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
Plessis did before But how doth he go about thinke yow to proue that Scotus in his resolution touchinge the reall presence did hold the same that in his obiection against yt Yow shall heare his owne words immediatly following in the same matter Nay saith he Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise Behold heere the trew dealinge of M. Sutkliffe who giueth vs quid pro quo as Apothecaryes are wonte He should haue proued that Scotus determined in his resolution against the reall presence and now he saith that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise So as for the reall presence heere is thrust in Transubstantiation and for determination and resolution is shuffled in a seeminge to dislike rather then otherwise Was there euer any such good Apothecary that gaue quid pro quo And if heere to help himselfe out he will say that the reall presence and Transubstantiation is all one controuersie he impugneth himselfe in the very next place of Durand as you shall see when we come to it where he affirmeth Durand to hold and yt is true and Scotus holdeth the same also that the reall presence of Christs body in the SacrameÌ„t might haue byn by other meanes then by Transubstantiation yf God would haue had yt so and consequently are distinct things And heereof also I do conuince O. E. of another false tricke of thrustinge in the words by Transubstantiation a little before in recytinge the question of Scotus which is not in Sâ—otus himselfe nor in his words more truly alleaged in this behalfe by Plessis as before yow may see for that Scotus question is whether Christs body be really conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wyne And this fellow proposeth yt thus VVhether Christs body be really by Transubstantiation conteyned c. And this to the end he might deceaue his Reader as heere he doth by leapinge from the one to the other when he is pressed or gauled wheras Scotus doth handle these two controuersies of the reall presence and Transubstantiation as different and distinct things not only in sundry questions but in sundry distinctions also to witt the first in the tenth the second in the eleuenth distinction vpon the Maister of the Sentences So as heere I must represent vnto you the boldnes or ignorance of O. E. to exceed much that of Maister Plessis his Client And thus much of the controuersie about the reall presence But now least yow might thinke he had somewhat more to say to proue Scotus to be against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence for that he so leapeth from the one to the other lett vs heare his arguments though yow must note by the way his nice assertion in saying that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise and his arguments are two obiections of Scotus against Transubstantiation as the other were before against the reall presence The first obiection of Scotus against himselfe is for that bread togeather with his accidents or species do more represent vnto vs the nature of spirituall food without Transubstantiation then the bare accidents by and after Transubstantiation ergo the nature of the Encharist in this respect of nourishmeÌ„t might haue byn conserued though God had not appointed Transubstantiation but his body to haue byn togeather vvith the substance of bread Which argument yow see maketh against the alleager O. E. flatly for that yt proueth the Reall presence and Transubstantiation to be distinct things and that the one might haue byn without the other and therfore it was folishly brought by O. E. seing it is not only an obiection and no resolution but also an obiection that impugneth his assertion The second obiection of Scotus against Transubstantiation isâ— that in misteryes of our faith that interpretaâ—ion seemeth most to be admitted which requireth least miracles for maintayninge therof but fewest miracles seeme to be required without Transubstantiation then with Transubstantiation ergo we should rather admitt the reality of Christs body togeather with bread without Transubstantiation then the same body with only accidents of bread by Transubstantiation These be two obiections among others made by Scotus against Transubstantiation aboue fifty leaues after his former obiectioÌ„s against the reall presence Which obiections after his resolution sett downe for Transubstantiation he answereth solueth beginning thus Ad argumenta c. Now must we answere the argumeÌ„ts made to the contrary c. But yet about the first obiection he repeateth againe Dico quod bené fuisset Deo possibile instituisse quod corpus verè esset praesens substantia panis manente c. I say that if God would he had byn well able to haue appointed his body to haue byn present in the Sacrament togeather with the substance of bread without Transubstantiation c. But hauinge appointed otherwise as appeareth by the declaration of the Church we are not to respect more or fewer miracles c. And hence now yow see that O. E. endeauoringe to deliuer Plessis from the shame of cytinge Scotus his obiection for his resolution in the coÌ„trouersie of the reall presence himselfe bringeth forth tow more obiections for resolutions without seeing the shame therof about the article of Transubstantiation yea further blusheth not to inferre thervpon this conclusion That Scotus plainly misliked that interpretation that without diuers miracles cannot be maintayned c. And that albeit he was content to subscribe to the Popes determination durst not