse signum si â—ut sola accidentia imò magis quia substantia panis subspeciebus magis est nutrimentum quà m accidentia Ergo magis repraesentat corpus Christi in ratione nutrimenti spiritualis That the bread with the accidents thereof doth rather represent the body of Christ by an anologie of the bodily sustâ—naâ—â—nce with the spirituall then they â—â—oe by the only accidents Thirdly e Et
Haerony in Ezechiele lib. 4. c. 14. ex editione Christ Plantini 1578. Quod si in aliquo fiducia est insolo domino considamus Maledictus n omnis homo qui speÌ„ habet in homine quaÌ„ uis sancti sint quamuis Prophete Legimus Nolite coÌ„sidere in homimbus Et iterum Bo num est considere in Domino quam coÌ„sidere in principibus NoÌ„ in princip ibus tantuÌ„ scaeculi sed in principibus Eccleasiarum qui suas taÌ„ium aoimas si iusti suerint liberabunâ— Filios autem ac silias quos in Ecclesia genuetint si fuerint negligentes saiuare non poterunt If trust sayth he bee to bee reposed in any let vs repose our trust in one only God for cursed is the man that trusteth in men be they Saints be they Prophets Wee must not trust Principtbus Ecclesiarum in the Principles of the Church who albeit they bee righteous shall deliuer but their owne soules not the soules of their children Against this place also the L. of Eureux pleaded omission because these word Sinegligentes fuerint if they be negligent were omitted Which the L. of Plessis consesseth to be true as he will alwaies do where like matter failes our not of any bad intent for what should he get by it but because as it seemeth he relyed vpon the aduersaries owne allegation For in their ordinary glosse euen vpon this very place of Ezechiel this place is alleaged and these very wordes omitted and as we may well thinke without fraude b Hierâ—ny in Glossa ordinaria â—â—â—duni 159â— in illuel Ezecâ—ielis c. 1â— Non uberabunt filâ—â—â—euaefiuas c. â—onum esâ—ce fidere in Domino quam confidere in principibus c. Non seculâ— tantum sed 〈…〉 iusti ruerint tantuÌ„ animas suas liberabuÌ„â— noÌ„ finos vel fiâ—as quos in Ecclesia genueruÌ„t It is good saith he to trust in the Lord rather then to trust in Princes not of the world onely but euen of the Churches who albeit they be righteous shall deliuer but theyr owne soules not their Sonnes nor their daughters whom they haue begotten in the Church Also this place of Ezechul doth S. Hierome vnder-staÌ„d in like sence as Chrisostom doth the place of Noah Daniel and Job returning into this world Heere againe did the L. of Eureux instantly vrge what maketh this place against the inuocation of Saintes deceased sith it speaketh properly of the liuing Whereto he was answered as in the former but the rather because in the L. of Plessis booke entreating vpon this place of S. Hâ—â—rame vpoÌ„ Ezechiel ensued these words that answered him c 〈…〉 Obseurchâ—â— docentur 〈◊〉 haue senteÌ„â—â—â—lam nou 〈…〉 quod lautat Deum in praesenti saeculo sumus siue orationibus siue consiliis inuiâ—eÌ„ posse nos coadiunari CuÌ„ autem ante tribunal Christi venerimus noÌ„ â—ob non Daeniel nec Noe rogare posse proquoquam sed vnumquemque portare onussuum And to the end we should not thinke that he meant not to speake but of the liuing writing vpon the Epistle to the Galathians vpon these words Euery man should beare his burden marke what he saith By this short sentence we doe learne albeit darkely a new Doctrine that is hidden that so long as we remaine in this world wee may bee holpen by the prayers and counsailes one of an other But when wee come before the Tribunall seate of Christ neither Iob nor Daniel nor Noah can pray for any man but euery man shal beare his owne burden Now the L. of Plessis vrged him to way these words siue orationibus siue consiliis Whether with prayer or with counsell But he would not heare him saying hee had not to doe but with this place The sixt place out of S. Cirill THe sixt was a place out of S. Cirill of Alexandria in his sixt booke against Iulian 〈◊〉 2 de Euâ—â—â— c. 3. ed. 1. p. 233. l 5. edit 2. p. 239. l. 30. ed. â— p. 139. l. 25. taken out of the pa. 223. l. 5. where the L. of Plessis sayth That he answereth the Emperour Iulian who obiected the honour done to the Crosse That the christians doe yeeld neither adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse Ouer largely peraduenture for the words though surely not for the sence And therefore the L