A DISCOURSE OF THE CONFERENCE HOLDEN before the French King at Fontain-bleau, between the L. Bishop of Eureux, and Munsieur du Plessis L. of Mornay, the 4. of May 1600. Concerning certain pretended corruptions of Authors, cited by the said Munsieur du Plessis in his book against the Mass.  
Faithfully translated out of the French.  
LONDON, Printed by E. A. for Matthew Selman and William Ferbrand, and are to be sold in Fleetstreet, next the Inner Temple gate. 1600.   

A true discourse of the conference held at Fontaine-Bleau the 4. of May. 1600.  
SInce that the Lord Bishop of Eureux persuadeth himself, that the dishonour and overthrow of the Doctrine Preached in the reformed Churches, of the Realms of France, Almain, England, Scotand, Denmark, Swethen and Poand, etc. Dependeth on the confutation of the Lord Plessis book, written upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist (which doctrine is maintained by this book, as it may be gathered from his private letters to the L. Ples●is.) As if the Ministers of all the Kingdoms in this last endeavour, had put all their heads into one body, to be cut off by this new Hercules returned from hell. And sith for having only deflowered certain places of the said book, he boasteth of the victory, & causeth Te Deum to be sung in every place: Let no man blame us if by this our writing, we oppose the truth against those falsehoods which have been published, since we are thereunto bound by the duty which we own unto God, and for the instruction of his people.  
Truth it is, that since L. Plessis book of the institution of the Sacrament was published, some have found out no other means to traverse the course thereof, then by publishing both in word and writing, that the places by him alleged, as well of holy Scripture as the Fathers, were falcified; yielding sufficient testimony by this their sinister subtlety, that his allegations averred & justified, the doctrine he professed should be both clear, certain and inpugnable.  
Nevertheless he patiently endured this slander, partly endeavouring himself to overthrow it by his answers, partly trusting that of itself at last it would give place to verity: Until he had intelligence that the bruit thereof had come to the King's ears, yea and got so great credit as he verily believed it. Whereupon aggrieved (yea & that justly) he desired that he might come to his justification. And for that there were some that laboured to divert certain Gentlemen of the religion under this pretext; he took occasion to request the L. Bishop of Eureux by a private letter, that both of them might join together in a most humble petition to his Majesty, that it might please him to appoint Commissaries, before whom the book might be thereby examined, to whom in especially he addressed himself, because the said Bishop was the principal author of the said evil report, & wrote ordinarily to his friends in disgrace of the said L. of Plessis; & by certain his suffragans published the same from house to house, & as it were from door to door. By this means the L. of Plessis promised himself, that the said L. Bishop upon this private letter sent unto him, by the hands of his brother, would without any further trouble, repair to Paris; whereas by accord of both parties, his Majesty might ordain such a one of his Privy counsel as he thought most fit to deliver him a true report of their conference. In which case the matter being manadged with this silence and discretion, his Majesty might have no other interest than the knowledge of the truth: (A care worthy of so a great King and the title which he bears) to know aswell the good as the evil faith of a servitor, accused of falsehood before him: a crime always heinous, but more heinous in respect of the subject, being matter of Conscience and Divinity.  
Contrariwise the said Lord Bishop took a quite opposite course, rattling out upon this private and modest letter, a public and insolent book which he caused to be Imprinted in his own house, and published at Paris: by which, of this particular controversy, he made a public quarrel, and of two persons, two factions; calling all the Catholic Roman Church to warrant: interressing the King in all that he might in this cause, and principally to dissuade the examining of the book proposed by the Lord of Plessis, whose justification he knew too well that he could not overthrow. For which cause he articled falsely against the said book, to draw unto himself the title and quality of a Plaintiff, and undertook to approve in presence of his Majesty, five hundred heinous and gross errors, manifest and without Hyperbole: yea such saith he as they may be judged by the only looking on, upon the opening of the book, without entering into the judgement of the sense. And notwithstanding he offered himself further, besides that to make it appear, that there was not in that book one only place but was either falsely, impertinently, or unprofitably alleged. These were the very words (which the reader may note) upon what ground he generally taxed the whole book.  
To this book notwithstanding the L. of Plessis in respect of the King, and according to his own nature, answered with great modesty, revealing the matter as much as in him lay from a public to a particular trial twixt the Bishop and himself, from parties by him pretended, to their several persons. So that by some, this same simplicity of his answer was scarce well interpreted. But for that he knew that the said L. Bishop had sent a Copy of that which he had published, and written with advantage enough upon the same subject to his Majesty, he was counseled likewise to write unto him, beseeching him most humbly to vouchsafe to enter into the approbation of his said book, by the grant of certain Commissaries of sufficient knowledge, that might have the charge to examine the same, from the one end to the other: in publishing whereof he protested that he aimed at no other end, but to prepare his subjects hearts, and make them capable of the seed of so holy a reformation in his time.  
The Doctors of Sorbonne likewise were suddenly incensed against this proposition, apprehending a serious examination of this book, and perceiving well in their consciences, that it could not take effect, but to their damage and indignity: They appointed certain Deligates amongst them to make relation hereof to the pope's Nuncio: who foreseeing too well to what inconvenience it might tend, sought out the King, to certify him hereof; Beseeching his Majesty that it might pass no further: and laying before his eyes the issue thereof: Annexing always to all that he had urged, most instant complaints against the Author and the book. But hereupon there were some that assured him, that the matter should be carried with such Art, & with such advantage for the Church of Rome, as the Pope could not but content himself therewith, and namely in these words: that the disgrace should light upon the Heretics, and henceforward the Nuncio remained satisfied, who before had been in great perplexty, which is to that end reckoned up, that the sequel of the history may be better be comprehended.  
Some few days after the Bishop of Eureux came to the Court, where he was entertained of his Majesty with an extraordinary applause; every hour whispering in his ear, suggesting him with all those subtleties, which either he could invent or devise, to bring his enterprise to a good end. On the other side the Lord of Plessis, in what place soever he presented himself, either his Majesty spoke not unto him, or if he did, it was so coldly, that he might manifestly perceive, that he took small pleasure to talk with him; yet notwithstanding the means of this pretended conference, was concluded upon twixt him and his opposite, and the King thought it good to appoint the conference to be held at Fontaine-Bleau, during the adiourniment of his Parliament.  
The Lord of Eureux arrived at Fontaine-Bleau the 27. of April, and the L. of Plessis the 28. at noon, uncommanded, or uncalled: yet notwithstanding the L. of Eureux would already demand an Act of his compatitive against him, for defaulting in his appearance but one day; and yet the Commissaries above named, were sent, the day appointed for conference; and all this without either giving him in word or deed notice thereof, yea at the presenting himself before the King, he never spoke unto him of it, nor any one in the behalse of his Majesty.  
These proceed together with the precedent, being so extraordinary, made him bethink himself; so that he humbly besought the King to grant him audience; which he did the last Sunday in April, after some delays.  
His purposes were, that nothing had more pierced his heart, then when he was given to understand, that his Majesty did believe that he had used corruption, especially in a thing so Sacred. That this his just grief made him desire the means whereby his Majesty might conceive the truth, which was very easy for him to do, if so be he had no other intention to know the same: that if the affairs had been continued in their first terms, he should not be in any sort grieved; for that if they had been managed with silence and discretion, his Majesty should have had no other interest, but to have judged between his uprightness and the others slanders. But since that in truth, by the cunning of the Bishop of Eureux it had been published through the whole Realm, and prevailed so far as both the Pope and his Nuncio were privy thereto, he saw well that his Majesty should be made believe that it highly concerned him, to sort this action to such an end whatsoever it cost him, that the Pope might be contented, and the Roman Church advantaged: Consequently that he had this ill hap to have his judge interessed in this cause, to have his King and his Master for a party opposite. That if the question were but of his life and honour; he would cost them at his feet, and Sacrifice them to his service: But in that he was bound to the defence of truth, wherein God's honour was in question, he humbly besought his Majesty to pardon him, if he sought just and reasonable means to warrant and defend himself: and that thereof his Majesty had sufficiently informed him, by the answers which he made him from time to time, that he was truly tried by the nature of his affairs, to oppose himself against him. The motives which the L. of Plessis proposed to his Majesty at that time, were these.  
The 1. correspondent to the first proposition by him propounded to the L. of Eur. that it might please his Majesty to give charge to the Commissaries to examine & in order to verify, all the places of his book, aswell for the opening of the truth, as the manifestation of his faith & honour, & the rather because the L. Bish. had generally condemned his whole book. This offer his Majesty was counseled to reject, in that he was certified by those that directed this affair, that it appertained to the L. of Eu. who accused him to impugn such places as him list, whereas if the matter had been handled uprightly, the public interest was to know the truth of the book, & to proceed likewise in terms of justice, that it ought not to be judged as a contract, by some clause; but rather to be examined as an inquest, by the deposition of witnesses, that is to say of the Places of the Fathers; amongst which if there were some one less answerable, it might not ●o● all that weaken the  proof & perfection of the rest. But the truth was, that the perpetual lustre of the truth in the aprobation of the places, had made cavil & reproach for shame to hide their heads.  
The 2. was, that because some one pretended that the first was too long, that the Commiss. should examine only the places of the book which should be impugned as false by the L. Bish & that those which he excepted not against, should be held for justifiable as touching the letter; the entire authority remaining in the L. of Eur. to examine the sense.  
A necessary means if it were sought, to attain unto the knowledge of the truth, since that it was the question as ever to examine the faith of the L. of Plessis, in the allegations of his book: yet always without prejudice of the doctrine of the Roman church, since that the L. of Eureux was always in a readiness to dispute upon the sense. Yet was this rejected no less than the former, and for the same cause; because the places not impugnable, would have been so many, as they would have overshadowed the rest; & so strong & eminent that in presence of their light, some places sought out here & there, either indifferent, or of small importance could not have appeared.  
The 3. that if these two were refused, it might please his Majesty to appoint the L. Bish. to deliver to the L. of Bless. such exceptions as he had against his book, but at least the 500 heinous, evident & literal untruths by him pretended, & without over-urging them, to the end that the said L. of Plessis might prepare himself to give satisfaction: the which he offered to perform in ten days, and to the end that no time might be lost, to begin from the next morning, and continue every day after, in explaining (in his majesties presence) so many of his errors as the hours & times would afford him leisure.  
A matter practised ordinarily in all justice, grounded upon the offers made unto him, and the express written words of the L. of Eureux, by reason he saith that he hath coated them already: yet contrariwise calumnious, if he had so said, yea that assuredly in that he hath them not. And yet notwithstanding all this rejected, under some frivolous aspects alleged by the said L. of Eureux, which some held for sound reasons; that for having named 5. hundred, he was not bound to particulate them. That he kept his word if he nominated but ten, or less; and further that it were too much trouble for him to write them, and such like.  
But truly by a former resolution between those that managed this affair, it was concluded, to give the Lord of Eureux whatsoever advantage he might desire: and to deny the said Lord of Plessis of whatsoever justice he could require; so that he might scratch either by right or wrong, some number of places chosen out of five thousand and more, to infer an appearance of prejudice against the whole book.  
Thus this three means were in all humility proposed unto the King, by the Lord of Plessis, not only by word of mouth, but by a most humble petition also, the which his Majesty commanded him to give to the Lord Chancellor. But after he had preferred the equity of his cause to his Majesty by all these reasons, which to him seemed most requisite, his answer was that he would send for the said Lord Chancellor, and give him commission to bring the Lords of Plessis and Eureux to agree upon the form: And presently his Majesty sent for them.  
The same day toward evening, the L. Chancellor sent for the L. of Plessis, and began to discourse unto him, that the King had told him that he had committed to him the charge to warn the said L. of Plessis to be ready for the said conference: and therefore that it must needs be that either his Majesty had forgotten to command him, or himself, to speak to the said Lord of Plessis. Whereunto the Lord of Plessis answered, that it sufficed, in case he would remember (as he did) that he had not spoken unto him.  
Thus after some speeches, he delivered him the petition that he had presented to his Majesty; and because there was some difference about the form, he desired him to vouchsafe to consider upon the three aforesaid offers. But the two foremost were absolutely rejected under pretence that the challenger of falsehood might set upon his party where he list: without respect that the question concerned the quotation of a book, which (to speak uprightly) held of the nature, not of a contract, but of an inquest: the disputation was wholly settled upon the last. The said L. of Plessis pretending that sith this matter was spoken of as to be handled in terms of Law, he being the Defendant, was not to be denied his adversaries action of falsehood, that he might answer thereunto. sith that under pretence of form of law, he had been denied the examination of the whole book, thereby to minister opportunity to the L. of Eureux to impugn him in what place he list. And that in this matter he looked for justice at the said L. Chauncelors' hands, which he assured himself he very well perceived in this his petition: otherwise, that besides that he should have cause to protest against the said Lord of Eureux upon slander, he should upon refusal of so lawful conditions have no less argument to doubt of too manifest partiality.  
