A RELATION OF THE TRIAL Made before the King of France, upon the year 1600. between the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay.  
ABOUT Certain points of corrupting and falsifying authors, whereof the said Plessis was openly convicted.  
Newly revewed, and set forth again, with a defence thereof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O. E. in England.  
By N. D.  
Tertullian. lib. de prescript. advers. haereses.  
Vinci possunt, persuaderi non possunt.  
Heretics may be vanquished, & yet not persuaded:  
Imprinted with licence. Anno M. DC. FOUR   

THE GENERAL CONTENTS of this book.  

IN THE RELATION.  
1. The preface and advertisement to the Reader, containing the occasion and sum of all. Chap. 1.  
2. The first Challenge made by the L. Plessis to the B. of Eureux for justifying of his books, with the bishops acceptance. Chap. 2. 3.  
3. The reply of the L. Plessis, with the agreement of the trial. Chap. 4.  
4. divers letters both of the King, & others, about the success, & issue of the trial. Chap. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10.  
5. Certain observations of the Relator, upon the former relation, together with a petition, that the like trial might be made in England. Chap. 11.   

IN THE DEFENCE.  
1. The preface shewing the authority of the Acts & Gests set forth of this conference in French since the first edition of this relation.  
2. What is contained more in these Acts. than was set down in my former relation. Chap. 1.  
3. The examen of nine places chosen by the L. Plessis, for his justification, in all which he was proved to have falsified. Chap. 2.  
4. How the conference was broken up. & what ensued afterward, & of a defence set forth by the L. Plessis after his retiring from the combat, without a name, more dishonourable than the combat itself. Chap. 3.  
An examen of that defence in French, as also of the answer of O. E. in English. Chap. 4. and 5.  
The Conclusion with certain considerations upon the whole. Chap. 6.    

TO THE READER. Concerning the causes of the new Edition of this Relation; with a defence thereof against divers Impugners.  
THREE or four causes (good reader) have induced me to renew this Relation, and to set it forth again, after three years' space, that it was first written, and printed, which was in the year of jubiley 1600. The first reason is, for that having to perform afterward in this third part of the Treatise, of three Conversions of England, divers points here promised concerning the unfolding of sundry falsifications, used as well by john Fox, as by some other English writers of our time; I thought good to lay down the ground of my obligation and promise made in this relation, to the end it may be seen, whether I do satisfy the same or no. Secondly, whereas my former narration was very brief, & founded only upon certain letters received from Paris at that time; now I having perused the whole acts & gests of that coference, between the B. of Eureux, & Plessis Morney, authentically published by authority, & by the approbatio of the deputies themselves that were judges in the cause; I have come to know many particulars which then I knew not, & consequently, I am desirous, that the reader should be partaker thereof in like manner for that they may import him not a little, being of the subject they are.  
My third reason was, for that there hath come to my hands since the foresaid printing of this Relation two adversary writings, published against the same, or at least wise, against some principal points thereof, the one in French, written (as is thought) by the L. Plessis himself or by some other at his directio, after the flight from the combat, the other in English by O. E. otherwise interpreted Matthew Sutcliffe. who hath taken upon him to be his proctor and advocate: both which writings I thought good in this place, briefly to look over, & by occasion of printing again this Relation, to let the reader see, what truth or substance there is in them; but yet with such moderation of speech as we may imitate therein (so near as may be) the courteous proceeding used by the adversary parties in this Trial in France, as a little after you shall here, & in deed is convenient to the subject handled, (which is Religion) and to the persons that treat the same.  
And albeit according to the information which men give here of the nature & condition of O. E. little hope is conceived of any good correspondence from him in this point, as not so powerable over his own passions, as to perform it: yet will I hope the contrary for this time, presuming that his so exorbitant excess in former writings, proceeding of the confidence of a vizard, whereby he thought perhaps to pass unknown; but now the mask being taken away, and every child being able to read and interprett what the words O. E. do signify, to wit, a person, that professeth Ecclesiastical life & dignity; I shall expect somewhat from him agreeable to that profession, wherein I promise again all due correspondence on my behalf, to the end, that matters of Religion may be handled in the style they ought to be. But if I be deceived, and that he will needs follow his old veigne still; I am like enough to leave him in that kind and give him over to others; that will pay him perhaps his dew, according to that of the gospel, 
Matt. 18  tradatur tortoribus, quousque persoverit ultimum quadrantem, for there want neither men, nor matter to perform it. And so much of this.  
For these reasons then, and some other, I have been moved to set forth this Relation again, together with a defence thereof, increased, as you will see, and confirmed out of the authentical acts set forth by public authority. I do think the reading, & perusing hereof, will turn thee (good Reader) to singular commodity, if it be done with indifferency and attention. To God's everlasting glory be all referred, whole ever preserve thee. This first of December 1603.   

THE OCCASION, ARGUMENT, AND SUBSTANCE of the ensuing trial.  
CHAP. 1.  
NOtwithstanding (gentle reader) I may justly presume, that the report of the late combat, and conference had in France, between two noble and famous learned men, concerning a trial of fidelity and falsehood in alleaginge authorities for controversies in Religion, hath come into England before this day, being a matter of so notorious memory & done in the presence of so great a King, and of so many Princes, and so near to our country, and upon so markable preambles and premises, as here are declared: 
Causes of this Translation.  yet was I moved by divers reasons, and considerations, to lay the same together in these few sheets of paper, and to send them unto thee to read, and behold, and (as the importance of the thing itself requireth) to be considered with some attention, and leisure. For first I weighed with myself, that albeit the challenges which hereafter do follow, be extant in the French tongue, and consequently like also to be in England before this day: yet for that every man understandeth not that language, nor is it so probable that many men will take the pains to translate & divulge the same, to such as may have need or desire to read it; I judged the labour not unprofitable to perform the same from hence.  
But beside there is another reason of more moment, and more peculiar to this place, to wit, that albeit the former printed challenges, might come to Englishmen hands by other means: yet the combat itself, with the true issue thereof, together with the manner of the trial, and particulars occurred therein, which have been written hither by most authentical parties (as unto the place, where account of such affairs concerning Religion is wont to be given) could not, or would not perhaps so fully, and sincerely be related in England, as the truth of the whole action requireth, the reason whereof each man will easily consider.  
These then being the causes that moved me to take this little pain, founded (as you see) in the zeal of truth and fidelity, I have thought good to deliver faithfully unto you such letters, as have come to my hands, about this affair, though not all. For that divers letters written out of France, by divers other parties reporting the self same thing, I thought not needful for me to print, nor to multiply relations without necessity, but to content myself only (for brevities sake) with the letter of the K. Majesty himself, and with one other of the Bishop (that was an actor in the cause) written to the King's Ambassador in this place, and to some other Cardinals beside, by them to be exhibited unto his Holiness, 
Why the B. of Eureux his relation in this matter is of much credit.  to whom the Bishop well knew, that the self same thing would be written by others also les●e interessed in the matter then himself; and more than this, that his said letters and report would be returned to France again, where all advantage would be taken against him by the adversary, if in any one point he should exceed the bare truth in his narration; which consideration may assure us, that he would have great care to relate all points both truly and modestly, as in his letter that ensueth may be seen, that he doth, and the same may be gathered also plainly by the K. letter itself to the Duke of Espernon, which after we shall relate.  
But yet besides these two letters, there was another written, two days after the said Bishop's letter, by the Pope's Nuntio in Paris unto Cardinal Aldobrandino, and by him to be delivered to his holiness, wherein is related & verified (though in very few words) the very same 
* All this is now confirmed by the public Acts printed that after do ensue.  narration, which the Bishop writeth, as by the extract thereof hereafter set down appeareth. And this now were sufficient for a preface only to this matter, were it not, that I have thought expedient also to touch briefly two other points. First, what these two persons are, which had the combat, and then the brief sum of that which passed between them therein.  
For first the L. Plessis Morney 
L. Plessis Morney.  his name and person is well known in England; for that above 20. years passed I saw myself a book of his entitled: Of the Church, and notes thereof, translated into English, and much esteemed by protestants of that time, for that he writeth more cunningly and covertly, and is more plausible in show both of scriptures & Fathers, then commonly other writers of his Religion then were. And for that he is a noble man borne, and of the laity and not unlearned in divers languages, and in great credit for many years with this King of France (whose Ambassador he was in England, whilst he was yet a protestant, and his Majesty King only of Navarre) and now since his coming to the kingdom of France much trusted also, and used by him in his civil affairs, and in government of the town and country of Saumur. For these causes (I say) and for that he hath written many books, he is accounted every where for one of the cheeife champions and head pillars of Protestant Religion in France, whereby this his disgrace so notoriously received in that thing, wherein he made public profession to be exact, to wit, in true, and plain dealing: must needs open the eyes of such, as are discreet, and desirous in deed to follow truth and decline from falsehood, and so it did us after you see.  
The B. of Eureux on the other side, named Monsieur Person, 
L. Bishop of Eureux.  is a person no less eminent & markable, both for that his parents being great Protestants, & himself also for many years, he being a man also of great wyet, & extraordinary memory, and by reason of his state of life more occupied in studies (as is probable) then the other, coming afterward by reading, and by God's especial grace to be a Catholic, he became so zealous earnest, and ardent therein (as none do more when they are full informed) that his greatest endeavours since his conversion, have been to convert also others, and to impart that light, which God hath bestowed upon him, to as many as possibly he can. In which respect the K. Majesty of France having loved him much, and esteemed also before, when he was a Protestant, and no less since that he hath been a zealous Catholic, and knowing him to be both learned faithful & sincere; made choice of him for his especially Ambassador in Rome in the year 1595. to treat his great affair for his reconciliation to the Catholic Church, which hath come to that happy issue, which ●ll the world seeth both for the good of his ●arson, people, and crown.  
And thus much of these 2. persons, who being both of them so grateful and well liked of the King, as I have showed, his majesties indifferency in judgement also between them both, (the truth of the cause only excepted) must needs be void of all suspicion, and consequently his sentence afterward prononced on the one side (as by his letter appeareth) must in reason be thought to have proceeded of the manifest difference of the said cause, and force of truth itself, which he discovered upon that trial. Now then to speak a word or two of the action as it passed, you must understand, that about Christmas last, there came forth a book in Paris of the aforesaid Monsieur Plessis against the Mass; 
A brief relation of the whole action.  which book making show (as the fashion is) of great abundance and ostentation of Fathers, councils, Doctors and stories for his purpose, great admiration seemed to be conceived thereof, and the Protestants every where began to triumph of so famous a work, published in their behalf, Whereupon divers Catholic learned men took occasion presently to examine the said book, & finding many most egregious deceits, shifts, and falsifications therein, divers books were written against it, & one in particular by a French 
* P Fronto Duceus Burdeg.  jesuit, discovering at least a thousand falsehoods of his part.  
All the preachers of Paris in like manner, the whole lent following, were occupied for the most part in refuting, and shewing the falsehood of this book: during which time, many Protestants of account were either converted or greatly moved here with, 
Monsieur Sainct-Mary converted.  and among other one Monsieur Sainct-Mary du Monte a principal noble man o●, Normandy, who frequenting the preaching of one F. Angelus a Capuchin friar, borne a great noble man, and named before his entrance into Religion Monsieur du Bouchage brother to the late Duke of joyeus, whose state he had of late inherited (his said brother being dead) but left the same for that other vocation of a poor, and humble servant of God. 
Monsieur Bouchage leaveth a Dukedom to be a ●riar.  And albeit afterward upon necessity of the said temporal state which he had left, he was forced for some years, to take a secular life upon him again, and to mennage arms, as he did, by licence of the Supreme Pastor of God's Church, yet after public affairs once accommodated, he retired himself back to his Religious habit, & habitation again, where he liveth now a most virtuous life, & preacheth with great zeal, & singular edification of all sorts of men, & well showeth that his mind is superior to all worldly wealth & promotion. And these are examples that are not found lightly among Protestants, but are reserved as peculiar to Christ's Catholic Church, where the dew of heavenly grace, continually falling, worketh often such extraordinary effects. And thus much of him.  
By this godly man's sermons then was Monsieur Sainct-Mary at length converted (the experience of this trial not a little helping thereunto, as after shall appear) and made a good Catholic with no small edification of all men, in respect of the great humility, and zeal he used in his return to God's Church, and with much comfort of the K. himself, to whom first before all other he uttered his resolution. And hereupon as well his Majesty, as also the noble men that were Protestants, and namely the Duke of Bovillon, Monsieur Rosny, Monsieur Digiers, and other began to call upon this trial of Monsieur Plessis his book, for that it seemed to touch all their honours, and of their Religion, especially, when the B. of Eureux had protested upon his honour in the pulpit, that he could show more than 500 falsifications in the same book for his part. 
The issue of the challenges.  Upon which offers made as well by him as others, there ensued the chalengs hereafter following. The issue whereof was this; that when upon the 4. of May the K. being at his palace of Fountayne-bleau, had commanded both parties aforesaid to be present, and their books to be brought with them for this trial, to be made in his own presence: Monsieur Plessis seemed to shrink, and to seek all delays possible, either to avoid the same, or to bring it to some longer examination, by going over all his books and works leaf by leaf, & line by line, as you shall hear him demand presently: but this being denied by the B. & cut of by the K. express commandment, he appeared at last upon the day aforesaid with some 4. or 5. Ministers on his side.  
But the day 
* All these things are more particularly set down in the defence following cap. 1.  precedent before this, the B. to deal more plainly, and show friendship, sent unto him threescore places taken out of his book, upon which he meant to press him, and (as his words are) to begin the play: wishing him to come well provided in the same. Of which threescore Monsieur Plessis, chose out nineteen, that seemed to him most defensible, and upon which he said he would join the combat, adding moreover, that he would lose his life, if he were convinced therein. But the next day the trial being begun upon the first place, and that found false, he would have passed to the second, but the B. refused so to do, except the deputies and judges there present, would first subscribe, and testify, that this first place was falsified, which at length they did, as well in this, as in the rest there examined; and Monsieur Plessis remained in that pitiful plight, which afterward you shall hear by the B. and other men's letters, unto which I remit you: beseeching almighty Cod, that this so notorious an accident, may work that consideration with you, as the moment & importance of the martyr requireth. And so to his holy providence I commit you from Rome the 10. of june 1600.   

THE CHALLENGE OR PROVOCATION MADE BY THE L. Plessis Mornay, unto the L. Peron Bishop of Eureux, the 20. of March. 1600.  
CHAP. II.  
THE L. of Plessis doth demand and require, that my L. Bishop of Eureux, and all other, that blame or accuse him, to have used in his books set forth, any false citations, will vouchsafe to join with him, for subscribing and presenting a most humble request unto the K. Majesty, to entreat him most humbly to ordain and name such and so many, as shall please his Majesty, being men of sufficient learning & virtue, before whom the said L Plessis may verify from leaf to leaf, & from line to line, all authorities, which he hath cited in his said books. And that this trial be made by such copies and books, as have been printed in those places, and in those universities, which they of the Roman Church hold not for suspected. In witness whereof I the aforesaid Plessis Mornay have here put to my hand & seal. At Paris the 20. of March in the year one thousand six hundred.   

THE ANSWER OF THE B. OF EUREUX to the former Challenge the 25. of March 1600.  
CHAP. III.  
HAVING received (good Reader) this Challenge, whereof not only the report and brute, but the copies also themselves and already spread abroad, written and subscribed by the L. of Plessis: and considering that this is not a challenge of one private man to another, but rather of one party or side against the other; it seemed that the interest of the common cause of God's Church, did not permit either to let it pass without answer, or to answer it secretly. For as the end of this his offer is, in case it be refused, by such refusal and silence of catholics, to gain a public justification of his books and writings: so is it convenient, that may answer to the same be also public, & that the enemies of God's Church do not get that advantage, as to publish one thing & conceal the other. And therefore to the end that both heaven and earth may see, and behold how I do proceed in this matter; 
Acceptance of the offer by the B.  I make it known by this my hand writing both to him, and to all other, that shall read the same; that I do accept of his offer, and challenge, and do require of him again to cause the same to be put in execution, and not to end only in words:  
And for my part, that all hindrance thereof may be removed, I protest that I am presently ready, and do desire out of hand to come to the very point of shewing the falsehoods, without binding myself to that large & wearisome methood of examining his late book against the Mass, leaf by leaf, and line by line, as he requireth. Which demand of his; 
divers shifts discovered.  if we should yield thereunto, would under a fair pretext of trial, make his offer equivalent to a flat refusal. For besides that there will hardly be found out any deputies of such patience to try the matter, but they willbe wearied before they have examined in this manner, the tenth part of this his work: There will be found also in every leaf some allegations not so clearly false as the rest, the which if we should 
* This is seen afterwards by his dealing in the defence following cap. 2.  pass over, than would he take them, as admitted by us for true, and so take witness thereof to the prejudice of the Catholic Church. And if we stay and strive about them, he would then of purpose settle the whole disputation upon the first of those, which he should think might longest be continued, to hinder thereby the examining of the rest.  
For these causes then, as also for that it appertaineth notto him, who is accused of falsifications, to choose out the points upon the which he is to be examined, but to them rather, which do accuse him, to propose the articles, which they are to object against him: For these causes (I say) see here (good reader) the protestation I make before God & man: I protest that I do bind myself to show him in any place furnished of books, and in such company of capable men, as it may please the K. Majesty to ordain, yea in the presence of his Majesty (if it may please the same to take contentment to be present at some part thereof) five hundred enormous, 
A new offer and challenge to Plessis for 500 places corrupted by him.  and open falsifications, without any amplification or exaggeration, and all these contained in his only late book against the Mass. The which five hundred falsifications, I will choose our amongst a far greater number, to th' end I may avoid tediousness, and I will choose them all so plain and manifest, as there shall be no need of any further disputation to prove & convince them, than the only opening of the books which himself doth allege.  
And more over I say, that if after this our conference ended, he will take upon him for his part, to choose amongst all the citations of his book, or of his books (because● he speaketh in general) any such authorities, as he thinketh most sure, and to make most for his advantage, & most against us: I do bind myself for conclusion of all to refute the whole choice, 
Plessis his books named & showed to be corrupt.  that he shall have made thereof, & to show that neither in his said book against the Mass, nor in his Treatise of the Church, nor in his, Common wealth of Traditions, is there to be found so much as any one place among them all, which is not either falsely cited, or impertinent to the matter, or unprofitably alleged. And this will I show by the very texts of Greek and Latyn copies, of the authors themselves printed at Geneva, Basill, Heydelberge, & other towns of Protestants.  
All which notwithstanding I desire should be understood, as not spoken against the honour in particular of the L. Plessis, whom in all other things, which concern not the interest of Religion, I esteem according to his qualities and merits. Neither do I hereby pretend to blame him for any other thing, then that he hath been over credulous in believing the false relations & collections of others, that have endeavoured to abuse the industry & authority of his pen. And whereas he demandeth instantly, that I should join with him to present a supplication unto the K. Majesty for trial aforesaid: I declare again by this my writing, that I do wholly agree thereunto, and join with him therein, 
Courteous ●●eaty with Plessis.  & do make account for this present time to have subscribed thereunto, yea (if need were) with my own proper blood, conceiving infinite gladness, that a●ter so many admirable victories, which his Majesty hath gotten both of his enemies by his valour, and of himself by his clemency, the good Angel of France doth now again open to his Majesty the way, to obtain another victory no less glorious than the former, whereby he may as another Constantine, after peace and tranquillity restored to his temporal estate, restore also the like peace and tranquillity to the state of God, which is his holy Church. For that this disputation shall not be like to the others of former times, wherein were examined matters of doctrine, & the truth thereof, as also of the true interpretations of holy scriptures, 
The quality of this disputation or conference.  and other such like: In examination whereof, the shifts and sleights of the disputers, and other diguising of the matters, might make the truth uncertain to the hearers. But here all questions in this disputation, shall only be questions of fact, whether places be truly alleged, or no; For trial whereof, it shall only be needful to bring eyes for judges to behold, whether the citations which we do accuse of falsehood, be so indeed in the authors, as Plessis hath alleged in his book. And yet of the overthrow of these so many falsifications gathered together, ensueth the overthrow and dishonour of the cause which is defended by such weapons.  
And consequently we are much bound to the holy providence of almighty God, that he hath permitted in this last assault of heretics, 
The importance of this combat.  the ministers of France to have placed all the heads of their false impostures and deceitful dealings upon one body, to the end they may be all cut of at one blow. And that the simple people by them abused, seeing discovered the false & unfaithful dealings of those, upon whose fidelity they grounded their faith; may forsake them hereafter, and return to that faith, which is the pillar and sure ground of all truth.  
Wherefore to the end, that this happy success may be brought to effect without delay, not only I do subscribe most willingly together with the L. of Plessis, to present his request to his Majesty, but also do further promise him in the execution thereof, to use all sweetness, modesty, & loving proceeding towards his person; 
Bitter speeches in conference about religion reprehensible.  for that I esteem it a thing most conformable to reason, that combatts which proceed of charity, should be tried with charity; & that as in old time in the matrimonial sacrificos that were ordained for peace, and concord betwixt man and wife, the galls of beasts offered up were taken out: even so in the disputations, which are undertaken for the peace and union of the spouse of God (which is his Church) the gall and bitterness of hatred and evil 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 year one thousand six hundred. By me james. B. of Eureux.  
This is the answer and acceptance of the Bishop, full of confidence, wit, and medesty, as to the reader must needs appear: now let us see the reply of Plessis Mornay no less captious and subtle, them this is plain, simple, and sincere.   

THE REPLY OF THE L. PLESSIS TO THE FORMER answer, published by the B. of Eureux upon the Challenge made unto him by the said Plessis.  
CHAP. IV.  
WHEN I had understood (gentle Reader) the L. B. of Eureux gave forth, that the places of the fathers quoted by me in my books, were falsely cited: I sent him a certain Challenge written, and subscribed by my own 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 privately by the way of his own brother. Hereupon notwithstanding, my L. Bishop hath caused to be printed a certain advertisement to the Reader, of the date of the 25. of March, the which is now cried about the streets in this city; and this in steed of sending me his private answer by the same way I sent to him. 
The first cavil of Plessis upon nothing.  judge (Reader) whether in matter of provocation (for so he calleth my challenge) this manner of proceeding be to be received, and not rather subject unto sinister interpretation. Yet notwithstanding the event perhaps will make men judge better of his intention, whereunto willingly I reserve myself.  
And of this my private challenge to him, as of one particular man to another, he maketh by & by a public defiance of one part to another; as they which in an army do make their private quarrels, to be the public cause of the whole nation. judge here again (Reader) of this manner of proceeding in a conference of Religion, 
2. Cavil contrary to the B. his own words.  the which should tend to reniute, and join together men's minds, and not to disunite their affections. Consequently he flieth the examination, unto the which I do submit my books before the K. deputies from leaf to leaf and from line to line, and feigneth that he feareth the weariness of the deputies. 
3. Cavil, for that the bishops, way offered is more easy and short.  judge here again (Reader) if this trial may be made with more commodity or less labour, than I have offered. Wherefore to this again I answer, that we will hold herein so easy, & short method of trial, that I dare brag, that this other pain shallbe turned into pleasure most gretefull. But that which grieveth him (neither can he dissemble it) is, that he feareth (as he saith) that of some false citations, whose falsehood is less evident: (if he pass them over) I will take witness, as though they granted them to the prejudice of the Catholic Church: But the truth is, that he doubteth least by his flying of my manifest verities, I will make a prejudice against his cavillations & calumniations. For seeing this difference between us may be decided by only true 
* See this afterward contradicted by himself.  reading of that which is written; what means shall I have in this trial to deceive the judgement or rather the sight of the deputies.  
He skyrmisheth finally, 
Defence. cap. 2.  saying, that he will show me 500 false citations by number, but men will not easily believe him, who know that such bragging without effect, hath continued already 20. years and more. And therefore hereunto I have but one word to answer, which is, that when we meet, we shall see 
* Now it is seen by the trial.  what he can do. And therefore not to make many words which serve for nothing, but to put of the things themselves, I will (notwithstanding all this) take mine offer, as accepted by him. And even now to this intent, I have entreated my L. Mareshall of Bovillon, who goeth to take his leave of the K. at his palace of Boys de Vincens, to present unto his Majesty my most humble request to this effect, by the which I do beseech this Majesty, that it will please him to ordain some deputies to the end above mentioned. Which petition if it please God to prosper and bless, I hope it will prove a good preamble for some greater designment, worthy the magnanimity of our King, towards some holy reformation of the Church in his Kingdom, by the means whereof, we shall see in this our one only King, 
Heretical flattery.  three most great Emperors, and their virtues represented, to wit a Caesar in conquering; an Augustus in pacifying of his estate; & one that flieth higher than any Constantine in restoring the whole Church of Christendom by the example of his own reformed Kingdom.  
This our request recommended by me to the said L. Mareshall, 
Great dissimulation: as will appear after by the event.  was yesterday the last of March so earnestly by him presented to his Majesty, as by his answer he giveth me no small hope, that very soon he will give us means to effectuate our desires: And the more to hasten the matter, I have again this morning entreated most humbly his Majesty by my letters; so as now there remaineth nothing but to beseech the same of God, as I do withal my heart, for his glory, & for the instruction of his people. And so hereafter an end of all words about this matter. written at Paris the first of April. 1600. Plessis.  
HItherto are the challenges, answers and replies of these two parties: which the K. Majesty having perused, and seeing so great show and confidence to be in both for entering the combat, he gave very nobly & Christianly, his royal assent thereunto, as by the ensuing letters of the whole fact & circumstances thereof doth appear. And finding presently some relenting and drawing back in the one party (as by the said letters you shall see) he further laid his full commandment upon them both, for performance of their offers, and consequently the trial was made at Fontayne-blea● some four or five days after, in the presence of his Majesty & Princes of blood, with many of the greatest nobility, with those particularities, which the said ensuing letters will represent unto you. But yet before all, I have thought good to set down the K. own letter, though short, and brief, yet very substantial and pithy, relating very prudently in few words the success of that trial, with the good effect, that might be hoped thereof for conversion of many Protestants, that are not perverse and wilful. It was written at Fontayne-bleau where the meeting was, the very day of the trial: and for the worthiness thereof and due respect to so great a parsonage, it shall go both in French & English, for them that understand both languages.   

copy DES LETTRES DV ROY A MONSIEUR D' ESPERNON.  
CHAP. V.  
Mon amy.  
LEdiocese d' Eureux agaigne celuy de Saumur, & la doulceur, dont on●y a proced●, oste ●occasion a quelque Huguenot, que cesoit, de dire que rien y eut force que la verité. Ce porteur y ostoit, qui vous contera come i'y ay faict merueilles. Certes c' est un des plus grands coups pour l' Eglise de Dieu, qui s' est faict ily long temps, suyvant l' eclarcissement de cest erreur. Nous rammeinerons plus de separez de l' Eglise en un an, que par toute autre voy en cinquante. Il y a un long discours d'vn chascun, qui seroit trop long a discourir par escript. Il vous dira la façon, que ie suis d'auis que mes seruiteurs tiennent, pour tirer fruit de ce saincte oewre. Bon soir mon amy. Sachant le plaisir que vous en aurez: Vous estes seul a qui l'on le mand. Le 5. de May. 1600.  
Henry.  
Au dessus de la lettre. A mon Cousin le Duc d' Espernon.   

THE COPY OF THE K. OF FRANCE HIS FORMER LETTER TO the Duke of Espernon, concerning the late trial, had between the B. of Eureux, and the Lord Plessis, translated into English.  
CHAP. VI  
MY Friend. The Diocese of Eureux hath overcome the Diocese of 
* For that Plessis is governor of Saumur.  Saumur, and the sweet manner of proceeding that hath been used, hath taken away all occasion to any Hugenot whatsoever he be, to say, that any force hath been used, beside the only force of truth: The bearer hereof was present at the combat, who will inform you what marvels I have done therein. Certanily it is one of the greatest blows, that hath been given for the Church of God this long while, for the manifestation of this error. By 
* would god these means were used in England.  this means we shall reduce more in one year of them, that are separated from the Church, then by any other way in 50. years. There were a large discourse to be made of each of their actions, but the same were to long to write. The bearer shall tell you the manner, which I would have all my servants to observe for reaping fruit of this holy work. Good night my friend. And for that I know what pleasure you will take hereof, you are the only man to whom I have written it. This 5. of May. 1600.  
Henry.  
The superscription. To my Cousin the Duke of Espernon.   

EXTRICT DV POSTSCRIPTUM DE LA LETTRE DE CELVY QVI enuoy a ceste Copy dela lettre du Roy a Rome.  
CHAP. VII.  
Monsieur.  
I● vous enuoyé la copy de la lettre du Roy, qu'il a enuoyé a Monsieur d'Espernon sur la dispute de l'Euesque d'Eureux, country du Plessi-Mornay pour verifier son liure, qui s'est de tout trowé faulx, & s'en est allé cacher come un regnard. Dieu conduise tout a bonne fin a sa gloire, & salut des ames.  

An extract of the Postscript of the letter of him that sent this copy of the foresaid K. letter, to the French Ambassador in Rome.  
My Lord. I do send you here, the copy of the King's letter written to the Duke of Espernon, about the disputation of the B. of Eureux against Plessis Mornay, for justifying of his book, found altogether false, and he is gone to hide himself like a Fox. God conduct all to a good end for his glory, and salvation of men's souls.   

Thus much do write the King and his secretary, the one to the Duke of Espernon, the other to Monsieur Sylary Ambassador in Rome, & both of them present at the conference. The King's letter as you see, is very substantial: & it seemeth his Majesty was greatly moved himself by the seeing and hearing of this combat. For so much as he affirmeth so resolutely, that it was one of the greatest blows, that had been given for the Church of God a long while, & for discovering the erroneous proceedings of Protestants. The secretary also avoucheth as you see, the falsehood found in Mornayes' book, and that for shame thereof he was gone to hide himself like a Fox. Now shall you hear three other letters, relating more particularly the circumstances of this conference, with the Acts & success thereof, though all very briefly in respect of the Acts themselves.    

THE COPY OF THE LETTER OF MONSIEUR PERON B. OF EUREUX, to the L. Silary Ambassador for the K. of France in Rome, the 10. of May 1600.  
CHAP. VIII.  
My Lord.  
AT length the victory of the combat betwixt the L. Plessis and me remaineth to the Catholic Church, and after many tergiversations, which he used for the space of 5. or 6. days at Fontayne-bleau, I sent him on wednesday the third of May, threescore falsifications taken out of his book, to begin the play withal, for him to prepare himself to answer the next day. Of them he chose out 19 the which he went & told the King the next day, that he had chosen forth, examined, and found true, and that he would lose his life, if any one of them were proved to be falsely cited. After dinner the same day in the same place, he came forth in the presence of his Majesty, and of 7. or 8. Princes, 
States present at the combat.  and of the L. Chancellor of France, and other officers of the crown, and Counsellors of State. Where first his Majesty declared both by himself, and by the L. Chancellor, that he would not in any wise, that in this conference should be handled any point of Catholic Religion, whereof he doubted nothing, and knew also that the judgement thereof pertained unto the Sea Apostolic, but only of the particular business of the L. of Plessis, whether he had falsified the texts of the Fathers or no? I added that when Hunnericus K. of the Vandals would have had the catholics dispute with the Arrians, Eugenius Archbishopp of Carthage (as Victor of Utica rehearseth) answered, 
Vict. l. 2. de persecute Vandalica.  that he could not do it, without the consentment of other bishops, & chiefly of the Church of Rome, which is head of all others: & that this my entering into the present conference, was not for that I bore less respect unto the Seat Apostolic, than that holy Bishop did.  
But because there was no questions of Religion here to be discussed, 
The only point to be handled.  but only to show the falsifications of the L. Plessis, about the which I was well content to have the judgement of the assistants, for as much as appertained to the knowledge of Grammar, to wit, whether the L. Plessis had corrupted the words of the authors or no, but not as touching points of divinity, the which the K. Majesty had already very wisely forbidden us to treat, for that he will not herein follow the example of K. of juda, which usurped the incensour, and the function of priesthood, but rather of Constantyne & Theodose, and other religious Emperors in remitting the decision of Ecclesiastical matters unto the Church. 
The manner of the combat.  This done we began to dispute, & I began to object unto him those places, which himself had chosen out amongst threescore, sent to him by me the day before, following therein the same order that he had taken in choosing them out, the which all were convinced of falsehood, in order as they were proposed, & sentence was pronounced against him upon every place by the heretics themselves, which assisted him there, and all with one voice condemned him.  
The King in this conference hath showed himself so wise, 
The K. justly praised.  so intelligent, so affectionate, & so zealous, taking up the argument against him at every occasion, and pressing him by disputation, and so convincing him of divers falsehoods; as he hath showed manifestly his wit, and affection towards the Catholic Religion, admirable to all France, which now doth shed tears for joy, to see their King to excel, as much all others in piety, devotion, and zeal towards the advancement of God's Church, as he hath surpassed them in valour and victory. This first conference ended, 
Plessis fell sick of grief  the L. Plessis going from the combat pale, astonished, and marvelously confounded fell into great convulsions, vomiting, & trembling of his body for the rest of that day; and for all the day following was possessed with a strange universal trembling of all the members of his body, and ever since hath remained sick, and hath not been able, nor durst show himself. I pray God this may serve not so much to his confusion, as to his conversion: whom I beseech also to grant you my L. a good & a happy life. From paris this 10. of may 1600.  
Your humble and affectionated servant. james B. of Eureux.  

