A CONFERENCE HELD AT PARIS between Father Gontier a jesuit, and DOCTOR Du Moulin: SECONDED BY THE LADY OF SALIGNAC. Together with Doctor Du Moulin his answer to GONTIER his letter to the KING concerning the subject of this CONFERENCE. By Peter Du Moulin Doctor of Divinity, and Minister of the Word of GOD in the Church of PARIS.  
Translated according to the French Copy printed in PARIS.  
LONDON Printed for JOHN BARNES and are to be sold at the sign of the Pied-bull near Saint Austin's gate. 1615.   

TO THE VERY GODLY AND RIGHT NOBLE Lady, my Lady ELIZABETH WINWOOD: Wife to the Right honourable Sir RALPH WINWOOD Knight, one of his majesties Privy Counsel, and Principal Secretary to the State.  
MAdam, it may be thought a double recompense in you, amongst many works and many writers, if you would only spare employments to peruse and give (in charity) a mild opinion of this. But I (intending to yourself a recompense, for late and early loves vouchsafed by your honourable Husband) dare honestly prefix your name to this, and think it worth your patronage. When as indeed omnipotence itself cannot be well entitled to any thing but truth: then certainly it should be triumph, to defend a truth convincing. And such a truth is now commended to your favour: which if it may acquit my zeal unto your Knight and You, of thanks though not of satisfaction. For having thought yourself most worthy to defend this truth, opposed by one of your own sex, & almost of the same rank, I shall according to my wish esteem it suitable to your person, whom with your honourable Husband, I do now leave to heavens disposal; which may enable me to discharge a further duty.  
Your Ladyship's most deeply bound, JOHN BARNES.   

A TRUE NARRATION of the conference between Du Moulin and Gontier, seconded by my Lady BARONESS of Salignac.  
PETER Du Moulin happening about three of the clock in the afternoon to meet with Monsieur de Liembrune before his gate in Marsh street, was requested by him to step up along with him unto his chamber, where he was no sooner come, but he saw the room full of Ladies; among which, one of them, at the first on set, entreated him to explain the 31. article, in the confession of the faith of the reformed Churches. Du Moulin answered, that if it pleased her to take the pains to come home to his house, he would do the best he could to satisfy her. Presently upon that another Lady replied and said, that we ought at all times be ready to give an account of our faith: that Du Moulin ought not deny to instruct them herein which did demand it of him: whereunto Du Moulin answered, that he knew well enough, they did not ask this for any desire they had to be instructed; and to dispute about religion with women, which tattle altogether; and after they are gone publish what they please, were to wrong the truth of religion. One among them replied, that she could not satisfy herself as concerning this Article, and that it was often objected to her, how that our Ministers were not able to give an account of their Mission and Vocation. Du Moulin answered, that he wondered much how she forgot to ask a reason of them for the justifying of theirs: and that had she so done, she should have found them less able to satisfy her: that every one which presumes to ask a reason of another for the maintaining of his vocation, aught to be sure that he is able to justify his own, and be ready at any time to yield a reason. He had no sooner spoken these words, but in comes Gontier, with two others, which brought many books along with them; Gontier at his first entrance asked what was the matter? what it was that was said there? Why my Lady here (said Du Moulin) requires a reason of me to justify my Mission: and I told her, that she should have demanded the like of you, for the justifying of yours.  Gontier. 
This is only a shift to rid your neck out of the collar.  Du Moulin. 
It is no shift at all: for whosoever is so bold, as to demand a reason of another for his vocation, binds himself thereby to give an account of his own. But if you will confess that you are not able to defend yours, I will presently here take upon me to defend mine.  Gont. 
Pray sir, be not choleric; you do not hear me acknowledge any such matter.  Du Moul. 
I speak nothing, but what is apparently true; and do here undertake to prove that you have no vocation.  Gont. 
Who hath given you authority to speak so saucily to your superiors.  Du Moul. 
As for your dignity I deny that you have any such superiority over me. But to the point, I here maintain that you have no commission; for you call yourselves Priests, and have received this order of priesthood in this manner: which is, that the Bishop, having anointed your fingers, and imposed his hands, saith unto you; Receive power to offer up sacrifice to God, and to celebrate the Mass, as well for the living as the dead: By this means he hath made you Sacrificers to sacrifice jesus Christ. I demand of you therefore in what place of Scripture Bishops are authorized to establish such sacrificing Priests in the Church.  