do otherwise yet that he himselse thought otherwise c. O Iesus what shall a man say of these manner of people Let vs heare Scotus his owne words in the same place where he talketh of the Churches determination exposition of scriptures for this point of Transubstantiation Dico saith he quod eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae quo conditae ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis c. I do day that the scriptures are expounded by the same spiritt by which they were wrytten and so we must suppose that the Catholike Church hath expounded them vnto vs to wit the scriptures that concerne this mistery of Transubstantiation with that spiritt wherwith our faith was deliuered vnto vs that is to say by the spiritt of truth c. Lo heere Scotus foundeth the truth of Transubstantiation not vpon the Popes determination or vpon the authority of the Church only as falsely O. E. chargeth him but vpon the truth of scriptures expounded by the Church with the same spiritt of truth wherby they were wrytten and consequently is farre of from plainly mislikinge this interpretation as O. E. affirmeth but for that amonge other arguments Scotus named the determination of the Church the calumniator that could not abide the word charged him presently to be moued only with that reason What would he haue
booke against the Masse leafe by leafe and lyne by lyne as he requireth Which demaund of his yf we should yeld thervnto would vnder a faire protext of triall make his offer equiualent to a flatt refusall For besides that there will hardly be found out any deputyes of such patience to try the matter but they wil be wearied before they haue examined in this manner the tenth part of this his worke There will be found also in euery leafe some allegations not so clearly false as the rest the which yf we should passe ouer then would he take them as admitted by vs for true and so take wittnesse therof to the preiudice of the Catholike Church And if we stay and striue about them he would then of purpose settle the whole disputation vpon the first of those which he should thinke might longest be continued to hinder therby the examininge of the rest For these causes then as also for that yt appertayneth notto him who is accused of falsifications to choose out the points vpon the which he is to be examined but to them rather which do accuse him to propose the articles which they are to obiect against him For these causes I say see heere good reader the protestation I make before God man I protest that I do bynd my selfe to shew him in any place furnished of bookes and in such company of capable men as it may please the K. Maiestie to ordayne yea in the presence of his Maiestie yf it may please the same to take contentment to be present at some part therof fiue hundred enormous and open falsifications without any amplification or exaggeration and all these conteyned in his only late booke against the Masse The which fiue hundred falsifications I will choose our amongst a farre greater number to th' end I may auoid tediousnesse and I will choose them all so playne and manifest as there shall be no need of any further disputation to proue conuince them then the only openinge of the bookes which himselfe doth alleage And more ouer I say that yf after this our conference ended he will take vpon him for his part to choose amongst all the citations of his booke or of his bookes becauseâ— he speaketh in generall any such authorityes as he thinketh most sure and to make most for his aduantage most against vs I do bynd my selfe for conclusion of all to refute the whole choice that he shall haue made therof to shew that neyther in his said booke against the Masse nor in his Treatise of the Church nor in his Common welth of Traditions is there to be found so much as any one place among them all which is not eyther falsely cyted or impertinent to the matter or vnprofitably alleaged And this will I shew by the very texts of Greeke and Latyn copies of the authors themselues printed at Geneua Basill Heydelberge other townes of Protestants All which notwithstandinge I desyre should be vnderstood as not spoken against the honour in particular of the L. Plessis whome in all other things which concerne not the interest of Religion I esteeme accordinge to his qualityes and meritts Neyther do I heerby pretend to blame him for any other thing then that he hath byn ouer credulous in beleeuing the false relations collections of others that haue endeauoured to abuse the industry authority of his pen. And wheras he demaundeth instantly that I should ioine with him to present a supplication vnto the K. Maiestie for triall aforesaid I declare againe by this my wrytinge that I do wholy agree thervnto and ioyne with him therin do make accompt for this present tyme to haue subscribed thervnto yea yf need were with my owne proper bloud conceauing infinite gladnes that aâ—ter so many admirable victoryes which his Maiestie hath gotten both of his enemyes by his valour and of himselfe by his clemency the good Angell of France doth now againe open to his Maiestie the way to obtayne another victory no lesse glorious then the former wherby he may as another Constantine after peace and tranquillity restored to his temporall estate restore also the like peace and tranquiâ—lity to the state of God which is his holy Church For that this disputation shall not be like to the others of former tymes wherin were examined matters of doctrine the truth therof as also of the true