The end was this, that the said Lord Chancellor sent for the said L. of Eureux, with whom he spent some 3. quarters of an hour; then coming into his Gallery, where the L. of Plessis waited his answer, he told him that the said L. of Eur. would not hear of the delivery of his action of falsehood, much less of his five hundred places. That he did not think himself bound thereto by his writing; that the writing of them would ask a month and a half, or more: that in terms of law to require a condition impossible, and not to yield to do any thing, was all one, and matter alike.  
The L. of Bless. replied, that in his opinion he craved but right before all judges whatsoever; that the Lord of Eureux in shrinking from his proposition, for the examination of the whole book, had bound himself to his own offer, that in truth he believed that he could not possibly perform the five hundred untruths by him promised: well might he peradventure deliver in five hundred pretended, sith he had them ready told; sith also that having answered his book, he had no more to do but to draw them out: Otherwise, how could he purge himself of slander? Finally the L. Plessis concluding that he might not departed from this last course, and that the said L. Chancellor (the next morning) would make report thereof to the King.  
Monday the first of May the L. of Plessis heard of nothing, but that the L. of Eureux still stood upon his denial to deliver his five hundred places, and still was at the kings elbow to make him comprehend that this was not the way to come to his pretended purpose: and the same day there arrived the Precedent of Thou, M. Pithou, M. Cas●ubon, and the Physician. Martin whom his Majesty had most earnestly sent for; The last man of these being brought in by the L. of Eureux, could not conceal his passion in this matter, but bore himself as a party. To them did his Majesty declare, that he called them not to be judges, but only interpreters, in case there should grow any controversy about the speeches, but reserved to himself the judgement. And here is to be noted, that only Casaubon was of the religion: whereof notwithstanding the L. of Plessis made no instance.  
Tuesday the second of May, about eight of the clock at night, the L. Chancellor sent for the L. of Bless. to intimate unto him the kings pleasure. The sum was this, that the King had ordained that the L. Bishop of Eureux should in his majesties presence open the book, & show unto him one after another, those places wherein he pretended falsehood, to the number of 50. if time would so permit: whereto he must presently answer in order as they should be propounded: for said he, it was to be supposed that the said Lord of Plessis having produced them, should at all times be ready to answer. (Hear let the reader judge what memory could be capable of so many reasons, presently to answer so many objections; for must he not by that account be always provided for all, albeit he were assaulted but with some?) Moreover that if he could not fit himself to this condition, his Majesty was resolved in his own presence to have the falsehoods by the L. of Eur. pretended, to be verified in his absence, to the end to determine thereof according as reason required: as also by his standing upon his words, he gave him to understand that he concealed more rigour than he yet showed; still urging sundry times that he had that night to resolve himself.  
Neither did the said L. of Bless. fail to lay open unto him the extremity of this condition, which could not be so precisely imposed upon him, but with a manifest resolution to oppress the truth in his person. That if he did not plainly perceive a match made, he could well enough brook any condition: but that he must needs be blind, if he could not perceive the same throughout the whole progress of this matter. Likewise that that was the only cause that he stood so steadfast upon his demand. As for the examining of his book behind his back, so as it might be duly performed in his absence, the more should be his honour: if unduly, the less reproach; as also such as should have charge, should bear the greater burden, as well in honour as conscience.  
Nevertheless, that all the world might see that he proceeded beyond all reason, only upon a desire that his Majesty might be the more plainly informed of his sincerity and justice, he delivered a fourth proposition, which in writing he delivered to the L. Chancellor, to this effect; That he would be content that the L of Eureux should consign into the hands of the Precedents, of Thou & Calignos, either of the Precedent Thou only (because Calignos was sick) his 5. hundred pretended untruths, to the end that daily he might in his majesties presence answer unto fifty of them, according to the order of the book, that so much the more easily he might prepare himself for those that follow: with condition likewise that upon the breaking off of this conference, the same might be returned into the hands of the Lord Plessis. The which proposition the said L. Chancellor received, to report thereof to his Majesty, & thereof to give him answer.  
This matter thus reported to the King upon Wednesday morning the 3. of May, and consunation holden with the Lord of Eureux, they procured the King to be incensed upon this; that the said Lord of Pless●s required that the five hundred pretended untruths should be committed into the hands of my L. the Precedent of Thou; That it might content him to have them committed into his majesties hands, who had trusted him with greater matters; that his enemies had taken no surer gadge than his own word: much rather therefore should a Servant, yea even a household servant: thus overthrowing the substance of his reasons with their great words.  
Hereupon the L. of Plessis being sent for into the Gallery at Fontaine-bleau, received this second decree at the mouth of the L. Chancellor; That he should in the King's presence answer to the places propounded by the Lord of Eureux, upon the opening of his books, as is aforesaid: otherwise that if he would not accept of this condition, his Majesty would cause the book to be over-looked and examined in his absence, & thereof to determine as he should think good.  
And indeed so soon as the L. of Plessis had declared that (in regard of his reasons so often propounded) he could not departed from his last proposition, all the Court was warned to assemble in the great Hall, at three of the clock in the after noon, to be present at this examination; (but it was again put off until the next morning at eight of the clock) neither was there all that day any other speech in Court, but that they would upon contumacy, proceed with all rigour against both the Author and the book.  
Many circumstances might here be added, as tokens of the stomachs of those men, that had in this matter undertaken to satisfy the Pope: who also made show of great commodity to his Majesty. But it may suffice that the same were noted, even by the most passionate, who by the proceedings, have in their minds weakened the pretended success, throughout the whole course thereof.  
Lastly about ten of the clock at night, the Lords of Castelnau & of Chambaret came to visit the L. of Plessis; and in the King's name, propounded unto him that the L. of Eureux was resolved to quote unto him 60. places in his book, whereunto he should in his majesties presence answer in the morning at eight of the clock. The time was short, the hour unfit, and the match manifestly made: Yet notwithstanding (such was Gods will) the Lord of Plessis shut his eyes against all these foreseen inconveniences, and contrary to his former resolutions, accepted of the condition; and to the end that hereafter the force of the truth may appear, as no doubt it will, in that there was nothing omitted that might darken the same; and yet in itself it will find brightness enough to pierce through all darkness.  
About one of the clock after midnight the Lord of Castelnau brought the 60. places: this was but a wasting of his tyme. About two of the clock he had the books of the Lord Eureux brought him: (For ye must note that he had none there) the places were quoted simply, Carolus Magnus p. 816. Scotus p. 869. Durandus p. 870. etc. without note of falsehood, and without any explanation. The Lord of Plessis nevertheless together with the difficulty of his sight, doth in haste peruse them to the number of nineteen. About six of the clock in the morning the Lord of Eureux redemaundeth his books: at eight of the clock he is commanded to appear.  
Now again grows another difficulty; the Lord of Bless. telleth the King that he had no leisure to peruse any more than nineteen, even such as came first to hand, as he light upon the books: his Majesty doubteth whether the Lord of Eureux will proceed; he hath reason to the contrary, because the Lord of Bless. hath chosen to his advantage. Heerto the Lo. of Bless. answereth that he had the books but 4. hours, and that in the night; That out of five thousand places the Lord of Eur. had chosen threescore such as liked him, and that it was very likely that he had produced the most sufficient: so that he besought his Majesty to pardon him, albeit he were forced to say that this was more than extraordinary rigour: hereupon held they a consultation with the Lord of Eureux for the space of one hour, who in the end accepted of the nineteen places: also to afford him the more leisure, the conference was deferred until after dinner.  
This was upon Thursday the 4. of May in the Bath Hall, in presence of the King, with the assistance of the whole Court. To begin, his Majesty declared that he had no meaning that they should dispute of the Doctrine, only he would they should examine the allegations of the places. Then did the Lord Chancellor proceed, who briefly did expound his majesties meaning. Next the Lord of Eureux, who for his argument undertook to commend him, in that he would not intrude into matter appertaining to the Church. And consequently the Lord of Bless. who briefly did declare that in as much as it was his majesties pleasure, he was there ready to answer for his book; that he never writ it upon any ambitious intent, but rather dyverted him therefrom, in regard of the preserving of his majesties most gracious favour: And also the zeal for to prevail during his Reign, for a holy reformation in the Church, for the which many good men had long grieved. If to that purpose it might do any service, he should think himself most happy, with whatsoever loss: otherwise, that himself could be the first man to wish it burnt, yea even with his own hand.  
Howbeit that he did hope that upon upright examination, all the world should find that he had used all sincerity and great diligence: albeit it was not greatly to be marveled, that among 5000. places or more, there might pass some few, wherein his eye, his memory, or even his judgement might waner: which yet were such as could be of no importance, to hurt the truth that he therein handled. For (saved he) were all the books of the Doctors of the Romish Church, that have been written within these hundred years, as rigorously examined! where should we find one that could abide the proof? Besides (with his majesties leave) he protested, that this was a particular action, & consequently could not prejudice the Doctrine of the reformed Churches of the Realm, which was before him, and should be after him, and so continue for ever. And then did they enter into the matter.  

The first place out of Scotus.  