Gont. That is easily proved, out of the second and fifth Chapters of the first Epistle to Timothy; bring me a new Testament hither: hereupon a Testament was brought him, wherein he read these two Chapters, which was not a little tedious to the standers by; and finding nothing there that he desired, said to one of his company (which was his assistant) go and fetch me my 
* He did the like at Amiens against Monsieur Hucher being troubled to answer, he sent to fetch his concordance.  concordance, which being brought, he stood turning the leaves along time without saying a word: Du Moulin being weary of staying for his answer, said unto him, if this disgrace had lighted upon me to have been put to silence, and to send for my concordance, I should be ashamed ever to show my face more in any honest company: whereupon Monsieur de Liembrune told Gontier, Sir I am ashamed to see, that which I do: for you have often told me that the Ministers durst not speak a word before you, and now I see you driven to such straits, that you have not a word to say: After half an hours silence, I sought (said Gontier) a place of Scripture, wherein there is mention made of imposition of hands: I will ease you, said Du Moulin, of the pains and presently turned to the place, which is in the 4. Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy. Gontier red the words which were these, Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of the company of the elders: Note withal that these elders were Priests, and that Greek word imports as much.  Du Moul. 
This doth not prove at all that Bishops have authority from God to establish sacrificers in the Church.  
Gontier in steed of answering, took a Bible, and turning himself towards Monsieur de Liembrune, said that he would show, that under the old law, the Church was never without Sacrificers.  Du Moul. 
That is nothing to the purpose, we speak of the authority which Bishops have to make Sacrificers under the new Testament.  
Gont. Whereupon Gontier being at a stand, asked for pen and ink, which being brought, he falls a writing without speaking a word, and then blotted out that which he had written, which made the company wonder at him.  
Du Moul s. aid unto him, you gain time, and under the colour of writing take leisure to think upon some thing to save yourself.  
Gont. Laying aside his writing entreated Du Moulin to set down his proposition in writing.  
Du Moul. Then at his entreaty writ these words. Let any man show me out of the word of God, that the Bishops of the Romish Church have authority to establish Sacrificers in the Church.  Gont. 
I will prove unto you that the Apostles were Sacrificers.  Du Moul. 
This is not the thing in question, neither doth it prove that which I demand.  Gont. 
It is sufficient if I prove that the Apostles were Priests and did offer up sacrifices.  Du Moul. 
Since you are at a stay, and that I cannot draw any proof from you of the power that Bishops have, to establish sacrificing Priests in the Church, let us see how you prove that the Apostles were sacrificers. Hereupon Gontier took his pen and wrote that which follows.  Gont. 
This word, to Sacrifice, in his primary signification imports as much as to do an holy thing; but the Apostles were ordained to do an holy thing, therefore the Apostles were ordained to sacrifice.  Du Moul. 
We have nothing to do here with Etymologies, but with the sense of this word, to sacrifice, as it is taken in the Church of Rome, to wit, to offer up really unto God the body of jesus Christ in a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. To pray unto God is to do an holy thing, yet nevertheless every one that prayeth is not therefore a sacrificer in this sense: whereupon it follows that the conclusion is nothing to the purpose, since the word, to sacrifice, is taken therein in another sense than we take it.  Gont. 
I have proved that which I was to prove.  Du Moul. 
I deny it, this is nothing to the purpose, you tie yourselves to the word, so to avoid the thing.  Gont. 
I have done enough, and you have granted what I demanded.  Du Moul. 
I do not agree with you in that, and do call the company to witness, if there be any one here which hath hitherto heard Master Doctor speak one word to prove that Bishops have authority from God to establish Sacrificers in the Church: or that the Apostles were Sacrificers, to sacrifice jesus Christ.  
Gont. Whereat all holding their tongues, Gontier answered and said that jesus Christ had said unto his Apostles: Do this, and thereby commanded them to sacrifice.  Du Moul. 
I deny that, to do this, signifies to sacrifice.  Gont. 