interpretations of holy scriptures and other such like In examination wherof the shifts and sleights of the disputers and other disguisinge of the matters might make the truth vncertayne to the hearers But heere all questions in this disputation shall only be questions of fact whether places be truly alleaged or no For triall wherof yt shall only be needfull to bringe eyes for iudges to behould whether the citations which we do accuse of falshood be so indeed in the authors as Plessis hath alleaged in his booke And yet of the ouerthrow of these so many falsifications gathered togeather ensueth the ouerthrow and dishonour of the cause which is defended by such weapons And consequently we are much bound to the holy prouidence of almighty God that he hath permitted in this last assault of heretikes the ministers of France to haue placed all the heads of their false impostures and deceytfull dealings vpon one body to the end they may be all cutt of at one blow And that the simple people by them abused seing discouered the false vnfaithfull dealings of those vpon whose fidelity they grouÌ„ded their faith may forsake them heerafter and returne to that faith which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth Wherfore to the end that this happy successe may be brought to effect without delay not only I do subscribe most willingly togeather with the L. of Plessis to present his request to his Maiestie but also do further promise him in the execution therof to vse all sweetnes modesty louing proceeding towards his person for that I esteeme yt a thinge most conformable to reason that combatts which proceed of charity should be tried with charity that as in old tyme in the matrimoniall sacrificos that were ordained for peace and concord betwixt man and wife the gaules of beasts offered vp were taken out euen so in the disputations which are vndertaken for the peace and vnion of the spouse of God which is his Church the gaule and bitternes of hatred and euill will be taken away Made and subscribed by me in the Castle of Condie being the house of the B. of Eureux the 25. of March in the yeare one thousand six hundred By me Iames. B. of Eureux This is the answere and acceptance of the Bishopp full of considence witt and medesty as to the reader must needs appeare now lett vs see the reply of Plessis Mornay no lesse captious and subtile them this is plaine simple and sincere THE REPLY OF THE L. PLESSIS TO
THE FORMER answere published by the B. of Eureux vpon the Chalenge made vnto him by the said Plessis CHAP. IV. WHEN I had vnderstood gentle Reader the L. B. of Eureux gaue forth that the places of the fathers quoted by me in my books were falsely cited I sent him a certayne Chalenge wrytten and subscribed by my owne hand of the date of the 20. of March 1600. The which since that time the said B. hath caused to be printed published though I sent the same to him priuately by the way of his owne brother Heerevpon notwithstanding my L. Bishopp hath caused to be printed a certayne aduertisment to the Reader of the date of the 25. 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
babled against him yf he had left written as S. Augustine hath done that he would not beleeue the ghospell yf the authority of Church did not mooue him thervnto And do you note further that Scotus in the same place affirmeth that albeit this verity about Transubstantiation was declared first in the Councell of Lateran yet was the substance therof beleeued also from the beginning vnder other words of coÌ„uersion Transmutation Exchange of substances and the like Which he sheweth out of the ancient Fathers yea and that yt was included implicite in all th' old creeds of th' Apostles others Ponitur saith he talkinge of the Councell of Lateran veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicitè quà m habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum vel Athanasij vel Niceni In this decree of the CouÌ„cell of Lateran the truth of certayne articles belonging to faith is more cleerly particularly set downe then yt was before in the Creed of the Apostles or of S. Athanasius or of the Nicene Councell So as by this it appeareth that Scotus did not beleeue the truth of Tâ—ransubstantiation as a thinge determyned only by the Councell of Lateran but as conteyned in the scriptures and beleeued in substance from the very beginning and declared or expounded only by the Councell of Lateran directed by the spiritt of God And this is sufficient to conuince O. E. of plaine calumniation and though he say in the end of his defence that Dominicus Soto and Iosephus Angles are at some difference about Scotus his meaning yet are his words whole discourse cleare inough without any commentary of others as yow haue seene And quently this shall suffice for the examen of this first place The second Place out of Durand For that we haue byn longer in the first place to shew therby some portrayture of O. E. his manner of answeringe and defendinge his Clyent so shall we be breeâ—er in the remnant The charge vpon the second place was yf you remember that Plessis had abused Durand as he had before done Scotus but most of all his Reader by them both in alleaginge an obiection for a resolution which is euident for that Durand beginning to comment vpon the 11. distinction of the fourth booke of the Maister of SenteÌ„ces which distinction is about Transubstantiation as the former is about the reall presence he frameth his first question thus Primo quaeritur c. First yt is demaunded whether