THe first place that the Lord of Eureux did set upon, 
The 4. book of the Eucharist. c. 9 p. 869. l. 26. of the first edi. P. 936. line 2. of the 2. edition P. 7●●. l. 25. of the 3 edition.  was taken out of the 869 Page, line 26. of the Lord Plessis book of the institution of the Eucharist, namely within eight leaves of the end (here let the reader judge what method this is to examme a book) according to the first edition in quarto, which here we will follow, (saving that we will also in the margin quote the pages of the second or third edition) where we read these words. john Duns, called Scot, near a hundred years after the counsel of Latran durst bring into question whether Christ's body be really contained under the forms; & disputeth that he is not. Against which place he pretendeth two matters: the one that Scot maketh it not a controversy, whether the body of Christ be really contained under the forms, except in like manner as the Schoolmen use to dispute of matters most resolved; as Whether there be a God? Whether there be but one god, etc. The other, that the L of Bless. had taken the opposition for the resolution; & in both these matters he pretended heinous untruths. To the 1. the L. of Bless. aswered, that whereas he said that Scot had brought into question. Whether the body of christ be really contained under the forms, he understood it by the way of transubstantiation, and his meaning did sufficiently appear, first in that in the Chap, which is the ninth of the fourth book, he entreateth of the absurdities & contradictions proceeding of the transubstantiation. Secondly, because in the same it is said, A hundred years after the Council of Latran, that is to say; after the Article of transubstantiation was established. To the second; that albeit the Schoolmen do dispute their questions, in utramque partem, yet do they withal show their own inclination, yea sometimes their particular resolution, saving that they make it to stoop to the Church of Rome. And this did the Lord of Plessis uphold to appear in Scot in the deduction of this matter, namely where he handleth the second member of this question; Qualiter illud est possibile quod creditur; How the realty that is believed is possible. For after many disputations, growing to the resolution, he useth these words, which were showed to the Lord of Eureux; 
a Scorus printed at Paris, by Io. Granion, Spon the 4 of the Sen. dist. 10. quest. 1 pa. 63. b. lit. E.  Concerning this article, it seemeth unnecessary to have recourse to the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, especially considering that even from the beginning, that this matter of the Sacrament was believed, it was continually believed that the body of Christ altereth not out of his place in heaven to be here, and yet was it not thus manifestly believed at the beginning of this conversion, as it shall be said dist. xi. And let the reader note that over against this Article that beginneth, 
Quantum ad istum artien'●, nonvidetur necessarium, sugiendum esse ad conversionem pan●s in corpus Christi, precipu● cum a pri●cipio exquo res imius sacramē● fuit credita, fuit sempercre ditum, quod corpus Christi ●●n mutatur de loco suo in c●elo ut sit hic, & tamen non fuit in principio ita manifest creditum de ista conuersione ut dicetar dist. 11.  Quantum; it is quoted in the Margin, Resolutio-Scoti, Scots resolution. So that by Scots resolution the Church did not always believe the conversion; the conversion is not necessary in the Sacrament: Therefore did not the Lord of Plessis in this place take Scots opposition instead of his resolution. And this was gathered very brief by such as writ for either side, namely the Lords of Grigny, Pasquier and Vassaut, as likewise was all the rest that ensued. Howbeit in that which the Lord of Plessis consequently did allege concerning the xi. Dist. of the 4. book q. 3. Scots opinion did yet more clearly appear: For after he hath cited Jnnocent the 3. the office Missae, par. 3. cap. 26. to prove three opinions upon this argument. The first, 
b S●ctus in 4. sentent. D. 11. qu. 3. fol. 31. lit. B. Circa hoc erant tres opiniones, una, quod panis manet, & tamencum ipso vere est corpus Christi: Alia, quod panis non manet, & tamen non convertitur, sed decinit esse, vel per annichilationem, vel per resolutionem in materiam, vel per corruptionem in aliud: Tertia, quod panis transubstantiatur in corpus, & vinum in sangumem.  That the bread remaineth, and yet the body of Christ is with the bread. The second, That the bread remaineth not, and yet is not converted, but ceaseth to be, whether by being made nothing, whether by being resolved into the first matter, or corrupted into any other thing. The third, That the bread is transubstantiated into the body, the wine into the blood; He consequently cometh to ground the first opinion very substantially; in that he saith, 
c 〈…〉 potest 〈◊〉 ista Transubstantiatione.  That the truth of the Eucharist may be kept without transubstantiation: Secondly, 
d Et pancis inter●ctis. Substantia pants cum suis accidentil 〈◊〉 a que potest esse signum si ●ut sola accidentia; imò magis, quia substantia panis subspeciebus magis est nutrimentum, quàm accidentia. Ergo magis repraesentat corpus Christi in ratione nutrimenti spiritualis.  That the bread with the accidents thereof doth rather represent the body of Christ by an anology of the bodily sust●na●●nce with the spiritual, than they ●●oe by the only accidents. Thirdly, 
e Et paulò post, Ponendo panem manner cum suis accidentibus, & corpus Christi ibi esse verè, pauci●ra ponuntur miracula, quam ponendo panem ibi esse.  That of the transubstantiation there ensue more inconveniences then of any other opinions. Fourthly, 
f Rursus aliquartò post. Mirum videtur quare in uno articulo, qui non est principalis articulus fidei, debeat talis intellectus asseri, propter quem fides pateat contemptui se quentium rationem.  That it is marvel (saith he) that 〈◊〉 an article, which is no principal article of saith, they should affirm a sense or understanding, by the which the faith is thrust forth for a scorn to all those that ensue reason. Lastly, 
g Sequitur immed●atè. Nihil est tenendum tanquam de substantia fidei, nisi quod potest extpressè haberi de Scriptura, vel expressè declaratum est per Ecclesiam, vel evidenter sequitur ex aliquo planè contento in Scriptura, vel plane de terminato ab Ecclesia, etc.  That as nothing is to be holden, as of the substance of faith, that cannot expressly be gathered out of the Scriptures, or that is not expressly declared by the Church, or that is not evidently gathered out of matter at full contained in the Scriptures, or plainly determined by the Church: 
h Mox. non cauten non videtur express haberi non esse ibi substantiam panis. Nam joannis 6. ubi multum probatur veritas Eucharistiae, planum est ubi Christus di●it Ego sum panis viws, qui manducaverit ex hoc pane, etc. Et 1. ad Cor. 11. Pau lus, Panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio corporis Christi est? nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter; nec etiam qualiter istud possit ab al●quo manifest credito evidenter inferri.  Yet it doth not seem expressly set down, that the substance of bread is not in the Sacrament: but contrariwise S. Paul 1. Corrin. Cap 11. saith, The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? neither do we find where the Church hath solemnly determined of this truth, neither how it may be inferred of any thing manifestly believed. Then doth he proceed and ground the second opinion upon the like reasons: yea and doth earnestly refel the reasons of Thomas as well against them, as for transubstantiation, which is the third. Lastly, coming to resolve, he wotteth not almost what else to say, but that; 
i Item so. 82. b lit. E. Communiter tenetur quod nec panis manet, contra primam opinionem, nec annihilatur, nec resoluitur in materiam primam, sed convertitur in corpus Christi, etc.  It is commonly holden that the bread remaineth not, contrary to the first opinion: And is not likewise taken away, or resolved into the first matter (namely according to the second:) But is converted into the body of Christ. And by what reason or authority? Surely (saith he) this doth 
k Mox. Principaliter videtur me movere, quod de Sacramentis tenendum est, sicutsancta Romana Ecclesia, sicut habetur Extra, de heretic. Ad obolendan. Nunc autem ipsa tenet panem transubstantiari in corpus, & vinum in sanguinem, sicut manifest habetur Extra. de Summa Tri nit. & side Cathol. Firmitercredimus, una vero, etc.  especially seem to move me, that we must hold of the Sacraments, as the holy Church of Rome holdeth, as it is set down Extra. de haereticis. Ad abolendam etc. But she now holdeth that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, & the wine into the blood, as we have it manifestly set down Extra. de Summa Trinit. & fide Cath. Firmiter credimus, etc. una vero; that is to say, in the decree of Latran. But what an answer here is to that which was so well grounded? That we must held nothing to be of the substance of faith. but that which is expressly in the Scriptures, or that is taken out of some what plainly, planè, contained in the Scriptures, or that hath been expressly declared by the Church? Truly to this argument, wherein (saith he) consisteth the force, he hath no more to say, but 
l Ibid. lit. G. Ad tertium, ubi star vis, docendum quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in ille. Simbolo edito sub Innocentio 3, in Concilio Lateranensi, Firmiter credimus, etc.  the Church of God hath declared this understanding, or this sense to be the truth of the faith, in that Creed that was form under Innocent the third in the counsel of Latran, etc. The same we have in Reportat. dist. 10. q. 1. & dist. 11. q. 3. for having argued upon the 3. opinions, & with the afore named reasons fought with transubstantiation, he particularly saith. 
m Idem Repor, in 4. sentent. d. 11. q. 3. p. 20. imprime a Venize apud 〈◊〉 Bapt. & joan. Bernardun Sessam. 1597. Dico quod licet substantia panis maneret, non auserret venerationem neque esset occasio Idolatriae, etc.  I say that albeit the substance of bread should remain, yet could it not abolish the worship of the Sacrament, neither be any cause of Idolatry, etc. Again, 
n Ibid. Dico quod magis substantia panis cum accidentibus repraesentat corpus Christi, quam accidentia tantum eum maior sit convenientia substantiae ad substantiam, quam ad accident.  I say that the substance of bread, with the accidents doth better represent the body of Christ then the accidents only, etc. Hear note that these words are his own, and so he proceedeth to conclude simply in these words. 
o Ibidan opinion auctoris. Teneo conclusionem, quia Ecclesia tenet, Quia sides Petri non desiciet. Et iam sub Innocentio 3. ordinatum fuit tenendum, etc.  I hold the conclusion, because the Church holdeth it: For the faith of S. Peter shall not fail, and now under Innocent the 3. it was decreed to be thus holden, etc. A most evidentargument, that the reason, that the nature of the Sacrament, that the faith proceeding from the Church, yea that the holy Scriptures would have carried it away otherwise, had it not been stayed by the decision of the counsel of Latran. 
p Dominicus 〈◊〉 Soto in li. 4. Senten. d 11 joseph Angels.  Consequently, an argument (as the L. of Bless. did maintain) that that which he said, tended not simply to argue upon it, but to show what his resolution had been, had he not been withholden with a strong bridle. And indeed (Dominicus a Soto (one of their most famous Doctors, doth not forbear to impute unto Scot, that he held but a hard resolution of transubstantiation, as a matter not to be upholden by the authority of the Scriptures: And Joseph Angles 
q in floribus Theologi carum quastionum, cue est. 5. de conuersione.  a Spanish divine laboureth to defend him. Now upon the difficulty that our Master's the Commissioners found in the resolution, they referred the judgement to an other time, as perceiving that it was no matter of audience. Neither may we here forget one School trick that the L. of Eur. played the L. of Bless: for in as much as in Scots book that he had sent him over night, he had noted the places which he purposed to use to maintain his allegation, he brought in an other & of an other print to the table, that he might the hardlyer find it out; which when the said L. told him of, he seemed for the time to make no account, though afterward he boasted of it, & the like he did upon sundry instances.   

The second place out of Durand.  
FOr the second, 
Li● 4. de Eu char. c. 9 edi. 1. p. 870. l. 24. edi. 2. pa. 936. l. 31. edi. 3. p. 764. l. 11.  followed a place out of Durand of Porcin page 870 line 24. in these words, concerning the same matter. Contrary wise (saith he) admitting that the substances of Bread and wine do remain, yet doth there ensue but one difficulty, namely, that two bodies be together, neither too great, nor indissoluble: admitting the contrary, we shall find many; ●●●ely, how these accidents may be nourished, be corrupted, how some thing may be engendered, considering that all things are made of the presupposed matter, and therefore it seemeth better to hold to the first, etc. In which place the Lord of Eureux again pretended, that the Lord of Plessis had taken Durands opposition for his resolution, and at the first blush with some appearance, because these words are set down in the opposition. Hereunto the Lord of Plessis answered, that Durand, had he not been withheld by the counsel of Lateran, did in the deduction that he made, sufficiently show what his opinion was in this disputation of transubstantion; when having propounded this multiplicity of inconveniences, he plainly pronounceth, and can not be weary of it; 
a Durand in 4 sentent. d 11 q. 1. fo. 274. b●ar. 9 Lugduni apud Gasp. à Porton. triu 1.56. Quamuis iste modus sit de facto, non est tamen negandum quin alius modus sit Deo possibilis, ita videlicet quod Deus posset sacore, quod remanente subslantia panis & ●ini, corpus & sanguis Christi essent in hoc Sacramento.  We must not deny but there is another means possible unto God, the substance of bread and wine still remaining, albeit this means be indeed, etc. Again, Artic. xi. (omitting these words, Albeit this means be indeed) he repeateth the same. 
b Item. art. 11. p. 75. Non eit tamen negandum quin alius. ●od●s, etc.  It cannot be denied, etc. Again, Artic. xiiii. 
c Item, art. 14. Satis etiam durum est, & derogare videtur immēsi●ati divinae potentiae, dicere quod Deus non possit facere corpus suum esse in sacramento per alium modum, quam per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum: maxim cum ponendo conversionem fieri, difficilimun est videre, qualiter ipsa faciat aliquid ad hoc quod corpus Christi sit in sacramento, etc.  It is hard and seemeth to derogate to the infinite power of God, to say that God cannot make his body to be in the Sacrament by any other means but by the conversion of the substance of bread and wine thereinto, especially considering that admitting there be a connersion made, yet it is very hard to perceive after what manner he doth any thing, that the body of Christ may be in the Sacrament. Finally, 
d Rursus paucis interiectis. Patet ergo quod est temerarium dicere quod corpus Christi divina virtute non possit esse in sacramento, nisi per conversionem panisin ipsum.  It doth therefore appear that it is rashness to say that the body of Christ cannot by his divine power be in the Sacrament, but only by the conversion of the bread thereinto.  
All this proceeding, and that still from his own sense and not from any other bodies, so greatly doth this new interpretation set upon the words of the Sacrament torment his mind! Then coming to shut up his opinion, according to the which the bread remaineth in the Sacrament, notwithstanding, the reality, without laying away transubstantiation; 
e Iten non multo posi. art. 15. Si iste modus esset verus de facto, multae dub●ationes quae occurrunt circa hoc Sacramentum (tenendo quod substantia, ●nis non ●emaneat) essent solutae. Dubitatur enim qualiter ex hoc sacramento potest 〈◊〉 quid nutriri, & quomodo species possunt corrumpi, & ex els aliquid generari: quae omnia saluarentur naturaliter eo modo sicut saluarentur, si naturae panis & vini non assumerentur ad naturam sacramenti: ponuntur enim man ere post consecrationem, sicut ante.  If this means (saith he) were indeed true, many difficulties remaining in the Sacrament, by holding that the substance of bread remaineth not, should be resolved: for it is doubted after what manner any thing can be nourished of this Sacrament: also how the forms may be corrupted, and how of the same any thing may be engendered. All which difficulties might naturally be salved by this means, even as they might be salved if the natures of bread and wine were not taken or employed for the nature of the Sacrament: For by this means we do admit that they do remain after the consecration as before.  