This word, Do, is referred to his body.  Du Moul. 
Suppose it were so; yet to do his body is not to sacrifice it.  Gont. 
In the 26. of Saint Matthew it is said that the blood of Christ is shed for the remission of sins, now where the blood of Christ is shed there is a sacrifice; and all that is available to the remission of sins is a sacrifice.  Du Moul. 
That I deny: if it were so, Baptism should be a sacrifice seeing that that also is available for the remission of sins: nor is it true, that wheresoever any blood is shed for the remission of sin, there should of necessity be a sacrifice, except this blood be offered to God, for without this it is no sacrifice: Also it is requisite that this shedding of blood be made by death, but in the Eucharist you cannot show me, either that this blood is offered unto God, or that this shedding of blood is made by death.  Gont. 
In the 26. of Matthew it is expressly said that the blood of Christ is: and withal he went to write this argument the blood shed which is joined with death, is a sacrifice, but the blood shed in the sacrament is joined with death, therefore it is a sacrifice.  Du Moul. 
You take that for granted which you are to prove, to wit, that the blood which you say to have been shed in the Sacrament hath been offered unto God; Secondly I answer, that you do fallaciously add this same word, join, to that which I have said: that in the 26. of Matthew it is truly said of the shedding of blood which by nature is joined with death, But I say that when the very blood of Christ is really shed in the Sacrament, yet it is nevertheless not shed by death.  Gont. 
By this answer you seem to allow of my Mayor.  Du Moul. 
You speak nothing, neither have you produced any thing yet, to prove that jesus Christ hath offered his blood to God in the Eucharist.  Gont. 
I have proved it sufficiently, I need not prove it again.  Du Moul. 
Prove this, or confess that you cannot.  
Gont. Gontier hereupon took his pen and writ as follows: The blood shed for the remission of sins is contained in the institution of the Eucharist: in the 26. Chap. 28. verse of Saint Matthew.  Du Moul. 
This doth not enforce at all, that jesus Christ did offer his blood unto God in the Eucharist.  
Gont. Hereupon after some silence, and complaint of the Ladies, desiring us to confer about some other matter, at last Gontier stood up upon his legs, and framed an argument; which he would not write, but Du Moulin writ it as he told it him: the argument was this, The blood of jesus Christ which is shed for the remission of sins, must of necessity be offered unto God, but in the institution of the Eucharist contained in 26 Chapt. 28. verse of Saint Matthew the blood is shed for the remission of sins, therefore it must needs be offered unto God.  Du Moul. 
I deny that the mayor proposition is always true, for should the very blood of Christ jesus be shed in that same action of the Eucharist, it would not follow, that it were offered unto God for a sacrifice: for it might be offered or presented to the Communicants, and not unto God: It is sufficient that he hath been offered on the cross: As for the second proposition, I acknowledge that the blood of jesus Christ was shed, but upon the cross: Saint Matthew saith truly that the blood of the Lord is shed, but he means upon the cross; as the Romish Bible witnesseth; and the very Mass, which turn it in the future, effundetz, that the blood of the Lord shall be shed, I ask of Mr. Doctor whether he will renounce his Bible, and his Mass.  
Gont. Gontier taking pen and ink to answer blotted out part of that which Duke Moulin had writ; Du Moulin complained thereof, and showed it to the company, Gontier exeused himself, and said he did it unwittingly, afterward he began to write these words this offering cannot be made unto the people. Afterward he paused upon it, and blotted out that which he had written; then passing that over, he posts to the second article of Du Moulins answer; who required him to answer to the first article: Gontier answered that he would not answer to it at all: and that in his answering he would have to do with those parts which he thought most feeblest: Du Moulin priest him again, saying that his conclusion was weak, whilst that one of his propositions remained still denied: Gontier refused again: Some that sat there coming unto him, whilst he did thus delay, urged him unto it, yet he persisted in his refusal; but upon the second article he said, that Du Monlin denied his own Bible; which saith, is shed, and not shall be shed.  
Du Moul. Answered that our translation was turned faithfully according to the Greek, and that this did prove nothing, but that the exposition of the Romish Church which the bibles approved by the counsel of Trent and the Mass itself doth carry, is false.  
