humâ— had byn left out seing both Epiphanius and the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine diuers other Fathers had condemned Images before But why had not O. E. cyted the places out of Epiphanius those other Fathers which condemned paintinge of Images that we might haue read them The B. of Eureux did cyte both in the conference it selfe and in his refutation of Plessis discourse many auncient Fathers expresse words both before and after this law was made of Theodosius and Valenâ—inian named heere againe ignorantly by O. E. as the law of Theodosius and Valens to witt the authorityes of Eusebius Chrysostome Hierome Cyrill Prudentius Paulinus S. Gregory Nissen S. Gregory Nazianzen and others all allowinge the pious vse of images in their dayes yea and an other expresse law of the same Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian is also of him alleaged coÌ„maunding the signe of the Crosse to be put in Churches how chaunceth it that the Minister heere also pulleth downe his hat ouer his eyes and will not see nor aunswere any one of these authorityes yow may easily gheasse the reason And as for the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine yt being a prouinciall Councell of 19. Bishops only about the yeare 305. they prohibited nothing but that Images should not be painted in those dayes vpon walles both in respect of the indecency corruption that came therby vnto them by the moisture of the said walles somewhat contemptible to the pagans and heretikes yet liuing among them as also to the end that being painted in tables rather then vpon the said walles Christians might carry them away as they did other Ecclesiasticall ornaments when persecution fell out and not leaue them to the spoyle and dirision of the persecutors And this reason is gathered out of the words of the constitution it selfe confirmed by the practise both of that tâ—me after And so much of this place O. E. hauing borrowed this obiection of the Councell of Eliberis out of Plessis reply in his discourse vpon the place though in the Conference he came out with yt and had his full answere vpon the 9. place out of Theodorete which O. E. heere dissembleth and replyeth no one word as hath bene said to this or to any of the authorityes alleaged there by the Bishop for the auncient vse and honour of Images The eyght Place out of S. Bernard First yt is to be noted that this 8. passage being by error of the aforsaid french wrytten copy sent from Paris placed in the 9. roome by him that sett forth the said passages is restored heere by vs againe vnto his proper place accordinge to the Acts of the conference and Plessis reply which O. E. also followeth without mencioninge the error which is an argument that he had read all and so much greater is his shame that he commeth so bare weake to play the Aduocate after much better matter vttered before by Plessis himselfe who was accused vpon this place as before yow haue seene for tyinge togeather fraudulently two different places of S. Bernard as making against the honouring of our blessed Lady and persidiously leauinge out in the myddest that clause of the Father which being in the text annexed to the former of the two senteÌ„ces made all cleere yf yt had byn left in and ouerthrew the whole drift of Plessis cauill the clause was Magnifie the inuentrix of grace the mediatrix of Saluation and the restorer of the world Vpon which deceytfull dealing after many corners sought in vaine to runne out and escape Plessis had sentence against him But lett vs see what releefe the new attorney bringeth As yf yt were necessary saith he vvhere diuers places are alleaged out of one author to wryte out all that cometh betwixt one the other Lo a quicke dispatch of the matter But I would aske O. E. a case of conscience as professinge also diuinity which is this yf when that which goeth betweene conteyne the very substance soule of the matter or controuersy as heere yt doth whether in such a case yt be lawfull to leaue yt out or noe or whether this be properly falshood and falsification For yf yt be not then we may peruert the Pater noster or any prayer or peece of scripture and make yt seeme blasphemous And let the reader marke that O. E. hath no euasion heere but most absured Yet lett vs heare him further for Plessis excuse He alleageth Bernard saith he not as an authenticall witnesse but as a man fauouringe his aduerse party being nourished in monasticall errors and superstitions Well Syr and for that S. Bernard did not fauour him in Religion as no Saint euer did is it therfore lawfull to falsifie and corrupt his words and sense We know well that both yow and hee do alleage the words of S. Bernard and other Catholike wryters as the diuell doth scriptures which bynd not him but others against whome he alleageth them and so Plessis alleaged Scotus and Durandus before but as the prouerbe is A man should not bely the diuell And no lesse falshood and corruption of mynd is discouered in falsifyinge authors whome they creditt not as others whome they credit Wherfore let vs heare his conclusion vpon this place He saith that S. Bernard and we do not agree about honors to be giuen to our lady as in the feast of her conception in callinge her Mediatricem salutis and that both he and Epiphanius wrytinge against the heretiks called Collyridians do much mislike the honours which we giue to the blessed Virgin All which are toyes answered before in the examen of this place for so much as concerneth S. Bernards agreement and ours but for the foolish women called Collyridians condemned by Epiphanius and by the whole Church for offeringe sacrifice to our Lady this cauiller hath byn answered so often to witt that yt appertayneth nothinge to our controuersie and this in diuers bookes now out against him as only lacke of iudgment matter as it seemeth haue induced him to obiect yt heere againe he hauinge byn foyled therin and made to see that Epiphanius expressely in that place honoureth highely our El. Lady and denyeth only diuine honour vnto her And not that which the Catholike Church doth giue vnto her The 9. and last Place out of Theodorete The charge of falsifying laid to Plessis vpon this passage of Theodorete was that he cyting a place of this author in his commentary vpon the Psalmes against pagan Idolls Plessis did fraudulently so alleage the same as yf he had spoken yt of Christian Images for which purpose he vsed two sleights the first in translating the Greeke word Idoll by the Latyn word Image the second by cutting of these words Idolls adored by pagans and adored for Gods For excuse of which two faâ—sifications when Plessis had vsed diuers shifts as well by some shew of proofe that Idolls and Images may