Still speaking in his own sense. Wherein we are especially to note, that in his conclusion, and speaking in his own person, he repeateth the same words that we read in the opposition form in the name of a third. Because these difficulties, wherein he findeth no sufficient solution, do stick in his stomach. And in the end, how doth he satisfy himself? Surely even as Scot hath before done. 
f Et in fine are. 15. Sed quia hic modus non debet teneri de facto, cum Ecclesia determinauerit oppositum, quçnon presumitur ertare in talibus, ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, respondendum est ad argumenta quae sunt in contrarium.  But (saith he) in as much as this means must not be holden in deed, because the Church hath determined the contrary: (Namely in the counsel of Latran) which it is to be presumed doth not err in such matter, therefore it is that indeed holding the other part, we must answer to the arguments that are to the contrary. And this is the answer that he maketh; 
g Idem art. 16. In his quae sunt fidei non semper eligendum est eillud ad quod sequuntur pauciores dissicultates, etc. Sed est ponendum magis illud quod est consonum dictis sanctorum, & tradicioni Eccleasiasticae.  We must not always stand upon the sense that bringeth fewest inconveniences, but upon the same that best agreeth with the sayings of the Saints, and the Ecclesiastical traditions. He is wise enough for saying with the tenure of the holy Scriptures, or with the nature of the Sacrament. And indeed the Lord of Eur. should have learned of his Bellarmin that Durand did not sufficiently believe transubstantiation, who in his 3. book of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Chap. xi. hath these words. 
h Bellarm. de Sacram. Euchar. lib. 3. c. 11 Durandus docuit partem unam essentialem, id est formam panis converti; partem alteram, id est materiam, non converti.  Durand hath taught that an essential part of the bread, namely the form, is converted, and that the other part, namely the substance, is not converted. Which he doth expressly confute in the 13. Chapter of his third book, and citeth Durand upon the 4. book of sentences Dist. 11. q. 3. Hear would our Masters and Commissioners have referred the judgement, as they had done with the former; confessing that the whole question deserved to be read, that it might be judged by the course thereof. But then the Lord of Eureux found himself aggrieved, saying that it was in vain for them to dispute, if they would not judge; sundry times speaking to the King to appoint his pleasure to the said Commissioners. Whereupon his Majesty coming unto them, this Article was decided and the Lord Chancellor pronounced That Durands' opposition was alleged for his resolution. Hear let the reader judge, albeit it were so, of the words of the opposition, so plainly repeated in the resolution: and Durand speaking no longer in a third person, but in his own person, afterward likewise these clauses, Durum est, Temerarium est: It is hard, It is rash, etc. Whether in so doubtful, so ticklish, so problematical matter, the Lord of Eureux might pretend any heinous untruths, even palpably to be judged at the very opening of the book, at the bare sight thereof, where a man's judgement, not his eyes, is in danger of failing.   

The third place out of Chrisostom upon the first to the Thessalonians.  
FOr the third, they came to a place of Chrisostom upon the first to the Thessa. Hom. 1. 
Liu 3 de Euchar. chap. 11. ed. 1. pa. 5. 7. l. 31. edit. 2. p. 538. l. ●. ed. 3, p. 498. l. 22.  alleged by the Lord of Plessis in his book p. 537. li. 31. where he examineth all the places of Scripture, which the adversaries do boldly apply to the invocation of Saints, namely this out of jeremy. 15. 
a jerem. c. 15. v 1. Si stererint Moses & Samuel coram me, non est anima mea ad populum istum.  Though Samuel and Moses should stand before me, yet should not my affection be to this people. In which place having proved by S. H●erosme, Theodoret, S. Gregory, Hugo Cardinal, yea the gloss itself, that this place is meant of, the intercession of Moses and Samuel when they lived, between the wrath of God and the sins of the people; But not of any intercession of the dead Saints unto God for the faithful living here beneath; he withal addeth, that here of Chrisostom gathereth a conclusion clean contrary to that of the adversaries: namely, That we must not stand upon the Prayers of the Saints, but work our salvation with fear and trembling. Now against this place the Lord of Eureux pretended two things. The one, that the Lord of Plesses had cut him off in the substantial words: namely, if we be negligent. The other that Chrisostom entreated of the intercession of the Saints deceased, which the Lord of Plessis denied. To the first the Lord of Plesses answered, that he alleged not the express words of Chrisostom, but only set down the sense, because the discourse contained two or three whole pages, which he reduced as it were into a Theses: and that indeed he alleged it, after the phrase of the grammarians, Oratione obliqua non recta. in an overthwart and not direct speech, by this word, That he, etc. Therefore that he was not bound to the course of the text. To the other, that in this allegation he had no other purpose but to show that Chrisostom out of this place of jeremy had not gathered, as the Church of Rome at this day doth, the intercession and invocation of the deceased Saints: but contrariwise had collected this Doctrine; That we must not generally stand upon the prayers of the Saints, whether alive or dead, in some upon other men's prayers; but that we must watch, pray, and endeavour (as the Apostle saith) to make sure our salvation with fear and trembling. And indeed that this intent appeared in these words; 
b Chrysostan 1. ad Thessaly. chap. 1. ho●. 1. sub finem p. 1414 editionts Groe●. Lat. Hier. Cemmelini 1596. Et ut id seras. audi Deum dicentem. Si steterint Noah, & job & Daniel, non eripient filios suos, & filias, & ruisus. Si steterit Moses & Samuel. Et vide quomodo hoc dicitur duobus Prophetis: quoniam ambo pro ipsis togarant & non erant assecuti, etc.  And to the end thou shouldest know (namely that the prayers of the Saints do not profit, except we do convert and turn unto God.) hear what the Lord saith by the Prophet; If Noè, job, & Daniel stood before me, yet should they not save their Sons nor their Daughters. And again, If Moses and Samuel, etc. And mark how this is spoken to two Prophets, because both of them had prayed, but had not obtained, etc. Thus that this place of Chrisostom was not curtalled, neither could be, sith it was but touched by the way and not alleged: Much less was it wrested to any contrary sense, because generally he speaketh of the prayers of the Saints, albeit the examples were of those that are yet conversant with us here beneath.  
Now for the better opening of this point, the Lord of Plessis own words did suffice, That we must not stand upon. For what is it to stand upon, but wholly to trust, or to rely upon, even to the exclusion of our own duty and of all other means? He did then express the meaning of Chrisostom, that the prayers of the Congregation, of the Saints, of the faithful, each for other are good, are to be wished: But that we should not sleep upon them; but for our own parts do our duties: Also the course of the text will lead us thereunto. 
c Et pa. 14. c. 2. Nullus dormiat, nullus sit piger ad virtutem. Hoc enim est somnus. Nescitis quando dormimus, quam nostra non sunt in tuto, quam facile eis parentur insidiae? Quando autem vigilamus non opus est nobis tanta custodia, Quando dormimus, etiam cum multa custodia, sepe perimus. Sunt & ostea, & vectes, & custodes, & vigiles; & tamen fur ingreditur. Cur haec dico? Quonian si vigilemus non egebimus aliorum auxilio. Sin autem dormiamus, non multum nobis prodest aliorum auxilium, sed etiam cum illo perimus.  Let no man (saith he) lull himself on sleep, let no man be slow to virtue; for that is a sleeping. Know you not when we sleep, how small assurance we have, how easy a matter it is to rob us? and contrariwise when we watch, there need no such guard: When we sleep, not withstanding all our guard, we many times perish; We have gates, bars, boulter, watchmen and sentinels, yet doth the thief sometimes get in: Wherefore doe●● say all this? because if we watch, we shall not need the help of others; but contrariwise, if we sleep, the help of others shall stand us in small steed, but we shall perish therewithal. Of others saith he in general: and what meaneth he by others? 
d Sequiter in mediatè. Bonun est frui Sanctorum precibus, sed eum ipsi quoque fuerimus intenti operi.  Je is good (saith he) to have the prayers of the Saints, but always provided that ourselves be attentive to our own works. And did not the Lord of Pl●ssis say as much? Not to depend upon the prayers of the Saints, but to make sure our salvation with fear and trembling. And therefore with what conscience can it be said that this place is curtalled? as indeed our Masters the Commissioners did not so judge. Now for the opening of the second, whether this place of Chrisostom doth commend unto us the invocation of the dead Saints, we must consider what followeth. 
e Mox imme diatè. Et quid mihi, inquit, opus est aliorum precibus, cum suero intentus operi? Ne te eo redigas ut opus habeas. Nec ego quidem hoc volo sed op●s semper h●be mus, si sapia mus.  And what need I (saith he) aliorum precibus, the prayers of others, so long as myself d●e labour? Now (saith he) ●euer bring thyself into that necessity, neither 〈◊〉 it my mind ●●ou shouldest: yet if we be wise we do always stand in need. But of what Saints? of the dead, or of the faithful that live? surely there is enough spoken of that: neither do we doubt but the Saints that tryu nph with Christ, do pray for the Church milirant here beneath. But we are not come to that. For that they pray for the advancement of God's kingdom, or for our particular necessities; that they pray according to their charity that quaileth not: or that we may in faith pray to them, hane no foundation therefore, are very contrary questions. Howbeit here we shall see that Chrisostom speaketh or the prayers of the Saints that are conversant among us, grounded upon the express word of God, of whom (saith he) we stand in need; and yet doth he exhort us not to rely upon them. 
f Sequitur inmediatè. Paulus non dicebat, Quid mihi opus est precibus, etiamsi qui precabantur non erantco digni, imó verò ne pares quidem Et tu dices; Quid mihi opus est precibus? Petrus non dixit, Quid mihi opus est precibus? Oratio enim, inquit, fiebat sine intermissione ab Ecclesia ad Deum pro eo.  S. Paul (saith he) said not what need I prayers? albeit they that prayed were not worthy, neither equal with him: yet thou sayest what need I prayers? Neither did S. Peter likewise say, what need I prayers? for (saith he) the church doth make prayers for him without intermission; etc. Many other examples he doth also allege. Thus far then for the Saints that pray here beneath for the faithful, desiring all good men to have care of them in their prayers, which (saith he) are of efficacy with God. But how? joined with our own, with the duty that we perform in our vocation: according to that which the Apostle saith. 
g Et pa. 1417. ex 1 ad Cor. cap. 1. Adiwamtibus & vopis in oratione pro nobis.  Ex multis personis eius qu●in nobis est donationis per mult●s gratiae agantur pro nobis.  That ye labour together in prayers for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us for many, thanks may begiven by many persons for us. Neither may we here forget, that when in this assistance they heard speaking of living Saints, it was news unto them, as if it were not a common matter, both in the holy Scriptures and in the Fathers, to term the faithful, saints, even in this life: not for that they are canonised by the Pope, but sanctified by faith in the blood of jesus Christ. Yer upon this ignorance they made sundry applauses. Bu●d th' he not here speak expressly of the prayers of the Saints deceased for the living? Doth he not exhort the faithful alive to invocate the dead, to rely upon they suffiages, upon their passions or upon their merits? 
h Et aliquantò post. ex 4. Re. ca 19 Audi Deum qui que dicentem; Protegan● hanc ciuita●em proper me, & propter david servum meum. Sed quando? Tempore Ezechiae quierat justus, etc.  Surely (saith he) God said, I will protect this City for my own sake, and for my servant David's sake. Namely, because of my covenant in free mercy, that I have made with David and with his seed. But when? In the days of Ezechias, who was righteous. Again, 
i Et in sine eiinsden pag. 1413 Audi Deum dicentem de amice. jobi; Et orabit; inquit, pro vobis, & dimittetur vobis peccatum quoniam peccarunt quidem, sed non magnum admiserant peccatum. Sed hic ipse justus qui per preces tunc seruavit suos amicos in tempore judaico, non potuit servare judaeos pereunies. Et ut id scias, audi Deum dicentem per Prophetam; Si steteris Noah, & job, & Daniel; non eripient filios suos & filias.  And job (saith the Lord) shall pray for you. (Namely, he living for his living friends) and your sins shall be remitted: But the same righteous (saith he) that saved his friends by his prayers, in the days of the Jews, cannot save the Jews. And that thou mayst be the better informed thereof, hear the Lord, who saith: If Noah, job and Daniel stood before me, etc. And out of this place did the Lord of Eureux argue when he spoke of the Saints deceased. But by that which followeth, it shall most plainly appear that he meaneth, if they had been either to return in the days of Jeremy, or if they had been in his place; and so did the Fathers understand it. Chrisostom in the same place, soon after in express terms saith. 
k Iten p. 1. 1414. Si steterit Meses, etc. qui dixit, Si demittas quidem peccatum, dimit; sin minus, me quoque deal. Si hîc ergo nunc esset, & haec diceret non impetraret. Et si rursus Samuel, etc. Si isti ergo steterint nihil proficient.  If Moses himself (saith he) were now here, and should say unto me for the people as heretofore, If thou wilt not forgive them, blot me out, he should not be heard. Also if Samuel likewise: also if these, (Namely Noah, job and Daniel) they should not prevail: that is to say, coming here down and making intercession as thou dost: lest thou shouldst think my denial unto thee, were in regard of thy person: 
l Sequitur immediate. Et dicit de Noah, justus perfectus in generatione sua. Et de job. Irreprehensibilis, justus, verus, pius.  Noah nevertheless (saith he) and job and Daniel righteous men, irreprehensible, full of godliness, etc. That is to say, saints. But if the Lord of Eureux would reply, but to what purpose is this that he speaketh of the living, against the invocation of the Saints deceased? Surely because with greater reason he might have spoken that of the prayers of the Saints deceased, which he spoke of the living: These that are grounded upon commandment, upon example, & upon promise: those that have no ground at all, because also the abuse suppressed in these were of the greater force also against them. In the end Chrisostom concludeth his Homely in these words. 