Postscript.  
This letter which I write unto your honour, is a copy of that which I write, to Cardinal Aldebrandino, and to the Cardinal of Aux, because the bearer, urged by the post, hath not given me leisure to do otherwise.   

The superscription.  
To my Lord.  
The L. Silary, the K. counsellor of his Counsel of State, Ambassador for his Majesty at Rome.    

AN extract OF ANOTHER LETTER WRITTEN BY THE Pope's 
* Claudius' Ragonius episc. Rhegiensis.  Nuntio, resident in Paris, unto Cardinal Aldobrandino the Pope's Nephew in Rome: the 12. of May 1600.  
CHAP. IX.  
I HAVE freshly received news from Fountainebleau of the prosperous success of the conference between the B. of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay. The Bishop hath convinced manifestly by the judgement and sentence of all the assistants, the falsehoods, as he had before promised. Wherefore the said Plessis was so ashtonished, and troubled, that he fell presently sick of an Ague. The King himself in this conference hath showed great understanding, and no less zeal to the Catholic Religion. The whole redoundeth much to the confusion of the Hugonotts, here, who held Plessis for their S. Augustine, etc. Paris the 12. of May 1600.   

THE WORDS OF ANOTHER LETTER WRITTEN FROM PARISH the 10. of May, about the same matter by a gentleman of account.  
CHAP. X.  
HERE hath been some 4. days past a great conference at fountain bleau 15. leagues hence, between Monsieur Peron B. of Eureux, & Monsieur Plessis Mornay counsellor to his Majesty Governor of Saumur, and general of the Hugonotts. The K. with other Princes were present, and judges chosen & appointed for both parties. In the end Plessis Mornay was utterly disproved and confounded by a general consent of both sides, and shamed, in so much as the K. 
The King's oath.  rose up from his place & sworn Ventre S. Gry, he had heard and seen enough of Plessyes' falsities, & that by Act of Parliament he would cause his books to be burned, saying that himself had all his youth time been abused, and carried away with their corruptions. He presently sent word unto the Duke of Espernon, saying that the B. of Eureux had gotten the government of Saumur, and willed that the Doctors & Preachers in Paris should be advertised thereof to publish it, and so it is in pulpits with great joy and thanks to God.  
The Hugonotts are strooken more dead, with with this accident, 
Hugonotes much moved with the success.  then if they had lost a battle of 40. thousand men, & Plessis Mornay himself is fallen sick upon it, vomitts blood, and looks like himself. There was present of Plessis side a great Huguenot of account among other, called Monsieur du Gramond, who seeing the event of that conference, said, that he never in his life durst follow Monsieur Plessis for a Captain, but now he would less follow him for a divine. It is hoped that the said Gramond will become a Catholic upon it, & Monsieur du Rosney also; and heresy was never so likely to go to wrack in France, as at this present, etc. Paris this 10. of May 1600.  

An addition of the translator.  
HITHERTO are the letters which I have thought good to translate out of French, & to set down in this place concerning the event of this trial and combat, as also of the great and high honour, which the most Christian King of France hath gained, by being present & furthering the same in his royal person. Which act will be unto him (besides the benediction of almighty God thereby gained as we hope) an everlasting praise with all posterity. And if it might please the same mighty hand of our Saviour, by his holy grace to inspire the heart of her 
* This petition may better be made now to his royal Majesty as more intelligent in such affairs, & better inclined to hear truth.  Majesty of England by the example of so famous a fact of her neighbour and colleague, and dear Cousin the K. of France, to take the same course in England, and to hear and permit the like trial between such catholics, as would offer to prove, & convince the like falsehoods & falsifications; (and greater also perhaps) in the chief protestant writers of our nation, as jewel, Fox, Fulke, & the like: and that some of the learned, and zealous of the other side, might be entreated or commanded toe defend the same; or if they refuse this, then at least some competent number of equal judges, might be assigned on both sides to hear the matter, with the same laws and conditions as the matter passed in France, to wit, that no point of controversy or disputation be admitted to be disputed of, but only matter of fact discussed: As for example, whether such and such places and authorities as are cited & quoted in their writings, out of Fathers, Doctors, councils, and stories, and are avouched by catholics to be falsified, be so or no? If this (I say) might be obtained (seeing larger trial & disputation, so often and earnestly by us demanded, cannot be had) and that by the wisdom and authority of her Majesty & her honourable Council, this at last might be brought to pass; it would be an infinite comfort to all sincere, and true meaning men of all sides, which desire indeed to know the truth.  
And as for the trial itself, it would be more easy, brief and pleasant unto her Majesty and other assistants, whosoever they should be; For that as the B. of Eureux well noteth before, it willbe sufficient for this trial, to bring only eyes, and to open the books, whence the authorities are cited. And to the end that some taste before hand may be taken of the matter, which would break forth in such a trial, concerning the Protestants part; I have thought good to add these few observations that do ensue, which are of a person that would willingly offer himself in this service, or at least to send, and represent some part of those observations, which to this effect he hath gathered.    

CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS UPON THE FORMER NARRATION.  
CHAP. XI.  
Though it be hard for any man to reflect, and make observations unto himself, of what may best be noted, by the precedent story & relation; yet to help the Readers memory, & to stir up somewhat more his understanding, and discourse about the premises, I have not thought amiss to resent in part by this postscript, what occurreth unto me in this behalf. 
Act. 1.  And first of all is the wonderful providence of almighty God in conservation, and continuation of the old ancient, Catholic, Apostolic, & universal faith left at the ascension of our Saviour, unto his followers and visible Church that then was, and spread by them miraculously in very short space over all the world, 
The primitive Cath. Church.  and continued ever since by tradition, and succession of one age to another until our time, under the protection and mighty powerable defence of the same Lord and Saviour, and under the government of his only espouse the said Catholic Church. 
1. Tim. 4.  Against which Church & descent of faith therein, 
2. Tim. 3.  though many new fantasies and devices of particular men (which holy scriptures call heresies) have sprung up in every age with fresh and glistering titles, 
3. Pet. 2.  of pure gospel, of new revealed truth, of godly reformation, and other like pretences; and that God for more trial and exercise of his said Church, 
Causes of heresies and their ends.  & for the speedier redress perhaps of some abuses, and corrupt manners crept into some part thereof, hath permitted the said new inventions to prevail, grow, and ruffle for a time (as by experience of all ages we have seen) yet ever in the end he bringeth the same to confusion, and shame, according to those words of the Psalm. 
Psalm. 76  Percussit inimicos suos in posteriora, opprobrium sempiternum dedit eyes. He striketh his enemies in the hinder parts (that is towards the end of their ruffle) and confoundeth them with everlasting shame. Which prophecy of the Psalmist is principally to be understood of heretical enemies, 
Tert. l de praes rip●. advers. haereses. Ep phan. cont. haer.  as Tertullian, Epiphanius & other ancient Fathers writing against them, do interpret, and the experience of like end in all heresies past doth make it plain.  
And this shame and confusion of heresies & heretics, 
Four confusions of heresies.  (which Gods providence doth here foretell, and in time also bringeth to pass so manifestly, as the whole world may be witness thereof) consisteth principally in four points, 
1. Division among themselves  as holy Fathers do note. First that every new sect, divideth itself quickly into many others sects and heresies, which S. Augustine showeth largely of the Arrians, 
Aug. lib. ●. cont epist. Parm. c. 4. & l. 1 de bapt. cont. Donat. c. 6.  and Donatists, and Staphilus, Lyndanus, and other writers of our time do show the same of Luther's sect, divided into so many sects & branches in so few years, as all the world seeth. And Stanislaus Rescius, a learned man of Polonian in his late book of the Atheisine, of haeretiks, showeth out of the writings of protestants themselves, that in the year 1596. when he wrote his book (which was but 4. years passed) that there were now extant in the world 270. different sects, all risen out of Luther's, from the year 1517. wherein Luther began. All which he declareth at length; & the reason of this so great multiplication is given by Tertullian in his book Of prescription against heretics above 1400. 
Tertull. ibid.  years past, saying: That for so much as every scholar of a sectary knoweth, that his master invented his opinions of his own head, he will invent also something himself, thereby to show that his wit is not inferior to that of his Masters. And hereby they come to such confusion in the end that one destroyeth the other. Whereof Luther himself is a good witness, when he writeth these words: 
Luth. Commēt●in Psa. 5.  Truly God doth not fight by any other means with heretics, then by permitting among them a certain seditious spirit of dissension, by which their overthrow also and perdition doth ensue. So he: who is a witness in this cause without exception as you know.  
The second reproach following sectaries is Contradiction to themselves, 
2. Contradiction of the Sects.  in their own writings and sayings, and shameful inconstancy in their doctrine. The reason whereof is, for that the said doctrine consystinge only in the invention, judgement, and memory of the sectary himself, that invented it, or chose to follow it, though invented by another, (for whatsoever they allege of scripture or other antiquity, must depend of their own new invented interpretation) of necessity it must follow, that as their talents, and wits, discourse or memory, do alter, change, or fail in time; so must the doctrine also thereof depending, be altered: And so either forgetting what they said in one time or place, or matter; or having altered their judgement or opinion upon some further reason, which then they saw not, they must needs come to say contrary to that they did before. In which kind of contradiction, some thousands have been noted by learned men in Luther himself; 
In varijs lib. de antilog. Lutheri.  & no marvel seeing he was the first of that sect, that invented new opinions daily. And the same is observed in Calvin's writings by Westphalus Hesshusius, and other Lutheran Protestant's, that wrote against him.  
The third confusion that followeth commonly upon heresy, 
3. Dissolution & Atheism following upon heresy.  is coldness & doubtfulness in Religion, and at length also plain atheism and contempt; and thereupon dissolution of life, neglect of conscience, and other suitable effects, which therefore among heretics principally do ensue. For that heresy calling into question, and shaking the very pillars and strongest means, whereby men remained assured before of their faith, to wit, the number, quality, and right understanding of holy scriptures, tradition of the Church, from whom we received them, the verity of Ecclesiastical stories, Christian miracles, authority of general councils, credit of ancient Fathers, and the like: and breaking down besides the hedges and walls, that were wont to be bulwarks to good life, as Confession, Restitution, Satisfaction, fasting, vowing, and other helps of that quality: this (I say) being once done (which is the proper work of heresy) a man runneth naturally into doubt & contempt of all; and consequently losing by little and little both fear and shame, giveth himself over easily to all licentious liberty, and sensuality of life, which the Apostle calleth Desperation. 
Rom. 1.   
And thus much of the cause of this third reproach; For as for the effect itself, to wit, that these fruits have followed in the world, since heresies came in, much more than ever before, I could allege both Luther himself, 
See, the story in both their lives the 17. of Febr. and 26. December.  and Erasmus Roterodavius, and other authors of most credit with Protestants testifying of their days: and as for England itself, the present knowledge & experience of thousands will bear me witness. Wherefore I mean to prosecute no further these first 3. reproaches following heresies and heretics, to witt● division among themselves, contradiction to themselves, and dissolution of life, or propension to Atheism; though for the Readers fuller instruction therein (if he understand the Latin tongue) I must needs give him notice of two famous books written of late of that argument, 
Two famous ●ookes.  by two excellent learned men of our time, & taken out of the works themselves of all the sectaries of this age. The one is of our countryman Master William Reynolds, 
M. Reynolds Caluino●turcismus.  once fellow of new-colledg in Oxford, & a Protestant Preacher, entitled Caluino● turcismus: that is of Calvin's Religion leading to turcism, or a comparison of Turkish Religion with Caluinisme. The other is of the aforesaid Polonian gentleman Stanislaus Rescius, Ambassador and Treasurer for his King in the Kingdom of Naples●, where his said work was printed 4. years passed as hath been said, to wit in the year 1596. and it is divided into two books, the title whereof is this: De Atheismis & Phalerismis Euangelicorum nostri temporis, libri duo: quorum prior de fide, 
Stanislaus Rescius de Atheismis.  posterior tractat de operibus eorum. Which in English is thus: Two books of the Atheisms, and Phalerismes (or cruelties) of the gospellers of our times, whereof the first treateth of their faith, the second of their works. This is the title, and I do assure the Reader, if he peruse them with attention and indifferency, he will remain informed by their reading, and not a little astonished, to behold what is there alleged out of the writings of Protestants themselves, and other authentical witnesses in this behalf.  
Of the other work of Master William Reynolds proving that Calvin's Religion is worse in condition, and less probable in reason, then that of the Turk, & hath less ground & substance therein, than the other: (for all this, and much more he declareth in this work) I shall not need to treat here, nor yet give notice of the book, for that it was written, & printed very lately in Flanders; & is (no doubt) or may be easily in England before this day; only I will add this of the judgement of strangers, to wit, that by testimony and asseveration of divers very learned men of other nations, there was never written a thing in that kind, and of such an argument more excellent in respect of the infinite variety of heretical books, which he showeth to have read, and well pondered, and for the many invincible reasons & demonstrations which he allegeth for his purpose. And so much of this.  
And now I will speak somewhat larger of the fourth reproach and shame accompanying commonly heretics and sectaries, 
The 4. reproach of heretics, or open lying.  and especially the heads and chief thereof that write books, which is counterfeiting, deceitful dealing, falsifying, and open lying; but principally in alleging antiquity for their purpose, whereof I have occasion by this present story of Plessis Mornay to say somewhat; and the accusation of ancient Fathers, 
Heretics called falsarij by ancient fathers.  that call heretics Falsarij, that is falsifiars, and corrupters of antiquity, occurreth every where in their books. So as the spirit of old heretics agreeth with this of our new, in this point, as well as in many others; and if we will consider the cause & necessities of this reproach in like manner, we shall find them no less evident or forcible than the former, for that sectaries pretending antiquity in their doctrine (for that otherwise it would have no credit), & finding all antiquity wholly against them (except only the antiquity of heretics and sectaries, which they dare not allege openly, (though they follow them) they are forced to fayne and forge somewhat of their own; as for example some of the ancient Fathers to be with them, or else should they remain without all show or colour of honest pretence. In which point notwithstanding, they do not agree among themselves: 
Luther & other sectaries denied all fathers at the beginning.  For that first Martin Luther their great Father forseeinge this difficulty, & not willing at the beginning to cast himself into these two troublesome labyrinths; first of shifting of by devised interpretations those manifold authorities of Fathers, that were to be brought against him, and then in finding out other Fathers in his own behalf; he took a more brief, and compendious way, which was to deny and contemn them all, for so he doth in very many places of his works, protesting at the very beginning almost of all his heresies, (to wit in the year 1521.) in an epistle written to a Germane knight, 
Luth. in epist ad equitem Germ. an. 1521.  that he was tied by the authority of no Father, though never so holy, if he were not approved by the authority of holy scriptures: whereof you must imagine himself world be judge. and addeth in the same place, that the father's writings were full of errors, contrary often to themselves, and disagreeing the one from the other, wresting scriptures; and the like.  
The same also he saith of councils in the same place, and in the next year after this, writing against K. Henry the 8. he saith: 
Luth. cont. Henr. Angl. Reg. an. 1522.  I do oppose against all the testimonies of fathers, of men never so holy, of Angels, and of devils, etc. Whereby we may see, what account he made of Fathers and councils, when they were against him. And the same did Zuinglius, Caluyn, and others after him for a time, when Father's authorities plainly were against them, and could not be shifted of, by sleight interpretation, as in their works appeareth: and Rescius declareth it notably and largely, by manifold examples, and places in his tenth Chapter, and first book aforesaid.  
But when this audacity grew in time to be very reproachful, some later followers of theirs blushing thereat, and desiring to exercise their wits in a higher kind of subtlety, 
A new device of later protestants about the fathers.  they betook themselves to a more plausible, but yet more shameful, and desperate course then these their masters, which was to say, that indeed the Fathers, and ancient writers were wholly for them, & not for us, as the philosopher, that would defend, that swow was black, & not white. And this course took first of all Peter martyr in the ●yeare 1549. and third of the reign of K. Edward the 6. as appeareth by Fox in the last edition of his 
* pag. 1549.  Acts and Monuments. And this perhaps Peter martyr was forced to do at that time, by commandment of B. Cranmer and others of the privy Counsel, who appointed his disputation for more authorizing of their new decree in Religion, scarce two months before agreed upon, & would perforce have the Fathers to be of their side. 
Peter Martyrs disputation in Oxford an. 1549.  But what success Peter martyr had in this attempt, it may appear sufficiently by the places themselves, which Fox allegeth for him out of ten or twelve several Fathers, whereof the Reader will scarce find one (though the said texts be briefly alleged) truly cited, in all respects; but that either the words next going before● or immediately following, or both (making wholly against them) are purposely left out, and others put in or mistranslated.  
And let any man who listeth examine the same, and confer them with the author's books themselves, he shall find this to be true. 
See these places examined part. 3. c. 19 & 20. & 21. of the Treatise of 3. counersions of England.  For I have examined them with some diligence myself, as upon some other occasion hereafter may chance appear, but now it were to long to allege them in this place; I mean the manifest falsifications therein used. But if any Protestant in defence of Peter martyr, and john Fox h●s honour, will take upon him to verify the same, and their quotations to be good, and without fraud; let him write a little pamphlet thereof (as easily he may, they being contained in less than one page) & he shall presently be answered: albeit if he do but set down the whole places themselves as they lie in the Father's books, whence they are cut, they will need no answer, but will answer themselves, and confute the alleager, and show the shameless dealing either of Peter martyr or john Fox, or of both, in citing them.  
The like deceitful dealing was used by Nicolas Ridley B. 
B. Ridley & Bucers' disputation in cambridge an. 1549.  then of Rochester and after of London, the next month following in the Cambridge disputation, about the same controversy of the real presence, whereof he being precedent (Martin Bucer refusing utterly to deal in that controversy) he affirmed to the whole university, 
Fox pag. 1261.  that he had five sure grounds for the opinion of Zuinglius, whereof the first was (to use his words) the authority, Majesty, and verity of holy scriptures; the second, the most certain testimonies of the ancient Catholic Fathers, etc. Whereas the truth is, that both these foundations are most evidently against him, as much the one as the other, which Bucer well known, & therefore would not take part with him in that matter, though soon after, to remedy this breach, he put up three other impertinent questions to be disputed against catholics; but in this other article, he know that Ridley lied shamefully against his own conscience, for that all Farthers are against him most evidently; & so do the Magdeburgians their chief Protestant Chroniclers show & declare in every age, 
The Magdeburgians refute Ridley's vaunt of fathers.  or century of their Ecclesiastical history. And it shallbe sufficient for the reader to cast his eye over the 4. Chapters only of every century, entitled of doctrine. And thus much for K. Edward's days, when Zwinglian Religion first peeped up in our country.  
After this man, stepped to Paul's Cross in the beginning of this Queen's days about the year 1559. and 1560. 
B. jewels hypocritical challenge at Paul's Cross an. 1560.  Master john jewel, otherwise called B. of Salisbury, and he proceeded yet further in this brag or fiction; For he protested there, even with feigned tears, that if any one authority, place, sentence, or asseveration of any one Father, Doctor, Council, or authentical history, within the first 600. years after Christ, could be brought forth by any man living for any one of those points of Catholic Religion which he there recited to be in controversy, that then plainly and sincerely he would subscribe. Against which vain and shameless brag, when Doctor Harding, and divers other learned men of our side, began to write from Lovayne, and to bring forth authorities of all Fathers, Doctors, councils, and histories in great abundance, the first effect of this challenge, that appeared to the world, was a severe proclamation, that no such books written in English by the Catholic party should be received or read in England, under great punishments, by which provision Master jewel thinking himself meetly well defenced, he plied the pulpit often, and renewed his challenges many times, and perceiving notwithstanding that Doctor Hardings' confutation was come into England, 
The meaning of M. jewels cha●̄lge.  he answered the same with a long volume of Rhetorical words, & stuffed the margins thereof with the show of infinite authors, as though the whole world had been for him and none for the other side; and with this he deceived the people then, and doth to this day, such I mean as have not commodity or learning, or other means to examine those places, and to find out the manifold lies and falsifications therein contained. And this was the gain by all likely hood that Master jewel pretended to his cause by that work, knowing full well, that this sort of men is far the greater, which would be gained and settled in his doctrine before the learneder sort (who are but few in comparison of the other) could have time, books, and commodity to discover & refute him, & when they should do it, they should hardly be believed.  
And in this conceit he was not deceived, if we respect that present time, and many years after, as also it is probable the L. Plessis Mornay had the like designment, in stuffing up his books with the like authorities of Fathers, but if we consider the continuance of time (whereof truth is said to be the daughter) it hath succeeded unto him, as you have heard, and will do more and more daily, as to such shifts is wont to happen, that is to say (according to King David's saying before recorded) ●ppr●brium sempiternum dedit eyes, 
Men converted by M. jewels book to be catholics.  God layeth everlasting shame upon them. For how many learned men lightly of our nation have taken upon seriously, to go over that book of Master jewels, & to examine it by the authors themselves with any indifferency of mind; have for the most part been thereby converted to Catholic Religion, though never so great Protestants before: of which sort I have heard relation of many, but of some I can testify myself, for that I have heard it from their own mouths, who of earnest Protestants were made most zealous Catholics by that means principally; of which number I think it not inconvenient to name here some 2. or 3. omitting others which for just respects may not to be named.  
The first of them is Sir Thomas Copley, 
The L. Coplcy and his conversion from protestancy.  made Lord afterward in his banishment by the K. of France, who often times hath related unto me, with much comfort of his soul, how that being a zealous Protestant and very familiar to the late Earl of Licester in the beginning of this Q. days, when Master jewels book was newly come forth, he being also learned himself in the Latyn tongue, took pains to examine certain leaves thereof, and finding many falsehoods therein, which were in excusable (as they seemed to him) he conferred the same with the said Earl, who willed him that the next time Master jewel dined at his table, he should take occasion after dinner to propose the same, which he did soon after; and receiving certain trifling answers from Master jewel, he waxed more hot, and urged the matter more earnestly: which jewel perceiving, 
M. jewels answer to the L. Copley.  told him in effect; That Papists were Papists, and so they were to be dealt withal, and other answer he could not get; which thing made the good Gentleman to make a new resolution with himself, and to take that happy course which he did to leave his country, and many great commodities, which he enjoyed therein, to enjoy the liberty of conscience, for salvation of his soul: and so he both lived and died in voluntary banishment for confession of that truth, which his Saviour by occasion of Master jewels falsehood, had revealed unto him.  
The second example, which I remember of my own knowledge, 
M. Doctor's Steuens.  is Master Doctor Steuens, a learned man yet alive, who being Secretary or Chaplyn to Master jewel (for I remember not well whether) and a forward man in Protestant Religion at that time, espied certain false allegations in his masters book, whilst it was yet under the print in London, whereof advertising him by letters (for that he supposed it might be by oversight) the other commanded notwithstanding the print to go forward, and passed it over as it was, which this man seeing, that had a conscience, and sought the truth indeed, resolved to take another way of finding it out: and having found it in the Catholic Church where only it was to be found, he resolved also to follow it, and so he did, and went voluntarily into banishment for the same, where yet he liveth unto this day in France, with good reputation both of learning and godliness.  
The third example that I call to mind, is the worthy man before named Master William Reynolds, 
M. William Reynolds.  who being first an earnest professor, and Preacher of Protestant Religion in England, and much engaged among the Puritans in Northamptonshire (as he was wont to tell) he fell in the end to read over masters jewels book, and did translate some part thereof into Latyn: but before he had passed half over, he found such stuff, as made him greatly mislike of the whole Religion, and so he leaving his hopes, & commodities in England went over the sea into these parts, and the last year of jubiley, to wit, 1575. he came to Rome, and brought that book with him, 
M. jewels book pretended to the tribunal of Inquisition in Rome.  and presented both himself and it, to the Tribunal of Inquisition of his own free motion and accord, where I guess the book remaineth still, if it be not burned: and himself after absolution received from his former errors (which he with great humility and zeal required, & myself also at that time spoke with him in that place) he returned into France, and Flanders, and there lived many years with singular edification for his rare virtue & learning; and how heartily indeed he was converted, may well appear by his zealous writing both in Latyn & English in defence of Catholic Religion, & in confutation of Protestant errors, which himself before had held for verities. And thus much of the falsehood of Master jewels wittings, whereof, he that will see more, let him read Master Hardings' return of untruths, but especially it would import him that hath learning, leisure and commodity, to examine the quotations themselves by a good library: but in this kind of false dealing, I can give Master jewel a companion as good as himself, if not exceeding him, which is john Fox, who above all that ever wrote perhaps, may be recorded for notorious in this behalf.  
I have had occasion these 
* This may appear by the Treatise of 3. conversions of England. set ●orth in three Tomes.  months past to peruse a great part of his last edition of Acts and Monuments, printed the fifth time in the year 1596. and do find it so stuffed with all kind of falsehood, and deceitful manner of telling tales, as I could never (truly) have believed it, if I had not found it by my own experience. And I do persuade myself fully (notwithstanding all his hypocritical words and protestations, which are more, and oftener repeated by him, then in all the writers together, that I have read in my life) that there is scarce one whole story in that huge volume, told by himself, except when he relateth other men's words out of records, and thereby is bound to the formality thereof, 
john Fox his f●lsifyinge.  but that it is falsified, and perverted one way or other, either in the beginning, middle, or end, by adding, cutting of, concealing, false translating, wrong citing, or cunning juggling and falsification, which I do not speak for any tooth against the man, that is dead, and whom I never knew, but in respect of truth only, and of so many deceived souls, as are in danger to perish by his deluding them. Nor when I speak of Master Fox his falsehoods, do I make account of any errors or oversights (though never so gross) that are found in him, as to reckon some for Martyrs that were alive at the making of his book: (for this he excuseth in his later edition, in that he was deceived by false informations) nor do I urge that others are made Calendar-martyrs by him, whom he cannot gainsay, but that they were malefactors, and some of them either 
* See the story of Collyns and Co●bridge 10 & 11. Octobris part. 1.  mad or denied Christ himself, and yet placeth he them in his Calendar, for Saints: These escaped (I say) are not here to be urged by me now, but rather in another place. The points that I for the present accuse him of, are wilful corruptions, and falsifications that cannot be excused: as among other things (and for examples sake) when he reciteth any point in controversy of the catholics doctrine, he putteth it down commonly in plain contrary words & sense, to that which he must needs know that they hold and teach, for so much as their public books are extant in every man's hands to testify the same.  
Of this kind, 
30. ●falsifications of Fox in two leaves.  a certain learned student of divinity, brought to me of late 30. places taken out of two only leaves of Fox his book, to wit, from the 12. to the 14. which I looking upon found them all most evident by conference of the Catholic authors alleged by the said student: and moreover, besides these thirty, I did discover so many other plain falsehoods, and manifest wilful lies, in those only two leaves, as might well 
* Now they are found to be quadruple to wit above ●20. See part. 3. cap. 22. of the Treatise of 3. conversions of England.  double the former number; and I do offer to prove them one by one, if any friend of john Fox will join issue with me upon this point. And then if by Arithmetic a man will multiply these lies & falsifications of two leaves only, with a thousand and more, which Fox hath in this last volume, and will add afterward to every two leaves so many falsehoods; the number will rise to so huge an account, as were a shame to set down; and would much surpass john Sley●ans Story in this kind (though he be the Protestants Protochronicler) out of which an eleven thousand lies were only gathered by the Catholic writers of Germany. 
Sleida● a great liar.  And this is so much as for the present seemeth needful to be said about this matter.  
The end of the relation; there followeth the defence.   

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

The Preface, concerning the authority of the Acts set forth in France.  
THE former relation being set down wholly and entirely as it was printed in the year 1600. (though somewhere more explained, and towards the end made s●orter) I am first to yield a reason in this place, why the passages or points accused of falsehood that were handled in the conference ensue not here, as they did in the former edition: whereof the cause is, for that those passages indeed, were never seen or viewed by the relator himself, but added only by a friend (as in the preface thereof is signified) according to his written copy received from Paris; which copy, though it agree in truth and substance, with the public Acts themselves, of that conference which afterward have been authentically 〈◊〉 forth, yet for that the points are not so clearly laid open, as some men perhaps would require, I have thought good to relate the same again in this my defence, out of the said Acts themselves.  
Concerning which Acts, you are to consider, that about some two or three months after the said conference at Fountayne-bleau, 
The occasion of publishing the Acts.  that is to say in the month of August whereas this conference was made upon the fourth of May in the same year 1600. the catholics remaining quiett and content with the victory of truth, that had fallen out in their favour, Monsieur Plessis and his Hugonote Ministers, having departed and broken up the said conference, in the manner and sort which a little after you shall hear, and finding themselves extremely gauled, with so dishonourable an event; resolved for some remedy, to set forth a certain discourse in French without name of the Author, the Title hereof was. A true discourse of the conference held at Fountayne-bleau, 
Discourse veritable. etc. Acts fol. 100L.  etc. In which discourse they endeavoured to handle three things, First touching the history of matters passed therein, carping bitterly here and there both at the King, and Chancellor and other Assistants & judges, as disfavourable and partial in many points against them and their cause, which is refuted by the defender (to wit and B. of Eureux himself) by the public Acts and records of the conference and be the depositions of 200. persons as presently you shall hear him affirm.  
Secondly they devised, 
See Athanas. in his Apologyes● and S. Aug● 〈◊〉 Breviculo.  upon better deliberation, new defences for the points wherein they had been condemned in the conference, as both the Arrians did after the Council of Nice, wherein they were condemned, and the Donatists after their conference with the catholics at Carthage, and as every man condemned at our English bars would do, if they might have replies allowed them, after their condemnations. The third point of evasion used by them is, recrimination, that is to say, to show that others also do falsify besides them, and have used fraud in their quotations, which though it were true (as in the particulars objected, is showed by the defender that they are all false) yet were it no honourable defence as each man will confess. And this is the sum of that discourse, and the confutation thereof.  
Now then for so much as Plessis, and his friends had published this false discourse; it was thought good by the K. & his Council upon request of the catholics, that the authentical Acts of the said conference, and all particularityes passed therein, and taken fourth by several public notaries appointed for that purpose before hand, and one of them of the new religion, should be examined anew, upon the depositions as well of the said notaries, as also of 200. more, and so published to the world, which was done, and the whole presented to the K. by the B. of Eureux upon the 29. of August in the same year 1600. which epistle, for that it is short & very substantial, I have thought good to relate here for a foundation of all that is to ●ollow, & for credit of the Acts themselves. Thus than he writeth to the King himself that was present, and an eye-witness of all.   

To the King.  
Sire.  
I would never have believed, 
The letters of the B of Eureux to the K. of France 29. Aug. an. 1600.  that so public & renowned an action, as that of the conference at Fountayne-bleau, represented in one of the most illustrious theatres of the world, and adorned with the presence of your Majesty, of so many Princes & officers of the crown, counsellors of Estate, and other Lords & nobles of great mark; could have been called in question, or that any man could have been found, that will dare to take upon him to pervert, or disguise the known verity thereof, for which cause I have abstained hitherto to write any thing of that matter, least by publishing my private testimony thereof, I should seem to enfeeble the depositions of 200. persons of more authentical credit than mine own: but yet seeing now that Monsieur du Plessis contrary to the saith and witness of so many eyes & ears, as were there present, and contrary to the testimony both of the mouth and pen of your Majesty, hath cast forth into the field a certain new discourse, wherein by his eloquence of Pe●icles, he will needs go about to persuade those that were present at the Conference, contrary to that which they saw, and those that were absent contrary to that which so credibly they have heard: I have thought convenient by your majesties permission, to lend him the pains of a few days labour for setting forth the true description of the fact itself, as it passed, and thereby to dissolve all his cunning illusions, and enchantments.  
Wherefore, Sovereign Lord, I do offer heer● unto your Majesty the simple verity of the history as she lieth in the Acts in her natural white habit, without colours or paintings, most humbly beseeching your highness, that you will vouchsafe to see the same, or cause it to be seen and examined by such, of whose wisdom & gravity your Majesty standeth most assured; and if it shallbe found to be such, as here I do qualify it, that then permission may be given to publish the same for a faithful image and representation to posterity, of that which there fell out. And if Monsieur du Plessis do hold himself content with that which passed in this conference, he hath in his hands other 52. articles to be examined as the remnant of those 60. which were agreed upon for the first Conference, from which he departed without bidding any man fare well, and hath had time enough since that to study better upon them: I for my part am ready to give him the same exercise upon the said articles, as I did upon the other 9 handled at Fountain bleau, and after these ended to come to the other that do remain of the 500 falsifications, which I have bound myself to prove against him; and so much the more willingly would I pass to the examination of those other articles; by how much more grave the authors are, and the matters more important, & his depravations more enormous than those we have handled as chosen out by himself, and in the mean space I shall lift up my hands to heaven, & pray almighty God to continue his grace towards your Majesty from better to better, and to establish his Kingdom together with yours, etc. At Condie this 29. of August. 1600.  
This was the letter and request of the B. of Eureux for examination and publishing of the Acts; whereunto the K. agreeing, committed the revew thereof unto certain of his counsel, which had been present at the said conference, and finding the same to be sincere, and true in all respects, as his Majesty testifieth, gave order for the publication thereof by his letters patents, signed at Lions in France the 22. of December 1600.  
Wherefore out of these acts, as most true and authentical, I shall frame this my defence, though very briefly, against the extravagant overlashing of O. E. in his answer, who saith & denieth at his pleasure without authority, wyttnesse, reason, or probability, as after shall appear by that which ensueth.    