Gont. Gontier than made one of Robert Stephens Greek Testaments be brought unto him, and for to weaken the authority of the Greek text said that many things there had been changed, and that at the end of the book there was a table of more than five hundred several readings.  
Du Moul. Answered that these divers readings did not alter the sense at all; that all this inveighing against the original of the new-testament did not help him a jot to prove that which as yet he could not prove: to wit, that jesus Christ offered up his blood to God in the Eucharist, and he called upon Gontier to prove it, Gontier continuing in denying to prove it to him, and the disputation being there at a stay, all the Ladies to gratify him entreated them to talk of some other subject, and said that this matter was to deep for their capacities.  

A new matter proposed.  
ONe of the Ladies therefore requested that these words might be expounded, This is my body. Du Moulin. Answered and said: That no man doubted of the truth of these words, and that we should believe the Scripture according to the exposition that it carries of itself: that these words, This is my body, were thus expounded by the Apostle Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. chap. 16. verse. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ; An exposition which the Church of Rome doth reject, not believing at all that it is bread, nor that we break bread; nor that this bread so broken is the communion of the body of Christ, seeing that it is his very body: Hereunto add, that the Evangelists do with a joint consent witness, that jesus Christ broke bread and gave it: He took bread broke it, and gave it: Therewith the Church of Rome, denies, not believing that he gave bread: Nay which is more, it denies these words; This is my body: For seeing the word, This, signifies that which he gave, and seeing that he gave bread, the sense of these words, This is my body, is, This bread is my body, the which the Church of Rome denies.  
Gontier on the contrary opposed against this, that Saint Paul had said in the Eucharist, that the body of our Lord is broken for us: that the bread whereof he speaks, saying The bread which we break is his flesh, as it is said in the sixth of Saint john, The bread which I will give is my flesh.  
Du Moul. Replied and said that herein Gontier contradicted the Church of Rome, which doth not believe at all, that the Lords body is broken in the Eucharist, and asked of Gontier whether he would subscribe to this: That the Church of Rome doth believe that the body of the Lord is broken in the Eucharist: that Gontier by this word, Bread, meaning the body of Christ makes the words of Saint Paul ridiculous, making him to say, that, the body of Christ, which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ. That in that place of Saint john he speaks not at all of the Eucharist, but promiseth to yield himself unto death, as he makes manifest by the words following: The bread which I will give, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world, now he did not give himself for the life of the world, but in his death.  
Gont. Hereunto Gontier answered nothing, but only this, that these words, I will give, being twice repeated were taken in two several significations. Afterward being required to subscribe, that the Church of Rome doth believe that the body of Christ is broken in the Sacrament; He took paper and writ: Christ hath broken his body in the Eucharist: Saint Paul: 1. Cor. 11. verse. 14. which was not that which was demanded of him: Hereupon being required to speak his mind freely, and tell in his conscience, whether he thought the Apostle Saint Paul did speak truth, saying, that we break bread: He answered flatly that he would answer no more than he had done already; which moved one of the Gentlemen that sat by (Master Paupart by name) who came in at the latter end of the conference, to say unto him, we have brought our ears but it seems you want a mouth.  
This done Gontier being priest a new, to prove, that jesus Christ hath offered his blood to God in the Eucharist, forsook the battle, and being ashamed of himself, and clean out of heart retired into one of the corners of the chamber, where being all alone he falls a writing what he thought best in a paper apart, which when he had showed upon the table, a little after he toare in pieces snatching it out of the hands of my Lady of Liembrune who was willing to have kept it.  
He therefore giving room my Lady Baroness of Salignac succeeded in his place.   

The upshot of the conference.  
MY Lady's discourse tended to this end: I have (said she) withdrawn myself from the religion wherein I was bred, after I came once to the through discussing of the cause; I have spent four whole years in sounding of this; I have looked upon all the Father's Latin and Greek, I kept a man of purpose to translate them; I have found that the Fathers of the four first ages are conformable in all things to the faith of the Church of Rome, hereupon I was confirmed in mine opinion, and my conversation hath turned diverse others.  