m Mox. Cum haec ergo scramus, neque preces sanctorum contemnamus, neque totum in eas coniiciamus, tum ne pigri simus & socordes, temerè & insidiis circumueniamur, tum ne a magnolucro excidamus: sed & horte mur ad orandum, & ad manus pro nobis porrigendas; & ipsi virtutem sectemur.  And therefore knowing these things, let us not contemn the prayers of the Saints, neither yet wholly rely upon them: partly lest we should be slothful, and suffer ourselves rashly to be entangled in ambushes: partly also lest we should incur some great loss: (namely, the assistance of the prayers of the Saints or faithful) but let us exhort them to pray, and to lift up their hands for us: where note, let us exhort, which cannot be meant but of the living, and ourselves also ensue virtue. Of the Saints in the conclusion, as in the promises, of the faithful praying for S. Paul, for S. Peter, etc. of ourselves praying here beneath the one for the other. For whence should the conclusion grow but from the Premises? And thus, how far is he from exhorting us to call upon the Saints deceased, or to trust to their merits? Had our Masters the Commissioners had time to have read over the whole place at length, as the Lord of Plessis did most earnestly request; would they have stayed upon that which the Lord of Eureux did urge? 
n In princi. p●●. 1414.  job in tempore judaico non potuit servare judaeos pereuntes, job in the days of the jews, could not save the jews that perished; Would they not by that which followed have noted that he aluded to the place of jeremy; If Noah, Daniel and job stood afore me, etc. Si steterint Noah, Daniel & job, etc. Would they not have perceived that Sisteterint signified, if they were in place where thou art O Jeremy, when he saith; Sisteterit Moses primus legislator, etc. Again, Sihic ergomure esset, etc. Et sirursus Samuel, etc. If Moses the first lawgiver, etc. If be were now lecre, etc. And if again Samuel, etc. that is to say, in the place where thou art. And so consequently would they have judged that Chrisostom in this place, spoke of prayer to the Saints deceased.   

The fourth place out of Chrisostom upon Matthew.  
NOw followeth another of the like nature, 
Liu. 3, de Euchar. c. 13. adit. 1. pa. 574. l. 16. edi. 2 p. 617. l. 1. edi. 3, p. 507. l. 39  taken out of the page 574. line 16. where the Lord of Plesi●s saith as followeth. Chrisostom seemeth to have tasked himself to beat down this abuse, so careful is he to undermine the foundations upon every occasion. (Namely, the invocation of Saints deceased, founded upon the pretended merits of others.) He perceived (saith he) that the people trusted more to the help of other men's prayers, then to the amendment of their own lives: And therefore fighteth against this opinion. (Namely, to depend upon any other whosoever.) But (saith Chrisostom) we have much more assurance through our own prayers, then through the prayers of others, neither doth God so soon grant our salvation at others entreaty, as at our own: For so took he compassion of the woman of Chanaan; gave faith to the adulteress, and Paradise to the Thief; and thereto never entreated at the intercession of either advocate or mediator. Against this place the Lord of Eureux propounded falsehood by omission: Namely, because the Lord of Plessas' had omitted these words following; 
a Chrian Mat. hom. ●. pag. 59 edit. Basi. apud Froben. 1558. Et haec non eò dicimus ut supplicandum esse sanctis negemus, sed ne torpeamus neue supini ipsi & dormieates, alus tatum modo nostra curanda mande●●●.  Neither ●●e we speak this to deny that we should pray to Saints, but that we should not be negligent or slothful, and so f●lling on sleep, or being benumbed, we should commit the managing of our affairs to others. Where we are to note by the way, that the copy which Chemnicius citeth hath these words; Non quod negemus sanctus orare debere pro peccatoribus; Not that we deny that the Saints should pray for sinners. Where by the sense should differ very much; & in this case he would not have made such haste to tax him for omission because he should have gained nothing thereby. But taking law of the common lesson; either S. Chrisostom in this Homely speaketh of praying to the living Saints, to remember us in their prayers; either else of invocation of the Saints deceased. If of these, then doth the L. of Plessis confess the omission, and granteth that he hath done amiss. If of the others, what wrong hath he done, sith they both agree, for there is no controversy in the matter? But surely it is most evident by the whole course of all the Homely, and by the examples produced, that he there speaketh only of the holy men that make intercession here beneath in their prayers, to God for his people, and of the faithful praying each for other. In this Homely doth S Chrisostom handle this point, that even our Lords brethren believed not in him. And thereout gathereth this conclusion; That it is in vain to have any familiarity, either of Country, Family or Parentage with the Lord, unless we labour to conform ourselves unto him. And therefore he saith, 
b Ibid. p. 54. Nemo de se desperet, etc. neevila in re alia spem suam, quam post Dei misericordiam in vertute sua collocet.  Let no man settle his hope in any thing, but next unto the mercy of God, in his own virtue. To the same purpose he allegeth; 
c Et mox. Name & propheta id ipsum significans ait, Frater non redimet homo?  Frater non redimit, redimet homo? The brother redeemeth not, man shall redeem, etc. 
d Et pag. 55. Etiamsi inquit, Moses adesset atque Samuel tamen corum pro talibus deprecantium, non reciperem orationem.  Now (saith he) albeit Moses and Samuel were present and should pray for that people, yet would I not receive their prayers. Like wise the more plainly to show us, that he speaketh of those men, returning into the estate of this life. 
e 〈◊〉 paulo post; Et si Samuel ●msum pro aliquo indigno deprecetur, ●●ntinuo ad ip●●m diect Deus Ne lugeas propter Saul. Etiamsi pro sorore quupiam incompetencur oraverit, audiet quod Moses etc.  And if Samuel (saith he) should pray again for any unworthy person, God would straightway say unto him; Mourn not for Saul: Likewise if one should pray unreasonably for his Sister, behold here what answer was made unto Moses, etc. Then doth he add, 
f Sequitu●; Habent enim vim pro nobis, & quidem maximam, orationes supplicationes quae Sanctorun, sed tune cum nos quoque poenitentiam egerimus, & meliores reddemur.  For the prayers and supplications of the Saints for us are of great force, but when ourselves also do repent and amend. And of what Saints? That shall indeed appear by that which immediately followeth. 
g Sequiter immediatè. Nam etiam Moses qui sratrem suum, & sexcenta illa milia armatorum à tam dira liberavit ira, sorrem tamen suam nequivit eripere, non quip erat aequale peccatum: Illa enim iniuriosius de Mose fuerat quiddam locuta, illic vero impietas erat quod perpetratum erat.  For Moses himself (saith he) who delivered his brother and his 600000. armed men from the fearful wrath of God: could not nevert helesse warrant his Sister, albeit the sin were not equally alike, for she had spoken injuriously of Moses: and on the others behalf the sin that had been committed, was mere impiety: Then was it of the living Saints, & of the faithful that pray for the sins each of other. There also follow many other examples of the like nature: Of Samuel praying and being heard for Israel: praying also, but not heard, for Saul. Of Jeremy heard when he prayed for some: and when he prayed for the people, not heard: Of Daniel praying for the people, and not heard: and heard when he prayed for the Heathen, etc. 
h Et in fine eiusd. pag. 55. Equibus prosecto redolet, quod si negligentes fuerimus ac desides, nec per aliorum quidem poterimus merita saluati. Sin vero sobriè agemus, etiam per nosmetipsos istud valeamus essicere, & multo magis per nos quam per alios. Name & Deus gratiam non tam aliis rogantibus pro nobis. vult donare, quam nobis: quo & fruamur libertate Deum compellandi, & emendemur, dum ipsi studemus Deum reconciliare.  Whereby (saith he) we do learn that if ourselves be slothful and negligent, we cannot be saved, no not by the merds of others: But if we siue soberly, we may by ourselves, and much rather by ourselves then by others: For God will also show mercy not so much for then sakes that pray for us, as for our own; that we might use the liberty of speaking with God, and labouring to recencile ourselves to him, might amend our bu●●s, etc. Which again he proveth by the example of the Cananite, of the evil living woman: of the thief, etc. 
i Sic Chananaeam illam aliquam do miseratus est: sic etiam meretrici donavit salutem, sic latro●ē nullo mediatore intercedente.  I●o whom (saith he) God gave salvation, not that any Patron or Mediator made intercession for them. Where then hitherto, where is any other invocation, or intercession, other than the living Saints? not one word of the deceased. Now do immediately follow the words now in question, & let us take them even as he list. 
k Sequitur immediatè. Et haec non eo dicimus, ut supplicandum esse Sanctis negemus, sed ne torpeamus, nevesupini ipsi & dormietes aliis, tantunodo nostra curanda mandemus.  But we speak not these things to deny that we should pray to the Saints, but that we should beware that we suffer not ourselves to be overtaken with sloth and carelessness: and so falling on sleep, commit the managing of our matters to others. And then as in all other places, the living Saints, not the deceased. Hear will the Lord of Eureux say again. Why should he allege this place against the inuccation of Saints deceased, sith here is no mention but of the prayers of the living Saints? Surely because he meant to undermine the very foundation of that confidence, that men do repose in the holiness and merits of others: as also, as we said before, that if we may not repose ourselves upon the prayers of those that do converse with us, whose conditions we do know, and they ours; and to whom in charity we are commended by the Lord, and they to us: much less upon the prayers of those that rest above (as saith Saint John) from all their labours; who (saith S. Angustine unto us) do not inter meddle with the affairs of this world: the measure of whose knowledge we know not, as likewise they knew not the particular necessities of our conditions. Otherwise, should they not be Gods? Whereof moreover we have neither in the Old Testament, nor in the New, either commandment, example or promise: Whereas the prayers of the Saints conversant here among us, one for an other, stand both upon express commandment and ordinary practice. All which notwithstanding, sentence passed for the omission: that these words, Et haec non eo dicimus ut supplicandum sanctis esse negemus: Neither do I speak these things to deny that we should pray unto saints, etc. aught to have been added, for the groundwork; that this Homely is to be understood of Saints deceased. And all for want of reading the Text throughout, as the Lord of Plessis instantly required: but the common error carried it away, as if there had never been mention of any other Saints but of the deceased. As if Caris Dei adgeniculari; Sanctorum vincula deosculari; To kneel to the beloved of God; To kiss the bonds of the Saints, in Tertullian, and a thousand such other places in the Fathers, could be understood of others, than those that are conversant here beneath among us.   

The fifth place out of Hieromy.  
NOw followeth the fifth taken out of S. Hierom upon Ezechiel lib. 4. Ca 14. 