WHAT IS CONTAINED MORE IN PRINT ABOUT THE fact itself of the Conference had at Fountayne-bleau, then is comprehended in my former Relation,  
CHAP. I.  
FOR that my brief narration before recited, was founded only upon certain letters sent from Paris to Rome presently after the conference had, as by perusing thereof you have seen, and my purpose also was to be very brief; I could not set down so many particularities, as these acts do now represent: yet do I find that whatsoever I related before, is now confirmed again by these acts, and divers things added, whereof some principal I shall here touch in few words, citing the leaf of the said Acts, wherein they may be read more largely. The title of the said Acts is this: Acts de la conference tenue, etc. Acts of the conference held between the L. Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis in presence of the King at Fountayne-bleau, the fourth of May 1600. published by the permission and authority of his Majesty, etc. the same year 1600. And thus much of the title, now to the contents.  
The first occasion of this combat, 
The first occasion of the conference Act. fol. 1.  set down in these Acts is, that upon the 20. day of March anno 1600. a great noble man of Normandy named, Lord Sainct-Mary du Mont, a Protestant at that time, but soon after converted, meeting with Monsiear Plessis at the lodging of the Lady Princess of Orange in Paris, told him how he was cried out of every where about the falsifications found in his book lately printed against the Mass, & that himself had seen some showed unto him by the B. of Eureux which he could not solve. hereupon Monsieur Plessis thinking himself touched greatly in honour, did judge it the best way to make a public Challenge to the said B. of Eureux, which he wrote and gave abroad the very same day, and the L. Sainct-Mary sent one of them presently to the B. whereunto he made answer, accepting of his Challenge, upon the 25. of March, which letters before I 
* Supra cap. 3.  have alleged; and soon after the said Bishop thinking yt convenient to print and publish the same, did so, and sent a copy thereof to the King, together with a letter of his own hand of the 28. of March, wherein amongst other words he saith thus: I do send unto your Majesty a Challenge of Monsieur Plessis made about the examen of his allegations in his book against the Mass, 
The B. of Eureux letter to the king. Act. fol. 5.  together with my answer to the same. I should be unworthy to serve so great and noble a King, and of so high courage at your Majesty is, if I should refuse such a Challenge, especially in a quarrel that may be ended without blood, and tend much to the glory of almighty God, and to the salvation os him that shallbe overcome, and therefore I do most humbly beseech your Majesty to permit this trial, etc.  
hereupon Monsieur Plessis understanding that the B. had written to the King, he wrote also another to his Majesty to the same effect, & returned likewise an 
* Supra cap. 4.  answer to the Bishop, shewing himself willing to go forward in the said trial, but with divers exceptions and diversions, as in the said letter appeareth, which we have related before. The King having received these letters from both parties, and conferred the same with his Counsel, resolved to permit the trial demanded, as also to be present theratt himself, and so gave order to the L. Chancellor of France upon the second of April, to warn the parties to prepare themselves, and to be ready for the beginning of the next month with all provision necessary for that Trial.  
In the mean space the Pope's Nuntius that lay in Paris hearing of an appointment for trial of matters in Religion, began to make some difficulty to permit any such public act, appertaining to the universal cause of Christendom, without licence and approbation of the Sea Apostolic, and proof of the persons that must dispute, alleging that it was a thing inconvenient to lay the credit of so great and general a cause of Religion upon the learning of any particular man whatsoever, 
No general dispute of Religion to be permitted without approbation of the supreme Pastors● Acts fol. 8. 9 10.  without necessity. But when he was answered by the B. and after by the K. himself, and others, that their meaning was not to dispute of controversies, but only to examine places cited by Monsieur Plessis whether they were truly and faithfully calleaged or no? and that this should be set down and observed as the first law of this conference, the Nuntius was satisfied, and so the day was appointed, his Majesty commanding expressly, that the conference should be made with all sweetness and courtesy, etc.  
So in the mean space divers things were set in order necessary for that conference, as namely for choosing the judges on both sides, and principal assistance without all partiality, to wit, learned, wise and grave men, to the end that all might pass with indifferency, love, and charity, as much as might be; & namely for the catholics, was chosen the precedent of Tou, a great learned man, upright & constant, and a near kinsman and friend to Monsieur Plessis. 
The judges & deputies chosen for ●oth sides.  The second was Monsieur Pitheu, advocate in the Court of Parliament of Paris a man both grave and generally well learned, and a ●amiliar friend also to Monsieur Plessis. The third was Monsieur le Feure Master of the Prince of Condie. And on the other side were named the Precedent Calignon, chancellor of Navarre, and the Lord de Fresne Canaye precedent of the Chamber of Parliament appointed for them of the new Religion in Languidoc, and Monsieur Cazaubon Reader of his Majesty in Paris, all earnest, learned and judicious Protestants.  
The K. departed from Paris the 21. of April to Fountain bleau to hold there the conferennce, leaving order with the L. Chancellor, that the next week following, he with the rest of the judges and deputies should follow, and bring the B. of Eureux with them; & so they did, arriving at Fountayne-bleau the 27. of April, and the next day arrived also Monsieur Plessis, 
A new Memorial of Plessis containing 4. points for new delays.  but brought no books with him, saying that he had not been warned to do so, and so the next day after that again, he presented a new petition to the King in writing by the Chancellor asking 4. things, which his Majesty caused presently to be conferred with the B. & to take his answer thereunto. The first was that whereas the B. had given out● that he had observed above 4000 falsifications in his book Against the Mass, and thereby infamed the same, that it might be examined page by page, 
Act. pag. 13. 14. 15. 16.  and leaf by leaf, as before he had demanded, but the B. refused this for the same reasons which he had alleged before in his 
* Supra cap. 3.  letter to Monsieur Plessis, principally for that it was but a refuge to draw out time, he well knowing that it would never be ended.  
The second demand was, that all such places of his book, as the B. did not accuse of falsity, might be esteemed as allowed and approved after this conference. But this also the B. said was no reason, for that perhaps other men would find other faults in other places, which he had not examined, and that after these first 500 now objected, were examined, he offered to be bound to go over his whole book, page by page, and line by line as Plessis desired.  
The third petition was, that if this might not be granted, that at least the Bishop would give him in writing, the first 500 places, that he had noted together with his proofs, against the same, and that he might have time to examine them before hands, to cut of long disputes before his Majesty. But to this the Bishop answered in like manner, that if he did so, the other would ask so much time to examine them, as he would delude this conference now appointed. Wherefore he offered, that if the present trial might go forward, he would send him 50. places the day before to provide himself for the first day, and so 50. the next day, for the second conference, and so forth for 10. days together, until all the 500 were examined.  
The fourth demand was, that the same order might be held in examining his book, which he had held in writing the same, to wit beginning from the first part thereof, etc. But this also the Bishop refused, saying that it was only a shift, for that Plessis commonly had handled only light points in the first part of his book, whereon it was no reason to stand and lose time, but rather as an accuser he might begin where he would, and that Plessis was bound to answer him: yet for the last upshott & to end all, he offered the King, to give the whole 500 places presently into his majesties hands in writing, & so to take them from him every day by 50. at once, to be examined in ten days, as is afore said, and after this he said, he would bind himself to remain a whole month with him in Paris or else where he should think best, to examine the rest of the 4000  
After this upon the second day of May all the judges and comissaryes being now arrived (except the Precedent Calignon, that remained sick in Paris) Monsieur Plessis gave up another Memorial to the King, requiring yet once again, that the Bishop would give him in writing the 500 places gathered against him, or at least ways deliver them up into the hands of the judges, 
Another delay sought by petition of Monsieur Plessis to the king.  with commission that if this conference were broken of, they should deliver them into the hands of the said Plessis, and that during the conference, they should deliver him only 50. a day. Whereupon the King calling the Bishop into his great gallery in the presence of the Chancellor, and of Monsieur Rosny precedent of the finances, as also of the precedent of Tou, Cazaubon, and others, asked him why he would not yield to this demand; whereunto he answered as before, saying that this was but a new delay, thereby to get into his hands the whole 500 places, and then to seek to answer them rather by writing, then by present conference, which he might break of by divers occasions, 
Acts fol. 21.  if once he were sure to have thereby the places into this hands, and therefore he desired his Majesty to admit no further delays now, but that the appointed trial might go forward, which being once ended, he promised most faithfully, that he would stay to examine the whole book, as long as his Majesty should appoint, or Plessis desire.  
Whereupon the Lords present as well Protestants as catholics said, that the Bishop had good reason in his answers to Plessis his demands, and thereupon the Chancellor was commanded by the King to go & pronounce this arrest unto the said L. Plessis, and that if he would not go forward, 
Monsieur Plessis threatened by the king.  as he had promised, his Majesty would take another course, & proceed to the examination of his book in his absence, 
Acts fol. 17. 18.  which message the Chancellor having done, Plessis answered, that he could not accept of it; whereat the Chancellor told him, that he should look well to his credit, for that if he should be found to be a falsifier in matters of divinity, & his book condemned in his absence, it would be a great shame unto him, whereunto the other replayed, that he had rather it should be condemned unjustly in his absence, then in his presence, which answer being carried to the K. by the Chancellor, his Majesty commanded that the examine should begin that very afternoon, 
Acts fol. 22.  at three of the clock; but after upon other business that fell out, it was deferred until the next day at 7. of the clock in the morning, which determination of the K. being known, there was great dealing with his Majesty by divers of the pretended Religion, that the matter should not go forward, and new articles & demands were proposed in the behalf of Monsieur Plessis; and namely two noble men Protestants named Castelnau & Chambaret, as also the precedent Fresne Canay chief deputy of their side, took in hand to deal between the King, Plessis & the Bishop, & after many goings & comings, messages, answers & replies, 
A new agreement about the conference.  it was agreed, that the B. should give him presently 60. places in writing of the 500 promised, to prepare himself for the next day, which the Bishop did, & out of those 60. Plessis chose 19 which seemed to him most defensible, with which he went to the King, protesting as followeth: Sir, of the 60. 
Acts fol. 26.  passages sent me by the Bishop of Eureux, I have had time only to examine and verify 19 and of these I will lose my honour, 
An hypocritical protestation.  and life, if he find one false. I shall prove myself this day before your Majesty, to be another manner of man, than he esteemeth me. These were his words. Which being heard, the King sent presently for the Bishop, and gave him the list of the 19 places, which Plessis had chosen to defend, which list when the Bishop had read, he told the King & the deputies, that stood present with him that he found deceitful dealing in every point, for that these 60. places being gathered in haste and tumultuously, 
A new shift of Plessis in choosing out 19 places.  as his Majesty knew himself, in less than half an hours space by his commandment, out of certain loose papers, where above 800. corruptions were noted of Monsieur Plessis, and put together as they lay in order, he had chosen to defend them, not as they stood in the Catalogue, but by particular election, to wit the 27. 39 44. 50. 53. 56. etc. And whereas there were most of the ancient fathers named in this list as corrupted by him, & only two schoolmen among the rest for example sake, to wit Scotus and Durandus, he had gui●fully placed them in the first rank of his 19 placed to begin withal, as captains of the rest thereby to disauthorize the whole conference, and to weary the hearers, as though the chief moment of the trial had been about Scotus and Durandus. 
The K. great moderation.  The K. answered that it should be good to give contentment to Plessis, and those of his party, wherein it might be; for which cause he said further, as before, that he desired this conference might pass with all quietness possible, and that the Bishop should abstain as much as he could from using the word false or falsification, and other such like, as might be offensive, for that his intent was to pacify, and gain men by this trial, and not to exasperate. And the same he said also unto the Lords deputies there present, requiring them, that if they should see any man wax into bitterness & choler, they should restrain him, & seek to end all with good words and substantial matter.  
After dinner about one of the clock, the said conference was begun in presence of his Majesty, and of a great number of the chief nobles of France, which were long to name; for before the K. 
The K. & nobles how they sat in the conference.  sat the L. Chancellor and the deputies of both parties before named; and at his right hand sat the Archbishopp of Lions and sundry other bishops, and on his left hand the 4. secretaries of State, & behind the King sat the Princes, namely the Dukes of Vaudemont, Nemeurs, Mercury, Dumayne, Nivers, Elbeuse, Aignilon, januile, and others, and after them again the officers of the crown, Counsellors of State. and others of the nobility, and about 200. other hearers within the chamber, & above 500 in a gallery and garden without, expecting the resolution from passage to passage, whereof there were many Protestants and divers Ministers of the new Keligion.  
All being set, the L. Chancellor made first a brief speech, confirmed afterward by the King himself, that the meaning of this meeting was to try out the truth of certain allegations, that were called in controversy in the L. Plessis book, and not to dispute of any article of Religion at all; to which effect also the Bishop had a brief speech, alleging the example of Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage, 
Vict. de Vtic. lib. 2. de Persetut. Vand.  who being required by Hunnericus King of the Vandals in Africa, to dispute with the Arrians, he refused the same without consent of other bishops, and especially, of the B. of Rome as head of all. Monsieur Plessis also, made a very short preface, saying that as he had written his books with intent to do God service for the reformation of his Church, and would think himself happy, 
L. Plessis speech & protestation.  if he could help any thing therein: so was he so far of from all intention of wilful falsifying, that if he knew his right hand to have done it, he should be the first to burn the same. He made mention again, and showed grief, 
Acts fol. 31.  that 4. thousand places should be noted, as falsified by him in his book, and finally protested, that howsoever it succeeded with him, his cause was particular, and touched not the reformed Churches in France, which were before him, and would be after him, etc.  
The B. repeated again the matter of 4000 places corrupted, and offered to stand unto it, and to verify them as well, as those 500 new agreed upon, and repeated again briefly the whole story of this action, and how guilfully Plessis had proceeded in culling out 19 places only of 60. offered him, and of these had put in the first rank Scotus and Durand two schoolmen, about the controversy of the Sacrament, 
The bishops real dealing.  leaving out other places of S. Cyprian, S. Cyrill, S. Chrisostome, & other ancient Fathers, objected to have been corrupted by him in the very same controversy of the real presence amongst the number of these three score: which fraud, to the end the judges and deputies might see and behold, he laid down upon the table that stood before them the whole Catalogue of the said 60. places sent the day before to Plessis: which being done, the King commanded the four secretaries of the crown, to write only the conclusions and judgements that should be given, and not the whole speeches, for it would be overlong. and so the conference began, the B. saying at the opening of the first book Domine labi● mea aperies. & os meum annunciabit laudem tuam. Monsieur Plessis also prayed briefly with his hat before his face, etc.   

OF NINE PLACES EXAMINED IN THIS FIRST days conference, and how they were all judged by sentence of the deputies to have been corrupted by Monsieur Plessis.  
CHAP. II.  
IN this first days conference, which endured 6. hours, there could be examined only 9 places of the 19 which Plessis had chosen to defend, of which nine also the first two by his art and fraud, (as in the former Chapter hath been seen) were of 2. schoolmen, or scholastical writers, Scotus, and Durandus, which being only named for example sake by the B. of Eureux in his catalogue of 60. places, (but yet after many more important than they of the ancient Fathers) which Plessis thought good to thrust back, 
How Scotus & Durandus came to be the first in ●●iall.  all the said ancient Fathers and namely S. Cyprian, S. Cyrill of jerusalem, S. john Christostome and others cited in the same controversy, and many more in other questions, & to advance forward to the first & second places of trial the said Scotus and Durandus, thinking thereby partly to weary his Majesty & the audience, and to make the conference loathsome and contemptible, by so base a beginning; partly also presuming, that he might more easily trifle out the time in wrangling about these, as he did a whole hour about the first place only of Scotus, and would have done the whole day, if he might have been permitted, but the Bishop discovering this fraud unto the auditory, showed withal, that his deceit and false dealing was all one in corrupting mean authors as the best, and greatest, & therefore that it was not so much to be considered by the judges what the writer was that was falsified, but how much, & with how great fraud he is falsified. And with this they passed to the particulars.  

The first place examined out of Scotus about the real presence.  
This preamble being made, the B. began to read out of Plessis book pag. 869. according to his foresaid edition in 4. printed at Rochel by Hierome Hautin, these words out of Scotus, about the Sacrament of the Altar. 
Act. fol. 34.  john Duns (saith he) called Scot, almost 100 years after the Council of Lateran, was not afraid to call in question, if the body of Christ be really contained under the species, or accidents (of bread) and he disputeth that it is not, and his arguments are, for that the quantity doth not permit it, nor yet the locality and circumscription annexed to the nature of a true body, such a one as Christ had, etc. Thus he. And then for proof he quoteth in the margin. Scotus upon the 4. book of Sentences dist. 10. quaest. 1.  
Out of which place the B. did infer two wilful and malicious deceits of Plessis, 
Two impostures.  the first that he would make his Reader believe, that Scotus, & the rest of the Schoolmen when they propose any matter to be disputed to and fro, do doubt of the truth thereof, which is a most absurd imposture, for so he might say also, that they doubt whether God be God, or whether God can create any thing, for that they put this question. 
Scot 2. sent. dist. 1. q. 2.  Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare? whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothing? and presently it ensueth by way of objection: Videtur quod non: it seemeth that it cannot be: But after all arguments ended, they resolve that it is so, to wit, that there is a God, and can create things of nothing, and do solve all the arguments alleged by themselves to the contrary. And so doth Scotus in this matter setting down his full determination in these words: Dic● quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè, realiter, 
Scot in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1.  est simpliciter de substantia fidei: I do say that it is simply a substantial article of our faith, to believe that Christ's body, is truly & really there, under these accidents. And he proveth the same by two places of scripture, to wit Math. 26. where Christ saith: This is my body, and john. 6. where he saith: My flesh is truly food. This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proved to have used in alleging Scotus against his own meaning, discourse, and resolution.  
The second is, for that he saith, that Scotus arguments against the real presence, were the quantity, locality, and circumscription annexed to a true body; whereas these are not arguments of Scotus, but of heretics refuted by Scotus, as appeareth by himself in the same places, where he addeth also these words: If heretics would expound the foresaid words of Christ: 
Scot ibid.  This is my body, to be understood figuratively, it is quite against the intention of our Saviour. These 2. corruptions then, being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus, and showed that they could not be of ignorance, but of wilful malice to deceive the reader, 
The first shift of Plessis to defend his impostures.  Plessis was sore pressed, but yet had devised a certain way of some kind of escape, if it may be called an escape, and not rather a greater entanglement, which was to say, that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the real presence, but rather of the manner of Christ's body being there, to wit, by Transubstantiation, and for that respect he named the Council of lateran in his speech, which Council first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation: But the Bishop showed this to be a very sleight evasion, 
Concil. Lateran. ●an. 1.  for that the Council of Lateran determined as well the article of the real presence, as of Transubstantiation, as appeareth in the said Council, and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other. And finally that Plessis words before recited are plain enough without a commentary, that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no, under the ●ormes of bread & wine, yea & to dispute that it was not, which words do speak plainly, as you see, of the reality. So as these shifts, are but a new abusing of the Reader.  
And as for the places he would seem to allege out of Scotus, as somewhat sounding against Transubstantiation, it was told him first, that it was from the purpose, for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the real presence; and secondly that these other places made no more for him, than the former, but wholly against him, and so it was proved by reading and examining publicly the said places, wherein there was an hour spent. And the Bishop perceiving that Plessis desired to draw out the time, urged the deputies to give sentence upon the falsisication of the places alleged, which they differred to do, until the next place of Durand was examined, for that they understood the case was in a manner all one, or much like in both schoolmen: And so it was in deed, 
The sentence against Plessis.  for that in both of them you shall hear the sentence given afterward, that Plessis had taken the objection for the resolution, which was a great a disgrace, 
Act. fol. 52.  if you mark it, as could be to such a man, that presumed to understand what he read.   

The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation.  
The next place of the 19 chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined, was out of Durandus, Plessis his words as they lie in his book pag. 870. are rhese: Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor, 
Act. fol. 46.  hath these words in his 4. book upon the sentences dist. 11. To the contrary (saith he) supposing the substances of bread and wine (after the consecration) do remain; there ensucth thereof but one difficulty, and this neither very great nor indissoluble, to wit, that two bodies remain together (under the same accidents) but if you put the contrary (to wit that there is Transubstantiation) there ensue more difficulties, that is to say, how those species or accidents (without their substance) can nourish or be corrupted, and how any thing can be generate thereof, seeing all generation is of matter or substance, & therefore it seemeth that we ought to stick rather to the first way, (to wit against Transubstantiation, etc. So he.  
Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceitful dealing as before in Scotus, 
A dishonourable imposture.  or rather more plain and evident, and consequently more wicked and dishonourable to him, for that all these words here alleged out of Durandus are not his own, but the words of others that do object the same, which he dissolveth afterward, when he hath put down his own sentence in these words: Primum est dicendum, 
Purand. sent. li. 4. dist. 11. q. 1.  quod substantia panis & vini convertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi. First we must say and hold (notwithstanding the former objections & arguments to the contrary) that the substance of bread and wine, are turned into the substance of the body of Christ. This is his resolution, quite contrary, to that which Plessis would have him seem to hold. And then having set down this resolution according to the common faith of the Catholic Church, he passeth to answer the former objection, saying to the former argument to the contrary (about difficulties): we must answer, that in those things that appertain unto faith, we must not always choose that which seemeth (to human sense) to have less difficulties; 
Durand. ibid.  but we must hold that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers, and to the tradition of the Church. So Durand.  
Which words being recited in the hearing of all, you must imagine in what a pitiful plight poor Plessis was, to see one man look upon another, and either smile or bite their lips at such manifest gross trumpery; but yet necessity made him take heart, & to adventure a new evasion, saying, that albeit this were but an objection in Durand, yet it seemed to him such an objection, as might hold the place of a resolution, if the authority & decision of the Church had not withheld him. And for proof of this, he would needs cite divers other places out of Durand, where he saith; that if God would he could have made his body to be in the Sacrament, together with the substance of bread without Transubstantiation, and that it should be temerity to hold the contrary: but the Bishop refuted this presently as impertinent matter, and nothing to the purpose to help his cause: For albeit Durand did hold, that God out of his omnipotency might have appointed it so if he would, that both substances, (to wit both of his body & bread) should have been together; yet did he it not so de fact●, as Durand proveth out of his own words, when he said of bread, this is my body, etc. 
Math. 19  It was noted also that in the end of the first text alleged by Plessis out of Durand, the words in vulgar were: Therefore the first way is to be followed, whereas the true words of Durand in Latyn were, 
Plessis taken in two falfityes at once.  ergo (ut videtur) primum est eligendum: therefore (as it seemeth) this first way is rather to be chosen: so as Plessis of purpose left out the words (ut videtur) that it might not seem (as it was) an objection, but rather a resolution, which was another trick of unfaithful dealing.  
Well then after all texts read at large, and examined by the judges, when Plessis would have cavilled yet further & drawn out the time, as he did in the former place of Scotus; the B. desired the K. that the law of this trial might be observed, and sentence given upon the matter itself already proposed, without further excursions, whereupon the King willed the deputies to give sentence, which they did by the Chancellor, after he had asked every man's voice in particular, and the sentence was in these words in French. 
The sentence of the first two places.  Que le Sieur de Plessis avoit pris la objection pour la resolution. That the L. Plessis had taken the objection (in Scotus and Durand) for the resolution. And this was the end of this second trial, with shame enough, you may imagine, to him that professed more learning, then to be deceived in such a matter, if he had not listed to have been both deceived and to deceive.   

The third place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about Prayer to Saints.  
After the former two places of Scotus and Durand dispached, 
Acts of the conf. fol. 52.  the third chosen by Monsieur Plessis, to be defended, was out of S. Chrysostome, in his homily, upon the first of Saint Paul's epistles to the Thessalonians, where handling those words of jeremy the Prophet: 
jerem. 15.  If Moses and Samuel stood before me, my affection should not be unto this people, etc. Plessis saith, that whereas the Papists do allege this saying of the Prophett to prove prayer unto Saints, S. Chrysostome draweth a quite contrary conclusion from thence, his words are these pag. 537. of his book against the Mass: S. Chrysostome doth draw from these words of the Prophett a quite contrary conclusion, 
Chrysost. ● hom prima in 1. 〈◊〉. Thessaly.  to wit that we must not rest ourselves upon the prays of Saints, but must work our salvation (as S. Peter saith) in fear and trembling. etc.  
Out of which allegation of S. Chrysostome the Bishop did show, and plainly declare, that Plessis had depraved S. Chrysostom's meaning, for that he did not infer any such conclusion at all against prayer to Saints, but manifestly the contrary in these words in the very same place, saying for his conclusion after a long discourse: These things then being so (as we have showed) we must neither neglect the prayer of Saints for us, 
Chrysost. ibid.  nor yet put all our hope therein, for that the one would deprive us of great succours, the other would make us idle and neglect. Wherefore we must pray to them, to make intercession, and hold up their hands for us, and we of our part must live virtuously.  
These are the words of S. Chrysostome truly alleged, which do evidently show, that Plessis did notoriously corrupt both S. Chrysostome his words and meaning in his foresaid allegation: 
Two impostures of Plessis.  his words, in that he affirmeth S. Chrysostome to say: that we must not rest ourselves upon the prayers of Saints: which he doth not say, but that, we must not put all our hope therein. Secondly he leaveth out those words of S. Chrysostome, where he exhorteth us to pray unto Saints, and to live virtuously. He corrupteth also S. Chrysostom's meaning, for that he enforceth upon him the quite contrary conclusion, to that which he maketh, to wit, that we must not pray to Saints at all, whereas S. Chrysostome saith, we ought to pray to Saints, & not to deprive ourselves of so great a succour.  
here Plessis was in a great brack again, & could not tell which way to wind himself out, yet two leaps he gave, but neither did serve his turn. 
Two vain leaps of Plessis to get out of the brack.  The first was, by saying, that his intention was not to set down Saint Chrysostom's words formally as they lay in the text, for that his discourse was long, and endured for divers pages, but only to put down the some thereof. But this was beaten back by the B. ask him first, why then he set down those words in a different letter, as proper words of S. Chrysostome? Secondly, why he left out Saint Chrysostom's true words before recited, and put in other of his own, of a contrary sense? Thirdly why he changed, & falsified Saint Chrysostom's whole meaning, drift, and conclusion, as hath been showed; and finally he told him, that albeit S. Chrysostom's discourse were large in expounding the foresaid verse of jeremy the Prophett; yet was his conclusion about praying to Saints very short, and uttered in no more words than before was set down; so as this helped him nothing.  
His second skip therefore was to say, that S. Chrysostome in this place spoke of praying to live Saints only, and not to dead Saints, but the Bishop replied, that albeit this were true (as it appeareth evidently to be false by the examples of David and job, whom Saint Chrysostome there nameth) yet that this relieved him and his falsehood nothing at all: For if he spoke of live Saints only, then could not Plessis draw an argument from that his speech against the Catholic use of praying to Saints deceased; 
Plessis concluded by the B. and sentence given against him.  and if he spoke of dead Saints, or both of dead and living, then doth he confirm the Catholic use, & not impugn the same, as Plessis would have made his reader believe. And howsoever it be, the Bishop urged, that he was here convinced of divers falsehoods, and so required sentence, whereupon the judges commanded two several Greek texts of S. john Chrysostome to be brought of divers impressions, the one at Heidelberge, the other at Verona, & confering them together, found the Father's words to be just as before they have been set down by us, and falsified by Plessis in his book, and therefore after every man's opinion required, & conferred among themselves, the Chancellor pronounced in all the deputies names in these words: Que le Si●ur du Plessis auoit obmis en ce passage ce que y deuoit estre mis. that is to say: That the Lord Plessis had left out in this passage, that which ought to have been put in: which in effect, is to call him a falsifier in good and honourable terms. And so much of this place.   

The fourth place examined out of S. Chrysostome, about prayer in like manner to Saints.  
The fourth place was another of S. Chrysostome about the same argument of praying to Saints cited falsely by Plessis in the 574. page of his book against the Mass, where he maketh S. Chrysostome to speak thus against praying to Saints: Chrysostome 
Chrysost. hom. 5. in Math.  (saith he) seemeth to have attempted the overthrow of this abuse assaulting the fundament thereof by all occasions, for so much as he saw, that the people did think more how to help themselves by suffrages of others, then how to amend their lives; wherefore he did endeavour to batter this opinion; saying we are much more assused by our own suffrages then by the suffrages of others; and God doth not so soon grant our salvation at the prayers of others, 
Acts fol. 58.  as to our own prayers, for so he took pity of the woman of Cananaea, and gave pardon to the adulteress, and paradise to the thief without being moved with intercession of any advocate or mediator, etc.  
Out of which words, besides that which was before objected upon the precedent place, the B. accused Monsieur Plessis, that he had dealt fraudulently also in citing these words, for that he had cut of the very next words ensuing, which made against him, & declared plainly S. Chrysostom's whole meaning, to wit: And this we say (saith S. Chrysostome) 
Chrysost. ibid.  not to the end we should not make our prayers or supplications unto Saints, but that we should not thereby become slothful in doing also for ourselves. To which charge Monsieur Plessis answered, that Chrysostome in this place did not speak of dead Saints, but of living Saints, for proof whereof, he alleged certain conjectural reasons, 
Two or three 'scapes of Plessis stopped by the B.  which the B. having refuted, as both false and impertinent to the matter, he urged him that this refuge, if it were true that S. Chrysostome spoke only of living Saints, it was against himself, and proved two absurdities in steed of one, the first, that he deduced a conclusion out of S. Chrysostome against praying to dead Saints, whereas the Father spoke of living Saints only: the second, that he cut of from the text, the principal words that should have declared the Father's meaning. To this replied Plessis, that he brought not this place of Chrysostome against praying to Saints, but against them that would help themselves by the suffrages of others.  
Upon this answer the K. himself began to speak, saying, that the word others, was a general word, that might be extented aswell to the dead, as to the live, and that Plessis should remember, that he had said a little before in citing S. Chrysostome, that Chrysostome attempted the overthrow of this abuse. 
The K. took the argument.  And then he demanded of him what abuse he meant, if he meant not the abuse of praying to Saints deceased, as impugned by S. Chrysostome: which instance of his Majesty was confirmed by the B. citing divers places of Plessis book, where by name he avoucheth S. Epiphanius and S. Chrysostome in the Greek Church to be adversaries of praying to Saints, 
Acts fol. ●o.  which yet now he would not stand unto. But Plessis replied; that he did not allege S. Chrysostome in this place, 
Another poor shift of Plessis.  as directly impugning prayer to Saints deceased, but indirectly, in that he saith, that we must not put our confidence in the merits of other men. Whereto the Bishop answered, that S. Chrysostome said not absolutely, that we must not rely at all upon other men's prayers, but that we must not so rely, as we be negligent of our own parts; which speech doth neither directly nor indirectly impugn prayer to Saints, especially being joined with his plain declaration before mentioned, cut of by Plessis.  
Wherefore after divers such vain, & impertinent replies of Monsieur Plessis, the B. required sentence to be given; whereupon the texts alleged being openly read, both in Greek and Latyn of divers editions printed both in Paris and Basill, and one Greek copy of hand writing out of the King's library, the words were found as before hath been cited, and sentence was given by the consent of all deputies in the same words that the other was before, to wit, 
Acts fol. 64.  that the L. Plessis had left out in this passage, that which he ought to have put in. And with this ended their examen of the fourth place, & the blushing remained to Plessis as you may imagine, seeing all his Protestants to hang down their heads at this success.   