Du Moul. Said, Madam since you understand that which you do so well, give me leave to ask you, if you do not call upon the Virgin Mary, and if the form of your prayer, wherein you call upon her, be not ave Maria etc. yes said she: Then Du Moulin said unto her, you do not therefore understand what you do, for by speaking thus you think you pray to the Virgin Mary, but indeed you pray unto God for her, saying unto her, Marry the Lord protect thee, the Lord be with thee etc. Also Madam, I think you have not forgot the causes, which moved you to this change. For example can you show us any places of the Scripture, wherein we are commanded to paint God, and to make carved images of the trinity in stone: The Lady answered that she would not take upon her to prove that in the presence of a Doctor: Du Moulin then showed her the 4. Chapter of Deuteron. at the 15. vers. and following, where God forbids any image to be made like unto him; She on the contrary alleged the images of the Cherubins; But Du Moulin told her that she spoke of the images of God, and that a Cherubin was no God.  
As for the images of Creatures, he asked her, if since her change of religion, she had seen any commandment of God for the worshipping of creatures images: Gontier did relieve her a far of, crying out of his corner where he was retired; Madam, instance in the brazen Serpent, being the image of Christ, who was both God and man, tell him withal, that there was sacrifice and incense offered before the Cherubins.  
Du Moul. Answered that the brazen Serpent, was no image of jesus Christ, but a figure of his office, and saving virtue; that suppose it were his image, yet it was not an image of his divinity: that he could never find that the Israelites did worship it, but that they were taxed for idolatry: and lastly that there was never any sacrifice or incense offered up before the Cherubins, there being always a vail interposed. She hereupon had recourse again to the Fathers; affirming that she had read them all. Du Moulin told her that it was impossible, first in respect of the multitude of books, and then because of the difficulty thereof to her, which understood neither Greek nor Latin. That twenty years were too little for him to do it: and that she must needs ask twice as long: He entreated her to name some Father among others, which she had read: she named chrysostom for an example. Du Moulin said, pray Madam show me but one place in him which you do best understand: then she strained courtesy, saying that being as she was a mother of a family, she could not be wholly at leisure: Afterwards she brought forth a whole bedroll of the Fathers, wherein she took the Greek for the Latin, saying that Tertullian was the disciple of the Apostles; that Cyprian was his disciple in the 150. year of our Lord, for which she was taken up by Gontier which heard it a far off. Who raising himself up, gently took his leave of the company: Du Moulin told him as he was going forth, that if we were castaways and damned creatures, as they reported, they should then by the laws of Christian charity have compassion upon us: and I am amazed that you which here show yourself to be of so yielding a nature, should yet nevertheless preach blood and sedition (as all those tell me which go to hear you) Gontier answered, you are misinformed: I have given an accounted to the King for that which I did, I would hazard my life for your good; After some complement the company departed. Two days after, my Lord of Liembrune meeting with the same Ladies in Saint Nicholas des Chamans, he inquired of them what the reason was that father Gontier was so astonished, and did stay at a st●nd in his answering, who said that (as he himself told them) he did this to cheer up my Lady of Liembrune who wept for fear he should else have afflicted her a new.    

PETER DV MOULINS ANSWER TO THE Letters of M. Gontier written to the King, concerning the Subject of this Conference.  
SInce the religion of Rome is become a merchandise, they which teach it study how to put tricks upon men, but they do them so slovenly, and perform them with so little slight, that (as it seems) they are willing to do us a pleasure in disgracing themselves; The letters of Monsieur Gontier upon this subject show this which I say to be true; wherein he brags of the conversion of my Lady of Mazancourt, as the prize of his victory; though she in the year 1596. in the month of june, in the Church of Sechelles publicly forswore our religion on her marriage day, and protested that she would live in the Church of Rome: and never since hath she turned to us, or made any show of professing our religion. See then what a new conquest here is, he hath spoiled us of that which we never had, he hath killed a person already dead, he hath made a Lady forswear our religion, which had done it a dozen years before; and gained so excellent a victory, to the end the people should say, This was done by the dexterity of venerable Father Gontier: Not unlike him, who having bought an hare, tied it with a chain unto his saddle bow, that so the people might say, this is the hare which he hath taken; which opinion makes the dish to relish the better: These Doctors could never yet catch any, but such like preys as these: She surely is a Lady of honour, whose person & family I reverence, yet she nevertheless, either to gratify her husband, or else through simplicity, had willingly forsaken the truth before our conference: In which she was so far from profiting any thing, that whilst it was a doing, she often professed that she did not listen to that which was said, nay more than this; since that hath she written letters to my Lady of Liembrune her sister, where she speaks thus; I was not in any manner in the world instructed, because the points, which Du Moulin proposed to be discussed, were above the reach of my understanding: A little after she saith, that when the conference was done, she went to consult with Father Gontier, who showed her all the Fathers of the first 600. years to be on his side; where as (she reports) she hath found true salvation, that hereupon she hath fixed her resolution.  