which is a most absurd imposture for so he might say also that they doubt whether God be God or whether God can create any thing for that they putt this question Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothinge and presently yt ensueth by way of obiection Videtur quod non yt seemeth that yt cannot be But after all arguments ended they resolue that yt is so to witt that there is a God and can create things of nothinge and do solue all the arguments alleaged by themselues to the contrary And so doth Scotus in this matter settinge downe his full determination in these words Dicâ— quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè realiter est simpliciter de substantia fidei I do say that it is simply a substantiall article of our faith to beleeue that Christs body is truly really there vnder these accidents And he proueth the same by two places of scripture to witt Math. 26. where Christ saith This is my body and Iohn 6. where he saith My flesh is truly foode This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proued to haue vsed in alleadginge Scotus against his owne meaninge discourse and resolution The second is for that he saith that Scotus argumeÌ„ts against the reall presence were the quantity locality and circumscription annexed to a true body wheras these are not argumeÌ„ts of Scotus but of heretiks refuted by Scotus as appeareth by himselfe in the same places where he addeth also these words If heretiks would expound the forsaid words of Christ This is my body to be vnderstood figuratiuely yt is quite against the intention of our Sauiour These 2. corruptions then being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus and shewed that they could not be of ignorance but of willfull malice to deceaue the reader Plessis was sore pressed but yet had diuised a certayne way of some kind of escape yf yt may be called an escape and not rather a greater â—ntanglement which was to say that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the reall presence but rather of the manner of Christs body being there to witt by Transubstantiation and for that respect he named the Councell of lateran in his speach which Councell first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation But the Bishopp shewed this to be a very sleight euasion for that the Councell of Lateran determined as well the article of the reall presence as of Transubstantiation as appeareth in the said Councell and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other And finally that Plessis words before recyted are plaine inough without a comentary that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no vnder the â—ormes of bread wyne yea to dispute that yt was not which words do speake plainly as yow see of the reality Soe as these shifts are but a new abusing of the Reader And as for the places he would seeme to alleage out of Scotus as somwhat soundinge against Transubstantiation yt was told him first that yt was from the purpose for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the reall presence and secondly that these other places made no more for him then the former but wholy against him and so yt was proued by readinge and examininge publikely the said places wherin there was an houre spent And the Bishopp perceauinge that Plessis desired to draw out the tyme vrged the deputyes to giue sentence vpon the falsisication of the places alleaged which they differred to do vntill the next place of Durand was examined for that they vnderstood the case was in a manner all one or much like in both schoolemen And so yt was in deed for that in both of them yow shall heare the sentence giuen afterward that Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution which was a great a disgrace yf you marke yt as could be to such a man that presumed to vnderstand what he read The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation The next place of the 19. chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined was out of Durandus Plessis his words as they ly in his booke pag. 870. are rhese Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor hath these words in his 4. booke vpon the sentences dist 11. To the contrary saith he supposinge the substances of bread and wyne after the consecration do remayne there ensucth therof but one difficulty and this neyther very great nor indissoluble to witt that two bodyes remayne togeather vnder the same accidents but yf yow put the contrary to witt that there is Transubstantiation there ensue more difficultyes that is to say how those species or accidents without their substance can nourish or be corrupted and how any thinge can be generate therof seing all generation is of matter or substance therfore it seemeth that we ought to sticke rather to the first way to witt against Transubstantiation c. So he Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceytfull dealinge as before in Scotus or rather more plaine and euident and consequently more wicked and dishonorable to him for that all these words heere alleaged out of Durandus are not his owne but the words of others that do obiect the same which he dissolueth afterward when he hath put downe his owne sentence in these words Primum est dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi First we must say and hold notwithstandinge the former obiections arguments to the contrary that the substance of bread and wyne are turned into the substance of