The fifth place examined out of S. Hierome about the same argument, of prayer to Saints.  
After the two foresaid places of S. Chrysostome discussed, as you have heard, there came in order a place of S. Hierome upon Ezechiell, cited by the said Plessis in the 583. page of his book against prayer to Saints, 
Hier. in Ezech. lib. 4. cap. 14.  and put as it were for an antidotum to other sayings of S. Hierome in favour of prayings to Saints, in his books against Vigilantius. The place is cited in Plessis book in these words: But Saint Hierome (saith he) in his commentaries, when he was out of choler and grief, did write thus: If we have confidence in any one, let it be in God only, for it is written, that the man is cursed that confideth in men; albeit they be Saints, & albeit they be Prophets, yet must we not confide in them, nor yet in the Princes of the Church, who though they be just, yet shall they deliver but their own souls, and not those of their children.  
Out of this place the B. objected, that Plessis had alleged these words with fraud & corruption, leaving out the clause which made all clear, and utterly marred Plessis market, to wit, Si fuerint negligentes, if their children be negligent, then cannot Saints save them: filios autem & filias (saith S. Hierome) quos in Ecclesia genuerim, si ●uer●t negligentes, saluare non poterunt. That is, Saints cannot save their sons and daughters, whom they have be gotten, by their preaching in God's Church, if the said children be negligent on their parts. And the same very exception or restriction had S. Hierome repeated in other words before in the same Chapter, 
Hier. ibid.  saying: Nec principes nos poterunt liberare, nisi filiorum suerit assensu●, & illorum obsecrationes suis conatibus iwerint. The very chiefest and principal Saints of the Church cannot deliver us, except we their children do give our consent thereunto, & except we do aid, by our own good endeavours, their prayers made for us. Which two clauses she wing evidently, that S. Hieromes former speech was but conditional, & not absolute, when he said, that we must not put our trust in others, (even as that of S. Chrysostome was before) it followeth that the leaving out of these clauses that contain the principal point of all the speech, was wilful fraud, and falsification, endeavouring to make Saint Hierome to speak against himself, about praying to Saints, which he never meant.  
here now Plessis being strained, as before, ran to his ordinary shift, of saying, that S. Hierome spoke not of dead Saints, but of living only, which though it were evidently false, as the Bishop showed by other plain words of S. Hierome in the same place, and by Plessis himself, 
Wilful false dealing against S. Hierome.  that cited this place as an anti●otum to other places of his, against Vigilantius, where Plessis himself confessed, that he talketh of prayer to Saints deceased: besides all this (I say) whereby this refuge was evidently known to be but a shift, the Bishop pressed him most with this; that of what sort of Saints soever S. Hierome speaketh here, quick, or dead, he speaketh not simply or absolutely, that they cannot save us by their prayers, but with this express condition, twice repeated by him, and left out by Plessis: If we be negligent of our own parts; or as S. Chrysostome said before; if we rely wholly upon them, and do nothing of ourselves.  
Wherefore he prayed the judges to give sentence concerning this place, as of the former; whereupon Plessis began to cavil again, 
Acts fol. 69.  and to say, as he did in the former passage of S. Chrysostome, that he alleged not this place of Saint Hierome directly against Saints deceased, but indirectly. But the B. proved that neither directly, nor indirectly this place of S. Hierome made any thing against prayers to Saints, but rather for the same. For he that saith, that praying to Saints availeth not him, that is negligent of his own part, signifieth in effect, that if he be diligent, he may be holpen thereby, which is S. Hieromes doctrine against Vigilantius, as Plessey confesseth, though he saith that he was then in choler but now out of choler, when he spoke the contrary as he would have him to seem.  
After this, Plessis leapt to another place of S. Hierome in his commentaries upon S. Paul's epistles to the Corinthians, 
Another shift of Monsieur Plessis.  where he saith: That Saints shall not be able to help at the day of judgement, etc. Which the Bishop expounded, and granted, for that then there shallbe no more place for prayer or intercession, but every one to receive his reward: yet he added further, that this place of S. Hierome, was brought into examination out of the order of those 19 that Plessis had chosen, and that if he would be content, to continue the examination of this one page of Saint Hierome, 
An offer to prove 4. new falsifications against Plessis in one page.  whence this place is drawn, the B. offered to bind himself to show 4. notorious falsities committed by him, in this one page: but Plessis refused this combat, & said that he would not interrupt the order set down already for examination of his 19 places aforesaid; but yet both the King and rest of the auditory, did well mark and note this offer made by the Bishop and divers times repeated by him, and that the other durst not accept thereof. Wherefore the judges being called upon again, to give sentence, conferred together, and with one consent gave this verdict. 
Acts fol. 97.  Que le passage avoit deu estre mis entier. That this place or passage on S. Hierome ought to have been set down by Monsieur Plessis wholly, and entire, as it lay in the author, and not mangled or dismembered, as it was found to be. And you may imagine how Plessis blushed at this sentence.   

The sixth place examined, out of S. Cyrill, about honouring the holy Crosse.  
The sixth place was out of S. Cyrill cited by Monsieur Plessis pag. 223. of his book in these words: S. Cyrill 
Cyril. l. 6. contra julian. Apostate.  answered the Emperor julian when he reproached Christians for honour done unto the cross, that Christians did not give adoration nor reverence to the sign of the Crosse. So saith Plessis: But the Bishop charged him, that the last words of this sentence, to wit, that Christians did not give adoration nor reverence to the sign of the Cross, were not in S. Cyrill, and willed him to show them. Plessis answered, that in deed they were not S. Cyril's own words, and therefore he did not put them in a different letter of quotation, but yet that the sense of them was to be found in S. Cyrill. The B. replied, that neither the words nor sense were there, and yet that Plessis pag. 89. 
The firstly proved against Plessis.  of his book against the Mass had set down the same thing as of S. Cyril's own words in a different letter of quotation thus: Cyrill likewise reproached by julian the Emperor doth answer flatly, that the Christians did neither adore, nor honour the sign of the Crosse. So as heer● you see not only these words alleged as S. Cyril's in a different letter, but also often urged by Plessis, that for so much as he could not bring forth the words, at least he should show the sense thereof in S. Cyrill.  
Plessis answered, that the sense might be gathered out of Cyrill, 
A frivolous objection of Plessis answered, and returned upon himself.  in that julian the Apostata, against whom he wrote, obiecting unto him, that the Christians adored the Cross of Christ, Cyrill did not answer that it was true, which of likelihood he would have done, if in those days Christians in deed had worshipped the Crosse. But to this the Bishop replied, that the consequence was not good, for so much as Christian writers of that time, were wont to go very reservedly, in uttering the points & mysteries of our faith unto pagans', though here in effect Cyrill did confess it, as presently shallbe showed, for that he yieldeth the reason why they did it. But on the other side it is a far better argument to say: julian the Apostata objected that Christians adored the Cross of Christ, and painted the images thereof upon their foreheads, & upon their doors, and S. Cyrill denieth it not, but endeavoureth to give a reason, why they did so; Ergo it is more probable, that Christians did worship the Cross of Christ indeed in those days.  
And here the King took up the argument again saying, 
The K. reply against Plessis.  that it was very probable, that julian would never have objected this to the Christians, if they had not done so indeed, for otherwise he should have been laughed at by all. Which speech of his Majesty the B. confirmed, by showing how learned an Emperor julian the Apostata was, and how he had been brought up from his youth in Christian Religion, and could not be ignorant in so public a matter as this; and moreover (said the Bishop) if it were true, that S. Cyrill did reprehend the Emperor julian, for charging falsely Christians to worship the Cross, it is not likely, that other Christian Emperors following soon after, as justinian and others, would in their laws have called the same, Adorandam & honorandam verè crucem, 
justin. Imper. in Authentde Monachis. Si quis aedi●icari.  the Cross that is truly to be honoured & adored Which mention of Emperors being heard by the King, he required presently that the books should be brought, and the places read openly, which was done out of the constitutions of justinian printed at Geneva, and the words were read there as the B. had alleged them; and the same showed out of divers other authors more ancient than justinian, as Rusticus Diaconus, 
Acts fol. 72.  Sedulius presbyter, Athanasius, and S. Chrysostome.  
Which being done, Plessis came out with another objection of Minutius Foelix, who answering to one Cecilius, a pagan, said, Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus. We do neither worship nor wish for Crosses; but the Bishop showed this to be but a rest, and quite against himself. 
A deceitful reply of Plessis turned upon himself.  For that the pagan having objected to Christians, that they honoured Crucem, whereby he understood a gibbett or gallows, said, Christiani adorant & merentur Crucem, Christians do adore, and do deserve the gibbett, in which sense Minutius answered him: Nos Cruces nec colimus, nec optamus, we do neither worship nor wish Crosses in your sense, that is to say, gibbetts. And all did marvel at Plessis, that he would bring in this deceitful objection: out of which notwithstanding the Bishop inferred, that except the Pagan Cecilius had known in those days, that Christians worshipped Crosses, he would never have objected the same so confidently against them, either in jest, or in earnest.  
And this being done the B. demanded judgement upon the place, but there stepped up one Monsieur Mercier, 
A reply of Monsieur Mercier the Protestants secretary.  one of the secretaries of the conference for the Protestants side, saying that by the text of S. Cyrill there lying on the table, before them, it was manifest, that he objected unto julian extremam imperitiam, extreme ignorance or lack of skill in Christian affairs, for obiecting to them that they honoured the Cross, and made the sign thereof upon their foreheads and doors, which by likelihood he would never have done, if Christians had used to do so indeed. Whereunto the Bishop answered, that S. Cyrill did not object ignorance about the fact, and custom of honouring the Cross, and making the sign thereof, as is aforesaid, for that this thing was so notoriously known, as it had been rather lack of wit or shame, than skill in julian to object it, if no such use had been: but S. Cyrill accused him of ignorance, and folly for his illation made thereupon, which was, that Christians were miserable & contemptible thereby, to wit, for yielding so much honour to the sign of a cross or gibbett, so odious to them as nothing more. And this to be his meaning is plain by S. Cyril's whole discourse, which was there read both in Greek and Latyn in these words: Furthermore (saith he) julian calleth us miserable, 
Cyril. l. 6. contra julian.  who are so careful always to sign our houses and foreheads with the sign of the precious Cross, but we shall easily demonstrate unto him, that such kind of speeches do proceed from wicked cogitations, and do savour of extreme ignorance, etc. Which text being pondered, 
The sentence against Plessis.  & the judges having conferred among themselves, this sentence was given upon the place of S. Cyrill before alleged. 
Acts fol. 76.  Que le passage allegué par le Sieur du Plessis ne se trouoit point dans S. Cyrille. That the passage alleged here by the L. Plessis out of S. Cyrill is not found at all in Cyrill. Of which sentence you see the consequence that ensueth, to wit, that Plessis had made or devised it of himself.   

The seventh Place examined out of the Code or Imperial laws, about painting or carvings the sign of the Crosse.  
After the place of S. Cyrill examined and found falsified about worshipping the cross (as you have heard) there was brought into trial, another place concerning the same argument, about a law of the two Emperors Theodosius, & Valens cited by Plessis in the 223. page of his book, against painting or carving the image of the cross in these words: What will these men say, (to wit the catholics) of the Emperors Theodosius & Valens, that prohibited expressly by edict, this custom of painting or carving images of our saviour. For so much (say they) as we have care of nothing more than of the service of God, we forbid all sorts of persons to make the sign of our Saviour jesus Christ, either in colours, stone, or other matter, either to engrave paint or cut the same, but rather wheresoever any such thing shallbe found, that it be taken away under pain of grievous punishment. So citeth Plessis the words of the law. But the B. of Eureux showed that this citation is full of wilful fraud, and corruption, for that among other things it leaveth out the words humi & in solo, which signify on the ground: which words contain the very life and sense of all the whole text, & law alleged, & do declare the true meaning of the lawmakers therein, for that the true text of the law in the code lieth thus:  
cum sit nobis cura diligens, etc. 
Cod. Lib●●tit. 8. nemini licere. etc.  Whereas our care is diligent in all things to defend the Religion of almighty God: we command that it shall not be lawful, for any man to carve or paint the sign of our Saviour Christ, either on the ground, or in any stone or marble lying upon the ground, etc. Which ordination the Bishop did show to have been made by the Emperors, 
An egregious corruption.  for more honour of sacred images of our saviour, to the end that they should not be defiled with men's feet, as appeareth by the same prohibition made and confirmed not long after by the Council of Constantinople, 
Concil. Constantinop. in Trullo. cap. 73.  named In Trullo, where it is said: we command that all the figures of the Cross, that are made upon paviments be taken away or defaced, to the end that the triumphant sign of our victory, be not unworthily defiled by men's feet.  
And at this sore charge Monsieur Plessis seemed much ashtonished, and had no other refuge, but to say that he alleged the text as he found it alleged by Petrus Crinitus: but the Bishop replied, that it had been convenient for a man of Plessis quality and profession in learning, before he had written and printed this thing, and especially before he had so insolently asked the question, what Catholics would say unto it, to have seen the place itself, knowing that Petrus Crinitus was but a rash grammarian of later times, reprehended of this very falsification by sundry learned men of our days, and namely by Alanus Copus, Doctor Sanders, Cardinal Bellarmine and others. Which Plessis could not but know, and have seen; and moreover the very title of the law itself is extant in the Code in these words: Nemini licere signum salvatoris Christi humi, vel in scilice, vel in marmore, aut insculpere aut pingere; 
Plessis either ignorant or strangely malicious.  Which is: that it is not lawful for any man to engrave, or paint the sign of our Saviour Christ on the ground either in flint or marble; which title of the law seemeth impossible, but that Plessis must have seen and read, for so much as he citeth divers other laws out of the same Code, or else he is a very superficial fellow: and if he saw it, and yet alleged it as he doth, his falsehood is intolerable.  
But he persisting in denial, that he was bound to look the law itself in the Code, but that it was sufficient to follow Crinitus his allegation thereof, the judges for compassion (as it seemeth) after consultation among themselves gave this sentence: Que il avoit veritablement allegué Crinitus, mais que Crinitus ●'estoit abusé. That Monsieur Plessis had truly alleged Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abused. Which had been some excuse if Plessis had been a simple young scholar; but being the man he is, and taketh himself to be, it is hard to say where the abuse was greater, either in him, or Crinitus; for so much as in his text he alleged not Crinitus, but the Emperors themselves, and insulted thereby over catholics, as you have heard, though in his margin he quoted Crinitus, which was little to the purpose, knowing that he lied, as must be presumed that he did, and cannot well be avoided.   

The eight Place examined out of S. Bernard about honouring our Lady.  
The L. Plessis being desirous to make a flourish against catholics, for giving to much honour (as he saith) to our Lady, he allegeth a sentence out of S. Bernard in the 604. page of his book, in these words: 
Acts fol. 83.  S. Bernard (saith he) writeth of the virgin herself in his 174. epistle, that she hath no need of false honours, for so much as she is full of true; and this is not to honour her, but to take away her honour; the feast of her conception was not well invented. So he.  
In which words the B. accused Plessis to have used as great falsehood as in the former passages, for that he had guilfully patched together two different sentences of that epistle, written in several places, to make one to his purpose, after the fashion of Centons' of Homer, Virgil and other poets, and had so recited them, as they might seem but one, and moreover had cut of the sentence that went between them, & was immediately annexed to the former, & contained the decision of the whole question, to wit, inventrix of grace, 
S. Ansel. accused of impiety by Plessis.  mediatrix of salvation, etc. For better understanding whereof must be noted, that Mensieur Plessis a little before had accused S. Anselm of impiety, for calling the blessed Virgin Inuentricem gratiae, mediatricem salutis, restauratricem saeculorum: saying that these praises, and honours were false and immoderate. For proof whereof he alleged Saint Bernard, as though he had been of a contrary opinion to Anselmus, and to the catholics of these days, in that he disallowed false honours given to our Lady, for which he cited the passage before mentioned, 
Great falsehood in alleging S. Bernard.  made of 2. several sentences, tied together, & cutting out from the middle thereof these words of S. Bernard: Magnifica gratiae inventricem, mediatricem salutis, restauratricem saeculorum, etc. Do thou magnify this inventrix of grace, this mediatrix of Salvation, and restorer of the world, etc. Which are the very same words that Anselmus did use before him, and for reproving whereof S. Bernard was alleged: so as two or 3. falsehoods were urged out of this place against him: First that of two sentences are guilfully made one; Secondly that the principal clause was left out of purpose; and thirdly that S. Bernard was alleged to overthrow that, which expressly he confirmeth.  
To the first Plessis answered, that in leaving out that sentence, he did no more, than the Apostles did, who alleged some times several sentences of the old testament, together as one text. 
A s●ift of Plessis shaken of by the B.  But the Bishop replied that the Apostles might do it, for that they had the self same spirit, which the writers of the old testament had, and therefore could not go from their true meaning: but that we shall never find the Apostles to allege two places of scripture contrary to the writers mind, and to leave out in the midst, that which maketh most to the purpose for declaring their meaning, as Plessis hath done here in S. Bernard.  
To the second & third points, about clipping of the sentence in the middle, and alleging S. Bernard against his own meaning; Plessis endeavoured to make certain answers, & to show that the sentence which he had left out, made nothing to the purpose which he had in hand; which the Bishop granted, if his purpose was to deceive his Reader (as no doubt but it was) but otherwise, if he had meant truth, it must needs be much to the purpose to put it in; for that it overthroweth directly (as you see) all that which Plessis would have proved, by S. Bernard's authority against S. Anselm. And finally the Bishop after divers other cavils answered, returned to the first matter again, and to affirm as at the beginning, that Monsieur Plessis had not dealt truly and sincerely in this allegation of Saint Bernard, but that he should have alleged the sentences severally, as they lay in the book, and not have left out the principal clause, that went between them, if he had dealt truly. Wherefore he desiring judgement upon this passage, 
The sentence given against Plessis.  the Acts do set it down in these words: Monsieur le Chancelier, avec l'aduis des deputés pronon●a qu'il eust esté bon que il eust fait. 
Acts fol. 96.  The L. Chancellor with the advise of the deputies, did pronounce, that it had been good that Monsieur Plessis had done so; (as the Bishop of Eureux required) which is as much to say that in not doing so, he behaved himself but badly, which was a check of no small moment in such a matter.   

The ninth Place examined out of Theodorete about Images.  
The last place that was tried in this first days conference, was out of Theodorete upon the 113. Psalm cited by Monsieur Plessis in the 118. page of his book against the use of Images in these words: God maketh what he pleaseth, but Images are such as pleaseth men to make them; they have the places or habitations of senses, but have no sense indeed, and in this much less them flies and fleas and such other vermin, and it is just that all that adore them do lose both reason and sense, and be like unto them. here the Bishop objected two manifest and wilful falsifications: 
Acts fol. 90. 91. 92.  First for that he had against the express meaning of Theodorete translated the Greek word Idol for Image, which Theodorete did clearly distinguish: and secondly for that he cut of a plain clause in the midst, whereby the author of purpose did expound himself, to wit these words; adored by pagans, and adored for Gods, so as this declared evidently, that he had no true meaning.  
To this Plessis answered, that as for the words Idol and Image, they were all one, 
The difference betwixt Idol and Image.  which he said he could show both out of scriptures and Fathers. The other replied, that albeit according to their Etymologye in Grammar, the Greek word Eicoon and Eidoolon do sometime signify the same, and that some old heathen writers do use them so: yet the Ecclesiastical use thereof both in scriptures & ancient Fathers, doth always distinguish most exactly these 2. words: as for example, it can never be found, either in scriptures or ancient Fathers, that the word Idol is taken in good part, as Image is, nor that they did ever call the Cherubins, 
Exod 25. 3 Re●. 6. 1. Cor. 11. ●. Cor. 3. & 4. Coloss. 1●  and other Images in the Temple of Jerusalem, Idols; nor do the scriptures call man the Idol of God, but the Image of God; nor did ever any Christian writer dare to speak otherwise, nor to call our Saviour the Idol of his Father, but only the Image of his Father, and other like examples, whereby is evident, that both the scriptures, and holy Fathers did observe a strict distinction betwixt these words: And hereupon was there spent some time in certain vain replies used by Plessis, but no one example could he give out of the scriptures to the contrary, nor yet out of any Father to this purpose.  
And on the other side the Bishop pressed him with the words of Theodorete 
Theodor. quaest. 38. in Exod.  himself in his questions upon Exodus, where he setteth down expressly the difference between Idol and Image: and besides this, that in his Ecclesiastical Greek history of the lives of Fathers, called the Religious history, he recounteth in the life of Saint simeon Stilites, that the Christian Romans in his time did set up Images for devotion to the said Stilites, and thereby procured to themselves both safeguard and protection, as the author's words are, whereof the Bishop inferred, that for so much as Theodorete did praise the Romans for this Act, it cannot be imagined that he held Images to be the same that Idols, which before he so much detested in the place here alleged by Monsieur Plessis, for that so he should praise the Romans for idolatry.  
here the deputies called for Theodorete in Greek, 
●Another shift t●●en away from P●essis.  & examined the place of Stilites, & found it true as the Bishop had alleged: & Plessis had no other refuge left but to say, that these Images of Stilites were not put up in Churches. But the Bishop replied that to be of no importance, whether they were or Noah. For if they were Idols they were unlawful also in private houses, and consequently Theodorete would not have praised them. But yet to show that in that time also of Theodorete & before, Christian Images were accustomed to be set up religiously in Churches, the Bishop alleged many places out of S. 
a Orat. de S. Barl●am.  Basill, S. 
b Orac. in B. Theod.  Gregory Nissen, 
c In Biblioth. cap. 52.  Photius, 
d In him. de S. Cassiano.  Prudentius, 
e Ad S●uerum sulpit.  Paulinus and others, which texts were there brought forth, read, and allowed. And all this ended he required Monsieur Plessis to confess this first abuse against Theodoretes own meaning, and to answer to the second, why he had left out those words, that declared his meaning, to wit, Idols adored by the pagans, and adored for Gods? He answered that he had left them out for brevities sake, and had set down only the substantial clauses of Theodoretes text. But the Bishop replied, that this brevity was not commendable, and that the clause left out was the most substantial of all the rest, for declaring the truth, and Theodoretes meaning in the matter in hand. Plessis answered, 
Many turnings and windings of Plessis.  that it appertained not to his purpose to allege those words. The Bishop said that it did, if his purpose were to deal plainly, & to have the truth known. Then fell Plessis to his old refuge and said, that he had not alleged the foresaid text of Theodorete directly against Images, but indirectly, and by a certain analogy or consequence, which the Bishop refuted. And finally after all, he demanded judgement upon the place, and upon both the two corruptions objected, which after diligent revew of the place in Theodorete, and advise taken of all the deputies, the Lord Chancellor pronounced in all their names in these words. 
Acts fol. 105.  Que ce Passage ne se deuoit entendre que des Idoles des payens, & non des Images de Chrestiens: come il paroissoit par ces mots; Adorns par les payens, & adorées pour dieux, que avoient esté obmis. Which is to say, that this passage of Theodoret must be understood of Painim Idols, and not of Christian Images, as is plain by the words: adored by Paynims, and adored for Gods, which were left out. By which sentence (given also by his own men) he remained condemned as you see of both the falsities objected at the beginning by the Bishop.  
And here now it being upon the point of seven of the clock at night, the K. dismissed the company for that time, and remitted the continuation of the same conference, to begin again the next day at seven of the clock in the morning, 
The conference rejourned till the next day.  & to endure until an eleven, and then again after dinner from one to six, and so forward until all the places might be examined, and the same was agreed unto by all the rest. And presently the Bishop of ●ureux caused all the books to be carried to the house of Monsieur du Plessis, to prepare himself in the other passages, that were to be examined the day following.    

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE END OF THIS FIRST days Conference; of Monsieur Plessis his demeanour, and departure: Of the book he sent forth for his excuse; and what success hath ensued of men's conversion thereupon.  
CHAP. III.  
As soon as the K. Majesty was departed from the place of conference, every man began to talk & reason of that which had passed, but especially those that had expected without in other Chambers, and Galeryes round about, and in the K. garden beneath, and could get no place within the Chamber, where the conference was holden; these, I say, as well catholics, as Protestants, pressed greatly to know what had been done, & what had been the issue of that trial. And so earnest suit was made unto the secretaries, for copies of the sentences, as that very night they were given abroad in writing, containing as before you have heard, to wit that upon the first 2. places of Scotus and Durandus, the sentence was; that Monsieur Plessis had taken the objection for the resolution. Upon the second places of S. Chrysostome; that he had left out that which he should have put in. 
A brief recapitulation of the sentences.  Upon the fifth place of S. Hierome; that he ought to have alleged the passage entire, as it was in the author. Upon the sixth place of S. Cyrill: That the passage alleged out of S. Cyrill was not to be found in him. Upon the 7. place out of the Emperors Theodofius and Valens; That Plessis had alleged truly Crinitus, but that Crinitus was abused. Upon the 8. place out of S. Bernard: That it had been well, Plessis had cited the place distinctly as it lay in the author, without cutting of any thing in the midst. And finally upon the 9 place out of Theodorete against Images: That the passage alleged, was not to be understood of Images, but of Idols, and that this appeared by the words which Plessis had omitted in his allegation.  
Which judgements being read and considered, it was wonderful to behold the great diversity of affections, which they stirred up, to wit of comfort, and alacrity in the catholics, and of confusion & grief in the Hugonotts there present, who being in number above 200. considered, that these sentences had passed by the consents aswell of their own judges, as of the other, & that there was no way left of tergiversation. And further that Monsieur Plessis being one of the chiefest men simply of their Religion in France, and most accounted of for his learning, this his disgrace was the disgrace of all their Religion, and his error inexcusable, in respect of his former brags, and Protestations, and of the wilful falsehood now found in him. 
divers chief Protestants began to think of their conversion.  Wherefore divers of them, and those also of the principal, began soon after, by assistance of God's holy grace, to open their hearts to another cogitation for their conversion, as a little after you shall hear.  
The King's Majesty also was exceedingly moved in mind, to see what had passed, as may appear by his affectious speeches, and letter written to Monsieur Espernon that very night after his departure from the conference, which letters we have recited 
* Supra cap. 5.  before, and the causes of his motion we shall touch a little afterward, when we have set down what ensued immediately upon this first days conference, which was a great reason also to move his Majesty the more, as presently you shall see. Wherefore we shall relate the same in the very words of the printed Acts, which are these that follow.  
The next morrow, 
What passed after the first conference ended.  which was friday the fifth of May at 6. of the Clock in the morning, came a gentleman to the Bishop of Eureux, telling him that Monsieur Plessis had been very evil that night, & that he prayed the Bishop to be content to have the conference differred for that morning; 
Acts fol. 105.  but the Bishop asked him for how long this delay should be, the gentleman answered until that Monsieur Plessis should be in state of health to prosecute the same. Soon after this, there came to the King's chamber Monsieur de la Riviere chief physician to his Majesty, telling him that the conference was like to be broken up, by reason of the L. Plessis indisposition, whom he said, that he had left very sick, with violent vomitts, and tremble of all the parts of his body; which he King hearing, commanded him presently to go, and tell the same to the L. Chancellor, to the end that he and the deputies should not take their journey in vain that day to the palace; which being told unto them, and they imagining, that perhaps Monsieur Plessis his sickness might endure long, sent that very night late to his Majesty, to know his judgement & pleasure, whether they should remain still in Fountayne-bleau, or return to Paris. The King that he might give them more certain answer, willed the Chancellor at ten of the clock at night, to go and see Plessis, & to know from his own mouth, what he would do concerning the prosecution of this conference. The Chancellor having with him at that time, the L. Precedent Fresnes Canay, chief deputy for the Protestant party in the said conference, desired him to go to him which he did, and brought answer, that Plessis was not in state to go forward now, but he would advise upon it in Paris: which answer being related to the Chancellor, by the Precedent, and from the Chancellor, to the King; his Majesty gave licence to the judges, & deputies to depart to Paris, which they did the next morning, being the sixth of May, except only the Precedent Fresnes, who remained at Fontayn-bleau with the King.  
But the next day at noon, about six hours after the departure of the said deputies, the Precedent Fresnes, having been to visit Monsieur Plessis again, came, and advertised the Chancellor, that he was much better in health, & that for his part the conference might begin again, which the Chancellor hearing, 
A new offer of Plessis for continuing the conference, but dured not.  sent presently for the B. of Eureux, & in presence of the said precedent told him the news, who was glad thereof, and offered himself presently, & said moreover, that as yet his books were not sent away. Which the Chancellor hearing, called for the Secretary Monsieur Mercier chosen for the part of Plessis, and willed him presently to go and signify unto him, that he had understood, that he was better in health, & content to return to the conference, which if it were so, the B. was also ready & his books not yet sent away, & though some of the deputies were departed, yet the precedent Fresues their chief deputy remained, & others might be nominated at, or upon the very place itself.  
But Monsieur Plessis answered, that he was not master of his own sickness, which grew more and more upon him, and that he was going to Paris from whence he would not depart without seeing the L. Chancellor, 
Plessis fleeth the conference, and slippeth away from Paris, without taking his leave of any.  to inform him of his affairs; & so conform unto this he departed the 8. of May being Monday; and the Chancellor having received his answer, advertised the K. thereof, and so they went all to Paris, and his Majesty arrived there upon the 12. of May. And about some 4. or 5. days after, Monsieur Plessis departed to his government of Saumur without taking his leave of his Majesty or seeing the L. Chancellor (as he had promised) and without sending any word at all to the B. of Eureux, about the conference or further trial.  
Thus far goeth the narration of the printed Acts, published by authority of the King & deputies that were present, whereby we see the end of this action, and how the L. Plessis behaved himself therein: But about 2. months after, came forth the aforesaid little discourse with out name of author, 
Plessis his new discourse  bearing the title of, true discourse of the conference at Fontayn-bleau, full of elusions, disguisments, and invectives (saith the B. of Eureux) set forth by Plessis himself, though dissembling his name, to the end he might enjoy the fable under this mask and lie with out blushing, obtruding to his Reader what he thought best: For so are the words of the said Bishop in the refutation of this michinge discourse, which contained, as before hath been showed three principal points; the one in perverting the story of the Acts themselves: the second in devising new shifts and evasions, which occurred not unto him while he was in the trial: the third, in recriminations, or obiecting other men's falsities in like manner. Which kind of proceeding did more yet discreditt Plessis with the wiser sort of men, than his former overthrow in the field, for that this did show indeed that to be true which Tertullian saith; 
Tert. de prescript. adver. haereses.  that heretics may more easily be overcome, then persuaded; and that Plessis had an obstinate mind to go forward, notwithstanding whatsoever was, should, or might be proved against him, but yet divers other of the more learned and graver sort of his own side, began, as hath been said, to enter into another cogitation, & to think whether it were not best by this occasion, to seek out the truth of matters indeed, and that without pertinacity or passion, for so much as it was a matter concerning the eternal salvation or damnation of their souls.  
And this happy course among others, took, (as in part before you have understood) the aforesaid noble man of Normandy, Monsieur Sainct-Mary du Mont, who being a great Protestant before, was first moved towards Catholic Religion, partly by the Sermons of Monsieur Buchage brother to Duke joyeus made afterward a Capuchin friar, as hath been 
* Supra cap. 1.  declared (which Sermons were principally against the falsifications of Plessis in his book against the Mass) partly also by the sight of some of the said falsifications themselves, 
The conversion of Monsieur du Mont, and of Monsieur Fresnes.  showed unto him in private by the said B. of Eureux before the conference, but he was fully converted by the trialll itself, and became afterward a zealous Catholic. But more notorious and admirable was the conversion of the L. Fresnes Canay chief precedent for the Protestant party, in the parliament Chamber called Demy party in Languedocke & chosen by Monsieur Plessis himself for chief deputy on his party for this conference: who taking the same course in enforminge himself, found matters so evident, as he became a Catholic upon the sight of this trial, and that with such fervour, as he would not be absolved secretly of his heresy before held, (as for respect unto his dignity and place was offered) but would needs abjure publicly in the hands of the B. of Paris, and so he did, being a very learned man in his profession, & at this day is Ambassador for his Christian Majesty with the State of Venice, where his wife in like manner the last year, by his own especial means (she being a Lady of much nobility) was converted also, & both of them remained most zealous catholics.  
Which two examples of Monsieur Sainct-Mary and Mousieur Precedent Fresnes (both of them being learned and earnest Protestants all their life before) did greatly move the King himself, for his comfort and confirmation in Catholic Religion, but no one thing so much, as his being present at the foresaid Conference, and so he is said to have often confessed afterward, for that he saw there, that which he could never have imagined, to wit that men of learning & judgement, would wilfully for maintaining of faction, write and publish that, which they must needs know in their consciences to be false. He considered that these 9 places there examined, 
motives of much consideration to the King's Majesty in this Action.  were picked out by Plessis himself of 60. sent him by the Bishop, and that these 60. were but a parcel of 500 which the said B. had bound himself to exhibit in 10. days, to be discussed: and that by all probability the foresaid 9 were of the least falsified, and easiest to be defended of all the rest, at least wise of the first 60. for that otherwise Monsieur Plessis would not have chosen them. Wherefore having seen by experience, that no one of those 9 was able to be defended from plain and wilful falsehood, he imagined what would fall out in the rest, if the conference had gone forward, and if all should pass as in these 9 throughout the 500 there ready to be exhibited, yea in 3500. more which the Bishop said he had gathered out, and offered to bind himself to convince them, of no less falsity and imposture, than those nine, and all this out of one book. These things (I say) laid together, his Majesty had good cause to think, what may be thought of that man's conscience, that writeth and printeth such a book in matters of Religion.  
Moreover his Majesty could not but remember what tales the said Plessis, and other such fellows had told him against catholics & Catholic Religion for many years, whilst he was yet a Protestant, to wit, that they had no truth on their side, no antiquity, no true ancient authority, but all was for them, and their new pretended Religion. 
How the K. was abused by Hugonot●s whilst he was of their Religion.  He could not forget also, what solemn protestations they were accustomed to make, of their own sincerity both in writing, and preaching, and especially Plessis in this last contention about his book, before it came to the trial, offering to lose his life and honour, yea to burn his own hand, if any one place were proved to be wittingly corrupted, or falsified, which yet was so evidently convinced by the trial, not in one only, but in every one of the nine places, as no man of reason could deny it, and the deputies of his own party gave sentence against him.  
Wherefore this having so fallen out, and the Bishop of Eureux protesting of his side, that the places of greatest corruption remained yet behind, above twenty fold more in number, than those that had been examined, seeing also the shameful flight of Monsieur Plessis from the continuation of the combat, 
His majesties comfort in being a Catholic.  and the shameless discourse cast abroad by him without a name, wherein many matters of fact well known to his Majesty were denied, affirmed, or disguised, according to passion, most contrary to the known real truth thereof: All these considerations (I say) & many other concurring together, and representing themselves to his majesties wisdom, made him to feel infinite comfort in the happy resolution he had taken of being a Catholic, and to contemn from that day forward all contentious writings of factious sectaries, that care not what they say or write, so they may thereby hold up their sect and faction.  
Neither did this event of Plessy Mornayes conference, work those effects only for the opening his majesties eyes and understanding in Religion, but of many more beside throughout France, whereof though I be not so particularly informed, as many others be; yet divers persons of mark could I name beside the former two, that received like light & grace from almighty God, by the same means, and of great Hugonots became good catholics; as the L. Baron Saligniac Liefetennant for the K. of the country of Lymoge together with his wife, 
Hugonots converted in France by disclosing heretical frauds & falsifications.  daughter of the chancellor entitled Del Hospital, and sister to the Archbishopp of Ais. The L. Baron du Bonnevald a great noble man in Lymosin, together with another Baron of Gascoigne, whose name occurreth not at this present, though I have seen the narration of his conversion written out of France. Monsieur du Sansay Entendent over the King's Finances in France. divers chief learned men also, and among them some Ministers, as namely Monsieur Caiette late Minister and Preacher to the King's sister, married to the Prince of Lorraine, together with divers of her chief officers, amongst which, was Monsieur du lac de Barn, Monsieur Rebeul, & Monsieur Sponde th' elder, two great learned men, and another Sponde brother to the former, no less learned, who at this day hath the care of the Pope's library in Rome, together with a nephew of john Caluyn converted, & entertained like wise by his Holiness. And in this very years, wherein we write this, to wit 1603. we have divers letters and relations out of France, by which we hear of sundry conversions of many, whereof before there was little hope, as for example of one Aluarez a learned Spaniard, that had preached many years heresy in Languedocke, of one Tirius a Scottishman, Master of a College in the City of Nimis; of a chief Minister in Gascoigny Preacher in times passed unto his Majesty of France, when he was King of Navarre. And of a learned schoolmaster, who among other scholars brought up the children of the chief Preacher, and Minister of all those parts named Chamier. 
Letters relating diverse conversions of Hugonots in France.   
I have seen letters also, relating the particular conversions of divers chee●e Protestants in the City of Metz in Lorraine, and in the cities of Nimis and Mompelier in Languedoc, which later two cities are in the hands of Hugonotts, and were wont to have few or no catholics in them, and now are so many, as his Christian Majesty hath been entreated of late, to name them several Catholic Bishops. And the same letters do report, that there is no one month lightly passed, but that in Avignon for example (from whence one of these letters were written) some 20. 25. 30. or 40. persons, coming from other parts abroad of their own accord, where heresies do reign, do abjure the same in the hands of the Catholic Inquisitor, with great zeal and fervour, and detestation of heresy. And that in the City of Aubenas, where one P. jacobus Salesius a jesuit was martyred by the Hugonots a few years gone, above 200. have been of late converted, & so in other towns there about, where heresies were wont to reign, & on the other side scarce any one Catholic is heard of, to be perverted (God be thanked) in many years together.  
All which in great part is ascribed both to the event of this conference with Plessis Mornay, & to the diligence of other Catholic writers and preachers, who every where in their books and sermons do discover the falsehood of heresy, and heretical authors, which no doubt is a principal point to be urged against them, though themselves would seem to make it a matter of small consideration: But the truth is, that no one thing doth gall them more, nor move discreet, and ingenuous men to forsake them, then to see that they deal not sincerely, but deceitfully and with false consciences, be they subject never so little concerning Religion. 
A wish that his Majesty of England would permit the like trial.  Wherefore if it might please almighty God to move the high wisdom of our learned King, to make the like trial in England, I would not doubt of the like success both in his Majesty and other well-minded protestants, especially if it might be made with like indifferency of judges, deputies, and secretaries for both parts. And so much of this matter.   