of Eur. pretending vntruth grounded vpon these wordes He answereth because he answereth not precisely in these wordes Heereto the L. of Ples answered that by his owne text it appeared that he neuer meant to alleage the wordes of Cirill onely hee gathered the sence out of a discourse of a leafe in quantity that indeed the oration was not direct but by the way the Character of the text not of any allegation Therefore that they ought to seeke the sence and not the wordes and the rather because it hath been often sayd that the vntruth should not be concluded vpon the diuersitie of woords in case the sence were to be found And as for the sence sayth hee Julian sayd vnto the Christians a Cirill Alena contra IulianuÌ„ lib. 6. p. 134. to 3. Basill apud Ioan. Heruagium 1566. Et ô miserihomines cum serueÌ„tur arma qure magnus demisit Iupiter hoc est pater Martis pignore dato non verbo sed re quod ciuitatem nostram perpettio protecturussit cessatis adorare colere interim crucis lignum adoratis imagines illius in fronte antedomus pingentes Yee wretches as yee are yee worship not Ancilia de coelo lapsa our bucklers fallen from heauen which Iupiter hath giuen vs for the protection of our Citty and yet yee worship the tree of the Crosse and paint the Images thereof in the forefronts and before your houses Heereunto if the Christians in those daies had worshipped the tree of the Crosse what was there to be said sauing we worship it because it deserueth worship and not Dulia onely but also Hiperdulia a more especiall seruice euen so forre foorth as to bend both the knees yea to bow with the belly to the earth euen to inuocate it as liuing c. But what aunswere doth S. Cirill make him b Et paucis interiectis Absque labore demonstrabimus elusmodi sermones à malis cogitationibus profectos extremam sapere imperitiam But sayth he we can easily proue that these speeches proceed of bad thoughts and relye vpon extreame ignoraunce And wherein Sauing in that hee did imagine that because they painted the Crosse they did it to worship it And therefore euen at once he bringeth him backe from the Crucifixe to the crucified from the signe to the thing signified from the pretended oderation of the wood to the mistery of our redemption 〈…〉 Nam 〈…〉 doâ—â—â—â— qua 〈…〉 omnibus 〈…〉 aequalia 〈◊〉 indiâ—unitatis solio considere non capinam tameÌ„ arbitratus est se esse aequalem Deo sed serpsum humiliauit formam serui accipiens
contemtaque ignominia crucem sustinuit vt corruptionis abolueret potentiam Vnus pro omnibus moriuus excitatur vt à mortis laqueis humanum eriperetgenus c Vt spirituales saceret adoratores mortuumque faciens in nobis sensum carnis filios essiceret Dei eos qui in se crediderunt c. c. Our Lord and Sauiour saith hee might doe equally with the Father hee might sit vpon the Throne of the 〈◊〉 and yet neuer be imputed vnto him for theft in that he made him elfe equall with him but hee humbled himselfe hee tooke vpon him the shape of a Seruant hee contemned ignominy that hee might beare the Crosse to take away corruption and alone for all men to dye rise againe to deliuer mankinde out of the shares of death c. To procure to himselfe worshippers in Spirit Note in Spirit and not worshippers of flockes and stones to the end to make vs the children of God by killing the motions of the flesh in vs c. And as concerning this wood he sayth d Et paulo post Haec omnia recordari nos facit salutare lignum suadet vt cogitemus quod sicut dicit diuinus Paulus vnus pro omnibus mortuus est vt viuentes non vltra sibi ipsis viuant sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est resurrexit This healthfull wood putteth vs in minde of all these thinges and exhorteth vs to remember the saying of S. Paul One only dyed for all to the end that liuing they should not heereafter liue to themselues but to him that dyed and rose againe for them Againe e Et pa. seq 135. Vis igitur vir strenus vt lignum quod nos ad recordationem omnis virtutis inducit abiiciamus relinquamus puerisque mulierculis tua proponamus Wouldst thou saith he wish vs to reiect this wood that putteth vs in minde of all goodnes and to set before our wiues and children thy paintings Namely as hee did a little before discourse the patrons of all vncleanenesse and polution Of the worshipping therefore or adoration of this wood albeit this was the very fit place not one word And indeed saith the L. of Ples why should it seeme more strange in Cirill then in Minutius Felix who doth expressely say f Minus Felix in Octauto pa. 20. edi Heidenberg Lud. Lucii 1â—6 Crâ—cis nec â—â—oramus nec optamus We doe neither worship nor wish the Crosse Then in S. Ambrose who speaking of Helen the mother of Constantine saith g 〈…〉 non innum vtique quia lib. 