the body of Christ. This is his resolution quite contrary to that which Plessis would haue him seeme to hold And then hauing set downe this resolution accordinge to the common faith of the Catholike Church he passeth to answere the former obiection sayinge to the former argument to the contrary about difficultyes vve must answere that in those thinges that appertayne vnto faith we must not allvvayes choose that vvhich seemeth to humayne sense to haue lesse difficultyes but we must hould that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers and to the tradition of the Church So Durand Which words being recyted in the hearing of all yow must imagine in what a pittifull plight poore Plessis was to see one man looke vpon another and ether smile or byte their lippes at such manifest grosse trumpery but yet necessity made him take hart to aduenture a new euasion saying that albeit this were but an obiection in Durand yet it seemed to him such an obiection as might hould the place of a resolution yf the authority decision of the Church had not withheld him And for
these clauses that conteyne the principall point of all the speach was willfull fraud and falsification endeauouringe to make Saint Hierome to speake against himselfe about prayinge to Saints which he neuer meant Heere now Plessis being strayned as before ran to his ordinary shift of sayinge that S. Hierome spake not of dead Saints but of liuinge only which though it were euidently false as the Bishop shewed by other plaine words of S. Hierome in the same place and by Plessis himselfe that cyted this place as an antiâ—otum to other places of his against Vigilantius where Plessis himselfe confessed that he talketh of prayer to Saints deceased besides all this I say wherby this refuge was euideÌ„tly knowne to be but a shift the Bishop pressed him most with this that of what sort of Saints soeuer S. Hierome speaketh heere quicke or dead he speaketh not simply or absolutely that they cannot saue vs by their prayers but with this expresse condition twise repeated by him and left out by Plessis If we be negligent of our owne parts or as S. Chrysostome said before yf we rely wholy vpon them and do nothing of our selues Wherfore he prayed the iudges to giue sentence concerninge this place as of the former whervpon Plessis began to cauill againe and to say as he did in the former passage of S. Chrysostome that he alleaged not this place of Saint Hierome directly against Saints deceased but indirectly But the B. proued that neyther directly nor indirectly this place of S. Hierome made any thinge against prayers to Saints but rather for the same For he that saith that prayinge to Saints auayleth not him that is negligent of his owne part signifieth in effect that yf he be diligent he may be holpen therby which is S. Hieromes doctrine against Vigilantius as Plessey confesseth though he saith that he was then in choler but now out of choler when he spoke the contrary as he would haue him to seeme After this Plessis leapt to another place of S. Hierome in his coÌ„mentaryes vpon S. Paules epistles to the Corinthians where he saith That Saints shall not be able to help at the day of iudgment c. Which the Bishop expounded and graunted for that then there shal be no more place for prayer or intercession but euery one to receaue his reward yet he added further that this place of S. Hierome was brought into examination out of the order of those 19. that Plessis had chosen and that yf he would be content to continue the examination of this one page of Saint Hierome whence this place is drawne the B. offered to bynd himselfe to shew 4. notorious falsityes committed by him in this one page but Plessis refused this combat said that he would not interrupt the order sett downe already for examination of his 19. places aforesaid but yet both the King and rest of the auditory did well marke and note this offer made by the Bishopp and diuers tymes repeated by him and that the other durst not accept therof Wherfore the iudges being called vpon againe to giue sentence conferred togeather and with one consent gaue this verdict Que le passage auoit deu estre mis entier That this place or passage on S. Hierome ought to haue byn sett downe by Monsieur Plessis wholy and entyre as yt lay in the author and not mangled or dismembred as it was found to be And yow may imagine how Plessis blushed at this sentence The sixt place examined out of S. Cyrill about honouringe the holy Crosse. The sixt place was out of S. Cyrill cited by Monsieur Plessis pag. 223. of his booke in these words S. Cyrill answered the Emperour Iulian when he reproached Christians for honour done vnto the crosse that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse. So saith Plessis But the Bishopp charged him that the last words of this sentence to witt that Christians did not giue adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse were not in S. Cyrill and willed him to shew them Plessis answered that in deed they were not S. Cyrills owne words and therfore he did not put them in a different letter of quotation but yet that the sense of them was to be found in S. Cyrill The B. replyed that neyther the words nor sense were there and yet that Plessis pag. 89. of his booke against the Masse had sett downe the same thinge as of S. Cyrills owne words in a different letter of quotation thus Cyrill likewise reproached by Iulian the Emperour doth answere flattly that the ChristiaÌ„s did neither adore nor honour the signe of the Crosse. So as heerâ— yow see not only these words alleaged as S. Cyrills in a different letter but also often vrged by Plessis that for so much as he could not bring forth the words at least he should shew the sense therof in S. Cyrill Plessis answered that the sense might be gathered out of Cyrill in that Iulian the Apostata against whome he wrote obiectinge vnto him that the Christians adored the Crosse of Christ Cyrill did not answere that it was true which of likelihood he would haue done yf in those dayes Christians in deed had worshipped the Crosse. But to this