WHAT MONSIEUR PLESSIS DID ANSWER, AND CAUSED to be cast abroad after his return home, from the Conference at Fontayne-bleau.  
CHAP. IV.  
WE have showed before how that Monsieur Plessis, after his secret departure from Paris, and return to Saumur, calling his Ministers, & friends about him, diui●ed how he might repair the loss of credit received at Fountayne-bleau by the conference; and it seemed good in their eyes, full of passion, & grief, to set forth a certain writing entitled: A true discourse of the conference at Fountayne-bleau, putting no certain name thereunto, but only these 4. letters F. D. L. M. and this discourse was printed, and divulged with such diligence, for saving the honour of their cause, as with in 3. months after, there were 3. several editions extant thereof, as appeareth by the B. of Eureux his citation of the third edition.  
The contents of this discourse consisted in three things, 
Three points of Plessis reply.  as before we have showed: first in misreporting and perverting, the very history itself, of the conference: The second in divising new shifts, for covering the falsifications before condemned, & sentenced: the third in recharging the B. with other pretended falsities, taken out of Gratian, that gathered the canon law, and some other; and some other objected out of the Bishop his own works. All which three assaults are beaten back by the B. upon him, with a particular confutation thereof printed together with the public Acts: wherein he showeth that the first of these points is great audacity, to go about to deny, or disguise that, which the records of 4. several secretaries, and the memory of above 200. witnesses, can, and do testify to the contrary. The second is importunity, to endeavour to call in question and doubt again matters, so authentically examined, and decided, & this with less reason, then at the beginning. The rhird is impertinency: for that albeit Plessis could prove that others had been faulty also in their allegations, (as he doth not but only by calumniation) yet was not this any good excuse for him, nor any just defence of his honour. And for that the said Bishop doth handle largely and learnedly all those three points in his foresaid confutation: I might remit wholly the Reader thereunto: and so I shallbe forced to do for the later two points, for that this brief defence of mine admitteth not so large a disputation: only I will note here some few examples of the first point: whereby you may easily judge of Monsieur Plessis manner of proceeding both in that and all the rest, 
Necessitas cogit. ad turpia.  and how necessity (as the proverb saith) enforceth a man oftentimes to shameful attempts.  
First then (saith the Bishop) besides a perpetual depravation to be seen in this discourse of Monsieur Plessis of whatsoever passed in the conference, and besides his silent passing over and dissembling so many advantageous conditions, as were made unto him, 
The first point examined. Acts and Refut. fol. 108.  besides many intolerable slanders and calumniations laid by him upon the K. himself, as also upon the Chancellor & deputies as partial against him: he objecteth divers things in particular so manifestly false, & to be convinced by the records themselves, as it easily declareth, that he had set up his rest to continue the defence of his cause, by the same means of shameless lying, whereby he had begun it.  
As for example in the 34. page of his discourse & third edition, 
1. Depravation.  he writeth that the Bishop had objected unto him, in the examination of the third place which was out of S. Chrysostome, upon the first epistle to the Thessalonians, that he had left out of the text, these words: (if we ourselves be negligent) and hereupon he insulteth, for that these words are not in S. Chrysostome. But this is great folly: for the Bishop objected the leaving out of those words in the sentence of S. Hierome, 
Sup. cap. 2. place 5●.  and not of S. Chrysostome, as before hath been seen in the examination of those places: and the words objected to be left out of S. Chrysostome, were others no less maliciously cut of then these. As before you have seen in the examination of the said third place.  
Then passing to the page 38. of his discourse, Plessis saith (talking of the same place of S. Chrysostome), 
2. Depravation.  that the andience hearing Chrysostome to speak of preaching to Saints, imagined that he had spoken of dead Saints: and upon this ignorance (saith he, for so he qualifieth the judgement of all that were present) they gave an applause, etc. Which is altogether false, for that the applause given, was not upon this first place of S. Chrisostome upon the epistle to the Thessalonians, but another out of his homilies upon the second epistle to the Corinthians, brought in upon the examen of the fourth place of the nine before examined. And the cause of this● said applause of laughter of the auditory was this: That Plessis pretending to bring two places out of Saint Chrysostome against praying to Saints, which were the third and fourth before examined, and then it being proved by the Bishop that both those places were falsified by him, and that they made expressly for prayer to Saints, if he had put them down wholly, and truly, he had no other refuge, if you remember, but to say, that he had put down the true sense of S. Chrysostome, though not his words: & then being beaten from that with other places of Saint Chrysostome, declaring his own meaning for prayer to Saints, Plessis was forced to confess against himself (that had alleged him for impugning prayer to Saints) that indeed Chrysostome allowed prayer to Saints, but it was to live Saints only, and not to dead: against which shift the Bishop recited this place following out of his 26. homily upon the second epistle to the Corinthians, talking of the pious devotions of the Emperors of his time, in praying to S. Peter, and S. Paul, & highly praising the same in these words: He that is appareled in purple doth make supplication to Saints, 
Chrysost. hom. 26. in cap. 2. Cor. & hom. 66. ad Pop Antiochen.  that they willbe his intercessors to God, and he that weareth a diadem, doth pray to a tentmaker, and to a fisherman now dead, to be his protectors: and will you dare then to say that their master is dead, whose servants now after their deaths, are the Protectors of Emperors living upon earth? Which place being recited out of S. Chrysostome, 
A Cufusion of Plessis.  that confirmeth so evidently both prayer to Saints, and to dead Saints, some laughter there was, and strangewondering at the impudence of Plessis, in running so often to his refuge of dead and live Saints: and he could not but blush to see himself so evidently taken. And this is the applause, which he complaineth of, though wrongfully and fraudulently alleged, as you have heard.  
Furthermore the same Plessis passing on to handle the decision, and sentence given upon the foresaid fourth place, telleth his reader for certain, that the judges did not determine that there was any omission used therein in citing Saint Chrysostom's words. Which is such an impudence, 
3. Depravation.  as not only the records of all the four secretaries do uniformally convince, 
Discourse. pag. 36.  who have the sentence of the deputies thus registered; that Monsieur Plessis had left out that which he should have put in: but the very laying open of the text of Saint Chrysostome doth convince the same, to him that hath eyes and skill to read.  
It followeth upon the examination of the same fourth place before mentioned, 
4. Depravation.  that he chargeth the deputies of ignorance, in giving sentence (as he saith) that the words of S. Chrysostome, there cited out of his homily upon S. Mathewes gospel, aught to be understood of Saints deceased, whereas they gave no such sentence at all, as the records of all four secretaries do testify, 
Discourse. pag. 46.  but only the very same sentence, which was given before upon the third place, to wit; that Plessis had left out, that which he should have put in: and the Bishop granting in that place, that those words of S. Chrysostome, 
Acts fol. 59  being indifferent to be understood either of dead, or live Saints: did urge, that if Plessis would understand them only of live Saints, they made most against himself, who had brought that place of S. Chrysostome to impugn prayer to dead Saints. So as this doth only show a mind in Plessis to lie, cavil, and calumniate without relieving himself thereby, but rather increasing his dishonour and shame.  
About the fifth place examined out of S. Hierome upon Ezechiell, 
5. Depravation.  he accuseth greatly the B. for that he would not (as he saith) hearken to him, when he alleged another place of S. Hierome upon the epistle to the Galathians, where he hath these words: 
Discourse pag. 48.  At that day when we shallbe before the tribunal of Christ, neither No, job, nor Daniel, can pray any more for any man, etc. Which charge is evidently false, as before 
* Suprae cap. 2. loc. 4.  you have heard declared in the examination of this place, and may see in the Acts themselves. For that albeit the Bishop told him, that this place was brought in against order, besides the number of those 19 which Plessis had chosen to be first examined: yet he was content to stand upon the examination thereof, if Plessis would, & of other places cited in his book, and to bind himself to prove, that in that only one page he had committed 4. notorious falsifications; but Plessis refused to join with him in that point; 
Acts fol. 69.  and so the Bishop expounded the place alleged of S. Hierome, that it was meant of the day of judgement, when no more praying to Saints shallbe, nor of Saints for us, which doth not impugn our present praying to them, but rather confirm the same. For that S. Hierome affirming here, that there shallbe no more praying to Saints, or of Saints for us at the day of judgement, doth evidently signify that before that time, both may be used.  
About the examen of the sixth place, 
6. Depravation.  out of S. Cyrill, concerning the honouring of the Cross, Plessis deceiveth notably his Reader, in telling him, that falsity being objected unto him by the Bishop, 
Discourse pag. 49.  the King spoke in his behalf, pronouncing with a loud voice that both parties had reason: which all men there present know to be false; for that the King did rather the quite contrary, saying, that whereas Plessis had brought that place of Cyril's words to julian, to prove that Christians in his time did not adore the Cross, it seemed to him that they proved neither the one nor the other, (which was a condemnation of Plessis, that had alleged the same against honouring the Cross) & then his Majesty added further, that by the objection of julian, exprobratinge unto them that they did honour the Cross: it seemed to him evident, that he would never have made such an objection, if it had been altogether false. Which speech of his Majesty being public and registered in the ears of all men, a man may see the modesty of Plessis, that dareth so openly, and in print, to pervert the same.  
Upon the very same place he falsifieth also 
7. Depravation.  in like manner, the sentence given by the deputies, 
Discourse pag. 50.  saying that the Chancellor pronounced simply, that the words alleged out of Cyrill, were not found in him, leaving it easy to the hearers (saith he) to infer, that the sense notwithstanding was to be found in him. Which is a great untruth, for that the sentence registered by all 4. secretaries comprehendeth the whole passage in these words: 
Acts fol. 72.  The passage cited by Monsieur Plessis out of Cyrill, is not found in Cyrill; which sentence containeth as you see both sense and words. And it is a poor shift of Plessis, to go about to help himself by so childish an inference, as for that they gave sentence, that the words alleged by him were not in Cyrill, it might be inferred, that the sense was.  
After this the Bishop showeth divers other gross untruths in this kind, as namely, that in reporting the sentence of the Chancellor, 
8. and 9 Depravation.  and deputies upon the last place examined out of Theodorete, about Idols, he falsely perverteth the same, leaving out the principal important words of the said sentence, to wit, adored by Paynims, and adored for Gods, contrary to the faith of the records themselves, uniformally taken by all 4. secretaries; & then again to excuse himself from a foul disgrace, happened in the examination of the first place about the real presence out of Scotus, 
Discourse pag. 60. & 65.  whose text Plessis could not read, he telleth in his discourse this notable lie, that the B. of Eureux had used a certain fraudulent sleight to disgrace him, which was to bring two editions of Scotus, the one fair to be read, which he sent him overnight with the 60. places to prepare himself, the other he retained with him of an evil print, which he obtruded to him in the conference. But this shameless fiction the Bishop refuteth first by the testimony of them, that brought back again the books from Plessis house to the conference, and then by the witness of 4. several French gentlemen, 
A foolish calumniation refuted.  to wit, Monsieur du Bertant, du Beaulien, du Berulle, and du Salettes, that came with him from Paris, & knew that he brought but one only edition of Scotus with him, which was in folio of the print of Badius Ascensius in the year 1519. and lent unto him by the college of Sorbone in Paris for this conference, which book being given to Plessis to verify his place alleged out of him, he could not so much as read, nor turn the book, for that there were some abreviations therein after the manner of schooldoctors, and thereby all the lookers on, and hearers well perceived that he was utterly ignorant in reading schooldoctors, though every where for ostentation of learning, he was accustomed to city them in his books. And this shame Plessis had no other way to cover, at that present, before all the auditors, but to say that he was not practised but in his own books only, though afterward upon more deliberation, he thought good to devise this other shift of changing the book by the Bishop, which yet being so maliciously convinced of calumniation by the witnesses before mentioned, did exceedingly tend to Plessis discredit. And this shall suffice for the first point of Plessis reply, wherein you see, that for defence of his 9 places before convicted of falsification, he uttereth 9 other great untruths, for doubling the number.  
As for the other two points of new shifts and recrimination, 
The other 2. points of Plessis discourse  I will remit the Reader to the Bishop his own refutation, for them that understand the french tongue; and for the rest it will not be hard to guess by example of this which we have alleged, what manner of stuff it is, which Plessis could allege for his further defence in so manifest convinced falsifications; and you shall hear presently what O. E. in England can say for him. And if you find him by this little, a man with out faith or spirit of truth in his assertions, then shall it be wisdom to beware not only of this his book against the Mass, whereout so many falsifications have been gathered, but of others also written in the same spirit, and namely of one, that for many years hath gone in English, entitled of the Church, which being smoothly written, and stuffed out with great show and ostentation of Scriptures, Fathers, Histories, and other such furniture, hath dazzled the eyes of many, as did also this other against the Mass, until it was sifted and examined by learned men. But for the other in English, I can assure the Reader, that it is a most deceitful book, and may be well brother to this against the Mass. 
A note of Plessis Mornay his book of the Church.  And it is now very near twenty years gone, that the late Earl of Leicester gave one of them to a kinsman of his, named Guildford, to read for his satisfaction in Religion, who conferring the same with another learned gentleman a friend of mine, desired that it might be examined, which my said friend began to do with such commodity of books, as he could procure at that time, and found so full stuffed with all kind of deceitful impostures, and falsifications, as he remained astonished thereat, and conferred the same with a learned Baron of the Realm now dead, and he with another yet living, and near to his majesties person, who did all wonder at so notorious treachery, though th'examen passed not through the greater part of the book, for that it was interrupted by some trouble falling to the examiner; but he hath affirmed many times since, and doth at this day, that it is incredible to believe, what corrupt dealing there is therein, and exhorteth all those that have means, to try the truth of this his assertion, which I cannot do at this present, for that I have not the book by me; yet I thought it convenient to give a note thereof, for staying of them, that have, or may be deceived thereby, and for stirring up of others to make this examen. And so for this time we leave Plessis to himself, and to his shifts in France, and shall pass over to consider what O. E. his advocate can say for him in England.   

WHAT O. E. (OTHERWISE MATHEW SUTCLIFFE) HATH written for defence of Plessis Mornay, concerning the 9 places handled in the former Conference: and how he committeth far greater faults than Plessis himself.  
CHAP. V.  
HAVING perused what Monsieur Plessis hath been able to say for himself, both in the conference and after, upon better deliberation: we must now examine briefly what our old friend O. E. (for under that vizard he masketh hitherto) hath devised for his defence: For that my foresaid brief relation, falling into his hands, he thought it to appertain to his manhood, as a martial minister, to proclaim himself champion in Plessis quarrel, thereby to fulfil the proverb; that none so bold as blind bayard: and though he be not able to defend his own head (as after you shall see) from the same or like blows which Plessis hath received: yet will he needs be doing, & intrude himself for a shield to the other; and this with such violence, or rather virrulency of speech raging and raving at all those, that will seem to touch Plessis fidelity, in the places alleged, as he may seem to need rather binding then answering: yet somewhat shall we say to him, as the straightness of this place and time will permit; and thereby show sufficiently what manner of adversary he is, and that having lost or laid aside (as it seemeth) all manner of respect to shamefastness and modesty, he may easily lend out his tongue & pen for small hire to any man. And truly I can not but marvel, that a man of his profession & place, can persuade himself that so excessive a railing and opprobrious style, against all whom he answereth, should gain him credit with any modest or sober sort of men: he will find some in the end that will return him legem talionis & then he may count his gain. I for my part am resolved not to be drawn by him to that vein, but to urge him only with substantial points of the controversy in hand, as the reader shall see by that which ensueth.  
Wherefore to come to the matter, whereas Monsieur Plessis divided his refuge into three points, as before you have heard. The first concerning the history of the conference itself; 
Three parts of Plessis defence.  the second in seeking out new evasions, the third in recriminations: O. E. setteth before us the same Coleworts sodden again, but guised after another fashion; putting recriminations in the first place of all, but much more vainly than Plessis did in the third. And in the second he taketh upon him to defend the truth and fidelity of Plessis in all the places before examined. And for that in this point consisteth in deed the only substance of the controversy: I shall only examine the same in this place, leaving the other to a more full and larger answer, when we shall have viewed a second edition, which O. E. is said to have made of his new challenge, in five several controversies to N. D. now to the places as they lie in order, with this only advertisement premised, that it shall be good for the Reader first to look over the examen of each place, handled before in the second Chapter of this defence, where all the 9 places are examined severally, and I do mean to remit me often for more brevities sake, thereunto.  

The first Place out of Scotus.  
You have heard 
* Suprae cap. 2.  before how Monsieur Plessis, was argued by the Bishop of two several impostures in alleging one place of Scotus about the real presence, saying: that Scotus was not afraid to call in question, 
Acts fol. 34.  if the body of Christ be really contained under the species or accidents (of bread) and he disputeth that it is not, 
Scot in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 1.  & his arguments are, for that the quantity doth not permit it, etc. Hence, I say, two deceitful falsifications are objected: the first, in that he maketh his reader believe, that Scotus his objection is his resolution: the other, that the arguments of heretics, brought in by Scotus against the real presence, and refuted by him; are Scotus his own arguments. Of which impostures, sentence was given of the deputies against Plessis, as before you have seen, neither could the impertinent replies and evasions attempted by him, deliver him from the shame thereof.  
Now let us hear what O. E. his spokesman, hath devised for a new supply of holes to run out at. 
O. E. in his Refutation. pag. 12.  First (saith he) though Scotus had not so spoken (as Master Plessis hath set down) yet could not Master Plessis be charged with falsification, seeing he doth not quote his words, but setteth down his own collection: The most that could be said, was, that he had mistaken the meaning of Scotus. 
The 2. first shifts or starting holes.  These are two shifts, poor ones as you see. For first, the Bishop did not charge Plessis for misciting Scotus words, but for perverting of his meaning, in setting down his objection for his resolution. Secondly, if Plessis be a man of any learning or common sense at all, this his mistaking of Scotus meaning, (which here O. E. would have to by so called) cannot be censured for less than wilful imposture. For if he had not so much judgement, as to discern an objection from a resolution, than was he a simple fellow to write books: and if he did discern it, and yet sought to deceive his Reader in so weighty a matter, as is the controversy of the real presence, he was and is a wilful impostor.  
These than are the 2. first points of our English Advocates defence; let us hear how he goeth forward. 
Refut. ib.  And yet (saith he) if Peron had charged him only with mistaking, himself bade been mistaken, and greatly had he wronged his adversary. For that it cannot be denied, but that Scotus did indeed call into question, whether Christ's body be really, (by 
* These two words are put in by O. E.  Transubstantiation) contained under the forms of bread and wine, and disputeth that it is not; which is all that the L. Plessis doth say of Scotus, for which he is challenged by his wrangling adversary, etc. Is it all Sir Matthew? As truly as you are true of your word. 
Sup. cap. 2.  He that shall read the examen of the place rehearsed before, shall find that his adversary challengeth him not for saying that Scotus made this objection for the real presence, or disputed against it after the fashion of schoolmen; but for that perfidiously he alleged the place, as though Scotus had been of that negative opinion, and that the arguments objected had been his own, and not of heretics, & solved by him. This is the charge of the Bishop against him. And what will you say to Master Sutcliffe avouching the contrary? But let us see what manner of proof he will bring for his assertion, for that he durst not let so gross an absurdity pass without some shadow of reason, which yet you shall see to be far worse, then if he had passed it over in silence. Hear then his evasion.  
Neither is it material (saith he) that this is the use of schools, 
Refut. ib. pag. 12.  first to object against the truth, and afterward to resolve what is true, and to answer the objections, for that doth not disprove Monsieur Plessis his assertion, seeing Scotus, doth not only in his objections, but also in his resolution of that question, say as much as M. Plessis collected out of him, etc. If this can be proved I will call O. E. a cunning advocate indeed. But if it cannot, then is he to to forgetful of his credit to avouch this again so boldly, after he hath seen it convicted before out of Scotus own words, 
Sup. cap. 2. pl. 1.  in the resolution of that very question saying. I do affirm, that it is simply a substantial point of our faith, 
Scot in 4. Sent. dist. 10. q. 1.  to believe that Christ's body is truly and really under those accidents of bread, etc. Which resolution he having proved out of divers places of scripture, as namely Math. 26. and john 6. he dissolveth the arguments made before to the contrary. Which being so, what shall we say of Master Sutkliffe that after all this seen and read, avoucheth the very same again, that M. Plessis did before?  
But how doth he go about (think you) to prove, that Scotus in his resolution touching the real presence did hold the same, that in his objection against it? You shall hear his own words immediately following in the same matter. 
In Refat. ibid.  Nay (saith he) Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise. Behold here the true dealing of M. Sutkliffe who giveth us quid pro quo as apothecary's are wont. He should have proved that Scotus determined in his resolution against the real presence, and now he saith that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise. So as for the real presence, 
Sutcliffe giveth quid pro quo.  here is thrust in Transubstantiation, and for determination and resolution is shuffled in a seeming to dislike rather than otherwise. Was there ever any such good Apothecary that gave quid pro quo? And if here to help himself out he will say, that the real presence and Transubstantiation is all one controversy, he impugneth himself in the very next place of Durand, as you shall see when we come to it, where he affirmeth Durand to hold (and it is true) and Scotus holdeth the same also, that the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, might have been by other means, then by Transubstantiation, if God would have had it so: and consequently are distinct things.  
And hereof also I do convince O. E. of another false trick of thrusting in the words (by Transubstantiation) a little before in recytinge the question of Scotus, which is not in S●otus himself, nor in his words more truly alleged in this behalf by Plessis as before you may see, for that Scotus question is, whether Christ's body be really contained under the forms of bread and wine? 
deceitful dealing.  And this fellow proposeth it thus. Whether Christ's body be really by Transubstantiation contained, etc. And this to the end he might deceive his Reader, as here he doth by leaping from the one to the other, when he is pressed or gauled, whereas Scotus doth handle these two controversies of the real presence, and Transubstantiation as different and distinct things, not only in sundry questions, but in sundry distinctions also, to wit the first in the tenth, the second in the eleventh distinction upon the Master of the Sentences: So as here I must represent unto you the boldness or ignorance of O. E. to exceed much that of Master Plessis his Client.  
And thus much of the controversy about the real presence. But now lest you might think he had somewhat more to say, to prove Scotus to be against Transubstantiation then against the real presence, 
Wither Scotus held Transubstantiaton & how?  for that he so leapeth from the one to the other, let us hear his arguments, though you must note by the way his nice assertion in saying: that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise, and his arguments are two objections of Scotus against Transubstantiation as the other were before against the real presence.  
The first objection 
First objection.  of Scotus against himself is, for that bread, together with his accidents or species, do more represent unto us the nature of spiritual food without Transubstantiation, than the bare accidents by and after Transubstantiation; ergo the nature of the Encharist in this respect of nourishment, might have been conserved, though God had not appointed Transubstantiation, but his body to have been together with the substance of bread. Which argument you see maketh against the alleager O. E. flatly, for that it proveth the Real presence, and Transubstantiation to be distinct things, and that the one might have been without the other, and therefore it was foolishly brought by O. E. seeing it is not only an objection and no resolution, but also an objection that impugneth his assertion.  
The second objection 
2. objection.  of Scotus against Transubstantiation, is● that in mysteries of our faith, that interpretation seemeth most to be admitted, which requireth least miracles for maintaining thereof; but fewest miracles seem to be required without Transubstantiation, then with Transubstantiation, ergo we should rather admit the reality of Christ's body, together with bread without Transubstantiation, than the same body with only accidents of bread by Transubstantiation. These be two objections among others made by Scotus against Transubstantiation, above fifty leaves after his former objections against the real presence. Which objections after his resolution set down for Transubstantiation he answereth & solveth, beginning thus: Ad argumenta, etc. Now must we answer the arguments made to the contrary, etc. But yet about the first objection he repeateth again: Dico quod bené fuisset Deo possibile instituisse, 
Scot 4. in scent dist. 11. q. 3.  quod corpus verè esset praesens, substantia panis manente, etc. I say that if God would, he had been well able to have appointed his body to have been present in the Sacrament together with the substance of bread, without Transubstantiation, etc. But having appointed otherwise (as appeareth by the declaration of the Church) we are not to respect more or fewer miracles, etc.  
And hence now you see, that O. E. endeavouring to deliver Plessis from the shame of citing Scotus his objection for his resolution, in the controversy of the real presence, himself bringeth forth tow more objections for resolutions, without seeing the shame thereof about the article of Transubstantiation, 
Refutat. pag 12.  yea & further blusheth not to infer thereupon this conclusion; That Scotus plainly misliked that interpretation, that without divers miracles cannot be maintained, etc. 
Two Rotorious lies.  And that albeit he was content to subscribe to the Pope's determination, & durst not do otherwise; yet that he himself thought otherwise, etc. O jesus! what shall a man say of these manner of people? Let us hear Scotus his own words, in the same place where he talketh of the Church's determination & exposition of scriptures, for this point of Transubstantiation. Dico (saith he) quod eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae quo conditae; 
Scot in 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 3.  & ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est nobis fides, spiritu scilicet veritatis, etc. I do day that the scriptures are expounded by the same spirit, by which they were written, and so we must suppose that the Catholic Church hath expounded them unto us (to wit the scriptures that concern this mystery of Transubstantiation) with that spirit wherewith our faith was delivered unto us, that is to say, by the spirit of truth, etc.  
Lo here, Scotus foundeth the truth of Transubstantiation not upon the Pope's determination, or upon the authority of the Church only, as falsely O. E. chargeth him; but upon the truth of scriptures expounded by the Church, with the same spirit of truth whereby they were written, and consequently is far of from plainly misliking this interpretation, as O. E. affirmeth, but for that among other arguments, Scotus named the determination of the Church, the calumniator, that could not abide the word, charged him presently, to be moved only with that reason. What would he have babbled against him if he had left written as S. Augustine hath done, 
August. cont. epist. fundamenti cap. 5.  that he would not believe the gospel, if the authority of Church did not move him thereunto? And do you note further that Scotus in the same place affirmeth, that albeit this verity about Transubstantiation, was declared first in the Council of Lateran, yet was the substance thereof believed also from the beginning, 
How Transubstantiation was believed from the beginning.  under other words of conversion Transmutation, Exchange of substances, and the like. Which he showeth out of the ancient Fathers, yea and that it was included implicit in all th' old creeds of th' Apostles, & others Ponitur (saith he talking of the Council of Lateran) veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicitè, 
Scot ibid. dist. 11. q. 3.  quam habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum, vel Athanasijs, vel Niceni. In this decree of the Council of Lateran the truth of certain articles belonging to faith, is more clearly & particularly set down, than it was before in the Creed of the Apostles, or of S. Athanasius, or of the Nicene Council. So as by this it appeareth, that Scotus did not believe the truth of T●ransubstantiation as a thing determined only by the Council of Lateran, but as contained in the scriptures, and believed in substance from the very beginning, and declared or expounded only by the Council of Lateran, directed by the spirit of God. And this is sufficient to convince O. E. of plain calumniation; and though he say in the end of his defence, that Dominicus Soto and josephus Angles, are at some difference about Scotus his meaning: yet are his words & whole discourse clear enough, without any commentary of others, as you have seen. And quently this shall suffice for the examen of this first place.   