But if Master Gontier behaved himself so manfully as he says, without showing how; how comes it then to pass, that the Ladies there present were fain to excuse him to Monsieur de Liembrune, for bearing himself so dastardly in the fight, saying that he did this to comfort my Lady of Liembrune which wept? why was I constrained to turn for him to a passage of Scripture which he could not find? why did he stand so many times so long, together without speaking a word? why (he being at a nonplus, and not able to justify the authority of Bishops for the ordaining of sacrificing Priests) was I forced to change my question, for to gratify him? why did he withdraw himself out of my presence to hide himself in a corner? why did he blot out that which I had written? why did he tear the papers which himself had written? whereof I can yet for aneede produce some pieces: And note that he took me unawares then, when I thought of nothing less than conferring with him; but he came prepared and furnished with books having agreed on this conference before hand with the Ladies; I am also given to understand by the report of men worthy of credit, that a few days after the conference, Gontier dining with my Lord the Prince of Conde, and my Lord the Duke of Espernon, that the Prince asked Gontier as concerning this matter, telling him there went a speech abroad thereof which tended little to his praise; and that the said jesuit imputed his little resistance to the great noise there was made: but especially to the earnest entreaty of an advocate; yet there was no advocate nor any stir, but only towards the latter end, the three first hours being passed over with a great silence, every one looking that Master Gontier should speak, whilst he did nothing but turn the leaves of his Concordance, and made as though he did write.  
Now to justify this which I speak to be true, I call the assistants for witnesses which sat there from the beginning to the end, and God knows that in the discourse which I have published, I have dealt as faithfully as I cold possible, having show'd it ready written to those which were present at it; to the end that if I had forgotten myself in any thing, they should correct what was amiss; yea I have yet some part of Mr. Gontiers arguments written with his own hand, of the which he doth not so much as repeat one word in his letter; wherein he reduces our conference to a dozen lines, not for brevities sake, for he breaks out into other unprofitable discourses, but by an apparent shift: for in our conference there were two points above others that we chiefly handled: one, whether Bishops were authorized from God to establish Sacrificers for to sacrifice jesus Christ: the other, whether it could possibly be proved that jesus Christ did offer up his blood to God in the Eucharist: because, that although his blood were really shed, yet it is not a sacrifice if the blood be not offered unto God.  
These two points being of such importance, how comes it to pass that Mr. Gontier writing to the King, doth not satisfy them, nor so much as mention a word of them at all? did he think his Majesty unworthy to be thoroughly informed in the truth of the matter? or why doth he frustrate the people of this their expectation. And if in the conference he had not a word to speak hereupon, why doth he not yet repair his credit herein by his writings upon farther study? why is he so loath to speak any more of the passage in Saint Cyprian, which is in the 9 Epist. of the first book alleged by my Lady baroness of Salignac, doth he not perceive by this that he hath spoken nothing worth the considering, but that a lady hath spoken that which deserves to be weighed? Nay, he shows that he never read the place, seeing that he produceth it so disguised, and which is more, says in the margin of his book that this is the 66. chapter; when Saint Cyprians Epistles are not distinguished by chapters; doubtless my Lady of Salignac, who hath ten times more learning for a Lady, than he for a Doctor, could have taken him up for this: Saint Cyprian indeed speaks in the place alleged, of altars and sacrifices, but by sacrifices he understands the presents which the people offered on the table, of which one part was laid aside for the celebration of the Eucharist; wherefore in his Sermon of alms he takes up the rich men which men which came to receive without offering any sacrifice: Dost thou come (saith he) to the Lords Table without a sacrifice, dost thou take part of the sacrifice which the poor hath offered? and in the same ninth Epistle, in the honour of the brethren which offer up offerings, as if they did receive the tithes of fruits, Let them not depart from the Altar, and sacrifices.  