the Bishop replyed that the consequeÌ„ce was not good for so much as Christian wryters of that tyme were wont to goe very reseruedly in vttering the points misteryes of our faith vnto pagaÌ„s though heere in effect Cyrill did confesse yt as presently shal be shewed for that he yeldeth the reason why they did yt But on the other side yt is a farre better argument to say Iulian the Apostata obiected that Christians adored the Crosse of Christ and painted the images therof vpon their foreheads vpon their dores and S. Cyrill denyeth yt not but endeauoureth to giue a reason why they did so Ergo it is more probable that Christians did worshipp the Crosse of Christ indeed in those dayes And heere the King tooke vp the argument againe sayinge that yt was very probable that Iulian would neuer haue obiected this to the Christians yf they had not done so indeed for otherwise he should haue byn laughed at by all Which speach of his Maiestie the B. coÌ„firmed by shewing how learned an Emperour Iulian the Apostata was and how he had byn brought vp from his youth in Christian Religion and could not be ignorant in so publike a matter as this and moreouer said the Bishop yf yt were true that S. Cyrill did reprehend the Emperour Iulian for charginge falsely Christians to worshipp the Crosse yt is not likely that other Christian Emperors followinge soone after as Iustinian and others would in their lawes haue called the same Adorandam honorandam verè crucem the Crosse that is truly to be honoured adored Which mention of Emperors being heard by the King he required presently that the books should
of the same Code or els he is a very superficiall fellow and yf he saw yt and yet alleaged it as he doth his falshood is intollerable But he persisting in denyall that he was bound to looke the law it selfe in the Code but that it was sufficient to follow Crinitus his allegation therof the iudges for compassion as it seemeth after consultation among themselues gaue this sentence Que il auoit veritablement allegué Crinitus mais que Crinitus â—'estoit abusé That Monsieur Plessis had truly alleaged Crinitus but that Crinitus was abused Which had byn some excuse yf Plessis had byn a simple yonge scholler but being the man he is and taketh himselfe to be yt is hard to say where the abuse was greater eyther in him or Crinitus for so much as in his text he alleaged not Crinitus but the Emperors themselues and insulted therby ouer Catholiks as yow haue heard though in his margent he quoted Crinitus which was little to the purpose knowinge that he lyed as must be presumed that he did and cannot well be auoyded The eight Place examined out of S. Bernard about honouringe our Lady The L. Plessis being desirous to make a florish against Catholiks for geuing to much honour as he saith to our Lady he alleageth a sentence out of S. Bernard in the 604. page of his booke in these words S. Bernard saith he wryteth of the virgin her selfe in his 174. epistle that she hath no need of false honours for so much as she is full of true and this is not to honour her but to take away her honour the feast of her conception was not well inuented So he In which words the B. accused Plessis to haue vsed as great falshood as in the former passages for that he had guilfully patched togeather two different sentences of that epistle wrytten in seuerall places to make one to his purpose after the fashion of Centons of Homer Virgill and other poets and had so recyted them as they might seeme but one and moreouer had cutt of the sentence that weÌ„t betwene them was immediatly annexed to the former conteyned the decision of the whole question to witt inventrix of grace mediatrix of saluation c. For better vnderstaÌ„ding wherof must be noted that Mensieur Plessis a little before had accused S. Anselme of impiety for calling the blessed Virgin Inuentricem gratiae mediatricem salutis restauratricem saeculorum sayinge that these praises and honours were false and immoderate For proofe wherof he alleaged Saint Bernard as though he had byn of a contrary opinion to Anselmus and to the Catholiks of these dayes in that he disallowed false honours giuen to our Lady for which he cyted the passage before mentioned made of 2. seuerall sentences tied togeather cutting out from the middle therof these words of S. Bernard Magnifica gratiae inuentricem mediatricem salutis restauratricem saeculorum c. Do thou magnifie this inuentrix of grace this mediatrix of Saluation and restorer of the world c. Which are the very same words that Anselmus did vse before him and for reprouing wherof S. Bernard was alleaged so as two or 3. falshoods were vrged out of this place against him First that of two senteÌ„ces are guilfully made one Secondly that the principall clause was left out of purpose and thirdly that S. Bernard was alleaged to ouerthrow that which expressely he coÌ„firmeth To the first Plessis answered that in leauinge out that sentence he did no more then the Apostles did who alleaged some tymes seuerall sentences of the old testameÌ„t togeather as one text But the Bishop replied that the Apostles might do yt for that they had the selfe same spiritt which the wryters of the old testament had and therfore could not go from their true meaning but that we shall neuer find the Apostles to alleage two places of scripture contrary to the wryters mynd and to leaue out in the middest that which maketh most to the purpose for declaring their meaning as Plessis hath done heere in S. Bernard To the second third points about clippinge of the sentence in the middle and alleaginge S. Bernard against his owne meaninge Plessis endeauoured to make certayne answers to shew that the sentence which he had left out made nothinge to the purpose which he had in hand which the Bishopp graunted yf his purpose was to deceaue his Reader as no doubt but yt was but otherwise yf he had meant truth yt must needs be much to the purpose to putt yt in for that it ouerthroweth directly as yow see all that which Plessis would haue proued by S. Bernards authority against S. Anselme And finally the Bishop