Lib. 3. of the ●uchar. ch. 14. edir. 1. p. 〈◊〉. l. 8. edit. 2. p. 626. l. 15. edit. 3. p. 502 l. 16.  alleged by the L. of Plessis. p. 583. li. 8. against prayers to Saints, in these words. 
a Haerony in Ezechiele lib. 4. c. 14. ex editione Christ. Plantini 1578. Quod si in aliquo fiducia est insolo domino considamus. Maledictus. n. omnis homo qui spem habet in homine, quam vis sancti sint, quamuis Prophet, Legimus Nolite consider in homimbus. Et iterum. Bo num est consider in Domino quam consider in principibus. Non in, princip ibus tantum scaeculi, sed & in principibus Eccleasiarum, qui suas tanium aoimas si justi suerint, liberabun●. Filios autem ac silias quos in Ecclesia genuetint, si fuerint negligentes, saivare non poterunt.  If trust (saith he) be to be reposed in any, let us repose our trust in one only God; for cursed is the man that trusteth in men, be they Saints, be they Prophets. We must not trust Principtbus Ecclesiarum, in the Principles of the Church, who albeit they be righteous, shall deliver but their own souls, not the souls of their children. Against this place also the L. of Eureux pleaded omission, because these word. (Sinegligentes fuerint, if they be negligent) were omitted. Which the L. of Plessis confesseth to be true (as he will always do, where like matter fails our) not of any bad intent, for what should he get by it? but because (as it seemeth) he relied upon the adversaries own allegation. For in their ordinary gloss, even upon this very place of Ezechiel, this place is alleged, and these very words omitted; and as we may well think without fraud. 
b Hier●ny. in Glossa ordinaria ●●●duni 159●. in illuel Ezec●ielis c. 1●. Non uberabunt fil●●●euaefiuas, & c. ●onum es●ce fidere in Domino, quam confidere in principibus. etc. Non secul● tantum, sed 〈…〉 justi ruerint tantum animas suas liberabū●, non finos vel fi●as, quos in Ecclesia genuerunt.  It is good (saith he) to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in Princes, not of the world only, but even of the Churches: who albeit they be righteous, shall deliver but their own souls, not their Sons nor their daughters, whom they have begotten in the Church. Also this place of Ezechul doth S. Hierome under-stand in like sense, as Chrisostom doth the place of Noah, Daniel and Job, returning into this world. Hear again did the L. of Eureux instantly urge; what maketh this place against the invocation of Saints deceased, sith it speaketh properly of the living? Whereto he was answered as in the former; but the rather, because in the L. of Plessis book, entreating upon this place of S. H●●rame upon Ezechiel, ensued these words that answered him. 
c 〈…〉 Obseurch●●, docentur 〈◊〉 have sentē●●●lam now 〈…〉 quod lautat. Deum in praesenti saeculo sumus, sive orationibus, sive consiliis inui●em posse nos coadiunari. Cum autem ante tribunal Christi, venerimus, non ●ob, non Daeniel, nec Noe rogare posse proquoquam; sed unumquemque portare onussuum.  And to the end we should not think that he meant not to speak but of the living, writing upon the Epistle to the Galathians upon these words; Every man should bear his burden, mark what he saith: By this short sentence we do learn, albeit darkly, a new Doctrine that is hidden, that so long as we remain in this world, we may be helped by the prayers and counsels one of an other; But when we come before the Tribunal seat of Christ, neither job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can pray for any man, but every man shall bear his own burden. Now the L. of Plessis urged him to way these words; sive orationibus, sive consiliis: Whether with prayer, or with counsel: But he would not hear him, saying he had not to do but with this place.   

The sixth place out of S. Cirill.  
THe sixth was a place out of S. Cirill of Alexandria, in his sixth book against julian, 
〈◊〉 2 de Eu●●●. c. 3. ed. 1. p. 233. l 5. edit. 2. p. 239. l. 30. ed. ●. p. 139. l. 25.  taken out of the pa. 223. l. 5. where the L. of Plessis saith. That he answereth the Emperor julian, who objected the honour done to the Cross; That the christians do yield neither adoration nor reverence to the sign of the Cross. Over largely peradventure for the words, though surely not for the sense. And therefore the L of Eur. pretending untruth, grounded upon these words; He answereth, because he answereth not precisely in these words. Hereto the L. of Bless. answered, that by his own text it appeared, that he never meant to allege the words of Cirill, only he gathered the sense out of a discourse, of a leaf in quantity: that indeed the oration was not direct, but by the way, the Character of the text, not of any allegation. Therefore that they ought to seek the sense and not the words: and the rather because it hath been often said, that the untruth should not be concluded upon the diversity of words, in case the sense were to be found. And as for the sense, saith he, Julian said unto the Christians. 
a Cirill. Alena. contra julianum lib. 6. p. 134. to. 3. Basill. apud joan. Heruagium. 1566. Et o miserihomines, cum seruentur arma qure magnus demisit jupiter, hoc est, pater Martis, pignore dato non verbo, sed re, quod civitatem nostram perpettio protecturussit, cessatis adorare & colere & interim crucis lignum adoratis, imagines illius in front & antedomus pingentes.  Ye wretches as ye are, ye worship not Ancilia de coelo lapsa, & our bucklers fallen from heaven, which jupiter hath given us for the protection of our City, and yet ye worship the tree of the Cross, and paint the Images thereof in the forefronts, and before your houses. Hereunto if the Christians in those days had worshipped the tree of the Cross, what was there to be said, saving, we worship it because it deserveth worship, and not Dulia only, but also Hiperdulia, a more especial service, even so forre forth as to bend both the knees, yea to bow with the belly to the earth, even to invocate it as living, etc. But what answer doth S. Cirill make him? 
b Et paucis interiectis. Absque labore demonstrabimus elusmodi sermones à malis cogitationibus profectos, extremam sapere imperitiam.  But (saith he) we can easily prove that these speeches proceed of bad thoughts, and rely upon extreme ignorance. And wherein? Saving in that he did imagine that because they painted the Cross, they did it to worship it? And therefore even at once he bringeth him back from the Crucifix to the crucified: from the sign to the thing signified: from the pretended oderation of the wood, to the mystery of our redemption, 
〈…〉, Name 〈…〉 & do●●●●, qua 〈…〉 omnibus 〈…〉 aequalia 〈◊〉, & indi●unitatis solio consider, non capinam tamen arbitratus est se esse aequalem Deo, sed serpsum humiliavit, formam servi accipiens, contemtaque ignominia crucem sustinuit ut corruptionis abolueret potentiam: unus pro omnibus moriws, & excitatur ut à mortis laqueis humanum eriperetgenus. etc.  spirituales saceret adoratores, mortuumque faciens in nobis sensum carnis, filios essiceret Dei eos qui in se crediderunt, etc.  etc. Our Lord and Saviour (saith he) might do equally with the Father, he might sit upon the Throne of the 〈◊〉, and yet never be imputed unto him for theft, in that he made him elf equal with him: but he humbled himself; he took upon him the shape of a Servant; he contemned ignominy that he might bear the Cross, to take away corruption, and alone for all men to die & rise again, to deliver mankind out of the shares of death. etc. To procure to himself worshippers in Spirit. Note, in Spirit, and not worshippers of flocks and stones; to the end to make us the children of God, by killing the motions of the flesh in us, etc. And as concerning this wood, he saith. 
d Et paulo post. Haec omnia recordari nos facit salutare lignum; & suadet ut cogitemus quod sicut dicit divinus Paulus unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ut viventes non ultra sibi ipsis vivant, sed ei qui pro ipsis mortuus est, & resurrexit.  This healthful wood putteth us in mind of all these things, and exhorteth us to remember the saying of S. Paul. One only died for all, to the end that living they should not hereafter live to themselves, but to him that died and rose again for them. Again, 
e Et pa. seq 135. Vis igitur, vir strenus, ut lignum quod nos ad recordationem omnis virtutis inducit abiiciamus & relinquamus puerisque & mulierculis tua proponamus  Wouldst thou (saith he) wish us to reject this wood, that putteth us in mind of all goodness? and to set before our wives and children thy paintings. Namely, as he did a little before discourse, the patrons of all uncleanness and pollution? Of the worshipping therefore, or adoration of this wood (albeit this was the very fit place) not one word. And indeed saith the L. of Bless. why should it seem more strange in Cirill then in Minutius Felix, who doth expressly say; 
f Minus Felix in Octauto, pa. 20. edi. Heidenberg. Lud. Lucii. 1●6. Cr●cis nec ●●oramus, nec optamus.  We do neither worship nor wish the Cross. Then in S. Ambrose, who speaking of Helen the mother of Constantine, saith. 
g 〈…〉 non innum utique, quia lib. 〈◊〉 eti error & 〈◊〉 impiorum.  Helen worshipped ●● the wood for that had been an error and heat burnish 〈◊〉. Where the question concerned not the Cross only, but the true Cross. Hereto the Lord of Eureux replied, that these places were to be understood by the distinction of Dulium and Latria. The L. of Bless. old uphold that this distinction was frivolous, unknown in the holy Scriptures, or Fathers; imposed upon S. Angustive who●euer understood it. But he ere into would the Lord of Eur. never enter. Lastly, that this great 〈…〉 (for he took pleasure in his 〈◊〉,) who had been a Christian, and was acquainted with the Christian mysteries, would never 〈◊〉 puted it 〈◊〉 them, 〈◊〉 it not been live. But let the L. of Eu. mark, what preiud●●e he hath here wrought to the sacrifice of the M●sse, before he was a●●●e. And even there where Julian objecteth to the Christians, that they sacrificed not; saying unto them; 
h cyril Alexand. contra julian. lib. 9 Vos antem invento novo sacrificio non ultra indigentes Jerusalem, quare non sacrificatis  And you my masters that have no more to do will Jerusalem, why doyou not sacrifice, in finding out some new sacrifice? He will bear us witness that the christians in those days did not sacrifice; that in hew of the jewish sacrifices, which them they had given over, they had not as yet brought in any new sacrifice: Even he, let us say with the L. of Eu. who should not have forgotten the ordinary sacrifice of the Son of God, daily reiterated by the Priests, had it been at that time in use in the Church. Hear the King himself perceiving that they could pretend no untruth against this place, pronounced aloud that both sides had reason. And thereupon the L. Chancellor pronounced simply; That the words are not to be found in S. Cirill. So leaving matter sufficient to infer, that the sense was neverhelesse to be gathered.   

The seventh place out of Peter Crinitus.  
THen they came to the seventh place out of Peter Crinitus that the L. of Eur. and his side had made so much ado of, 
Lib. 2. de Euchar c. 3. edit. 1. p. 223. l. 10. edit. ●. p. 239. l. 3●. edit. 3. p. 199. l. 29.  taken out of the 223. pag. lin 10. Where the L. of Bless. alleging this Crinitus, de honesta disciplina, lib. 9 in the Margin for his author, saith; That the Emperors Theodosius & Valens had made an edict in these words. 
a Fet. Crinitus. li. ●. de honesta discipl. cap. 9 Lugd. a●u. Sebast. Gryphium 1543. Cum sit nobis cura dili●●●s in rebus omnibus superni numinis religionem tue●. sig num salvatoris Christi nemini quidem concedimas coloribus, lapide, aliave mate ria s●ingere, insculpere, aut pingere. Sed quodeumque reperitur tolli jubemus; gravissima poena eos multando. qui contrarium deceretis nostris & impetio qu●equain tentarint.  Because our greatest care concerneth the service of God, we forbidden all persons that they shall not make the sign of our Lord Jesus Christ, neither in colour, in metal, or in any other matter; that they shall not grave, paint or carve it: but we will wheresoever it may be found, that it be taken away, under pain that all offenders to the contrary, shall be most grievously punished. Hear against the L. of Eur. pretended falsehood, because (said he) this law was otherwise set down in the Code; namely, that it is prohibited to paint or carve the Cross upon the earth, humt, in which word consisteth the force of this law. The L. of Bless. answereth; There can be no falsification, because in Crinitus whom he hath alleged it is so set down; that Crinitus saith that he took it (ex libris Augustalibus) out of the Imperial books, others peradventure then the common sort: & it may be himself hath read sundry sorts of the common sort. That he cited Valens and Theo losius, who reigned not together, and so he might confound their edicts into one: That these words in Crinitus. Nemini concedemus coloribus, lapide, ali●●e materia singere, insculpere, aut pingere, can no way be entered into the place of these of the Code. 
b li. 〈◊〉. c. nemini lic. sig. salu. etc.  Lib. 1. tit. 7. leg. 1. where we read, Nemins licere vel in solo, vel in silice, velta marmoribus humi positis insculpere, vel pingere: too far from the letters or syllables, also from the text, to be either ingengred or corrupted the one by the other. Contrariwise, that it was more likely that as superstition increased in the Church in the days of justinian, that Tribonian accommodated that law of Valens and Theodosius to his time, by adding humi: Which the learned Cuiatius, and after him, all other lawyers had noted in sundry laws, as well of the common wealth as of the Empire. Whereof likewise we have one testimony in matter of the Cross: for the punishment by the Cross being by all Christian Emperors forbidden, in every place where the Roman laws had Crucem, Tribonian put in Furcam. Infinite other like examples might we allege. Besides there was no cause that this law should seem more strange than the 36. Canon of the Elibertin counsel. 
c Council Eliber. c. 36. Placuir picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod adoratur in parietibus depingatur.  It hath pleased, or it hath been thought good, that there should be no painting in the Churches, to the end that which is worshipped, should not be painted on the walls. For (saith the L. of Bless.) if the Cross or Crucifix were worshipped, they were not then painted in the churches: if they were painted, they were not then worshipped. To this latter reason the L. of Eureux did reply, that this Canon was otherwise to be understood; namely, that they should not be painted upon the walls, but upon lose tables that might be fastened to the walls. Also that that was their manner still in the Diocese of Eliberis in Spain. But hereof let the reader judge by these words, Picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere, for the question is, that there should be no paintings in the Church, either painted or fastened. And so did the Elders understand it. As also our Agobard Bishop of Lions, who writ since the year 800. 
d Agobardus Episc. Lugdunensis contra eorum superstitionem qui picturis & imaginibus sanctorum adorationis obsequium deferendum putant. Qui liber manuscr. extat in Biblioth. S. Victoris. Si viderimus pennatos Angelos pictos, praedicantes Apostolos. martyrs tormenta patientes, nullum ab imaginibus, quas aspicimus, auxilium sperate debemus, quia nec bene, nec malè possunt facere. Recte nimirum adeiusmodi euacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis Patribus definitum est, Picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere, ne quod colitur & adoratur in parietibus depingatur.  Albeit we see the Angels painted with their wings, the Apostles preaching, the martyrs suffering their torments, yet are we not to hop, for any succour from the images that we see, for they can do neither good nor evil. And therefore to root out this superstition, the Orthodorall Fathers have very well decreed, that there should be no paintings in the Church: that that which is served and worshipped should not be printed upon the 〈◊〉. Alleging the words of this Counsel. All which notwithstanding the L. of Eur. grew out of patience, that this place that he had made so great account of, was not condemned of falsehood: And therefore most importunately both with hand and voice urgod the Commissioners. Whereupon the L. Chancellor procounced, That indeed the L. of Plessis had truly quoted the place of Crinitus, but that Criritus was deceived.   