As concerning prayer for the dead, which began to be in use in the time of Tertullian, and of which Saint Cypryan speaks in this Epistle, this is a prayer which at this day the Church of Rome doth allow of no more than we; seeing that than they prayed for the Saints and Martyrs, and that it shall never be found that any one prayed for the delivery of souls out of purgatory, but only for the enfranchisement of souls kept in prison, and sleeping in the bosom of peace, of which you have a feeling in your mass, where the Priest prays in this manner for the dead: Lord think on thy servants which sleep in the bosom of peace; Amongst the number of which the ancient Church doth reckon the Saints: who also as they thought in the next age to St. Cyprian, should be purged by fire in the last day of judgement, not exempting so much as the virgin Mary herself, as we have showed by a great number of proofs in the last chapter of a book entitled, The waters of Silo. Nevertheless Master Goutier lest he should have nothing at all to say, doth accuse me for denying our own Bible; How so? because saith he, that when he did allege these words unto me, which is shed for us, I said this was to be understood in the future: A ridiculous calumny: Rather on the contrary I say that our Bible doth turn the words more faithfully than that of the Church of Rome, seeing that it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is shed, and not shall be shed, as the Bible of the Church of Rome and the mass have it: But it is one thing to ask what is the best translation of the words of jesus Christ, another thing to ask what is the meaning of the words; for our translation only is true: but the Romish Bible doth expound the meaning and intention of jesus Christ, which is to promise that his blood shall be shed for us on the cross, failing in the turning, but not in the drift of his words: as if when jesus Christ saith, joh. 10. ver. 15. I lay down my life for my sheep, one should translate it thus, I will lay down or leave my life: he indeed should lay down the true meaning of his words, which although it were true, yet ought it not to be inserted in the text: Let this suffice for an answer to Master Gontiers letters, letters without sinews, without joints, puffed up with a childishly affected kind of swelling, which we do therefore here prick to the end we might bring it down. Had he no body to present them to, but his Majesty. The Pagans in their sacrifices did never offer an Ape unto their gods, but these men presume to offer apish to yes to so great a Prince, which holds the place of God among us: who being wonderful in his patience since he suffereth himself to be thus served, is no less wonderful in the clearness of his judgement. For he knows well that, if his royal virtues were not above all envy, and out of the danger of forgetfulness, they must needs lose some of their lustre by being mixed with the impureness of their pamphlets, as pearls that are wrapped in smoke: neither doth he like of these seditious preachers, which now preach in their Sermons before his Majesty, that we hate dominion, & set all kind of government at nought: for his Majesty is not ignorant that this is so far from being true, that on the contrary, this is the principal cause for which we are hated, to wit, because we have not taken on oath of allegiance to any other then to the King, because we hold that the Pope cannot give or take away realms, nor dispense with subjects for the oath of fealty; because we teach that he should not have here any other laws, any other judges, any other prisons, than those of the King, because that we show that his realm is spoiled of silver, which passeth over into Italy for the payment of first fruits dispensations, absolutions, matrimonial contracts etc. And that cozenage and tyranny are established under the show of religion. Finally, because we complain that the Pope makes Kings kiss his feet, and tramples on their Crowns: would we but stick to the Pope in these things, he would easily dispense with us for our belief in the Gospel: or by a special privilege would permit us to believe thereon, in the things which were not prejudicial to his profit. Is there any one that can accuse the reformed Churches of rebellion or attempting aught against our Kings, or of conspiring to blow them up with gunpowder, and yet to dare to preach this in the presence of his Majesty: which reproach, the only consideration, and many proofs that he hath had of our fidelity do sufficiently confute: For that the Jesuits go about to persuade him that we are rebellious, or ill-minded towards him, is all one as if Caiphas should defend jesus Christ against his Apostles, or as if Catiline should accuse Cicero of sedition.  