after diuers other cauills answered returned to the first matter againe and to affirme as at the beginning that Monsieur Plessis had not dealt truly and sincerely in this allegation of Saint Bernard but that he should haue alleaged the sentences seuerally as they lay in the booke and not haue left out the principall clause that went betwene them yf he had dealt truly Wherfore he desyringe iudgment vpon this passage the Acts do sett it downe in these words Monsieur le Chancelier auec l'aduis des deputés prononâ—a qu'il eust esté bon que il eust fait The L. Chancelour with the aduise of the deputyes did pronounce that yt had byn good that Monsieur Plessis had done so as the Bishop of Eureux required which is as much to say that in not doinge so he behaued himselfe but badly which was a checke of no small moment in such a matter The ninth Place examined out of Theodorete about Images The last place that was tryed in this first daies conference was out of Theodorete vpon the 113. Psalme cyted by Monsieur Plessis in the 118. page of his booke against the vse of Images in these words God maketh what he pleaseth but Images are such as pleaseth men to make them they haue the places or habitations of senses but haue no sense indeed and in this much lesse them flyes and fleas and such other vermine and yt is iust that all that adore them do leese both reason and sense and be like vnto them Heere the Bishopp obiected two manifest and willfull falsifications First for that he had against the expresse meaninge of Theodorete translated the Greeke word Idoll for Image which Theodorete did cleerly distinguish and secondly for that he cut of a plaine clause in the middest wherby the author of purpose did expound himselfe to witt these wordes adored by pagans and adored for Gods so as this declared euidently that he had no true meaninge To this Plessis answered that as for the words Idoll and Image they were all one which he said he could shew both out of scriptures and Fathers The other replyed that albeit accordinge to their Etymologye in Grammer the Greeke word Eicoon and Eidoolon do sometyme signifie the same and
discourse Plessis saith talking of the same place of S. Chrysostome that the andience hearing Chrysostome to speake of preaching to Saints imagined that he had spokē of dead Saints and vpon this ignorance saith he for so he qualifieth the iudgmēt of all that were present they gaue an applause c. Which is altogeather false for that the applause giuen was not vpon this first place of S. Chrisostome vpon the epistle to the Thessalonians but another out of his homilyes vpon the second epistle to the Corinthians brought in vpon the examen of the fourth place of the nyne before examined And the cause of this◠said applause of laughter of the auditory was this That Plessis pretending to bring two places out of Saint Chrysostome against prayinge to Saints which were the third and fourth before examined and then yt being proued by the Bishopp that both those places were falsified by him and that they made expressely for prayer to Saints yf he had put them downe wholy and truly he had no other refuge yf yow remember but to say that he had putt downe the true sense of S. Chrysostome though not his words then being beaten from that with other places of Saint Chrysostome declaring his owne meaning for prayer to Saints Plessis was forced to confesse against himselfe that had alleaged him for impugning prayer to Saints that indeed Chrysostome allowed prayer to Saints but yt was to liue Saints only and not to dead against which shift the Bishopp recyted this place followinge out of his 26. homily vpon the second epistle to the Corinthians talking of the pious deuotions of the Emperors of his tyme in prayinge to S. Peter and S. Paul highly praysing the same in these words He that is apparelled in purple doth make supplication to Saints that they wil be his intercessors to God and he that weareth a diademe doth pray to a tent-maker and to a fisher-man now dead to be his protectors and will yow dare then to say that their maister is dead whose seruants now after their deathes are the Protectors of Emperors liuinge vpon earth Which place being recyted out of S. Chrysostome that confirmeth so euidently both prayer to Saints and to dead Saints some laughter there was and strangewondering at the impudency of Plessis in running so often to his refuge of dead and liue Saints and he could not but blush to see himselfe so euidently taken And this is the applause which he complayneth of though wrongfully and fraudulently alleaged as yow haue heard Furthermore the same Plessis passinge on to handle the decision and sentence geuen vpon the foresaid fourth place telleth his reader for certayne that the iudges did not determine that there was any omission vsed therin in cytinge Saint Chrysostomes words Which is such an impudency as not only the records of all the foure Secretaryes do vniformally conuince who haue the sentence of the deputyes thus registred that Monsieur Plessis had left out that which he should haue putt in but the very layinge open of the text of Saint Chrysostome doth conuince the same to him that hath eyes and skill to read It followeth vpon the examination of the same fourth place before mencyoned that he chargeth the deputyes of ignorance in geuinge sentence as he saith that the words of S. Chrysostome there cyted out of his homily vpon S. Mathewes ghospell ought to be vnderstood of Saints deceased wheras they gaue no such sentence at all as the records of all foure secretaryes do testifie but only the very same sentence which was giuen before vpon the third place to witt that Plessis had left out that which he should haue put in and the Bishop grauntinge in that place that those words of S. Chrysostome being indifferent to be vnderstood either of dead or liue Saints did vrge that yf Plessis would vnderstand them only of liue Saints they made most against himselfe who had brought that place of S. Chrysostome to impugne prayer to dead Saints So as this doth only shew a mynd in Plessis to ly cauill and