the body of Christ be in the Sacrament by conuersion of the substance of bread into yt c. Et arguitur quod noâ— c. And yt is obiected that yt is not but rather the substance of bread remaineth for that sewer difficultyes do follow that way then by putting TransubstantiatioÌ„ c. And after this he setteth downe his resolution to the contrary and answereth this obiection as before yow haue heard whervpon after diuers shifts attempted by Plessis for some euasion he found none to the purpose and so had sentence against him And what now doth his aduocate thinke yow bring to releeue him truly nothing at all For first he doth not so much as mention this place of Durand wherof the controuersie was but another where Durand saith as Scotus also did before that God by his omnipotency might haue ordayned that his body should haue byn in the Sacrament without Transubstantiation yf he had would Which no man denyeth But heare his words The second place saith O. E. was taken out of Durand who saith that yt is rashnesse to affirme that the body of Christ may not by the power of God be in the Sacrament by other manner then by the conuersion of bread into his body neither can it be denyed that Durand hath these words and why then is Maister Plessis charged with falsification Fersooth because they say he tooke the opposition for the resolution Thus he Wherto I answere that he is grossely deceaued for that Plessis is not charged for settinge downe the obiection in steed of the resolution out of this place of Durand but in the former place by me alleaged which he hath heere omitted For of this place there was neuer any question or difficulty of the Conference though yt was alleaged to another purpose as before is mentioned Yow will aske me perhaps why then doth O. E. alleage this wronge place of Durand leauinge out the other wherof the controuersie is Surely I must in part excuse him for that he erred also heerin who set forth the particular passages without the Relators knowledge after the relation ended and printed as before hath byn signified and is testified in the preface to the said passages yet was his error much more pardonable then this of O. E. for that he had only a wrytteÌ„ copy of a particular frend from Paris had not seene the publike Acts printed nor Plessis reply as this other had done writing more then a whole yeare after they were published therfore for him to come now and dissemble the true place in controuersie and deceaue his Reader with a new fraud sayinge that we accused Plessis with falsification for takinge the obiection for the resolution in this place wheras as all men do know yt was in another sheweth as well his condition deuoted to continuall shiftinge as also his weaknesse to defend his clyent in the former charge he being glad to slipp out runne away vnder the shadow of an other mans error And yet to leaue behind him some sente of what he is he would needs vtter two other notorious vntruths at his parting the one where he saith that yt may plainly be gathered by Durands words that the determination only of the Councell of Lateran the Romish Church moued him to hould Transubstantiation Wherof there is no such word in Durand but rather the plaine contrary for so much as he proueth Transubstantiation not only by the Councell of Lateran but also by diuers cleere sentences of ancient Fathers namely S. Ambrose S. Augustine Prosper and Eusebius which were long before the Councell of Lateran The other vntruth is where he saith that not only they but Bellarmine also doth note the same in Durand taxinge him for hard beleefe of Transubstantiation Wheras Bellarmine in the place cited doth expressely say Durand to hold conuerti panem in corpus Christi per consecrationem that the bread is conuerted by the words of consecration into the body of Christ but yet that he hath a certayne particular opinion about the manner therof which is nothinge to our controuersie So as O. E. not hauinge releeued his client any thinge at all in this point hath loaded himselfe with 2. or 3. faults more then he had on his backe before And so he passeth from this place to the other that followeth The third Place out of S. Chrysostome The charge giuen vpon Plessis in this place is as before yow haue seene for that he going about to
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
confesse that these are egregious companions in so deluding their readers by shamefull shiftinge And this of S. Chrysostome now lett vs see what he saith to S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine about Aërius condemned of heresie well neere 1300. yeares past for denying sacrifice and prayers to be offered for the dead Vnto the places saith he of Epiphanius and Augustine I answere that Aërius was condemned for disalowinge the order of the Church in this commemoration for the dead and geuing thanks for their blessed end and this is that prayer which Caluyn and we confesse to haue byn in the Church a long tyme. Heere yow see that he taketh vpon him to aunswere to three seuerall partyes to witt S. Epiphanius S. Augustine and Iohn Caluyn and that with the same truth that he answered before S. Chrysostome to witt with plaine cosenage and shiftinge For vnto the two Fathers he saith yf he say any thinge that they affirmed Aërius to haue bin condemned as an heretike not for denyinge sacrifice or prayer for the dead but for disallowing the order of the Church in their commemoration geuing thanks for their blessed end which comme moration he expoundeth a little