The eight place out of S. Bernard.  
THen followeth a place of S. Bernard, 
Lib. 3. de Euchar. ch. 15. edit. 1. p. 60 p. l. 9 〈◊〉. 2. p. 648. l. 〈◊〉. edit. 3. p. 〈◊〉. 12.  taken out of his 174. Epistle to the Canons of Lions, alleged by the L. of Bless. pa. 604. li. 9 (for thus they leapt from one to another) where he entreeteth of the conception of the Virgin Mary. Out of this Epistle against the false honours attributed to the holy Virgin, be took these words. She need no false honours, being as she is, at the fith●●s thereof: It is no honour, but a taking away of her honour. The feast of her conception was never well instituted. Which propositions the L. of Bless. gathered out of sundry places of this Epistle. And the L. of Eur. pretend. falsehood against this place: because (said he) the Lord of Bless. had omitted that which came between the two clauses. Magnifica gratiae inventricem, mediatricem salutis, restauratricem saeculorum. Magnify the inventrix of grace, the mediatrixe of salvation, the restoratrixe of the world, etc. The Lord of Plessis upholdeth that in this allegation, he useth neither maiming nor fraud: No fraud, for he doth not dissemble the commendations that S. Bernard attributeth to the Virgin Mary, where. soon after he saith; That in other places S. Bernard helpeth to advance the same abuse, where he saith. O man, thou hast a sure access to God, where the Mother is before the Son, the Son before the Father, the Mother showing her Son her bosom and breasts; the Son showing the Father his side and his wounds. What could be spoken more sincerely? and doth not this import more advantage, than the words that the Lord of Eureux took hold of? Mediavicem salutis, the mediatrixe of salvation, which cannot be borne, but so far forth as the Virgin was the instrument of salvation; Neither truly any maiming, for the clauses are distinguished by great letters; and which is more the same that concerneth the feast of the conception is repent in sundry places, both before and after the same, whereby the allegation doth begin. She need no false honours, etc. Neither hath the Lord of Plessis herein hurt any but himself, in that labouring● after brevity he said not enough. baint Bernard saith to the Canons of Lions. 
a Bernard. epist 174. edit. Parisions. a●nd Gu●●. 〈◊〉. 1566. Miramur saris quid visum sucrit hoc te● poor quibu●●ā vestrum voluisse mutare colorem optimum, nonam inducendo celebritatem, quam ritus Ecclesiae neseit, non probat rario, non commendarantiqua traditio. Numquid Patribus doctiores aut devotiores sumus? Periculose praesumimus quicquid ipsorum in talibus prudentia praeterivet. Nec ver●●d tale est quod nisi praetereundum sucrit, Partum quiverit omnino diligentian praeteriisic. At valde honoranda es, inquis, matter Domini. Bene admones, sed honor Reginae judicium deligit. Virgo regia falso non eget honore, veris cumulata honorum titulis, etc.  We do surely maruatle what toy hath taken some of you in the heads to alter your good colour, by bringing in (note for the conception) a new feast which the Coremonies of the Church know not, which reason alloweth not, which ancient tradition doth not recommend. Are we either better learned, or more devout than the Fathers? Shall we presume or dare to undertake with peril, all that in such matters their discretion hath omitted? Neither is this matter of so small importance, that their diligence would in any wise have omitted it, if it had not been to be omitted: But thou wilt say, the Mother of our Lord must be honoured. Thou givest us good warning, but the honour of the Queen must be done unto her with judgement. The royal Virgin (note for unmeet honours) needed no false honours, being as she is, laden with the true titles of honour. Wherein we are then to note the true periods cited by the Lord of Plessis, even that which concerneth the conception, and the other that toucheth the false honours attributed to the holy Virgin, immediately and in one sequence, whereby he was not bound to add that which followed far enough off, Magnifica gratiae inventricem, etc. For had he undertaken to set down the whole Epistle, he prosecuteth the reasons, in regard whereof the feast of the conception hath no reason, in a long discourse, and toward the conclusion redoubleth the same sentences, that he had set at the beginning in his preface; 
b Ibidem, sub sinem pag. Dico gloriosam de Spiritu S. concepisse, non autem & conceptam fuisse: dico peperisse virginem, non tamen & partam a virgin. Alioquin ubi erit praerogativa matris Domini etc. Non est hoc virginem honorare, sed honori detrahere etc.  I say (saith he) that the glorious Virgin conceived of the holy Ghost, but not that she was conceived: That she a Virgin brought forth a child, not that she was childed of a Virgin. Otherwise what prerogative were it to the Mother of the Lord? etc. This is no honouring of the Virgin, but rather an abasement of her honour, etc. And therefore saith he: 
c Et paulò post. Cum haec ita se habeant, quaenam iam erit festivae ratio conceptionis? quo pacto, inquam aut sanctus asseretur conceptus, qui de Spiritu S. non est, ne dicam de peccato est: aut festus habebitur qui minime sanctus est? Libentur gloriosa hoc honore carebit, quo vel peccatum honorari, vel falsa induci videtur sanctitas. Alioquin, nulla ei ratione placebit contra Ecclesiae ritum praesumata novitas matter temeritatis soror superstitionis, filia levitatis.  Things being at this pass, what reason can there be to celebrate the conception? I say, how can we affirm the conception to be holy, which is not of the holy Ghost, I will not say which is of sin? Or how shall we sanctify this conception which cannot be holy? Surely the holy Virgin can be content to forbear this honour, whereby her sin shall be honoured, or a false holiness brought in. In another place; No novelty presumed without reason, contrary to the custom of the Church, can she like of, Mother of rashness, Sister of superstition, Daughter of inconstancy or lightness. Then doth he afterward refer himself to the decision of the Church of Rome, which belonged not to our purpose. Now let any upright mind judge, whether there were any hold to be taken against this place, whereupon notwithstanding for the satisfying of his importunity it was pronounced; That it had been good to distinguish the two places of S. Bernard in one self book (namely of this self Epistle) by one, etc. Which nevertheless albeit repeated in two several places, do immediately follow each other.   

The ninth place out of Theodoret.  
THe ninth was taken out of Theodoret upon the 113 Psalm, alleged by the Lord of Plessis pag. 218. lyn. 9 in these words. 
Lib. 2. de Euchar. ch. 2. edit. 1. p. 218. l. 9 edit. 2. p. 234. l. 21. edit. 3. p. 195 l. 13  God (saith he) doth what he pleaseth, but Images are made as it pleaseth men: they have the habitation of the senses, but senses they have none: being herein inferior to the flies, fleas, and all vermin: and it is meet that they that worship them should lose both reason and sense. And the Lord of Plessis had taken the most substantial clauses of this Psalm. But the Lord of Eur. pretended falsehood in two respects: In the translation, because he expressed Simulacra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Images: for he would have it Ido●●● In omission, because he had not set down a Gentibus cul●a, worshipped or s●●ued by the Gen●●●s: to distinguish them (said he) from the Images of the Christians. To the first the Lord of Plis●is answered that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Simulach●a, Imagines did usually pass for one. And this did the Lord of Plis●is offer him to prove; but he would not enter thereinto. And indeed in the 40. of Esay where the old interpreter saith, Simulacrum the Septuaginte say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image. And in the 4. of deuteronomy, the old interpreter translateth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imaginem, the Septuaginte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the same old interpreter translateth in the 33 of the Chronicles Simulacrum that which the Septuaginte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the first of the Romans' where S. ●a●● saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Lombard, Caietan, Stapuiensis, Osor●us, & c. ●●ue translated Simulacrum. In the Scriptures they are therefore indifferent. For the Fathers, 
a just. Martyr in Tryphone. pag. 251 edit. Hierca. Commel. Grae. Lat. Qut per Mose ●●sanxit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ne qua omnino sieret vel imago, vel simditudo, neque corum quae in coelo sunt. etc.  justm Martyr lay, That God forbade Moses to make any Image or similitude: where the Septuaginte say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
b Tertullianus de Idolelatria ch. 3. Ex edit. Pa●●chi. Ad hoc necessaria est vocabusi in●● pret●tio; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graece f●rm●m sonat; ab eo per diminutionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deductum, aeque apud nos formu 〈…〉. Igitur omnis forma vel sormulo, Idolu se dici expos●it, inde Idololatria omnis circa omne Idolum samulatus & servius.  Tertullian; E●●●s, in Greek, signifieth form or figure; whereof cometh the diminutive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we do interpret a small form or figure; therefore every form or small sorgne must be called Idolum. And thereof Idolatry, all honour and service that is done, circa omne Idolum, to any form or figure. Again, 
c F● cap. 4. Qui seruitis lapid●bus, & qui i●●agines sacitis ●●●cas & arge●●eas, & ligneas & lapideas.  You that serve the stones, and that make images of gold, and of silver, and of wood, and of stone, etc. And again, speaking of the Gentiles; 
d Item Eo●um ima●●●● 〈◊〉, imagia●●● c●●sc●ratio Idololatria.  Their Images are Jdols, the conse●ratioon of Images is Jdolatry. Minu●ius Fel●x upon the reproach of the Heathen Celsus, cast in his dish, that the Christians had no Images. 