calumniate without releeuing himselfe therby but rather encreasing his dishonour and shame About the fifth place examined out of S. Hierome vpon Ezechiell he accuseth greatly the B. for that he would not as he saith harken to him when he alleaged another place of S. Hierome vpon the epistle to the Galathians where he hath these words At that day vvhen vve shal be before the tribunall of Christ neyther Noe Iob nor Daniell can pray any more for any man c. Which charge is euidently false as before yow haue heard declared in the examination of this place and may see in the Acts themselues For that albeit the Bishopp told him that this place was brought in against order besides the number of those 19. which Plessis had chosen to be first examined yet he was content to stand vpon the examination therof yf Plessis would of other places cited in his booke and to bynd himselfe to proue that in that only one page he had committed 4. notorious falsificatiōs but Plessis refused to ioyne with him in that point and so the Bishopp expounded the place alleaged of S. Hierome that yt was meant of the day of iudgment when no more praying to Saints shal be nor of Saints for vs which doth not impugne our present prayinge to them but rather confirme the same For that S. Hierome affirming heere that there shal be no more prayinge to Saints or of Saints for vs at the day of iudgment doth euidently signifie that before that tyme both may be vsed About the examen of the sixth place out of S. Cyrill concerning the honouring of the Crosse Plessis deceaueth notably his Reader in tellinge him that falsity being obiected vnto him by the Bishop the King spoke in his behalfe pronouncing with a loud voyce that both partyes had reason which all men there present know to be false for that the King did rather the quite contrary sayinge that wheras Plessis had brought that place of Cyrills words to Iulian to proue that Christians in his tyme did not adore the Crosse yt seemed to him that they proued neyther the one nor the other which was a condemnation of Plessis that had alleaged the same against honouring the Crosse then his Maiestie added further that by the obiection of Iulian exprobratinge vnto them that they did honour the Crosse yt seemed to him euident that he would neuer haue made such an obiection yf yt had byn altogeather false Which speach of his Maiestie being publike and registred in the eares of all men a man may see the modesty of Plessis that dareth so openly and in print to peruert the same Vpon the very same place he falsifieth also in like manner the sentence giuen by the deputyes sayinge that the Chancelour pronounced simplely that the words alleaged out of
Cyrill were not found in him leauing yt easy to the hearers saith he to inferre that the sense notwithstandinge was to be found in him Which is a great vntruth for that the sentence registred by all 4. secretaryes comprehendeth the whole passage in these words The passage cyted by Monsieur Plessis out of Cyrill is not found in Cyrill which sentence conteyneth as yow see both sense and words And it is a poore shift of Plessis to go about to help himselfe by so childish an inference as for that they gaue sentence that the words alleaged by him were not in Cyrill yt might be inferred that the sense was After this the Bishopp sheweth diuers other grosse vntruthes in this kind as namely that in reportinge the sentence of the Chancelour and deputyes vpon the last place examined out of Theodorete about Idolls he falsely peruerteth the same leauing out the principall important words of the said sentence to witt adored by Paynims and adored for Gods contrary to the faith of the records themselues vniformally taken by all 4. secretaryes then againe to excuse himselfe from a foule disgrace happened in the examination of the first place about the reall presence out of Scotus whose text Plessis could not read he telleth in his discourse this notable lye that the B. of Eureux had vsed a certayne fraudulent sleight to disgrace him which was to bring two editions of Scotus the one fayre to be read which he sent him ouernight with the 60. places to prepare himselfe the other he retayned with him of an euill print which he obtruded to him in the conference But this shamelesse fiction the Bishop refuteth first by the testimony of them that brought backe againe the bookes from Plessis house to the conference and then by the wittnesse of 4. seuerall Frenche gentlemen to witt Monsieur du Bertant du Beaulien du Berulle and du Salettes that came with him from Paris knew that he brought but one only edition of Scotus with him which was in folio of the print of Badius Ascensius in the yeare 1519. and lent vnto him by the college of Sorbone in Paris for this conference which booke being giuen to Plessis to verifie his place alleaged out of him he could not so much as read nor turne the booke for that there were some abreuiations therin after the manner of schoole-doctors and therby all the lookers on and hearers well perceaued that he was vtterly ignorāt in reading schoole-doctors though euery where for ostentation of learning he was accostomed to cyte them in his bookes And this shame Plessis had no other way to couer at that present before all the auditors but to say that he was not practised but in his owne bookes only though afterward vpon more deliberation he thought good to deuise this other shift of changinge the booke by the Bishopp which yet being so malitiously cōuinced of calumniation by the wittnesses before mentioned did exceedingly tend to Plessis discredit And this shall suffice for the first point of Plessis reply wherin yow see that for defence of his 9. places before conuicted of falsification he vttereth 9. other great vntruthes for doublinge the number As for the other two points of new shifts and recrimination I will remitt the Reader to the Bishop his owne refutation for them that vnderstand the french tongue and for the rest yt will not be hard to ghesse by example of this which we haue alleaged what manner of stuffe yt is which Plessis could alleage for