At the end of Master Gontiers Epistle there is a discourse annexed, subscribed with the name of Corbozon Mount-gommeri, which was not present at the conference, but says that he heard of it at the Vicarage of Saint Nicholas: This so honourable a name of Mount-gommeri doth unhappily come to be written under so base a pamphlet, and I cannot believe, that so false and ridiculous piece of stuff, should come from under the hands of a Gentleman of that honour as he is; without doubt some paltry jesuit composed this writing at his pleasure, which comes no more near the truth of that which passed between us, than Ovid his Metamorphosis doth to that of the Gospel. And indeed, the recital that Master Gontier hath made of our conference in his letter to the King, hath nothing like unto this; but Monsieur de Corbozon is willing to honour it, in covering it under his name, as with a cloak, which will scarce ever be brought him back again clean: It would be time lost to go about to confute this writing; for if I should convince the Author of absurdity, Master Gontier would renounce him as one that had written upon false information, and so I should have done as good as nothing. As for the defiance and threatenings of Master Gontier, we never yet refused upon any occasion that was offered, to enter the lists upon just and equal terms; But this people loves to set on men in corners, that they may a little after publish the contrary the more freely; especially when they have one in hand to deal withal which is already converted; and which hath promised to yield himself before the combat, only they make it defer it a little, till the time they have plotted a conference.  
Now for to justify this which I say to be true, Master Gontier a few days after all this ado, ill befitting the gravity of a Doctor, will not yet let me scapeso, saying that he will enter in conference with me concerning the antiquity of our Church; and I meaning to enter the lists with him, have at this time sent him a writing, of which this is the substance.  

I maintain that M. Gontier can not show me in the four first ages after Christ, any Church, or any man which held the same religion as the Church of Rome doth at this day: and for this purpose.  
1 He should show me any ancient Church that celebrated the Communion without Communicants, as they do ordinarily in the Church of Rome.  
2 That he should show me that any ancient Church did bar the people of the Communion of the cup.  
3 Or that in any ancient Church, the common service was read in a tongue which the people understood not.  
4 Or that any ancient Church did forbid the people to read the holy Scriptures, as it is by no means permitted without a special privilege in the countries, where the Pope is absolute Commander.  
5 Or that in any ancient Church there were ever made any images of God, and representation of the Trinity in stone, or in painting.  
6 Or that in any ancient Church the people were taught to pray without understanding that which they said.  
7 Or that any ancient Church did do service to the images of Creatures, in kissing them, in clothing them, by bowing themselves down before them, and offering up sacrifices unto them.  
8 Or that any ancient Church ever believed that the Virgin Mary is crowned Queen of heaven, and Empress of the world, as it is painted throughout all their Churches.  
9 Or that any ancient Church did assign divers offices to Saints; to one over this Country, to another over that, to one over this sickness, to another over that, to one over this trade etc.  
10 Or that any ancient Church did ever believe that the Pope could give and take away realms, and free subjects from their oath of allegiance, canonize Saints, dispense with vows and promises made unto God.  
11 Or that in the ancient Church, the Pope by his pardons did distribute the superabundant satisfactions of the Saints, for the remission of the punishment of the sins of others.  
12 Or that the Pope did then lay his pardons on one Church and not on another, on one village and not on another, and this sometimes for one hundred and two hundred years of true pardon.  
13 Or that the ancient Church did believe a Lymbus of little infants.  
14 Or that the ancient Church did ever adore the host, which the Priest holds, with divine worship, and that this is the cause, why the Priest doth use to hold up the host in the Mass.  
15 Or that the books of the Maccabees were held for Canonical in the ancient Church.  
16 Or that the ancient Church did believe that the Bishop of Rome could not err in the faith.  
17 Or that the ancient Church did believe that jesus Christ by his death and suffering did indeed discharge us from the punishment of sin before baptism, but as for the punishment of sin committed after baptism, he hath changed it from eternal, unto temporal, and that it lies us upon to satisfy the justice of God for this.   
That Master Gontier should tell us, if in these points he will admit of the Fathers for judges, we will ask but half a dozen clear passages upon every point.  
FINIS.