The second Place out of Durand.  
For that we have been longer in the first place, to show thereby some portraiture of O. E. his manner of answering and defending his Client; so shall we be breeder in the remnant. The charge upon the second place was (if you remember) that Plessis had abused Durand, as he had before done Scotus, but most of all his Reader by them both, in alleging an objection for a resolution; which is evident, for that Durand beginning to comment upon the 11. distinction of the fourth book of the Master of Sentemces, which distinction is about. Transubstantiation (as the former is about the real presence) he frameth his first question thus: Primo quaeritur, etc. 
Durands' objection li. 4. sent. dist. 11. q. 3.  First it is demanded, whether the body of Christ be in the Sacrament by conversion of the substance of bread into it, etc. Et arguitur quod no●, etc. And it is objected that it is not, but rather the substance of bread remaineth, for that sewer difficulties do follow that way, then by putting Transubstantiation, etc. And after this he setteth down his resolution to the contrary, 
The Sum of the ● controversy. Sup. cap. 2●  and answereth this objection as before you have heard: whereupon after divers shifts attempted by Plessis for some evasion, he found none to the purpose, and so had sentence against him.  
And what now doth his advocate think you bring to relieve him? truly nothing at all. For first he doth not so much as mention this place of Durand, whereof the controversy was; but another where Durand saith (as Scotus also did before) that God by his omnipotency might have ordained, that his body should have been in the Sacrament without Transubstantiation, if he had would. Which no man denieth. But hear his words: The second place (saith O. E.) 
O. E. his reply Refut. pag. 13.  was taken out of Durand, who saith that it is rashness to affirm that the body of Christ, may not by the power of God be in the Sacrament, by other manner, then by the conversion of bread into his body, neither can it be denied that Durand hath these words, and why then is Master Plessis charged with falsification? Fersooth because they say he took the opposition for the resolution. Thus he. Whereto I answer, that he is grossly deceived, for that Plessis is not charged for setting down the objection in steed of the resolution out of this place of Durand, but in the former place by me alleged, which he hath here omitted. For of this place there was never any question or difficulty of the Conference, though it was alleged to another purpose, as before is mentioned. You will ask me perhaps, & why then doth O. E. 
O. E. his error in part excused, & in part aggravated.  allege this wrong place of Durand, leaving out the other, whereof the controversy is? Surely I must in part excuse him, for that he erred also herein, who set forth the particular passages without the Relators knowledge, after the relation ended and printed, as before hath been signified, and is testified in the preface to the said passages: yet was his error much more pardonable than this of O. E. for that he had only a written copy of a particular friend from Paris, & had not seen the public Acts printed, nor Plessis reply, as this other had done, writing more than a whole year after they were published; & therefore for him to come now, and dissemble the true place in controversy, and deceive his Reader with a new fraud, saying that we accused Plessis with falsification, for taking the objection for the resolution in this place, (whereas as all men do know it was in another) showeth as well his condition devoted to continual shifting, as also his weakness to defend his client in the former charge, he being glad to slip out & run away under the shadow of an other man's error.  
And yet to leave behind him some scent of what he is, he would needs utter two other notorious untruths 
Two notorious untruths about Durand.  at his parting: the one, where he saith: that it may plainly be gathered by Durands words, that the determination only of the Council of Lateran, & the Romish Church moved him to hold Transubstantiation. Whereof there is no such word in Durand but rather the plain contrary, for so much as he proveth 
* Primum patet authoritate Sanctorun, & ex determinatione Ecclesiae● dist. 11. q. 1. n. 9  Transubstantiation not only by the Council of Lateran, but also by divers clear sentences of ancient Fathers, namely S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Prosper and Eusebius which were long before the Council of Lateran. The other untruth is, where he saith, that not only they, but Bellarmine also doth note the same in Durand, taxing him for hard belief of Transubstantiation. Whereas Bellarmine in the place cited doth expressly say, 
Bellar. I. 3. de Eucharist. c. ●1.  Durand to hold converti panem in corpus Christi per consecrationem: that the bread is converted by the words of consecration into the body of Christ, but yet that he hath a certain particular opinion about the manner thereof, which is nothing to our controversy: So as O. E. not having relieved his client any thing at all in this point, hath loaded himself with 2. or 3. faults more than he had on his back before, And so he passeth from this place to the other that followeth.   

The third Place out of S. Chrysostome.  
The charge given upon Plessis in this place, is as before you have seen, for that he going about to allege S. Chrysostome against prayer to Saints, 
Acts fol. 52.  said that his conclusion upon the words of Hieremy was quite contrary to that of catholics at this day, to wit, that we ought not to rest ourselves upon the prayer of Saints, 
Sup. cap. 2.  but work our salvation with fear and trembling; whereas the true words and meaning of S. Chrysostome are quite contrary, who saith in the very place: Let us not contemn the prayers of Saints for us, nor yet place all our hope therein: the first not to deprive ourselves, 
Chrysost. ●om. in ●. epist. ad Thessaly.  of so great a succour, the second not to make ourselves negligent, etc. As before you have 
* Supra● cap. 2.  heard● which words being discussed, and all Plessis shifts and turnings examined, sentence was given of falsehood against him. Now let us see how O. E. will relieve his cause: The third place (saith he) was drawn out of Chrysostome, but neither can his adversary prove this place to be falsified by him, not impertinently alleged: not the first, 
O. E. Refut. pag. 13.  for that he doth not allege Chrysostom's words, but maketh a collection upon them: not the second, for that as Master Plessis affirmeth, it may evidently be gathered out of his words; that we must not rely upon the prayers of Saints, but work our salvation with fear and trembling.  
Behold here a quick dispatch of matters, and no marvel it is, though O. E. do lend his labour to many in answering for them, seeing it costeth him so little, and he doth it with so great facility: but I must return upon him in both these points, and do say to the first, that Plessis in his collection hath falsified both the words and sense of S. Chrysostome, 
2. falsifica●iōs, of Plessis.  as before in the second Chapter hath been showed. The words, in leaving out those that expressly made against him, the sense, in drawing a quite contrary conclusion to that, which S. Chrysostome did make. For that he exhorteth men to pray to Saints to be intercessors for them, and withal to live well themselves: but Plessis by including the one would exclude the other. And as for impertinency, there is little account to be made, where there is imposture, and open contrariety to the author's meaning, as here, and therefore impertinently doth O. E. go about to excuse impertinency, where we object greater crimes: but mark his reason, why it is not impertinent, 
Two falsehood of O. E.  for that (saith he) it may be evidently gathered out of Chrisostomes' words, that we must not rely upon prayers to Saints.  
But why doth the crafty minister, leave out the word (wholly) which maketh or marreth the whole sense, for to rely, and to rely wholly are two different things. Why also doth he leave out the other words added by Saint Chrysostome for explication of his own meaning, 
Chrysost. ibid.  to wit, So as we be not negligent of our own part? You shall hear his grave answer. Neither is it material (saith he) that these words: 
O. E. Refut. ibid.  if we be negligent, are omitted, for they are not to purpose, seeing Chrysostome would not have us rely upon the intercession of Saints, albeit we be diligent to do our endeavour ourselves. This now is to to shameless, for it is the quite contradictory to that which S. Chrysostome in express words exhorteth, to wit: to the end we do not deprive ourselves of so great a succour, let us pray unto Saints to be intercessors for us, and of our own parts, let us live virtuously, etc. And who then is more shameless here, either the client or the advocate? but let us hear out the rest of this defence. It is also objected (saith he) That Chrysostome alloweth intercession of Saints, 
Refut. ibid.  but be it he did so, yet doth not this convince that he is falsely alleged by Master Plessis, seeing that which he gathered, may be true, albeit this were granted, etc.  
here I would have the Reader to stand attended, and mark the conveyance of these deceitful masters in deluding men. Plessis gathered out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints deceased: and now faith O. E. that albeit Chrysostome did allow prayer to Saints, yet that which Plessi● gathered may be true: But I would ask how Plessis could truly gather out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints, 
Impudentinglinge of Plessis & of his Attornay O. E.  if he allowed intercession to Saints, except you will say that S. Chrysostome both allowed and impugned one and the self same thing. It followeth in O. E. for the conclusion of his defence. How much then (saith he) is it more unlikely, 
Another contradiction between O. E. and Plessis.  that Master Plessis shallbe convicted, seeing Chrysostome in that place hath nothing which doth not appertain rather to the prayers of holy men living, then of holy men departed. These are the last words of his defence immediately following upon the former, and all that he saith in this cause. And you will easily consider how they hang together; I only will say this. That if this place of S. Chrysostome alleged by Plessis against prayer to Saints departed, doth rather appertain to living Saints then to dead, as O. E. here affirmeth (and hath been 
* Supra cap. 2. loc. 3.  before refuted) then either Plessis was ignorant or maliious to allege it against prayers to Saints departed as he did: so as you see, that O. E. doth rather impugn his client then defend him; & so not worthy any see at all.   

The fourth Place out of S. Chrysostome.  
The falsifications objected unto Plessis upon this other place of S. Chrysostome, out of his commentary upon S. Matthew, was, that the said Plessis having told his reader in his book against the Mass, 
Acts fol. 57  that S. Chrysostome was careful every where to overthrow the foundations of the abuse of prayer to Saints, said: 
Chrysost. hom. 5. in Math.  that we have more assurance by our own prayers, then by the prayers of others, etc. leaving out his words immediately following, which declared his meaning, to wit; we do not say this to the end we should not make our prayers to Saints, but to the end wshould not be slothful, our we selves. Which being proved after divers evasions in vain attempted by Plessis, to be a plain wilful corruption and falsification of the author's meaning; sentence was given against him, as before you have heard. Let us hear what the poor Advocate hath to bring of new.  
And first you must note, 
O. E. seeketh to be obscure oftentimes of purpose.  that whensoever he is puzeld, & findeth himself entangled, so as he seeth not which way to turn or get out; his custom is, to make himself obscure of purpose, that so by casting some mists before his Readers eyes, he may escape away; & hereof you shall have frequent examples if you stand attended. Now then O. E. having recited part of the former text of S. Chrysostome, as Plessis had set it down; he entereth thus into his defence: This (saith he) the adversary himself cannot deny to be truly alleged (by Master Plessis) how then came it to pass, that he dealing thus justly and truly, 
O. E. Refut pag. 14  he should notwithstanding be charged with falsification? Forsooth saith his adversary for that he left out the words following; to wit and this we say not, that we would deny prayer to Saints, etc. And for that he applied Chrysostom's words against prayers, to Saints departed.  
Lo here, you have first a justification of Plessis, that he had dealt justly and truly videlicet in alleging S. Chrysostome, and then two objections of his adversary brought in with a forsooth, as though they had been trifles. The first was, that he had cut of certain words of the sentence that made most to the matter: the other, that he had alleged S. Chrysostom's words quite against the author's drift & meaning, etc. Let us see how his advocate will answer the two charges: you shall hear him in his own words: 
Refut. ●ib.  As if (saith he) it were so heinous a matter, not to set down words altogether impertinent. This is to the first objection, & he hath no one word more. Wherefore it is to be considered, whether the aforesaid words left out were altogether impertinent or no, which we shall briefly examination.  
The question was whether S. Chrysostome in his commentaries upon S. Matthew did go about to overthrow the foundation of praying to Saints, 
The state of the question and O. E. his impertinency.  as Plessis said that he did, & for proof thereof he alleged the foresaid words: that we have more assurance by our own prayers & good life, then by the prayers of others, etc. And presently after the said Father adjoineth for his explication the other words left out by Plessis: we do not say this, that we should not pray to Saints, but to the end that ourselves be not slothful for ourselves. And now I would ask: were these words altogether impertinent to have been put in or no? Or is not O. E. an impertinent fellow, not to blush to make such an answer? Seeing these words if they had been expressed, do utterly overthrow Plessis whole drift & argument. And thus is the first objection answered or rather shamelessly shifted of by him, let us see the second, whither he will answer it more substantially.  
The second objection was, 
The second charge more foolishly answered then the former.  that Plessis had wrongfully alleged the foresaid words of S. Chrysostome, (we must have more assurance in our own prayers, then in other mens) against prayer to Saints deceased, whereas S. Chrysostome expressly protesteth in the very same place, as now you have heard, that he meaneth not so, and so consequently Plessis did abuse him egregiously to force him against his own meaning, words, & protestation. How answereth O. E. unto this think you? you shall hear: 
O. E. Refut. pag. 1●  As if (saith he) it did not follow, that we are not to rely upon Saints prayers, and therefore we are not so continually to pray to Saints, and so to trust in their intercession as the Church of Rome doth, that maketh prayer to Saints a great piece of their Church service. Mark here two points (gentle Reader) first that albeit S. Chrysostome do say and protest, that by his words; we must confide more in our own diligence, then in others, he meaneth not against prayer to Saints: yet O. E. saith that it followeth of his words, that we must not rely upon Saints prayers, whom shall we believe, either Chrysostome of his own meaning and intent, or O. E. that will force him to say that which he denieth? Secondly do you mark that O. E. seemeth here to admit some certain measure of prayer to Saints, so it be moderate: for he saith that, we must not so continually pray to Saints, nor so trust in their intercessions, as the Church of Rome doth, etc.  
But here (perhaps) some man will ask me, is it possible that O. E. hath so little judgement as not to see this absurdity, to force S. Chrysostom's meaning against his own protestation? Whereto I answer that at length he saw it, and went about to remedy the same, thus: 
O. E. Refut. ibid.  But were it (saith he) that the argument were not good (to wit of Plessis collection out of S. Chrysostome) and his consorts do commit falsifications, as often as they bring weak or evil shapen arguments. Whereto I answer, that if they should be so misshaped as yours (Sir Matthew) are, that do belly the author to his face, and will bear him down that he meaneth the plain contrary to that which he protesteth in express words, I would not only say that they were weak and misshaped, but false and malicious also; and the authors worthy to lose their credit for ever.  
Finally O. E. having no more to say about this place, 
A false and ridiculous conclusion.  concludeth his whole defence in these words: It was also (saith he) further answered (videlicet in the conference by Plessis) that Chrysostome had nothing in this place, that might force us to believe that he taught or believed prayers to Saints departed, which may serve fully to answer all the adversaries vain cautillations. Whereto I reply, that I know not what may be sufficient to force O. E. and his faithless brethren, to believe that S. Chrisostome approved prayers to Saints: but if his own words often repeated may be sufficient, you have heard them before sufficiently out of himself, & consequently the judicious Reader will easily discern, where substantial proofs and where vain cavillations do lie & so much of this place.   

The fifth Place out of S. Hierome.  
The fraud and unfaithful dealing objected unto Plessis upon this place, 
Acts fol. 65.  was like to that of the former; to wit, that he had cited certain words out of S. Hierome upon the Prophett Ezechiell as making against prayer to Saints, leaving out those words that immediately followed, and declared his whole meaning. The words alleged were: that we must confide in God, 
Hier. l. 4. in Ezech. cap. 14.  and not in other men's prayers: for albeit they be Saints and prophets, yet shall they deliver but their own souls, and not those of their children, if their children be negligent. Which last words (if their children be negligent) Plessis craftily cut of, and being pressed therewith and not able to clear himself, had finally, after many shifts rejected, judgement given against him of falsehood, as before you have heard. Let us see now, 
Sup. cap. 2.  how O. E. will recover his credit again, and remember what I noted before of his willing obscurity, when he hath no list to be understood, as I presume the ordinary Reader will hardly understand him in this passage, 
Wilful obscurity of O. E.  if this explication of mine were not premised, which seemeth to be the thing he most desireth in this place: For you shall see him pitifully plunged in the puddle of contradiction, before he get out, thus than he beginneth his defence.  
The fifth objection was (saith he) for that in Plessis citing these words out of Hieroms comment aryes upon Ezechiel lib. 4. cap. 14. 
O. E. Refut pag. 14  bonum est confidere in Domino, etc. He left out those words. Sincgligentes fuerint. But no falsifications can be without fraud: now what fraud could be imagined in omitting words that make nothing for his adversary, nor against himself? Thus he, 
An obscure narration of the state of the question.  making his exordium with an interrogation as you see. But before I answer it, I would first ask him, why he putteth down the state of this controversy so darkly? for if I had not explained the matter somewhat before, who would here have understood wherein the difficulty lieth? for what sense do make those words in Latyn, and not englished, bonum est confidere in Domino, etc. and si negligentes fuerint? but all this is of art and fraud to dazzle the Readers eyes, that he understand not the falsity wherein Plessis was taken. For if his proctor O. E. had set down the true words of the controversy, as I did before, his question had been answered of itself: for who but a simple fellow will put in doubt, but that the words before rehearsed (if their children be negligent) be of chief importance to be put in, or left out, seeing they do solve all the difficulty? For if the children of Saints be negligent (saith Saint Hierome) then will not the only prayers of their parents save them: 
Hier. ibid.  but if they be diligent, and do cooperate also of their own parts, then will they avail them, as S. Chrysostome in like manner declared in the former passage. Consider then how true, & substantial this first defence of O. E. is, which maketh his entrance with so blind & false relation of the controversy itself, and how well he deserveth to be an advocate for others, that so marreth his client's cause even at the beginning. But let us hear his second defence of the same charge, or rather his second evasion if it be better than the first.  
Besides (saith he) the ordinary gloss doth rehearse these words no otherwise then the L. Plessis quoteth them, whom I think the Mathureux Bishop of Eureux will not charge with falsification. 
Discourse veritable pag. 148.  This supply is taken out of Plessis own discourse sent from Saumur after his flight from Paris, and it showeth that O. E. had read the same, and thereby is inexcusable when he dissembleth it, as before in voluntary mistaking the second place out of Durand, and upon divers other occasions, but to the point. If the gloss upon Ezechiel did city the words of S. Hierome dismembered as Plessis doth, it were in no wise a just excuse for him. First, for that the gloss useth to city short pieces of sentences, as it serveth to purpose for explication of words in the text, but Plessis took upon him to set down a whole place out of S. Hierome, for impugning prayer to Saints deceased, and so cited them verbatim and at large, until he came to the words that made against him: 
Gloss. in cap. 14. in Ezech.  to wit, that Saints prayers will not help their children, if they be negligent, which condition yet the gloss omitteth not but expresseth it in other equivalent words thus: if they follow not the faith and works of their parents. Wherefore this shift helpeth neither Plessis nor his proctor any thing at all. And as for the Malheureux B. of Eureux, 
The B. of Eureux Unlucky only to hugonots.  he may perchance, be called malheureux, that is to say unlucky to the Hugonots of France, for that having been once so chief a man of their party, hath since his conversion so learnedly & luckily battered their sect, as no man more in France, nor perhaps in Europe, and they do well feel the blows, but otherwise the reproach is foolish to call him unlucky.  
And this is all which O. E. can devise to bring forth for defence or excuse of the falsification objected in leaving out S. Hieroms restriction (if children be negligent): but now let us hear another objection made by the Bishop & answered by O. E. It was also here objected (saith he) that Hieromes words in Ezechiel make nothing against prayers to Saints: 
O. E. Refut. ibid.  but it must be remembred● that the controversy here was not whether● M. Plessis had well concluded out of that place but whether he had rightly alleged it, etc. Well Sir; and we have showed now, that he alleged it not rightly, having left out the principal clause, that he should have put in: and if you grant also, (as you seem thereunto inclined), that he hath not rightly concluded; then is he double false, to wit, both in alleagation & conclusion: but somewhat I hope you will devise to excuse his collection and conclusion, though the author's words themselves be against it. Let us see then what it is. 
O. E. taken in most clear absurdity.  Besides that (saith he) we answer, that it is no weak argument to conclude thus: (as Plessis doth out of S. Hierome) we must not trust in the prayers of men, and therefore are not to rely upon the prayers of men departed this life. But I say to the contrary, that it is a weak and wicked argument to conclude thus, as the words lie in S. Hierome, we must not rely upon the prayers of men though never so holy, if we be negligent of our own parts, ergo we must not trust in the prayers of Saints departed, though we be never so diligent, to live virtuously ourselves; this I say were an absurd manner of argument and conclusion, 
Eureux in Refut. of Plessis false discourse fol. 141. 132. 243. & de inceps.  and yet this is the argument and conclusion of Plessis and of O. E. for impugning prayers to Saints deceased, against which false conclusion the Bishop in his refutation of Plessis reply, doth allege above a dozen most plain and effectual places, out of S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, and other Fathers, which plainly and perspiciously do approve the doctrine and practice of prayer to Saints deceased in their days, and O. E. durst not take upon him to answer any one of them, but pulling down his hat over his eyes, passed by them as he had not seen them. But let us hear his last conclusion. 
Hier. l. 2. in epist. ad Gala.  Finally (saith he) Hierome writing upon the epistle to the Galathians doth flatly demne prayers made to Saints departed and for dead men, saying, Dum in hoc saeculo sumus, etc. Whilst we are in this world, we may help one another by prayers or counsels, but when we come before the trihunall of Christ neither job, nor Daniel, nor N●● can pray for any man, but every one shall bear his own burden. And do you see what plain places these fellows bring forth and how flatly they conclude? This place if you remember, was alleged by Plessis in the conference & answered by the Bishop, that being meant evidently of the day of judgement, made nothing against prayer before that day, nor could he reply any thing at that time, nor did he afterward in his discourse, as appeareth by the Bishop's refutation fol. 146. 
Disecous' du Pless. pag. 4●. Refut. fol. 144. & 146. 147.  and 147. but only stood upon his vain distinction and refuge of living and dead Saints, which shift to avoid most evident authorities of the Fathers, the Bishop refuteth die divers places alleged out of S. Hierome himself, & one namely against Vigilantius, where he objecteth to that heretic the very same words, used here by his scholar O. E. 
Hier. ep. 2. cont. Vigilant Anotable place of S. Hier. against the heretics of this time.  Dicis in libello tuo, quod dum vivimus, etc. Thou sayst (saith he) in thy book, that whilst we are in this life we may pray one for another, but that after death no man's prayer shallbe heard for other, etc. but if the Apostles and Martyrs being upon earth in flesh, could pray and be heard for others, when they had need, yet to pray also for themselves, how much more now after their victories, crowns, and triumphs, etc. S. Paul saith of himself, that 276. souls, were given him at his prayers in the ship, when he was alive, and dost thou thinks he will be mute now after he is gone to Christ, and will not dare to open his mouth for them that have believed his gospel throughout the world? and shall Vigilantius a live dog, be better than Paul a dead Lion? So S. Hierome: meaning that Vigilantius presumed, that himself being a live Saint could be heard for others, but S. Paul being a dead Saint, could not, and O. E. presuming the same also of himself (as you may well imagine that he doth) may in like manner apply the same answer of S. Hierome to himself, being in this point no less a barking dog against prayer to Saints, than was Vigilantius. And so much of this place.   

The sixth Place out of S. Cyrill.  
The falsehood objected to Plessis upon this place, 
Acts fol. 70 & Refut. fol. 148.  was, that whereas he had alleged the authority of S. Cyrill against worshipping the Cross, saying: S. Cyrill answered the Emperor julian, who reproached the honour done to the Cross by Christians: that Christians did not give adoration nor reverence to the sign of the Cross, etc. It was objected, I say, that the last words of this sentence, which are of most moment, to wit; 
Lib. 6. cont. julian.  that Christians did not give adoration or Reverence to the sign of the Cross; are not in S. Cyrill, albeit Plessis using often to repeat those words as the words of S. Cyrill, had put them down also (in one place) in a different letter: which charge Plessis being not able to avoid, after divers shifts, turnings, and windings, was condemned as before you have seen, neither was he able to reply any thing of moment afterward in his discourse from Saumur, 
Refut. of discourse fol. 147.  as appeareth by the Bishop's refutation, all which O. E. having perused, and thought well upon, let us see what he bringeth for relief of his client, and I shall set down all his words together, as they lie in his answer, for that they contain not many lines, he knowing not well which way to turn himself, but yet must needs say somewhat, for that he could not well hold his peace.  
The sixth place (saith he) which the L. of Plessis was charged to have corrupted, 
O. E. Refut. pag. 15  was drawn out of Cyril contra julian, 1. 6. & why was he charged think you? forsooth by cause he alleged him to prove that adoration was not to be yielded to the sign of the Cross, 
A very poor defence of Plessis by O. E.  but herein there could not be any falsification used: and that first, for that he did not allege the author's words; and secondly for that he doth well conclude according to Cyril's meaning; for where julian objected to Christians that they worshipped the cross; Cyril answereth, that these words proceeded of bad thoughts & extreme ignorance; so likewise saith Minutius Foelix in his Apology Cruces nec adoramus, nec optamus, that is we neither worship nor desire Crosses.  
This is his whole discourse, full wise and learned as you see, which the poor man having seen refuted particularly in the Acts themselves of the conference, and after more largely in the refutation of Plessis michinge discourse without a name, he bringeth it in here again, as though it had never been heard of or refuted before, without adding one word of help or new supply for poor Plessis, but only some new untrue lies of his own, as his fashion is: as first of all, where he saith, that forsooth Plessis was charged with falsification, 
Three new untruths brought for a supply by O. E. to help out his client.  because he alleged Cyrill to prove; that adoration was not to be yielded to the sign of the Crosse. I say forsooth it is an evident untruth; for he was so charged for that he alleged that out of S. Cyrill which was not in Cyrill. And again it is another untruth, to affirm; that Cyrill objected extreme ignorance to julian, for that he reproached Christians for honouring the Crosse. Seing it was for another distinct cause, as 
* Supra cap. 2. lo●. 6. A fraudulent equivocation of the word Cross taken of the author for a gibbet or gallows.  before hath been showed: to wit, for a false inference or collection made thereof. And it is a third untruth, that Minutius Foelix did say in our sense, we neither worship nor desire Crosses, that is to say, as they signify, the Cross of Christ, & not gibbets as his pagan adversary objected unto him; & O. E. deserveth some such Cross, for impugning the other of Christ, and for deluding his Reader in this place with so gross an equivocation, if his other Acts and Gests by sea and land do not merit also the same.  
And I do call these later two, proper untruths of O. E. though they were objected before by Plessis in the Conference, for that he having seen them evidently answered, & refuted before, bringeth them in again, and dissembleth the refutation, as you have seen in the second Chapter of this defence, where all these nine places are examined particularly, as they were handled in the conference itself.   

The seventh Place out of the law of the emperors Theodosius and Valens.  
The legerdemain objected unto Plessis upon this place, was, as before you have seen, that pretending to allege a certain law or imperial institution against painting and carving of imoges, he left out the words humi & in solo, 
Lib. 1. Cod. tit. 9 Nemini licere vel in sol● vel in marmoribus humi positis sculpere, etc.  that is to say upon the ground, which did make or mar all the market. For that the Emperors for reverence of images, forbidding them to be painted under men's feet, Plessis alleged them against images absolutely: and not being able to defend this falsification, but by laying the fault upon one Petrus Crinitus a new author of our times, whom he had quoted in the margin, but not named in the text, he was condemned at length of this forgery. Let us see how his advocate will defend him, I shall set down his whole defence together as in the former place.  
The seventh place (saith he) was out of Petrus Crinitus where the Lord of Plessis is charged to leave out the word (humi) alleging the law of Theodosius and Valens against the making of the sign of the Cross, 
O. E. Refut. pag. 15.  but his accuser should have remembered, that he did allege not the words, as now they are found in books falsified by Idolaters and Cross worshippers, but out of Petrus Crinitus which citeth the law out of authentical records. Our wise relator here, 
another defence of O. E.  to make the matter seem more heinous, saith, he falsifieth the law of Theosius, Valens, and justinian, as if they had been joint authors of that law: when as justinian was not yet in the world, when that law was made. Neither is it much material if Tribonian, in the emperors name, had put in the word (humi,) for we are rather to rely upon the Originals then upon Tribonians honesty, that put words in & out, and altered laws at pleasure. 
An obscure defence by O. E.  Neither was the law of Theodosius and Valens to be reputed new, albeit the word (humi) had been left out, seeing both Epiphanius, and the Council of Eliberis in Spain, and divers other Fathers had condemned painting of images.  
Thus pleadeth O. E. for his client, but in such sort, as I think verily hereafter few will entertain him for their advocate, and though he thrust himself in, as he hath done in this cause, he willbe rejected and thrust out again, and barred of all practice, as a puny pettifogger, that doth more hurt than help his client's cause, we shall make a few notes upon this his answer, whereby, and by reading the examen made before upon this place, 
Sup. cap. 2.  in the conference itself, you will easily see the vanity thereof. First than it is false, that Plessis alleged Petrus Crinitus, though he quoted his name in the margin, there being great difference between allegation and quotation. 
Acts. fol. 77.  As all men know that are learned the text of Plessis went thus: what will they say (to wit the Papists) to the Emperors 
* This is false for it was Theodosius the second &. Valentinian the third.  Theodosius and Valens, who by an express edict, did forbid the painting of images. Thus he did triumph, with the Emperors themselves in the text, though in the margin he quoted Crinitus for his refuge, when he should be pressed. Secondly, where he saith; that Crinitus citeth the law out of authentical records, and not as they are found now falsified by idolaters, it is a notorious vanity, and this audacious Iconoclast should have cited some proof out of some one author or other for it, and not so boldly of himself, without all reason or authority avouch so untrue a paradox. Plessis himself in the conference, could only say that Crinitus alleged them Ex libris Augustalibus, out of the Emperor's books, which books the Bishop showed evidently, to be no other, but the Codes now extant, 
Pet. Crinit lib. 9 de honesty disciplin● cap. 9  containing the Emperor's laws and constitutions, and this by the words of Crinitus himself, referring his reader thereunto: Si quis (saith he) authorem desiderat, etc. If any require the author of this ● allege, let him read the decrees and Edicts of the Emperors, gathered by most learned men Trebonianus, Basilides, Theophilus, and Dioscorus, especially under justinian, etc. Thus Crinitus of the Emperor's constitutions. Out of which he citeth this law by memory as it seemeth, erring as well in the Chronologie, as also in the names of Theodosius and Valens, who did not live together, nor made laws together, whereas he should have said in deed Theodosius and Valentinian, as also leaving out the words humi & in solo. And it is a desperate defence of O. E. to call in doubt the truth of all the Imperial laws for this thousand years & more, gathered by Trebonianus and other learned men, before named, & read in all schools & universities without note or corruption, until now that this new academic minister O. E. will needs call them all in question and suspicion, so as nothing hereafter shallbe of certain credit.  
And if this had been so as O. E. affirmeth, that the Imperial laws had been corrupted, and that Trebonian that lived above a thousand years passed under justinian the Emperor, had pu● in, and put out, and altered laws at his pleasure, was there no man to have noted it in so many ages before Sutcliffe? Cuias a learned lawyer noted only, that Trebonian by consent of the Emperor justinian changed the word crux, 
A vain calumniation of O. E. against Trebonian.  that before Constantine, signified a gibbett or gallows in the old pagan Emperor's laws, into the word furca. But what is this, that O. E. should say so boldly, that he altered laws at his pleasure? but this is the spirit of heretics to bring all things in doubt, & to take away fidem publicam all credit from all things but their own sayings, and then he that can talk most, shallbe most credible; & this is one ground of their new gospel.  
Thirdly whereas O. E. endeavoureth to trip the Relator for ascribing this law to three Emperors jointly, Theodosius Valens, & justinian, which justinian lived after the former two; he showeth more will than skill to be revenged, for as justinian could not make a common law with the former two Theodosius and Valens, 
Lib. 1. cod. tit. 8. Nemini licere, etc.  for that they lived not together; so neither could the former two make any common law between semlues, for that they reigned not jointly, Valens being slain a dozen years before Theodosius the first came to be Emperor, wherefore it is to be understood of Theodosius the second, and Valentinian the third, and so it appeareth by the Code itself, which Code for that it was gathered by justinian's order, and authority, beareth the name in like manner of justinian's Code, 
Another Cavil returned upon O. E.  and by that reason this law also may be called in this respect justinianus Law, and consequently O. E. was much overseen in running so hastily upon the relator, who yet was not he that did set forth these particular passages in print, as before hath been said.  
Fourthly I would have you to note, the arrogancy of heretical writers in contemning learned men when they stand in their way, 
About old originals pretended by O. E.  as here Trebonian. Vir doctissimus (saith Crinitus) a most learned man that gathered the laws together with others, under justinian. But what saith O. E. of him? you shall hear. Neither is it much material (saith he) if Trebonian in the Emperor's name had put in the word humi, for we are rather to rely upon the originals, them upon Trebonians honesty, etc. here to say nothing of the difference of honesty, honour, learning & dignity, between Trebonian and Sutcliffe, for that comparisons are odious, I would ask what originals are those that O. E. saith we must rely upon? Crinitus out of whom he would seem to gather them saith (as you have heard) that they are the Imperial constitutions contained in the Code, 
Crinit. l. 9 de hom. disciplin● cap. 9  and gathered under the Emperor justinian, which constitutions have continued now in divers editions over all Christendom, for more than a thousand years without any difference in this behalf, yea the edition of Geneva itself produced in the conference hath the text of this law as the rest, with the words humi & in solo. The ancient commentaries, and Glosses also made above 300. ●eares passed upon this law, as that of Azo, Salicet, & others, have the same words and do note no difference ever to have been in this point. Whence then or where are Matthew Sutcl●ffes originals, 
O E. foy●● about his ne● originals.  corrupted as he saith) by idolaters & Cross worshippers? Crinitus is but a late writer, and saith he hath none but out of the Code, and these are all against the Minister; what will he do? or what shall we say to such people? are not our poor deceived contreymen in a good state, to depend upon these men's words and assertions in matters of Religion.  
But let us see the end of his defence upon this place. 
O E Refut. pag. 15.  Neither was (saith he) this law of Theodosius and Valens, to be reputed new, albeit the word hum● had been left out, seeing both Epiphanius, and the Council of Eliberis in Spain & divers other Fathers had condemned Images before. But why had not O. E. cited the places out of Epiphanius, & those other Fathers which condemned painting of Images, that we might have read them. 
Acts fol. 8●. 2 83. & Refut. fol. ●69. 170.  The B. of Eureux did city both in the conference itself, and in his refutation of Plessis discourse, many ancient Fathers express words, both before, and after this law was made of Theodosius, and Valen●inian, (named here again ignorantly by O. E. as the law of Theodosius and Valens) to wit, the authorities of Eusebius, Chrysostome, Hierome, Cyrill, Prudentius, Paulinus, S. Gregory Nissen, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and others, all allowing the pious use of images in their days; yea and an other express law of the same Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, 
Cod Theod. lib. 16. tit. 10.  is also of him alleged, commanding the sign of the Cross to be put in Churches; & how chanceth it that the Minister here also pulleth down his hat over his eyes, and will not see, nor answer any one of these authorities? you may easily guess the reason.  
And as for the Council of Eliberis in Spain, it being a provincial Council of 19 Bishops only, about the year 305. they prohibited nothing, but that Images should not be painted in those days upon walls, both in respect of the indecency & corruption that came thereby unto them, 
The Canon of the Council of El●●eris a●●●●red.  by the moisture of the said walls, somewhat contemptible to the pagans and heretics, yet living among them; as also to the end, that being painted in tables rather than upon the said walls, Christians might carry them away, as they did other Ecclesiastical ornaments when persecution fell out, and not leave them to the spoil and derision of the persecutors. And this reason is gathered out of the words of the constitution itself, confirmed by the practice, both of that t●me & after. And so much of this place, O. E. having borrowed this objection of the Council of Eliberis, out of Plessis reply in his discourse upon the place, though in the Conference he came out with it, 
Discourse pag. 55.  and had his full answer upon the 9 place out of Theodorete, which O. E. here dissembleth and replieth no one word, (as hath been said) to this or to any of the authorities alleged there by the Bishop, for the ancient use and honour of Images.   