his further defence in so manifest conuinced falsifications and yow shall heare presently what O. E. in England can say for him And yf yow find him by this little a man with out faith or spiritt of truth in his assertions then shall yt be wisdome to beware not only of this his booke against the Masse wherout so many falsifications haue byn gathered but of others also wrytten in the same spiritt and namely of one that for many yeares hath gone in English intituled of the Church which being smothely wrytten and stuffed out with great shew and ostentation of Scriptures Fathers Historyes and other such furniture hath dazeled the eyes of many as did also this other against the Masse vntill yt was sifted and examined by learned men But for the other in English I can assure the Reader that yt is a most deceytfull booke and may be well brother to this against the Masse And yt is now very neere twenty yeares gone that the late Earle of Lecester gaue one of them to a kinsman of his named Guilford to read for his satisfactiō in Religion who conferring the same with another learned gentleman a frend of mine desired that yt might be examined which my said frend began to do with such comodity of bookes as he could procure at that tyme and found so full stuffed with all kind of deceatfull impostures and falsifications as he remayned astonished therat and conferred the same with a learned Baron of the Realme now dead and he with another yet liuinge and neere to his Maiesties person who did all wonder at so notorious treachery though th'examē passed not through the greater part of the booke for that it was interrupted by some trouble fallinge to the examiner but he hath affirmed many times since and doth at this day that yt is incredible to beleeue what corrupt dealinge there is therin and exhorteth all those that haue meanes to try the truth of this his assertion which I cannot do at this present for that I haue not the booke by me yet I thought it conuenient to giue a note therof for stayinge of them that haue or may be deceaued therby and for styrringe vp of others to make this examen And so for this tyme we leaue Plessis to himselfe and to his shifts in France and shall passe ouer to consider what O. E. his aduocate can say for him in England WHAT O. E. OTHERWISE MATHEVV SVTCLIFFE HATH wrytten for defence of Plessis Mornay concerning the 9. places handled in the former Conference and how he committeth farre greater faultes then Plessis himselfe CHAP. V. HAVING pervsed what Monsieur Plessis hath byn able to say for himselfe both in the conference and after vpon better deliberation we must now examine briefly what our ould frend O. E. for vnder that vizard he masketh hitherto hath diuised for his defence For that my forsaid breife relation fallinge into his hands he thought yt to appertayne to his manhood as a martiall minister to proclayme himselfe champion in Plessis quarrell therby to fullfill the prouerbe that none so bold as blynd bayard and though he be not able to defend his owne head as after yow shall see from the same or like blowes which Plessis hath receaued yet will he needs be doing intrude himselfe for a shylde to the other and this with such violence or rather virrulency of speche raginge and rauinge at all those
alleage S. Chrysostome against prayer to Saints said that his conclusion vpon the words of Hieremy was quite contrary to that of Catholiks at this day to witt that we ought not to rest our selues vpon the prayer of Saints but worke our saluation with feare and tremblinge wheras the true words and meaning of S. Chrysostome are quite contrary who saith in the very place Let vs not contemne the prayers of Saints for vs nor yet place all our hope therin the first not to depriue our selues of so great a succour the second not to make our selues negligent c. As before yow haue heard◠which words being discussed and all Plessis shifts and turnings examined sentence was giuen of falshood against him Now lett vs see how O. E. will releiue his cause The third place saith he was drawne out of Chrysostome but neyther can his aduersary proue this place to be falsified by him not impertinently alleaged not the first for that he doth not alleage Chrysostomes words but maketh a collection vpon them not the second for that as Maister Plessis affirmeth yt may euidently be gathered out of his words that we must not rely vpon the prayers of Saints but worke our saluation with feare and tremblinge Behould heere a quicke dispach of matters and no maruayle yt is though O. E. do lend his labour to many in answeringe for them seing yt costeth him so little and he doth yt with so great facility but I must returne vpon him in both these points and do say to the first that Plessis in his collection hath falsified both the words and sense of S. Chrysostome as before in the second Chapter hath byn shewed The words in leauing out those that expressely made against him the sense in drawing a quite contrary conclusiō to that which S. Chrysostome did make For that he exhorteth men to pray to Saints to be intercessors for them and withall to liue well themselues but Plessis by including the one would exclude the other And as for impertinency there is little accoumpt to be made where there is imposture and open cōtrariety to the authors meaning as heere and therfore impertinently doth O. E. goe about to excuse impertinency where we obiect greater crimes but marke his reason why yt is not impertinent for that saith he it may be euidently gathered out of Chrisostomes words that we must not rely vpon prayers to Saints But why doth the craftie minister leaue out the word wholy which maketh or marreth the whole sense for to rely and to rely wholy are two different things Why also doth he leaue out the other words added by Saint Chrysostome for explication of his owne meaninge to witt So as we be not negligent of our owne part Yow shall heare his graue answere Neither is it materiall saith he that these words yf we be negligent are omitted for they are not to purpose seing Chrysostome would not haue vs rely vpon the