〈◊〉 eti error 〈◊〉 impiorum Hellen worshipped â—â— the wood for that had been an error and heat burnish 〈◊〉 Where the question concerned not the Crosse onely but the true Crosse Heereto the Lord of Eureux replyed that these places were to be vnderstood by the distinction of Dulium and Latria The L. of Ples old vphold that this distinction was friuolous vnknowne in the holy Scriptures or Fathers imposed vpoÌ„ S. Angustive whoâ—euer vnderstood it But he ere into would the Lord of Eur. neuer enter Lastly that this great 〈…〉 for he took pleasure in his 〈◊〉 who had been a Christian and was acquainted with the Christian misteries would neuer 〈◊〉 puted it 〈◊〉 them 〈◊〉 it not been liue But let the L. of Eu. marke what preiudâ—â—e he hath here wrought to the sacrisice of the Mâ—sse before he was aâ—â—â—e And euen there where Julian obiecteth to the Christians that they sacrificed not saying vnto theÌ„ h Cyrill Alexand coÌ„tra Iulian lib. 9. Vos antem inuento nouo sacrificio non vltra indigentes Hierusalem quare non sacrificatis And you my masters that haue no more to do will HierusaleÌ„ why doyou not sacrifice in finding out some new sacrifice He wil beare vs witnes that the christians in those daies did not sacrifice that in hewe of the Iewish sacrifices which theÌ„ they had giuen ouer they had not as yet brought in any new sacrifice Euen he let vs say with the L. of Eu. who should not haue forgotten the ordinary sacrifice of the Sonne of God dayly reiterated by the Priestes had it been at that time in vse in the Church Heere the King himselfe perceiuing that they could pretend no vntruth against this place pronounced aloude that both sides had reason And therupon the L. Chauncellor pronounced simply That the words are not to be found in S. Cirill So leauing matter sufficient to inferre that the sence was neuerhelesse to be gathered The seauenth place out of Peter Crinitus THen they came to the seauenth place out of Peter Crinitus that the L. of Eur. and his side had made so much adoe of Lib. 2. de Euchar c. 3. edit 1. p. 223. l. 10. edit â— p. 239. l. 3â— edit 3. p. 199. l. 29. taken out of the 223. pag. lin 10. Where the L. of Ples alleaging this Crinitus de honesta disciplina lib. 9. in the Margent for his author saith That the Emperors Theodosius Valens had made an edict in these words a Fet. Crinitus li. â— de honesta discipl cap. 9. Lugd. aâ—u Sebast GryphiuÌ„ 1543. Cum sit nobis cura diliâ—â—â—s in rebus oÌ„nibus superni numinis religionem tueâ— sig num Saluatoris Christi nemini quidem concedimas coloribus lapide aliaue mate ria sâ—ingere insculpere aut pingere Sed quodeumque reperitur tolli iubemus grauissima poena eos multando qui contrariuÌ„ deceretis nostris impetio quâ—equain tentarint Because our greatest care concerneth the seruice of God we forbid all persons that they shall not make the signe of our Lord Jesus Christ neyther in colour in mettall or in any other matter that they shall not graue paint or carue it but wee will wheresoeuer it may be found that it be taken away vnder paine that all offenders to the contrary shal be most grieuously punished Heere against the L. of Eur. pretended falsehood because said he this law was otherwise set downe in the Code namely that it is prohibited to paint or carue the Crosse vpon the earth humt in which word consisteth the force of this law The L. of Ples answereth There can be no falsification because in Crinitus whom he hath alleaged it is so set downe that Crinitus sayth that he tooke it ex libris Augustalibus out of the Imperiall bookes others peraduenture then the coÌ„mon sort it may be himself hath read sundry sorts of the common sort That he cited Valens and Theo losius who raiâ—ned not together and so hee might confound their edictes into one That these wordes in Crinitus Nemini concedemus coloribus lapide aliâ—â—e materia singere insculpere aut pingere can no way bee entred into the place of these of the Code b li. 〈◊〉 c. nemini lic sig salu c. Lib. 1. tit 7. leg 1. where we read Nemins licere vel in solo vel