The eight Place out of S. Bernard.  
First it is to be noted that this 8. passage, being by error of the aforesaid french written copy sent from Paris, placed in the 9 room by him that set forth the said passages, is restored here by us again unto his proper place, according to the Acts of the conference, and Plessis reply, which O. E. also followeth without mencioninge the error, which is an argument that he had read all, and so much greater is his shame, that he cometh so bare & weak to play the Advocate, after much better matter uttered before by Plessis himself, who was accused upon this place (as before you have seen) for tying together fraudulently two different places of S. Bernard, as making against the honouring of our blessed Lady, and perfidiously leaving out in the midst that clause of the Father, 
Acts fol. ●3.  which being in the text annexed to the former of the two sentences, made all clear (if it had been left in) and overthrew the whole drift of Plessis cavil, the clause was: Magnify the inventrix of grace, 
Ber●. ep. 174.  the mediatrix of Salvation, and the restorer of the world. Upon which deceitful dealing, after many corners sought in vain to run out and escape, Plessis had sentence against him. But let us see what relief the new attorney bringeth.  
As if it were necessary (saith he) where divers places are alleged out of one author, 
O. E. Refut. pag. 16.  to write out all that cometh betwixt one & the other. Lo a quick dispatch of the matter. But I would ask O. E. a case of conscience as professing also divinity, which is this: if when that which goeth between, contain the very substance & soul of the matter or controversy (as here it doth) whether in such a case it be lawful to leave it out, or no? or whether this be properly falsehood and falsification? For if it be not, than we may pervert the Pater noster or any prayer, or piece of scripture, and make it seem blasphemous. And let the reader mark that O. E. hath no evasion here, but most absured. Yet let us hear him further for Plessis excuse. He allegeth Bernard (saith he) not as an authentical witness, 
O. E. Refut. ibid.  but as a man favouring his adverse party being nourished in monastical errors and superstitions. Well Sir, and for that S. Bernard did not favour him in Religion (as no Saint ever did) is it therefore lawful to falsify and corrupt his words and sense? We know well that both you and he do allege the words of S. Bernard, and other Catholic writers, as the devil doth scriptures, which bind not him, but others against whom he allegeth them; 
How heretics do allege Cath. authors.  and so Plessis alleged Scotus and Durandus before, but as the proverb is: A man should not belly the devil. And no less falsehood, and corruption of mind is discovered, in falsifying authors whom they credit not, as others whom they credit. Wherefore let us hear his conclusion upon this place. He saith that S. Bernard and we do not agree about honours to be given to our lady, as in the feast of her conception, in calling her Mediatricem salutis, and that both he and Epiphanius writing against the heretics called Collyridians, do much mislike the honours which we give to the blessed Virgin. All which are toys, & answered before in the examen of this place, for so much as concerneth S. Bernard's agreement and ours; but for the foolish women called Collyridians condemned by Epiphanius, and by the whole Church for offering sacrifice to our Lady, this caviller hath been answered 
* See the confutation of O. E. his challenge by W. R. Chal. 3. ●. 9 n. 61. 62. and 3 conuers. of England part. 2. cap. 2. ●. 21. 22.  so often (to wit that it appertaineth nothing to our controversy) and this in divers books now out against him, as only lack of judgement & matter (as it seemeth) have induced him to object it here again, he having been foiled therein, and made to see, that Epiphanius expressly in that place honoureth highly our El. Lady. and denieth only divine honour unto her. And not that which the Catholic Church doth give unto her.   

The 9 and last Place out of Theodorete.  
The charge of falsifying laid to Plessis upon this passage of Theodorete, 
Acts fol. 90.  was, that he citing a place of this author in his commentary upon the Psalms, 
Theodor. come. in Psal. 113.  against pagan Idols, Plessis did fraudulently so allege the same, as if he had spoken it of Christian Images, for which purpose he used two sleights, the first in translating the Greek word Idol by the Latyn word Image; the second by cutting of these words: Idols adored by pagans, and adored for Gods. For excuse of which two fa●sifications, when Plessis had used divers shifts as well by some show of proof, that Idols and Images may sometimes be taken for the same, and then that the clause omitted was not of such importance, & after both these refuges largely confuted by the Bishop, 
The state of the question.  as in part you may see before upon the examen of this place, sentence was given against him by consent of all the deputies, which O. E. would now gladly have reversed. Let us see his good reasons and arguments he bringeth for the same.  
To the first objection of Translating falsely Images for Idols, 
O. E. pag. 17. of his Refut.  O. E. first answereth thus: As if every one (saith he) that doth translate amiss, were to be charged with falsification, or as if all bad translations of the old Latyn interpreter of the Bible, were so many falsifications. And is not this a substantial answer? we do not say (Sir Matthew) that all erroneous translations be falsifications, if they be of mere error, without malice, but if it be with plain intention to deceive the reader, and to make him apprehend one thing for another in favour of their heresies, then can it not be denied, but that it is falsification and wicked deceit, as here now to translate the word Idol in Theodorete by the word Image, & leaving out those other words, adored by the pagans for Gods, whereby his meaning was declared, that he meant not of Christian Images, but of pagan Idols. Was not this deceit in Plessis, and was not this cozenage in wilful corruption? resolve you the case out of your divinity.  
And where our English sectaries at this day in their translations of scripture, in their Bible's do translate one and the self same word out of Hebrew, 
Heretical corruption in translating.  Greek, and Latyn, diversly, according as it serveth to their purposes, is it not truly falsification? as for example, the self same Greek word Idol and Idolater they translate in some places so, and in other, Image, and Imageworshippers: the Greek word signifying tradition, wheresoever traditions are reprehended, they translate it tradition; but wheresoever they are commended, it is turned into ordinances, instructions, etc. wheresoever Priests are reprehended or spoken evil of, there the word Priest is never omitted, but where they are spoken well of, there must come in the words Elders, Ministers and the like. Though the Greek & Hebrew words be the self same as in the other place. And almost infinite other such examples you may read, learnedly laid together in the discovery of Master Gregory Martin, 
M. Martin's discovery printed as 1582. cap. 1.  of heretical corruptions in translation of the scriptures. And thus much to O. E. his first answer, let us see his second.  
Besides this (saith he) Master Plessis offered to prove, and most true it is, that every Image having idolatrous or heathen worship done unto it, is Idolum. And who denieth this (Sir Matthew)? can you or yours prove that the reverence we do to the sacred Images of Christ, & his Saints is idolatrous or heathenist? Then may you condemn all those ancient Fathers, with the universal Church of their time for heathenist idolaters, which are alleged by the Bishop in his reply to Plessis discourse, and showed out of their own words & testimonies, 
Refut. of discourse. fol. 184. 155. etc.  that they used Images with this Christian hononr● and worship, which we talk of, in the most flourishing time of God's Church, whereof themselves were the chiefest flowers, as namely (to recite some as they lie in his book.) Prudentius, Cassianus, Paulinus, Gregorius Nissenus, Basil, Theodorete, Hierome, Gregorius Turonensis, Gregory the great, Euagrius, Chrysostome Bede, Damascen; and others, to whose authorities and sentences O. E. answereth here not one word, but letteth them slip, as though he had never heard of them; and this is his common trick when he hath nothing to reply: yet notwithstanding shall you hear him brag, and vaunt anon when the skirmish is ended, as if he had fully answered all, and played his prize with great manhood.  
And thus much about the first falsification in translating Image for Idol, wherein O. E. hath valiantly holpen his client as you see. Let us now examine what succour he giveth him for the second charge, to wit, for leaving out the words: adored by pagans for Gods, which should have explicated Theodoretts' plain meaning, that he understood not of Christian Images, when he spoke against such kind of Idols. To the second (objection) is answered (saith he) words● gentibus culta being set down in the allegation, 
O. E. Refut ibid.  do rather hurt, 
A notorious shifting answer.  then help the Papists, that worship Images with kissing, croachinge, censing praying, as the Gentiles did their Idols: those reasons therefore that are forcible against the Idols of the Gentills, are also most forcible against the Popish worship of Images. So saith he. And this is all the substance of his answer to this objection, wherein to omit his intemperate railing I would have every man of reason to consider the folly & falsehood of his answer; falsehood in telling us only that these words à gentibus culta, were left out, whereas Theodoret saith à gentibus culta, & pro dijs culta, worshipped by pagans, and worshipped for Gods, wherein standeth the whole point of the controversy. His folly is apparent, in telling us, that if these words had been truly set down, and not left out by Plessis, it had been worse for us, giving us thereby to understand, that Plessis of compassion not to hurt us more left them out; but yet at leastwise this good we should have had thereby, if he had left them in, as he found them; that the place of Theodorett cited by him against Images, would plainly have appeared impertinent to the purpose, for that it treated only of pagan Idols, and this had b●n help enough for the Papists against Plessis and O. E. who from this place of Theodorete corrupted by them, would impugn Christian Images, now let the Christian reader judge what help Plessis and O. E. had need to have to deliver them from the note of so false dealing.  
And this shallbe sufficient for this brief examen of the 9 places aforesaid, out of which O. E. being once gotten; hearken I pray you how he craketh, 
O E. Refut. pag. ●7.  boasteth and vaunteth: If then (saith he) the adversary could not get any ground of Master Plessis in these places, which were 
* See this to be fal●e cap. 1.  chosen as principal, and placed first as places of most advantage, we may well suppose if the trial had proceeded, that he would have received far more disgrace, 
Ibid. p. 19  etc. And again if a gentleman no professed divine, upon such unequal terms, was able to make 
* A broken head.  head against his adversaries; much better I hope should we be able to resist, if professed divines might procure an indifferent trial, etc. And yet further: 
Ibidem.  most ridiculous it is to think, that this Thrasonical Challenger was able to make good that cause, which neither with lying, forging, facing, nor any wit or policy, 
Great brags.  the greatest clarks of that faction are able to maintain. And in his preface to the refutation of my relation: It will plainly appear by examination of the particulars, that the L. of Plessis was most unjustly charged with falsification, etc. And we will plainly prove that the Popish sect hath gained nothing by this conference, but shame, and confusion, etc. And finally (saith he) if Persons mean to reply, let him pull of his vizard, and come barefaced into the field, and he shall not want those that will encounter him, etc. Thus he, as a cock of the game that croweth when his head bleedeth; and you must further note, that whilst he crieth here to other men, to put of vizards, and to come bare faced into the field, himself lay yet hidden under the vizard of O. E. so as that which he reprehendeth in others, he practiseth in himself, which is the worst, and weakest kind of persuasion, that may be. Christ jesus inspire his heart with his holy grace, & mine also to consider, not so much what maketh for the maintenance of any part or faction, as for simple truth, whereby both of us must be saved, which salvation I desire to him, as to myself, and this is all the hatred I bear him, notwithstanding all his scolding, & with this would I end, but that an others book of his is come to my hands, whereof I must say a word or two briefly in the next Chapter for conclusion of all.    

THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TREATISE, WITH THE notice of another book set forth by Matthew Sutcliffe, and the contents and parts thereof examined.  
CHAP. VI  
AS I was drawing towards the end of this Treatise, I had the sight of a second edition of O. E. his challenge, printed again under the name of Matthew Sutcliffe, whereby we see, that now at length himself confesseth, to have gone hidden hitherto under the veil of those two letters, which he so much objected to others for a fault in his writings. I had heard of this new edition before, but had not had the view until now, and I do think, that if the author had stayed a little longer, and seen the answer that is now out against it, he would have lost much of his appetite to publish it again; 
The cause of the second edition of S●tcliffes fond challenge.  but the cause of this hasty resolution was for that one E. O. opposing himself to O. E. set forth a certain detection, of divers notorious untruths, corruptions, and falsifications, found in the former edition of this vain challenge, which so greatly troubled O. E. being otherwise choleric & impatient, both by nature and custom, as it drove him not only to run out of his name O. E. but near also out of his wits & right senses, in divulging that which must needs turn to his utter discreditt, if I be not deceived: I mean his former ridiculous challenge, very learnedly & substantially refuted as I have said by W. R. & therewithal this his new answer to E. O. who if he reply again (as I presume he will, if the inequality of time & place, or contempt of the author, do not let him) he is like to take exceeding advantage against him, as in part may be seen by that little, which afterward I do examine out of the first two or three places objected by him.  
And whereas to make up a more complete ostentation of defence, O. E. turned now into Matthew Sntcliffe, hath thought good to adjoin another supplement also of recriminations against divers sorts of men: this of all other things is like most to disgrace him, when it cometh to examination, for here willbe fulfilled the poets saying: Vana & sine ●iribus ira; much malice and little power; all which will in part appear by some short notes, 
4. parts of Sutcliffe's new edition.  which in this place I mean to make upon every part of this work, which are four: to wit, the Epistles and prefaces, the challenge renewed; the defence against O. E. and the recriminations against divers.  
To begin then with the first part, 
1. part.  this whole work is dedicated, to Sr. Robert Cecil, now L. Cecil, but with what reason, every man will easily consider, that knoweth the author, and whom and what courses he hath followed, and is acquainted with his speeches of him, whilst his best master was in authority. For my part I refuse not the noble man's judgement in this controversy between us, of false and true dealing, for that I assure myself, that howsoever otherwise in affection he may stand aversed from our Religion: yet cannot his understanding (being such as it is) serve in so evident a matter of fact, as here we are to handle. Wherefore let us make (if he please) the L. Cecil judge, and umpire in this our contention de crimine fal●i, desiring his honour to take so much pains, as first to look back upon that, which hath hitherto been treated about Monsieur Plessis, and then to stand attended to that, which in this Chapter we are to handle of Matthew Sutcliffe, and so to give sentence, according to his wisdom, and verity of the cause.  
One principal point in his epistle dedicatory, as also in his preface to the Reader is, extraordinary vaunting, as though no man could match him, or durst appear in his sight, whereof you have seen what cause hitherto he hath had, & shall do more heraafter. 
Sutcliffe's foolish vaunting.  I have written divers treatisses (saith he) not only against Robert Parsons, but also against Robert Bellarmine, and their consorts the Papists; yet do I not find any that dare encounter me hand to hand, nor have I received any answer to any purpose, nor have I yet encountered any, that hath opposed himself to any discourse or argument of mine, etc. This to Sir Robert; but much more earnestly after in his preface to the Reader: If Persons have not leisure to answer me, let Garnet or Black well that are nearer supply for him; it is a shame to begin a quarrel and to give it over first; for one bout they have no reason to refuse me.  
here now I suppose my L. Cecil must needs smile, to see the man so earnest to have one bout, especially when he shall have understood, that some five or six books are out against him upon the sudden, & each one of them giving him so many boots, as at length by reeling, the poor fellow is on the ground: albeit I must confess, that Catholic writers are come now in such a loathing and contempt of this man's works & writings, both for the vanity of the matter therein contained, and perpetual scurrility of words infecting the same, as few are willing to lose time in answering him, he bringing nothing commonly but absurd shifts, foolish evasions, old worn-out allegations of others, and such excessive turpitude of tongue, as is loath some to any man to answer him, whereof you are like to have some little last in this place, as occasion is offered.  
There followeth in the same epistle dedicatory another complaint, apprtayninge to the same vain of vaunting, 
Sutcliffe accounteth falsifications for trifles ad by-matters.  to wit, that catholics do now fly the main point of joining with him, and his fellows upon the trial of controversies, and do run to trifles & by-matters; let us hear his words: My base and unworthy adversaries pleasure is (saith he) to contend with me about certain small quirks, and questions, about certain pretended untruths, and falsifications, etc. And again. Your honour shall perceive the great weakness of our adversaries, and the poverty of the principal actors in the same, who abandoning the main points in controversy, begin now to pick quarrels at words, allegations, points, quotations, and other by-matters, and ceasing to join with us and like divines to argue and dispute, fall to plain calumniation and railing. Thus he.  
And here again I doubt not but the Lord Umpire, will laugh to hear Sutcliffe account the falsification of Fathers, Doctors, and ancient writers, and this both in words & sense, alleging them expressly against their own meaning, to be but quirks, quarrels and questions about words, points, quotations, and other such by-matters, as if two contending about some great inheritance, and the one obiecting that his adversary had falsified the evidences, whereby the whole controversy must be tried; the other should answer, that these are but quirks and by-matters. And this is the account, which Master Sutcliffe and his people do make of false or true dealing, or changing, chopping, altering, or perverting the authors, whom they allege, as it maketh best for their purpose: But we on the contrary side must here profess, as men bound to strict truth, 
Of what importance catholics do hold false dealing to be.  that we esteem highly of these matters, not only in chief points of controversies, the belief whereof concerneth our souls, but even in less matters also, for that they discover a bad mind, & wicked conscience, wheresoever they are found wittingly, and willingly committed; and yet are not we so rigorous in this point, but that we do easily allow unto Master Sutcliffe, that which in this epistle to Sir Robert he demandeth for himself saying: Do what a man can, yet may ●ther marginal notes be misplaced, or words stand-disorderly, or things be mistaken.  
This I say we easily grant; neither was there ever (I think) any controversy hitherto between us, about misplacing of marginal notes, or disorderly standing of words (so they altered not the true sense of the authors) which yet it hath pleased Master Sutcliffe disorderly to bring in, to the end he might seem, that the accusations laid against him, are for such trifles: but neither these trifles, nor the mistaking of matters themselves (so it be without fraud) are urged by us against them, but only where wilful deceit is evident, and where the deceiver cannot morally be thought to have been ignorant of his deceit. These (I say) are the faults which we object unto Master Sutcliffe and his fellows, and not misplacing of marginal notes, or mistandinge of words, points, or quotaetions; nay we may add a further degree of false dealing, that hath no excuse in the world, which is, 
diverse degreas of falsehood & falsifications.  that where the falsehood is evident, and cannot be denied, nor by any probable means defended, yet not to confess the same, nor to excuse it by ignorance, forgetfulness, trust upon other men, or by any like error, but to continue, and bolster out the same by other sleights and new frauds: this I say is the highest degree of all falsehood and impudence, & used as now you have seen both by Master Plessis in his reply after his first confutation; and much more by Master Sutcliffe his advocate in his broken defence, and the like we shall see practised again by him afterward in this Chapter, upon like occasions of defending himself, and his own writings.  
Concerning which writings, he demandeth in his said epistle to Sir Robert Cecil, as also in his preface to the reader a certain privilege from the civil law, which is, that when divers cases are proposed by one party in law to be admitted, or excepted against by the other, and that the other excepteth only against some, and letteth pass the rest; than it is to be understood (saith the law) that those which are not excepted against, are admitted. Which benefit Master Sutcliffe would have allowed to his challenge; that is, whereas E. O. hath excepted only against some 26. places of Fathers and Doctors corrupted and falsified by him; all the rest besides these 26. might be held as free from corruption. 
Decius in I 1. ff. de Reg. iur.  If lawyers say true (saith he) that exceptions confirm the rule in cases not excepted, then hath my adversary confirmed the main discourse against Persons, and his adherents, having not said any thing unto it, but only excepted against a few places, whereof he taketh 13. to be untruly alleged, and 13. to be falsified. And again in his preface to the reader: if he be not able to except against more places than 26. or there about, it is clear that I have said true in the rest, and that I have argued and alleged authorities to good purpose. 
Sutcliffe would authorize the rest of his book by a privilege of the civil law.  So he. And will not here our judge laugh again think you, to see this poor man endeavour so diligently to authorize his book, by the accusations of his adversary, and by a privilege drawn from the Civil law? The rule alleged of exceptions doth hold only where some few cases are proposed to be excepted against, by the adverse party, but it holdeth not in a main book, where the points are many, and almost infinite that are handled and proposed, and out of which is lawful for any accuser to take his accusations where he will, without authorizing or ratifying the rest, and in our common law of England no man can be ignorant, but that if one should be accused (for example) for stealing of 5. sheep, and should acquit himself thereof: yet this would not bar any other accuser, that would afterward call him into trial for having stolen fifty more.  
Wherefore Master Sutcliffe can not shroud himself by this, but that other men also may examine his challenge 
Challenge. 3. cap. 9  besides E. O. as we have seen that W. R. hath done, and gathered out an infinite huge heap of untruths, and if I guess not amiss, not much less than a hundred in one Chapter. Wherefore seeing Sutcliffe is so earnest to provoke & entreat adversaries to write against him, it is reason he prepare himself to answer all comers, & not to slip away under the shadow of a Civilian rule or privilege, for so much as he is an Englishman, & consequently must be tried by the common law of the land.  
And this may suffice for this first part of his new work, standing in epistles & prefaces, except you would have a brief example represented you here at this very beginning, of the manner of answering and shifting, which he meaneth to use afterwards in his whole discourse, and thereby know the man & his talon even at his first entrance. Hear then how he answereth a speech of his adversary touching the continuance of Catholic Religion. 
In his preface to the Reader.  My adversary (saith he) calleth Popish Religion Catholic, & affirmeth it was planted here by Gregory the great, etc. and that it was always visible since Christ, etc. but he should do well to show how true Religion can be visible, for our Saviour Christ saith: that true worshippers worship God in spirit, and truth, but spiritual worship and true internal devotion, is not so easily seen; unless therefore our adversary suppose Popish Religion to consist in the Pope's mitre, and in cools of monks, and such like external matters, he shall hardly prove Religion to be visible.  
And is not this matter subtly shifted of think you? or may not this man play his prize in this kind of fencing, in what place soever? True Religion (saith he) is not visible. What then? yet men that profess true Religion are visible, 
The confutation of a ridiculous answer of Master Sutcliffe.  and by them may the continuance of true Religion be visibly deduced; and this was that which his adversary meant when he said, that the visible Church or Congregation of Englishmen, coming down visibly from the time of S. Gregory unto ours, and professing always one and the self same faith & Religion, did make a visible Church, and thereby a visible deduction of Catholic Religion, for the space of a thousand years to gather, and that this was not only to be seen or proved by the Pope's mitre, or cools of monks, (as this merry mad minister jesteth) but by all English Kings crowns, and coronations, by all parliament robes, and other honourable testimonies of our nobility both spiritual and temporal, and by whatsoever other most authentical proof this scoffer can devise. And who then will not laugh to see him, for overthrow of all this demonstration, to start out behind a bush, and say: Let him show us if he can, that true Religion is visible. Whereby you may somewhat see into the man, and his wit & talon; Let us pass to the second part of his book.  
The second part of this new edition containeth (as before hath been showed) a renewing of his former challenge, 
The second part of his edition.  whereof it shall not be needful for me to speak any more in this place, having declared before the causes and special motives of this needless renovation, only I will say, that whosoever will take the pains to read the brief & learned 
* Entitled a brief & clear confutation of avaine & vaunting challenge of O. E. minister, etc. By W. R. 1603.  answer of W. R. against the same, and the multitude of errors, ignorances, lies, and frauds therein convinced, he will blush in sutcliffe's behalf, if he be his friend, or laugh and insult over him if he be his enemy: and whensoever he shall make his reply for the first edition already answered, I do not think but that W. R. (if the thing itself be not to contemptible) will vouchsafe to return his full rejoinder, both to that and this, or at least wise to the most principal points of them both. Wherefore we shall leave this, & pass to the third part, wherein we shallbe forced to stay and entertain ourselves somewhat longer, for examination of certain places objected against Master Sutcliffe by E. O. and thereby see his talon in answering for himself, whether it be better than for his client before, and albeit I shall not be able to stand upon the sifting of many places here; yet will the view of some two or three of the first, give a good conjecture of all the rest.  
Wherefore the third part of this new edition comprehendeth (as before hath been signified) the show of a certain answer, 
The third part of this edition.  or defence of Master Sutcliffe his truth and honest dealing in 26. places, or thereabout, objected to him by E. O. as fraudulently handled. And albeit before he come to the combat, he do send forth those excessive vaunts, and brags, which in part you have heard: yet in the conflict itself, you are like to see the poor man not a little daunted, and encumbered. The difference also of speech between him & his adversary will appear notoriously markable, 
sutcliffe's immodesty.  for so much as himself recytinge his adversaries words and arguments (for besides his own relation we have nothing thereof) doth scarce ever note hard speech or phrase, used by him against himself, whereas, the others answer is a perpetual invective of intemperate scolding, ass, dolt, dizzard in grain, frantic, lunatic, ecstatical, owlglass, and like terms, 
Sutcliffe's scolding.  ate the ordinary and chief flowers of his phrases, and yet notwithstanding if you stand attended to the matter, and mark what passeth in the combat, you will quickly lay the truth of these reproachful phrases upon Sutcliffe himself, and say that he deserveth them, for contemning so lightly, so grave, modest and learned an adversary, as his seemeth to be.  
And surely if he be the man in deed, whom Sutcliffe adventureth to name in some parts of his answer, that is to say Master Ph. W. I have known him for such, many years, and he may hold Sutcliffe to School, as many years more in discretion, virtue, and true skill of divinity, if a man may judge of him according to his writings: but this shall appear better by the examination of the places, which I ●aue promised to discuss. And yet here you must be advertised, that we shall not be able to make this examen so exactly in all points as otherways we would desire, for that we have not the treatise itself of E. O. his accusations, for which cause we are forced to allege things only as Sutcliffe is content to city them, whom in every thing lightly we find both faulty, false, and faithless, and therefore if he be convinced here by his own relation, you must be sure that it is with more than evident reason.  
The first place then objected by E. O. against O. E. (now discovered to be Mathuw Sutcliffe) is taken out of this challenge of the first edition cap. 1. pag. 20. num. 10. 
The first places of Sutcliffe's 〈…〉  where he avoucheth boldly; that the use of exorcisuis, blowing, salt, spittle, ballowed water, annoyntments, lights, and other such ceremonies (as his words are) were not practised by the ancient Church, etc. Against which false assertion E. O. 
〈…〉  objecteth first john Caluyn his master, who confesseth these ceremonies to be very ancient. And secondly he allegeth divers Fathers, that make mention of the same, each one in their times, Origen, Nazianzen, Ambrose, and others. Let us see now how this minister will deliver himself of this first charge, and do you mark his shifts, for never mouse in a trapp, nor dog in a cannase did seek more holes to run out at, th●● this slippery fellow.  
First about Caluyn he seemeth to be most troubled, esteeming more of his authority perhaps, then of all the rest alleged, and therefore he saith. Owlglass doth affirm (for so he teasmeth his adversary, without comparison more learned than himself) that Caluyn doth confess it (to wit the antiquity of these ceremonies) but what if it be true? 
Answer to Except pag. 1.  and what if Master Caluyn do not confess that which I say to be untruth? Mark good reader, do you not see here a sound beginning of answering by contrary interrogations, to wit, what if it be true? and what if it be not true? but you will ask me what in the end is his resolution about john Caluyn. You shall hear it many lines after, for in this place he saith no more. But neither doth Caluyn, (saith he) nor any of these Father's mention either the use of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church; nor doth any Fathers speak of all these ceremonies together, nor can the practice of the Roman Church, in the signs and forms of these ceremonies be justified by Fathers.  
Lo here 3. or 4. holes opened to run out at; 
The holes opened by Sutcliffe to run out at.  first, that albeit Caluyn confess these ceremonies to be very ancient, and that the foresaid old Fathers and Doctors do mention them in their writings: yet do they not mention the use of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church before their days. Is not this a pretty shift? as though themselves were not sufficient witnesses of the ancient Church? The second is, that albeit the Fathers, though dispersedly as occasion was offered, mentioned these ceremonies as used in the Church in their days, yet did they not set them down altogether in one place. And is not this a more silly shift? as though the Father's testimonies of them in several were nothing, except they did set them down altogether; by which reason, the Evangelists themselves may be rejected, for that they put not down all things together but many dispersedly, as occasion is offered to treat of them. The third is, that albeit these ceremonies were in use in the primitive Church, yet not in the same particular signs and forms of words, as they are used now in the Roman Church; for so he hath a little after, that if we willbe obstinate, we must prove that the Fathers prayed in consecrating lights, or used the same words in hallowing water & salt, which is now set down in the Roman Missal; & by these & other like shifts, which for brevities sake I omit, 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 have used at Oxford, 
The interpretation of statutes by a good fellow student in Oxford.  in a visitation to avoid the punishment for the breach of certain Statutes of his college, in the beginning of the late Queen's reign; to wit, that when the statute was urged against him, which did forbid scholars upon pain of expulsion to come in or go out over the walls; he answered: that is true when the gates be open: and then being urged by another statute forbidding under the same pains to bear any weapons; he answered: that bearing is understood in men's hands, but not as hanging at their girdills. And by these means was he able to answer fully all objections made against him for breach of statutes. And so is Sutcliffe for falsifying of Fathers by the like manner of answering. And this shall suffice for the first place. In the end whereof notwithstanding he returneth again to Caluyn as being more troubled with his authority, than all the other Fathers brought against him.  
Master Caluyn (saith he) doth not affirm any thing contrary to my words, 
Answer to except. pag. 5.  for albeit he saith, that he knew how ancient some of these ceremonies are, which I deny to have been used in the first Churches; yet doth he not express how ancient they are, nor speak any thing of their several forms, etc. Lo shifting & shuffling upon Caluyn also. He did grant, they were ancient, 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 denied them to be used in the first Churches; and though thirdly you should prove that they were used as Caluyn saith in the ancient Church; yet will he say that Caluyn doth not affirm them to have been in the first Churches of all; nor doth he specify the particular forms of words, now used by the Roman Church. And so will he scape out that way; but now I would ask the discreett reader in good sadness what scriptures, what Fathers, what most evident truth, may not be shifted of, and deluded by these kind of illusions. Let the reader but look over the sixth Chapter of ceremonies, 
Magdeburg. cent. 2. 3. 4. cap. 6.  in the 2. 3. 4. and fifth centuries of the Magdeburgians, and he shall see the antiquity of all these points against Sutcliffe in this place.  
The second place objected by E. O. to O. E. is in the same page, where he saith: It is no Catholic doctrine of the Council of Trent, 
Examination of the second place.  to denounce them accursed, that shall not hold baptism to be necessary to Salvation. The words of the Council are these in the fourth Canon concerning baptism: Si quis dixerit baptismum liberum esse, 
Sess. 7. Can. 5.  hoc est, non necessarium ad salutem, anathema sit. If any man do affirm that baptism is free, that is to say, not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed. And it is to be understood re vel voto, as generally all Catholic divines do expound, to wit that a man be either really or actually baptised, or at least wise have a desire thereof, which desire is to be understood in them that have years of understanding, and are letted otherwise by some extrinsical means from actual receiving the same. And what Christian man would reprehend this doctrine, or call it uncatholike, as Sutcliffe doth? E. O. assaulteth him with three sorts of weapons, as himself confesseth. First the authority of ancient Fathers, that affirm baptism to be necessary to salvation; secondly the words of their own communion book, where talking of the Sacrament of Baptism, they say, that none is saved that is not regenerate by water. Thirdly out of his own words, divers times repeated in other places upon other occasions, where he saith, that children by baptism are received into the ark of Christ his Church. And again; that want of baptism sendeth infants to hell fire. Whereof his adversary inferreth: ergo it is necessary to salvation; for that neither out of the ark, nor in hell fire, can they be saved, which is the same doctrine that the Council of Trent doth teach, and addeth a curse to them that deny it. And these are the charges given; now let us see how Sutcliffe seeketh to run out of the lists.  
First he standeth much upon the words let them be accursed, and willeth us to show out of the Fathers that they do use the word accursed: 
Answer to except. pag. 5.  Neither doth any Father (saith he) affirm, that such are accursed that hold not baptism to be necessary. Is not this an egregious foolery? as though the controversy were of the word accursed, & not of the doctrine itself, seeing that Sutcliffe's own words in his accusation are: 
The first notable shift.  Which doctrine (of the Council) doth not (saith he) appear to be Catholic, and yet now would he hide himself under the word accursed, as though the controversy were not about the doctrine, but about the word, and yet of we will stand also upon the curse, Sutcliffe cannot so escape, but must undergo the said curse in like manner, for he shall find the same both condemned and accursed expressly in the councils of Carthage and Milivitanum, at which S. Augustine was present: and upon both the said councils earnest request, the same was accursed also by Pope Innocentius the first, as testifieth S. Augustine epist. 90. 92. & 93. And this is the first shift.  
Secondly, of all the Fathers that spoke of this matter against him, and S. Augustine by name in almost infinite places, he maketh his adversary to allege only one text out of the said Father (and we must believe him for that we have not his adversaries treatise) S. Augustine's place is lib. 3. de anima cap. 9 
Aug. l. 3. de orig. animae ad Vinc. Vict. cap. 9  but citeth not his words, yet answereth them thus: To S. Augustine I answer, that he speaketh of such as die in original sin, and seem to contemn baptism. 
Asnamelesse shifting of, of S. Austen. and the rest of the Fathers.  This is the most blockish refuge, that possibly can be imagined: for first all men before baptism die in original sin, and secondly S. Austen speaketh of infants that have not capacity to contemn baptism, his words are these: Noli credere, noli dicere, noli docere, etc. do not thou believe, do thou not say, do thou not teach, if thou wilt be a Catholic, that infants prevented by death, before they be baptised, can come to receive pardon of original sin. Behold then the forehead of Sutcliffe that would wipe of both this, and infinite places of S. Augustine more expressly avouching the same doctrine by such a senseless sleight. Damnari animas● (saith he writing to S. Hierome) ● 
Aug. epist. 28. ad Hieron.  si sine baptismo de corpore exierint, & sancta scriptura, & sancta testis est Ecclesia. that the souls are damned, that pass out of this world without baptism, both holy scripture and holy Church is witness: now would I demand of Sutcliffe whether ever he read these places or not? if he did not, then must he confess himself to be ignorant or wilful, in that he would answer S. Augustine without looking upon him: if he did and answered as he doth, then is he both malicious and shameless.  
But now thirdly to the authority of their communion-booke brought against him by E. O. saying; that none is saved, 
The 3. shift.  that is not regenerate by baptism, he answereth thus: It is impious to tie God's grace to Sacraments, etc. We exclude not extraordinary courses. Wherein first (as you see) he rejecteth plainly the authority of the said Communion-booke, that tieth salvation to regeneration by baptism, & secondly you must remember, that the question, whether this doctrine of Sutcliffe of extraordinary courses, and saving men without baptism be Catholic, & conform to the universal doctrine of ancient Fathers or Noah, whereof he speaketh not one word, nor allegeth any one testimony to prove his opinion Catholic, that is to say general and universal, but only saith: we exclude not extroordinary courses, and telleth us not who these: (we) are, for that it cannot be the Church of England which set forth the said communion book, and consequently having neither the ancient Church, nor our Church at this day, nor the Church of England to stand with him, I would gladly know how he will make his opinion Catholic, that is universal. And thus much of the third shift.  
The fourth is in his answer to his own words, alleged against him by E. O. whereunto he answereth thus: 
The fifth shift and cozenage  I do confess that infants dying in original sin are damned to hell fire, but I hope no man will say, that all that die before baptism, albeit they much desired it, and believed in Christ jesus, died in original sin. O slippery evasion? our question here is Sir Matthew of infants that cannot desire baptism. For as for others that be of age, and do desire it, they may be saved by baptism in desire, as before is granted. Again your immediate words before in this very sentence, do speak of infants: for you say; I do confess that infants are damned to hell fire; and what a fellow are you then, which say in the second part of the same sentence, albeit they much desire it and believe in Christ jesus. Thirdly you said a little before, that want of baptism did soud infants to hell, and now you say, that infants dying in original sin are damned to hell fire, which though in our sense is all one, that hold infants dying without baptism, do die in original sin, yet in your sense, that hold that infants may die before baptism, & yet freed from original sin, is altogether different, & consequently a mere consenage, so to alter your words for deceiving your reader.  
But now we come to the last shifting answer of all, which is such, and so unintelligible, as no man reading & considering the same can otherwise think, but that the author was either distempered, or bereaved of his senses, when he framed it. I shall relate it in his own words, & let the reader judge of it. 
The fi●th absurd evasion upon this place.  He concludeth finally (saith he to wit E. O.) that seeing the want of baptism doth send infants to hell (these are Sutcliffe's own words before recited) ergo baptism is necessary to Salvation; but his consequent is weak and of no value, 
Answer to except. section. 4. pag. 13.  for many dy for want of knowledge, and for want of small matters and not only of baptism; and yet God is not necessarily tied to save none, but such as are baptised: sick men dody for want of physic, and yet is not physic absolutely necessary. In this place therefore the detector wandereth out of his way, & yet effecteth nothing. Thus he; and herewith endeth his whole defence upon this second charge given him by E. O. and surely if he wrote it not more than half asleep, or when he was greatly distracted in other matters, I know not what to think or say of it. Many (saith he) die for want of knowledge & for want of small matters, & not only of baptism. Either he meaneth here of eternal or temporal death? if of eternal, how can it be caused by the want of small matters? if of temporal, how is it caused by want of knowledge? or how agrees it with the death caused by want of baptism, which is eternal? how agreeth it also with sending to hell, which is to endure everlastingly? again if a man die precisely or only for want of physic, than was physic absolutely necessary to save that man's life, otherways he did not die absolutely for want of physic; & so whereas he accuseth the detector for wandering out of the way, and effecting nothing, this man reeleth up and down in the way, and effecteth his own disgrace and shame with all readers and lookers on.  
And now by the examination of these 2. places you may see the fashion of this man's answering, and how easy a matter it is, and may be for any man to take upon him the answering of all adversaries whatsoever in this manner; and by these two examples you may guess at all the rest. And albeit I would gladly end here, having been longer than I purposed; yet can I not without examining one place more, which is the fourth in order, concerning prayers & sacrifice accustomed to be offered in old time, 
Examination of the 4. place about mass & prayers for the dead.  for such as were departed this life; in which place Master Sutcliffe, being taken trip by E. O. and much pressed with the authorities of diverse ancient Fathers about that matter, he beateth himself up and down pitifully; to get out of the lists, but cannot, and as a hare in the net mesheth himself more and more by struglinge: You shall have the comedy (for so it is in deed) as himself setteth it down in his own words, which we must believe, for that (as often hath been advertised) we have not the treatise itself of E. O. and albeit the falsehood of this minister discovereth it self by so many ways in every thing, as I am forced to stand in jealousy of all that he relateth of others, if it be not for his own profit; yet must we take his word, as I have said, and therefore let us he are him tell the story.  
Where I affirm (saith he) that the Papists say masses and prayers for souls departed, 
Answer to Except. pag. 11.  and for the dead have appointed special offices, and that my adversary shall never be able to prove, that such masses, prayers, and offices have been frequented by true catholics, there owlglass stormeth and showeth great impatience. This is the beginning of his narration, which I cannot otherwise but suspect of calumniation, in that he talketh of impatience in his adversary, for that he showeth no particulars at all of any such matter; and he that shall see the event of this combat will judge (I trow) the cause of impatience to fall rather upon Sutcliffe then his adversary, if shame and confusion may cause impatience: let us pass then to the matter and points themselves as Sutcliffe relateth them. First E. O. allegeth (saith he) the testimony of S. Chrysostome, 
S. Chrysostom's sentence of praying for the dead in the mass. Chrysost. hom. 69. ad Pop.  that saith, that not without cause it was ordained by the Apostles, that in the dreadful mysteries commemoration should be made of the dead, knowing thereby that much gain and profit doth come unto them: secondly he allegeth Epiphanius 
Antloch. S Epiphanius.  haeres. 75. and Augustine do haeresibus haer. 53. that seem to say, that Aërius was condemned for denying that sacrifices and oblations were to be offered for the dead, or that prayers were to be made for them. Thirdly he allegeth Calvin's confession, that saith it was a received custom thirteen hundred years ago, 
10. Calni●.  to pray for the dead, and reproveth S. Augustine 
S. Augustine.  and Monica for it; finally he calleth out my brother Willett 
Willett.  for a witness against me, in that he saith, that divers ancient writers inclined to maintain and commend prayers for the dead. Hitherto Sutcliffe, relating the words of his adversary E. O. now let us see how handsomely he will answer the same, and do you note his art, for it is excellent, and to the purpose.  
First (saith he) in all these proofs is no mention of special offices for the dead. 
Sutcliffe's first shift.  Do you see which way the hare will go away? as though the question or controversy between us and Protestants, were about special offices for the dead, and not whether we ought or may pray for the dead or no? But yet do you hear more of these his escapes, for he setteth them forth by articles. 
2. shift.  Secondly (saith he) there can no masses be showed like unto the masses of Requiem aternam. Do you see the folly of the man? Tell me, (I pray you) what importeth it, with what words the mass begins or ends (which the Church upon particular devotion may institute, change, or alter diversly) so that the substance remaineth, which is, that souls departed were prayed for in S. Chrysostom's days in tremendis mysterijs, in the dreadful mysteries, as his words are? and that deduced from the Apostles time, as by this very place of his here alleged is evident: so as the particular form of the mass, little importeth, but only for Sutcliffe to run out under the shadow thereof, for that neither Catholic Priests now at this day, are bound to say masses beginning with Requiem aeternam. when they pray for souls departed, so they do remember the substantial point, which is to pray for them in the mass, 
Masses for the dead in the primitive Church.  or ad altar (as S. Augustine's phrase is) dum offertur pro eis sacrificium, 
August de cura pro mortuis cap 1.  at th' Altar whilst sacrifice is offered for them, or as S. Cyprian before them both said, dum sacrificium pro dormitione corunt celebratur, whilst sacrifice is celebrated or solemnized for their departure. 
9 Conf. 110 Cyp. epist. 66 ad Clerum.   
And these two examples shallbe sufficient to show in general his manner of evasions, what they are and how wittily invented. For albeit he go forward in divising divers other, as that there were no Speciales missae votinae at these times, and that the commemoration made for the dead then, was but a bare recital of their names, & other the like, without so much as offering to prove any one point thereof, or to allege any one author before himself; yet do I not mean to stand upon these toys to refute them in particular, the judicious reader will easily discern of himself what substance they have, wherefore let us pass to see how he answereth the foresaid authorities of Fathers alleged against him.  
To the place of Chrysostome (saith he) I do answer, 
Sutcliffe's shifting answer to Saint Chrysostome.  that he meant only that the dead should be remembered in celebration of the mysteries, & was uncertain what good it did unto them. But this last part of the comentarye is plain contrary to the text itself, which saith if you remember, that much gain and profit doth come unto them thereby, though the words themselves as they lie in S. Chrysostome are yet more significant, for that talking of the Apostles, whom he affirmeth to be the authors of this custom of praying for the dead in time of the dreadful mysteries, he saith: Sciunt enim indè illis multum contingere lucrum, utilit atem magnam. The Apostles did know, that the souls departed were to receive much gain, and great utility by that remembrance made for them. The former part also of the answer, is clearly false, to wit, that S. Chrysostome meant only, that the dead should be remembered without praying for them, which the whole text, & his drift in the same place doth evidently convince, and the very next words immediately following upon his former by me alleged are these: Cum enim, etc. For when all the whole people meeting together and holding up their hands (in the Church) as also the 
* Sacerdotalis plenitudo constiterit.  fullness of Priesthood being there with them, and that the dreadful sacrifice is proposed, how can it be but that we shall move God, when we pray for them; to wit the dead, of whom he speaketh. Consider then good Reader) the shameless dealing of this caviller in perverting S. Chrysostome so manifestly: and if thou wilt see more places, where that Father explaineth himself at large in this matter, read the 41. homily upon the first to the Corinthians, and his 21. upon the Acts of the Apostles, and then you will confess, that these are egregious companions, in so deluding their readers by shameful shifting. And this of S. Chrysostome: now let us see what he saith to S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine about Aërius condemned of heresy well near 1300. years passed for denying sacrifice and prayers to be offered for the dead.  
Unto the places (saith he) of Epiphanius and Augustine (I answer) that Aërius was condemned for disalowinge the order of the Church in this commemoration for the dead, 
How Sutcliffe shisieth of Epiphanius & S. Augustine about Aërius & prayer for the dead.  and giving thanks for their blessed end, and this is that prayer which Caluyn and we confess to have been in the Church a long tyme. here you see that he taketh upon him to answer to three several parties, to wit S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine and john Caluyn, and that with the same truth that he answered before S. Chrysostome: to wit, with plain cozenage and shifting. For unto the two Fathers he saith (if he say any thing) that they affirmed Aërius to have been condemned as an heretic, not for denying sacrifice or prayer for the dead, but for disallowing the order of the Church in their commemoration & giving thanks for their blessed end, which come moration he expoundeth a little before, to have been a recital only of dead men's names, without any prayer for remission of sins, which if it were so, and that Sutcliffe will grant as he seemeth to do, that Aërius was justly condemned and held for an heretic, for disallowing this commemoration or recital of dead men's names, why do the Protestants also disallow the same, or at leastwise do not use it in England in their communion, and so by omitting the same do participate with him in the same heresy.  
But all this is shameful shifting, turning and wyndinge of a lewd and lost conscience to deceive the reader, for the words of Saint Epiphanius and S. Augustine are most plain & evident that Aërius was condemned of heresy, for denying prayers and sacrifices to be offered for the dead: 
Aug. haer. 53.  orare vel offerre pro mortius non oportere (saith S. Augustine) he held that prayers and oblations ought not to be made for the dead, and do you note that this was not yesterday but in the time of Constantine the great, when Aërius was condemned as an heretic by the whole Church of that time, for denying these points which our Protestants deny also, & blaspheme at this day. Magnum mundo malum (saith Epipbanius of Aërius) suriosus mente, 
Epiphan. haer. 75.  elatus opinion, etc. Aërius was a great plague of the world, furious in mind, and proud in his opinion, etc. What would he have said of Sutcliffe at this time, who showeth himself no less proud than he, and avoucheth the same heresies, and many more beside?  
But to return to sutcliffe's answer to the foresaid two Fathers concerning Aërius. First you may see & consider, that in his former relation of the matter, he useth a sleight of his budget, when he saith: that Epiphanius and Augustine seem to say that Aërius was condemned, etc. for they do not only seem to say so, 
The beginning and cause of Aërius his heresy.  but do absolutely affirm it, and S. Epiphanius maketh a long discourse thereof, shewing the beginning and occasion of Aërius fall into this heresy, to wit, that he being a Priest, could not be made a Bishop (which S. Augustine also toucheth) and that upon this envy, spite & malice, he began to object against the clergy, that they ought not to offer sacrifice or prayer for the dead, but only for the living, and consequently for the same was condemned, and held always after for an heretic by the Church of that, and all other ensuing ages. Secondly it 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 been against any point of Catholic and universal doctrine of the Church, but disobedience only against some Ecclesiastical order; and therefore if you mark it, he never nameth him heretic, as indeed disobedience to orders is not properly heresy, if it be not against some article of doctrine. 
Three several shifts of Sutcliffe to deceive his Reader.  And all these are shifts and conveyances of Sutcliffe to dazzle the reader's eyes, whereas the foresaid Fathers say plainly, that he was condemned for heretical doctrine. And S Chrysostome, as you have heard, before alleged, affirmeth the contrary doctrine of praying for the departed in time of the dreadful mysteries, to have come down from the Apostles themselves, and the same in effect saith Epiphanius, 
Ibid. pag. 13.  traditione a patribus accepta, by tradition received from their forefathers.  
The third shift is, that Sutcliffe in this his shuffling answer foisteth in these words, commemoration of the dead, and giving thanks for their blessed end: as though Saint Epiphanius or S. Augustine had said or meant so: which is quite contrary, for they expressly affirm, that this commemoration was to pray for them, that is to say for those that are sinners, and have need of our prayers, which Epiphanius expresseth in these words: 
Ibidem.  pro just is & precatoribus memoriam facimus, peccatoribus quidem misericordiam Dei implorantes: we make commemoration of just men, and for sinners, desiring God's mercy for those that be in sin, etc. Which is the very same that S. Chrysostome distinguisheth in the place before alleged of his 69. homily to the people of Antioch: that some are greater sinners, some less, some perfect and holy. But S. Augustine (according to his manner) more clearly & perspicuously in these words: Non omnibus prosunt, 
Aug Enchirid. cap. 110.  etc. our prayers and sacrifices offered for the dead, do not profit all sorts of men; And why do they not profit all but only for the difference of life, which every man hath lead in this body? Wherefore when sacrifices either of the Altar, or of any other alms are offered up for Christians departed, if they be very good men, for whom they are offered, they are thank geving, 
Three sorts of men deceased.  & for them that are not very evil, they are propitiations or appeasings with God; but if they be very wicked, then though they be no helps to the dead: yet are they some kind of comfort for the living, and unto those deceased, whom they do profit, they are profitable in this, that either they procure them full remission, or at least wise, that their punishment or condemnation, be thereby made more tolerable.  
So S. Augustine, who explaineth as you see most perspicuously the Catholic doctrine, and cutteth of all shifts from cavilling heretics, about the different sorts & qualities of men deceased, & with what distinction the Catholic Church doth make commemoration for them in the public sacrifice, either by praying, or praising God for them. And thus much of his shuffling and shifting away the Father's authorities, let us now come to consider, how he will put of his Master Caluyn, 
How Sutcliffe shifteth of Calvin and Will●tt.  and his Brother Willet alleged also if you remember against him. But as for Willett he maketh him not worthy of a several answer, but presumeth him to be of his opinion in all points, and the like he would also force Caluyn unto, for that having said, that the commemoration of the dead (for denial whereof Aërius was condemned) was but a thanksgiving for their blessed end, he saith immediately: And this is the prayer which Caluyn and we confess to have been in the Church a long time, but maketh nothing for Owlglass his purpose. Which I think also, nor yet for sutcliffe's purpose, if he have any purpose but only to play the fool, and to mock and delude his Reader. For first we have showed, that Aërius was not condemned for denying thanksgiving, but sacrifice & prayer for the dead. And secondly Caluyn is not alleged by E. O. as confessing only the use of thanksgiving, or bare recital of their names to have been in use above thirteen hundred years past, but of praying for the dead, and for reproving S. Austen, and S. Monica for that custom, and how chanceth then that Sutcliffe answereth not unto this objection, which himself had set down before with his own pen, but slideth away in silence, as though he had never spoken it, nay he dissembleth and omitteth the quotation of Calvin's place, to the end we should not find it out, but I have thought good to note the place in the margin, whose words are; 
Calu. 3. justitat. cap. 5. §. 10.  ante mill & trecentos annos usu receptum fuit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis: it was received by common custom above a thousand, and three hundred years ago, that prayers should be made for the deceased: and a little after he saith, that they were all deceived in that doctrine.  
Now then do you look in sutcliffe's face, and see what countenance he will set upon this notorious cogging: this is that prayer (saith he) which Caluyn, and we confess to have been in the Church a long time, but maketh nothing for owlglass. What prayer Sir? commemoration only of names with thanksgiving? This first is no prayer at all. Neither do either the Father's aforecited, or Calvin call this a prayer, or treat of this, as by there words you have seen. How then can it be said that Caluyn, Sutcliffe, and his brother Willett, do agree in this confession of this prayer to have been in the Church for so long time? But if he speak of true prayer in deed for the dead, as both Caluyn and the Fathers do, then how maketh this nothing for his adversaries purpose, whom fond he termeth by the name of Owlglass; himself being the true owl indeed, and worthy to be baited by all the birds of the air, for his ridiculous behaviour in this his answer; for it maketh expressly and directly for E. O. his purpose and principal conclusion, to wit that prayers for the dead, were frequented by true catholics above thirteen hundred years gone, except Sutcliffe will say, that the chief Fathers of that age were no true catholics, or that Aërius was no true heretic.  
And this shall suffice for this time and place, though I might press the poor fellow with many other absurdities, and ridiculous refuges in his defence of this charge, as that he leapeth disorderly to a place of S. Chrysostome, 
Hom. 30. in epist. ad Phillippens.  where he saith, that just men whether living or dead are with Christ. Which is true in spirit, and then to another place, where he saith; 
Hom. 69. ad Pop. Antio●hen.  that just men dying, see God face to face; which is true in the first sort of those three before mentioned by Saint Augustine, which is if they be very just. And yet out of these two places would this simple disputer infer, that Saint Chrysostome believed not purgatory, which is expressly agaidst S. Chrysostom's own words and discourse, in this very place by Sutcliffe alleged, but let us pass to his conclusion & so make an end.  
Lastly (saith he) in ancient time, 
A notorious untrut he about praying a for patriarchs and not to them.  they made commemoration of the patriarchs, of the blessed Virgin, of the Apostles, Martyrs, and others, now they pray to them, not for them as in times past. And why doth not this simple shameless fellow allege some one author, some one testimony, witness, or authority for so bold an assertion? Now they pray to them, and not for them (saith he) as in times past: But what ancient Father, Doctor or historiographer can he cite, that ever said so, or mentioned any such practice either of himself or others, that prayed for the blessed Virgin, Apostles, Martyrs, or the like in those ancient days? But we have manifest proofs to the contrary, that they were prayed unto in the mass of old times, not prayed for. S. Cyrill B. of Jerusalem that lived above twelve hundred years agone, hath these words talking of the mass: 
Cyrill. Cath. Myst. 5.  cum hoc sacrificium offerimus, etc. When we offer up this sacrifice, we do make mention by name of those which died before us, and first of patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs, that God vuill receive our petitions by their prayers and deprecations for us: Behold here, S. Cyrill did make a commemoration of the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, as praying unto them, and not for them, in his mass and sacrifice.  
The like saith S. Basill both in his liturgy and elsewhere affirming the very same, for that speaking of the foresaid commemoration of patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, etc. in his mass he prayeth thus: 
●asel. liturg. & in Anaph. Syriaca.  Per eos audeamus ad te accedere & tremendo hoc sacro munere defungi. Let us presume by them and their intercession to come unto thee (o Lord) and to exercise this dreadful and holy office. And finally S. Augustine, not only affirmeth this doctrine, but yieldeth a reason also thereof, to wit of the different commemoration, that is made in the mass of deceased Saints, and diseased sinners in these words: 
Aug. tracked. 84. in joan & serm. 17. de verbis Apostol.  Ideo quip ad ipsam mensam, etc. Therefore do we not at the Altar make like commemoration of Martyrs, as we do of others that are deceased in peace; so as we pray not for them, but rather that they do pray for us. So S. Augustine. And the same he repeateth again in divers other places; so as this is clearly convinced against Sutcliffe by testimony of antiquity which he presumeth to name, but citeth no witness at all.  
Now then to conclude this whole matter, 
A consideration about sutcliffe's manner of writing.  let the Reader by this little make some guess, what he may judge of the whole. And if in the examination of these two or three places only, so many falsehoods, frauds, sleights, shifts, contradictions, and impudencies have been discovered, what would be found, if the whole number of six and twenty objected by E. O. should be discussed? yea the whole challenge diligently scanned? consider also I pray thee good reader, whether in defence of these 9 places Sutcliffe have not used the highest degree of falsehood before described of witting & willing deceit, seeing that before he did set down this article in his first challenge about masses and prayers for the dead, it is probable, that he had read some ancient Fathers that made mention thereof, and yet would he avouch that no true Catholic had used the same, but being reprehended for it, and told of his lying by his adversary, & divers Fathers cited for proof thereof, and his own Master Caluyn, and his brother Willett for acknowledging the same, yet cometh he now to affirm and print it again in his second edition of his challenge, and dissembleth, perverteth and shifteth of the authorities both of the said Fathers, & Caluyn himself, as though they had never been objected against him. And what will you say to this manner of dealing? will you adventure your soul with such a man? or will you give credit any more to his fond craking or vaunting above mentioned?  
But we are overlong in this third part, 
The 4. part or principal member of this edition.  & cannot well get out of it, through the multitude of advantages that Sutcliffe giveth us in pursuing him in this his chase of defending himself; yet must we sound retreat, and say only a word or two of the fourth part of this his new book, containing, as you have heard, a heap or farthel of recriminations gathered together against ancient Popes, councils, synods, historiographers, and other Catholic writers, and lastly against Cardinal Bellarmyne, Cardinal Baronius and F. Parsons; by which ostentation of names and authors, he would make men believe, that all the world were full of corruptions and falsifications in writing, and consequently that those of his, and of his fellows are little to be respected; but when the occasion shall come to answer this second edition at large, the differences will be showed, and how vainly this little envious mouse, hath gone about to gnibble at Catholic authors edges of their garments, & particularly at the writings of the most famous, learned, and honourable men of our time, Cardinal Bellarmine, and Cardinal Baronius, who have so beaten down heresy with their most excellent works, as by allusion we may say of them in respect of Sutcliffe, ipsi conterunt caput tuum, tu vero insidiaris eorum calcaneis, they have broken thy head, and thou dost bite at their heels. Of the third which is F. Persons and the objections here brought against his writings, we had thought to have spoken somewhat more particularly, but lack of time and room maketh us also to albreviate this, yet somewhat for example sake shallbe said.  
Sutcliffe nameth two books of his, 
sutcliffe's objections to two of F. Persons books.  the first entitled. A brief discourse containing reasons, why catholics refuse to go to Church. The next is called: A Christian directory, and commonly known by the name (saith he) of Parson's Resolution. Against the former book he bringeth two reasons, as wise as his head can devise: the one, that he promised to make three parts of that book, and performed but one, 
Answer to except. pag. 182.  abusing (saith he) both his friends and adversaries with his false promises: The other reason is (saith he) for that to persuade men not to go to Protestant's Church must needs stand upon this supposition, that the Pope's Religion is true, and therefore he should first have proved this principle before he had gone about to give reasons, to stand steadfast therein. But now (saith he) if Parsons can say nothing why the Religion in England is not Catholic and Apostolical, than all his reasons fall to the ground. These two reasons do well declare what a man of worth Sutcliffe is. And not to show on my part distrust in the Readers judgement, I will not go about to refute such vanities. For if this last reason have any force, it proveth also that no Protestant Preacher or writer, may exhort any of his Religion to constancy, perseverance, patience, humility, or any other virtue, except he prove first all that Religion to be true. But let us pass to the other book, perhaps his objections willbe stronger against that.  
His directory also (saith he) is a most idle, 
Answeren to except. ibid.  and vain discourse (so idle and vaynè do seem all treatises of piety to this profane minister) it should consist of three parts, but as the fashion is, of three promised, he keepeth back two, performeth the third very simply. 
Eight fond objections against the book of resolution.  This is his censure of that book. And presently (as he is fertile in invention, though foolish in his election) he cometh with eight choice accusations against it. The first is, for that he proveth there is a God, and that Christian Religion is true above all other Religions, and that he treateth against despair of God's mercies, temptations, and too much fear of persecution: Which rather doth hinder a man (saith Sutcliffe) from leading a Christian life, then help him to resolve. The second. That the greatest part (saith he) is taken out of Loartes, Stella, Granatensis, and other such authors. The 
* This was only set down for you and yours to draw them from atheism  third. for that it argueth Catholics to be bad Christians, that they must be taught there is a God, hell, heaven, and the like. The fourth: That Sutcliffe doth not find, that it hath made hitherto any one Christian, or directed him to the way of life, but many young men to the gallows. The fifth that it hath not brought Father Persons himself yet to a good resolution, nor to enter into Religion. The sixth. For that his discourse to prove that there is a God, and but one true Religion, and that there is a heaven, & hell among Christians already well persuaded, is impertinent. The seventh. For that it is divided into speculation and practice: as if (saith he) a man could practise that is not entered into the exercise of Religion; or as if resolution were not far different from practice. The eight & last, for that it is fraught with idle discourses, & the principal point so weakly proved, that it will rather make Christians to doubt of Religion, than atheists to believe.  
These are sutcliffe's reasons, 
The conclusion.  which show the man's depth; and conform to these, are his objections picked out of the foresaid two books about allegation, whereof I would gladly have set down some half adozen at least for example, so to have seen the weight and substance thereof, but that I am forced to make an end, referring my selue to a fuller examen when his reply shall come forth. Now then only I am to advertise the Reader, that he weigh with himself what manner of man Sutcliffe is, in these his writings, he vaunteth and challengeth as you see, as if he were agyant, and when he cometh to the griping he is just nothing: he offereth to answer for all, as jewel, Fox, Peter Martyr, Ridley, Fulke, 
Sutcliffe a Knight of the post in being suerry for many.  Plessis Mornay, & whom else you will beside, but when it cometh to the trial, he is able neither to make good for them, nor for himself, and is just like a knight of the post, that will offer to be surety for ten thousand pounds, when all his own substance is not worth ten shillings.  
His writings are loose, ragged, negligent, barr●n, obscure, and unsavoury, without substance either of learning, prudence, sharpness, or good style: 
A censure of sutcliffe's writings.  if you look them over, you shall find them for the most part fraught, & furnished only with bare assertions of his own, cast out without proof or authority, witness, or testimony, in margin or text; except in his vain and vaunting challenge, where having to speak of matters testified by Catholic writers both ancient and new, he maketh ostentation of many quotations, and allegations of authors, (though little to the purpose) and might have done of many more out of every one of his fellows note-bookes; but when he goeth from that fountain, & must add any thing of his own invention, there shall he find him, very cutted, obscure, dry, and barren, as may appear by his answers before examined, both of Plessis Mornay & himself: and you may see the same confirmed more largely, by only looking over the pages of his feeble defence of Sir Francis Hastings, now battered again to the ground by the recharge of the Warn-word.  
The principal talents then of this man seem to be extreme vaunting and railing, whereof I have laid you down some examples before, and might do many more especially in the later, to wit of railing, for I think scarce ever any civil man took pen in hand to write, with that a cerbity & scurrility of style, which this man useth against all with whom he dealeth, and seemeth to put his chiefest glory therein. And not to go out of the present example in hand of his answer to E. O. who being a modest man hath dealt with him very temperately, for so much as we can gather by Sucliffes own reply: yet hearken I pray you what manner of speech and threat he useth towards him, and to all Catholics for his cause, and this for some kind of rusticity (as it seemeth) committed against sutcliffe's person: I will set (saith he) a fellow to answer him, (to wit Master Sutcliffe 
Sutcliffe's railing in Praefat. to the Reader.  himself under some mask or vizard) that shall so curry him, and his consorts the Papists, and that shall in such sort rip up their villainies, that the whole fraternity of asses shall curse him for braying so uncivilly. Consider I pray you, whether this be not a fit speech for a minister of malediction? if E. O. should return upon him again and say: I could rip up also for my part, if I were delighted with this kind of revenge, for I know what hath passed both in England, Ireland, and other islands, I know of the matter of Castle Cary; of the arraignment and sentence given in dublin; the knights that did accuse or bear witness; the words touching the bowling green of Exeter, what they were, whom they concerned, the manner of the man's return from Ireland, & dep●rtement in England, and other such particularities: If E. O. (I say) should make such a reply, & offer to stand to it in deed, and to take out records as he may; what would O. E. gain by this uncivil provocation, of the whole fraternity of asses? but these so untemperate and unadvised speeches, are but impotencies of an unbridled mind, and therefore rather to be pitied or contemned, then revenged or further answered, except further necessity be laid upon us thereof.  
Wherefore to end all at this time, 
Sutcliffe's barbarous conclusion against Catholics blood. Answer cap. 13.  we do pardon also his uncharitable conclusion, exhorting the prince that then was, and the State to shed more blood of Priests, jesuits, and catholics; impiety proceeding of the same passion, and distemperature of judgement and affection which the other did, we pass over with like contempt: we disdain in like manner his false and wicked, if not mad accusation, that the last noble Queen of Scotland of most pious memory, was ruined by Priests and jesuits; whereas no man knowing the affairs of England can be ignorant, but that whilst Priests and jesuits, and all other English catholics forrowed heartily, & prayed most earnestly for her majesties preservation, this fellow and his companions barked daily at her most bitterly and spitefully, and never ceased or could be satisfied until they had seen her most noble blood shed for stopping their mouths, yea and for drawing her into more certain danger thereof, their custom was to urge Priests and other catholics at their very deaths, and places of execution, when they prayed for the Queen, to explain what Queen they meant, either that of Scotland, or the other of England, so jealous they were of Catholic Priests affections towards that renowned Princess, now with God in glory, whose death and other injuries, if his divine justice shall think convenient not to leave unpunished: we beseech him, that it may fall rather upon such as were the stirrers thereunto, then upon others deceived by them, and upon those also rather in this life temporally, then in the next everlastingly; and so to his high tribunal we commit the whole.  
FINIS.