before to haue byn a recytall only of dead mens names without any prayer for remission of sinnes which yf yt were so and that Sutcliffe will graunt as he seemeth to do that Aërius was iustly condemned and held for an heretike for disallowinge this commemoration or recytall of dead mens names why do the Protestants also disallow the same or at leastwise do not vse yt in England in their communion and so by omittinge the same doe participate with him in the same heresie But all this is shamefull shifting turning and wyndinge of a leud and lost conscience to deceaue the reader for the words of Saint Epiphanius and S. Augustine are most plaine euident that Aërius was condemned of heresie for denyinge prayers and sacrifices to be offered for the dead orare vel offerre pro mortius non oportere saith S. Augustine he held that prayers and oblations ought not to be made for the dead and do yow note that this was not yeaster day but in the tyme of Constantine the great when Aërius was condemned as an heretike by the whole Church of that tyme for denyinge these points which our Protestants deny also blaspheme at this day Magnum mundo malum saith Epipbanius of Aërius suriosus mente elatus opinione c. Aërius was a great plague of the world furious in mynd and proud in his opinion c. What would he haue said of Sutcliffe at this tyme who sheweth himselfe no lesse proud then he and auoucheth the same heresyes and many more besides But to returne to Sutcliffes answere to the forsaid two Fathers concerning Aërius First yow may see consider that in his former relation of the matter he vseth a sleight of his budget when he saith that Epiphanius and Augustine seeme to say that Aërius was condemned c. for they do not only seeme to say so but do absolutely affirme yt and S. Epiphanius maketh a longe discourse therof shewinge the beginninge and occasion of Aërius fall into this heresie to witt that he being a Priest could not be made a Bishopp which S. Augustine also toucheth and that vpon this enuy spite mallice he beganne to obiect against the cleargy that they ought not to offer sacrifice or prayer for the dead but only for the lyuinge and consequently for the same was condemned and held alwayes after for an heretike by the Church of that and all other ensuinge ages Secondly yt is another sleight to say that Aërius was condemned for disallowing the order of the Church in this commemoration of the dead as though Aërius his fault had not byn against any point of Catholike and vniuersall doctrine of the Church but disobedience only against some Ecclesiasticall order and therfore yf yow marke yt he neuer nameth him heretike as indeed disobedience to orders is not properly heresy if it be not against some article of doctrine And all these are shifts and conueyances of Sutcliffe to dazell the readers eyes wheras the forsaid Fathers say plainly that he was condemned for hereticall doctrine And S Chrysostome as you haue heard before alleaged affirmeth the contrary doctrine of prayinge for the departed in tyme of the dreadfull misteryes to haue come downe from the Apostles themselues and the same in effect saith Epiphanius traditione a patribus accepta by tradition receaued from their forefathers The third shift is that Sutcliffe in this his shufflinge aunswere foisteth in these words commemoration of the dead and geuinge thanks for their blessed end as thongh Saint Epiphanius or S. Augustine had said or meant so which is quite contrary for they expressely affirme that this commemoration was to pray for them that is to say for those that are synners and haue need of our prayers which Epiphanius expresseth in these words pro iust is precatoribus memoriam facimus peccatoribus quidem misericordiam Dei implorantes we make commemoration of iust men and for synners desiringe Gods mercy for those that be in synne c. Which is the very same that S. Chrysostome distinguisheth in the place before alleaged of his 69. homily to the people of Antioch that some are greater sinners some lesse some perfect and holy But S. Augustine accordinge to his manner more cleerly perspicuously in these words Non omnibus prosunt c. our prayers and sacrifices offered for the dead do not profitt all sorts of men And why do they not profitt all but only for the difference of life which euery man hath lead in this body Wherfore when sacrifices eyther of the Altar or of any other almes are offered vp for Christians departed yf they be very good men for whome they are offered they are thanke geuings for them that are not very euill they are propitiations or appeasings with God but yf they be very wicked then though they be no helpes to the dead yet are they some kind of comfort for the liuinge and vnto those deceased whome they do profitt they are profitable in this that eyther they procure them full remission or at least wise that their punishment or condemnation be therby made more tolerable So S. Augustine who explaneth as yow see most perspicuously the Catholike doctrine and cutteth of all shifts from cauillinge heretiks about the different sorts qualityes of men desceased with what distinction the Catholike Church doth make commemoration for them in the publike sacrifice either by praying or praising God for them And thus much of his shuffling and shifting away the Fathers authorityes lett vs now come to consider how he will put of his Maister Caluyn and his Brother VVillet alleaged also yf yow remember against him But as for VVillett he maketh him not worthy of a seuerall answere but