e Min●●. ●elix pag ●5. edit. Heidelberg Quis dubitat hotum imagines cons●●ratas vulgus orare & publice colere.  Who doubteth (saith he) but the Heathen direct their prayers to the Images, that these men have consecrated, as also that they honour them publicly with religious service? and within three lines after, he calleth them notwithstanding Simulachra; 
f Mox. Quod si in animum quis inducat tormentis quibus, & quibu● machinis simulacrum omne formetur, erubescet etc.  If a man should imagine with what tools every Image is framed, etc. Wherefore also it cometh that Jsidore meaneth no other subtlety; 
g Isider. Originun li. 8. ca 8.  Simulacra (saith he) a similitudine nuncupata, eo quòd manu artificis ex lapide, aliàue materia eorum vultus imitantur, in quorum honorem firguntur; images so called in regard of the similitude, because by the workman's hand, whether of stene or other substance, they imitate the countenances of those to whose honour they are feigned. Even among the Schoolmen, Thomas calleth that 
h Thomas in 1. ad Corinth. cap. 8. lect. 1 Simulacrum quod ad similitudine alicuius rei natrualis fit.  Image, that is made to the resemblance of any natural thing. Also Durand, 
i Durand. lib. 1. c. 3. in summario, art. 4. Idolorum immodicus usus reprobatur, modicus probatur.  The immoderate use of Jdols is reproved, the moderate approved, 1 of Images. And in the same Chap. Nonsacies Idolum, thou shalt not make thee any Idol. Also, Simulachra Gentium Argentum & Aurum, the images of the Gentiles are silver and gold, etc. By such authorities (saith he) the excessive and immoderate use of Images is condemned, etc. Holcor likewise expounded a place of the book of Wisdom, Chap. 3. against the Idolaters; l In this part doth the holy Ghost begin to condemn Jdolaters, and those that do honour and serve Images and artificial figures. Again, 
m Ibid Exodi 2 dicitur. Non facies tibi Imaginem, neque ullam similitudinem.  Thou shalt not make thee any Image, etc. translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for Image. So new a matter is this distinction between Idol and Image among the Christians; 
k Idem lib. 1. c: 3 Ex his & similibus auctoritatibus reprobatur nimius imaginum usus. Holcot in lib. Sapien. lect. 157. in vers. 10. cap. 13. In hac part Spiritus S. consequenter aggreditur reprobare Idololatras qui colunt Imagines & artificiales figuras.  yea even so far forth that Pope Pius the fifth, expounding the ten commandments, confoundeth them in these words; 
n Pius Quintus in Exp●●ca. de●●l●gi ●●ae●●pto 2. In scriptures jussu D●i simula●ra & imagines e●●ictas le●●●us, Cheru●●●, serp●ntis ●●ei.  In the Scriptures we d●eread that by God's commandment they made Images and likenesses, as of the Cherubins. of the serpent etc. Now against these authorities, which the Lord of Plessis would have alleged to the Lord of Eur. he appealed for help to Henry Stephens Thesaurus (he should have joined with it the Card. of Sens, his Calepine) where against they might with more reason have opposed the old Glosser: S●mula●rum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lakenes, Image, jdol, Picture, where all these words are confounded together. Thus much for the falsehood committed in the translation. Now for the second, in the omission of these words, a Gentibus culta, worshipped or served by the Gentiles; The L. of Pl●. answered that of themselves they did sufficiently supply, in that the Psalm spoke directly against the Images or Idols of the Gentiles; considering also that in those days the Christians had no Images, as is already sufficiently proved: which notwithstanding was no let, but that that Psalm and text might at these days be appliable against the Images of the Christians, even as well as they were or might have been in the old Testament against Images of the jews, when after the imitation of the Heathen, they diverted to Idolatry. As indeed the arguments did equally concur each with other; that they were made, but not made; that they received honour of their colour & metal, & shape from the hand & pleasure of the painter; that they had the seats of the senses, but were insencible, etc. Hereto the L. of Eu. replied that the devils or demons inhabited in the Idols of the Heathen; which was granted him in regard of some, but few, and denied in the most part and ordinary. The L. of Eur. again replied, that in those days, and before the Christians had Images: witness (saith he) Theodoret 
o 〈…〉 vestibu●is & porticibus ei paruas posuerint imagines, hine sibi praesi●ium & tutelan parents. Cum ergo venirent innumerabiles; conabantur autem omnes contrectare, & expelliceis illis vestibus aliquam precipere benedictionem; primum quidem absurdum & alienu existimans tam insignem sibi haberie honorem, deinde●tiam rem aegre ferens ut nimis laboriosam, machinatus est illam in columna stationem: primum quidem iubens aedificari sex cubitorum, deinde duodecim postea autem: vigin●iduorum, etc.  who in the history of saints, telleth us that Simon surnamed Stilites, was so famous in Rome, that in the porches of all their shops they had set him upsmal Images, hoping for suc●oura● their hands; And this did the assistants receive with great applause. Hear let the reader note that the Author saith 〈◊〉, ●en say: Also, in the porches of their shops, not in the Churches. Again, Posuerunt, they planted the common people, ●ot the Church: But which is more, that these honours thus done unto him did so grieve him, that he determined to cause the pillar to be built, upon the top whereof he purposed to end his life, that so he might sequester himself from the world. Finally the L. Chancellor pronounced, That this place could not be understood but of the Jdols of the Gentiles, and not of the images of the Christians, as appeared in these words; a Gentibus culta; & quae in Gentibus adorantur, that had been omitted. But in conscience of a Divine, is this any let why by Anology the same may not be alleged against the Images of the christians?  
Thus were these nine places examined, and no more, because it grew late: where may be easily discerned that the L. of Bless. who had strained him in the arguing of the foremost, finding that he was disgraced by thy King's presence, whose religion, albeit not directly, he did impugn; & grieved with the applause that seconded all his his adversaries sayings, withal seeing that they permitted not the Commissioners time enough to read and consider of the places; and evidently perceiving by all the countenances and circumstances, that this action was prepared (notwithstanding whatsoever he could do) to his disadvantage, did toward the end seem to sertle to yield more force to this contestation; Unprofitably indeed employed, in that it had been in vain more earnestly to defend the truth, already condemned upon the file. Yet was he prepared for it, and had watched very late one: night (albeit he had lost the night before) to continue the next morning, had not God in the night time sent him a great weakness of the stomach, with extraordinary vomits, not without a Fever.  
Upon which accident, the Lord of Rivier, the kings chief Physician counseled him to have speedy recourse to some remedies. And therefore the L. of Bless. most humbly besought his Majesty to hold him excused during this sickness. Whereupon the next day the Precedents of Thou, Pythou, Casaubon, and Ma●tin, were lycensed to departed.  
Hear let all such as have seen the Lord of Eureux writing, or heard him speak in company, remember whether he hath produced any thing answerable either to their conceit, or to his own speeches, to their hope, or to his promises. For where are these heinous, literal, occulary falsehoods and untruths, which might be discerned at the first opening of the books, and found at the first sight?  
Contrariwise, which one place is there amongst them all, where they were not driven to enter very far into the sense of the text; and right, before they could assess judgement? Yet in the mean time upon these great words who was not purposed to see the Authors falsely alleged, the supposed places, set down upon pleasure to deceive the people? Yet who can doubt but that these sixty places by him presented, wh●se force was to be perceived in these nine, are the chiefest, wherein he expected greatest ad●auntage, ●ith be placed them in the fore front of his battle, and in them chosen from among 5000. or more, with so great leisure and labour both of himself and others, he had reposed his pretended victory?  
Now to come without passion to the very matter, what hath he gotten, or rather what hath he not lost with all sound judgements in the examination of these places? For what one falsehood is there either judged, or to be judged among these nine? Or may in some one of them, the omission of some word, for the most part indifferent with men of judgement, be of any force against the Author, the book, or any part of the book? Yet let us yield them what they can ask in these places, (whereof notwithstanding ourselves without contradiction do retain the best and chief part;) these places picked out here and there, and in every place, can they relieve Transubstantiation, the invocation of Saints, the worshipping of Images, overthrown throughout the course of the whole book by the authority of the Scriptures, the practice of the primitive Church, and the consent of the most notable Fathers? Scot, Durand and such like, who are not alleged, according to the phrase of the Palace, but cumulatiuè, as it were to make up measure: which crossed out, would be no weakening to the book: or kept, make it not the stronger: these are they from whom they hoped, for the raising again of their Mass, for the proof of Transubstantiation in the Mass, notwithstanding argued, beaten and overthrown by themselves, if they durst have stood to it. And the like let us say of the most part of the rest. Who therefore cannot see that where he seeketh to make most best of his force, he hath made most demonstration of his weakness? where he looked to have bleamished the sincerity of his aduersaty, he hath caused it to break forth and to shine more clear and bright. Surely (for we may say it truly) there was never Book either in our age or in the formerages (no not the quoin in the general essays) examined so severely or putto so rigorous trial. And yet when they that have been made drunk with this smoke shall grow sober again, when they shall be disposed earnestly to consider what they have seen, what they have done, that the deep wounds which this pretended Goliab promised, are less than small scratches: his blows with his club less than phillip's; what shall they catch, unless by the affected reprehension of frivolous matters, they took st●edfast assurance of the infallible truth of the principals, of the most firm, of the strongest? To speak Lawyerlike; what can they judge but that these slight exceptions have strengthened the rule? as a great man of our age said very well. It is no good proof of a matter, that there is nothing to be repugned: but rather an argument to the contrary, that it hath been but superficially looked into: but that is well tried wherein they reprove what they may, and find but little to be reproved. Were we to examine with like authority and rigour, not the books of their particular Doctors, but even their Cannon law, their decree itself confirmed, Canonised and verified by the Popes; what one distinction shall escape notable falsehoods, both in number and without number? wherein we shall not find the places both of the Fathers & counsels, curtalled of their most essential words; falsified, supposed, composed upon pleasure, to fit them to the profit, authority or doctrine of the Popes? For to set down some example, leaving the Donation of Constantine: the oath Ego Ludovicus with many others disavowed by the learned. In the 3. famous Counsel at Carthage where S. Augustine was in person● the 31. Canon, speaketh directly against the usurpings & enterprises of the Church of Rome. 
a Concil. Car●●ag. 3 c. 31. ●imiliter pla●●ut ut presbi●eri & diaconi & reliqui infetiores clerici, in 'tis, quas habent, causis, si de propriorum Episcoporum judiciis querantur, vicini Epis●opi cos audient, etc. Ne appellent ad judicium quod est extra mare, sed ad primares svarum pro●inciarum, quemadmodum & de Episcopi●●●●e de sinit● e●●. Qui autem ad trans marina iudi●ia provocant, a nullo in Af●i●an ad communionem re●●p●●nt●r.  That the Priests shall not appeal to any judgement beyond the Seas, but to the Primates of their own province, as the Bishops have often defined: likewise that such as should appeal to any judgement boyond the Sea●, should not by any be received into the Communion in Africa. This Cannon employed in the 
b 〈…〉  Decretal 2. q. 6. Placuit ut presby●eri, with what conscience could they add these words. Nisi fortè Romanam sedem appellaverint, unless peradventure they appeal to the S●● of Rome, which utterly overthroweth the meaning of the Counsel? In the 73. Canon it was said; 
c Concil. ciu●dem. c. 73. Placuit ut Presbyteri, Episeopi & Diaconi propriis terminis etiam a suis abs●niant ●xoribus: quod nisi fecerint Ecclesiastico ordine moveantur.  It hath seemed good that the Priests, Bishops & Deacons in their proper turns should abstain even from their wives. Wherein it appeareth that they were married, & notwithstanding their orders, kept their wives, but as their course came about to serve, they did abstain, according likewise to the Canon of the sixth Counsel: With what credit have they inserted it into the decrees? 
d C. Pla●●●●t. dist. 32.  d. 32. Cha. Placuit, cutting of these words, Propriis terminis, in their proper turns, in the course of their service, which make the whole sense to bring in single li●e instead of marriage. S. Augustine likewise declaring which were Canonical Scriptures, whereupon every Christians faith should depend: said, 
e August. de. doctr. Christ. lib. 2. c. 8. In Canonicis aut●n: Scriptures, Eccles●arum Catholicatum quamplurium sequatur auctorita●em, inter quas san●. illae sunt, quae Apostolica ●●edes h●bere & Epistolas accipere merue●unt. Tenebitigitur hune modum in Scriptures Canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiantur Ecclesiis Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt, etc.  In the Canonical Scriptures of the Churches, let them follow the authority of the most part, among the which (namely Churches) those indeed are, which have deserved either to be the Seas of the Apostles, or to receive Epistles, (as Rome, Ephesus, Corinthus, Thessolonica, etc.) to pres●r those that all the Catholic Churches do receive, before such as some do not recevie, etc. With what shamelessness could they city this place in these words. 
f In Canonicis. dist. 19 Inter quas fane ●llae sint quas Aposlolica sedes habere & ab ea alii meruerunt accip●re Epistolas, etc.  Among which indeed let those be which the Apostolic Sea hath deserved to receive, and which the other Churches have deserved or had the favour to receive from her: So to make S. Augustine, who never thought of it, to Canonize the Decretals of all the Popes: and that, even by quoting this Cannon by name out of S. Augustin 2. book de Doctrina Christiana. To be short, 
g In summario supradicti Canonis ciusd. dist. 19 Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolae connumerantur.  The Decretal Epistles are accounted among the Canonic●ll Scriptures, falsehoods indeed, truly literal, & indeed destroyers of the sense, such indeed as the L. of Eur. did promise, not such as he did produce. And of this quote only in the decree we may show them whole hundreds, whole Chiliade●● & (to stand upon the very terms of the Lord of Eureux) of perfect tale without amplification. The like may we say of the Master of the sentences, whom the Schoolmen have taken for their text of all their commentaries, for the argument of all their studies; at every fields length corrupting the places of the Fathers, to accommodate them to the doctrine of his time. And in three leaves that the L. of Eu. hath put to printing in all his life (how may it then be in these great volumes?) he cannot scape free from the like crime.  
Thus have you heard the true proceed & history of this Conference, which I was forced to set down because the people were brought into a wrong imagination, under colour of the copy of a certain letter that was printed and published all about, read in the Pulpits, and distributed through all the parishes in the Realm: even so far forth that the L. of Bless. coming to Saumur, found there above 100 Copies, part printed at Teurs, part coppyed by the commandment of some of the bench, by all the notaries in the town, whereby the inhabitants began to murmur one against another. It is therefore but a sinal matter to let the L. of Eur. fly pass for an Elephant, and an illusion that shall go: Truth will overcome in a short time. But let his Majesty in discretion, take order that this spark, cast out at adventure, and husbanded contrary to his meaning, by the enemies of quietness, proceed not to a fire of sedition among his people. And God of his grace, grant him long to Reign, in all felicity and peace to his glory, and the quiet of the kingdom. Amen.  
FINIS.