intercession of Saints albeit we be diligent to do our endeauour our selues This now is to to shamelesse for yt is the quite contradictory to that which S. Chrysostome in expresse words exhorteth to witt to the end we do not depriue our selues of so great a succour lett vs pray vnto Saints to be intercessors for vs and of our owne parts lett vs liue vertuously c. And who then is more shamelesse heere eyther the clyent or the aduocate but let vs heare out the rest of this defence It is also obiected saith he That Chrysostome aloweth intercession of Saints but be yt he did so yet doth not this conuince that he is falsely alleaged by Maister Plessis seing that which he gathered may be true albeit this were graunted c. Heere I would haue the Reader to stand attent and marke the conueyance of these deceytfull maisters in deludinge men Plessis gathered out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints deceased and now faith O. E. that albeit Chrysostome did allow prayer to Saints yet that which Plessi◠gathered may be true But I would aske how Plessis could truly gather out of S. Chrysostome that he impugned prayer to Saints yf he allowed intercession to Saints except yow will say that S. Chrysostome both allowed and impugned one and the selfe same thing It followeth in O. E. for the conclusion of his defence How much then saith he is it more vnlikely that Maister Plessis shal be conuicted seing Chrysostome in that place hath nothinge which doth not appertayne rather to the prayers of holy men liuing then of holy men departed These are the last words of his defence immediatly followinge vpon the former and all that he saith in this cause And yow will easily consider how they hange togeather I only will say this That yf this place of S. Chrysostome alleaged by Plessis against prayer to Saints departed doth rather appertayne to lyuinge Saints then to dead as O. E. heere affirmeth and hath byn before refuted then eyther Plessis was ignorant or maliious to alleage yt against prayers to Saints departed as he did so as yow see that O. E. doth rather impugne his client then defend him so not worthy any see at all The fourth Place out of S. Chrysostome The falsifications obiected vnto Plessis vpon this other place of S. Chrysostome out of his commentary vpon S. Mathew was that the said Plessis hauinge told his reader in his booke against the Masse that S. Chrysostome was carefull euery where to ouerthrow the foundatiōs of the abuse of prayer to Saints said that vve haue more assurance by our owne prayers then by the prayers of others c. leauing out his vvords immediatly followinge which declared his meaning to witt we do not say this to the end we should not make our prayers to Saints but to the end wshould not be slouthfull our we selues Which being proued after diuers euasions in vayne attempted by Plessis to be a plaine willfull corruption and falsification of the authors meaninge sentence was geuen against him as before yow haue heard Lett vs heare what the poore Aduocate hath to bringe of new And first yow must note that whensoeuer he is puzeld findeth himselfe entangled so as he seeth not which way to turne or gett out his custome is to make himselfe obscure of purpose that so by casting some mistes before his Readers eyes he may escape away heerof you shall haue frequent examples yf yow stand attent Now then O. E. hauing recyted part of the former text of S. Chrysostome as Plessis had sett yt downe he entreth thus into his defence This saith he the aduersary himselfe cannot deny to be truly alleaged by Maister Plessis how then came yt to passe that he dealinge thus iustly and truly he should notwithstanding be charged with falsification Forsooth saith his aduersary for that he left out the words followinge to witt and this we
downe the state of this controuersie so darkely for yf I had not explaned the matter somewhat before who would heere haue vnderstood wherin the difficulty lieth for what sense do make those words in Latyn and not englished bonum est confidere in Domino c. and si negligentes fuerint but all this is of art and fraud to dazell the Readers eyes that he vnderstand not the falsity wherin Plessis was taken For yf his proctor O. E. had sett downe the true words of the controuesie as I did before his question had byn aunswered of it selfe for who but a simple fellow will put in doubt but that the words before rehearsed yf their children be negligent be of cheife importance to be putt in or left out seing they do solue all the difficulty For yf the children of Saints be negligent saith Saint Hierome then vvill not the only prayers of their parents saue them but yf they be diligent and do cooperate also of their owne parts then will they auayle them as S. Chrysostome in like manner declared in the former passage Consider then how true substantial this first defence of O. E. is which maketh his entrance with so blynd false relation of the controuersy it selfe and how well he deserueth to be an aduocate for others that so marreth his clieÌ„ts cause euen at the beginning But let vs heare his second defence of the same charge or rather his second euasion yf it be better then the first Besides saith he the ordinary glosse doth rehearse these words no otherwise then the L. Plessis quoteth them whome I thinke the Mathureux Bishopp of Eureux will not charge with falsification This supply is taken out of Plessis owne discourse sent from Saumur after his flight from Paris and it sheweth that O. E. had read the same and therby is inexcusable when he dissembleth yt as before in voluntary mistakinge the second place out of Durand and vpon diuers other occasions but to the point Yf the glosse vpon Ezechiel did cyte the words of S. Hierome dismembred as Plessis doth yt were in no wise a iust excuse for him First for that the glosse vseth to cyte short peeces of sentences as yt serueth to purpose for explicatioÌ„ of words in the text but Plessis tooke vpon him to sett downe a whole place out of S. Hierome for impugning prayer to Saints desceased and so cyted them verbatim and at large vntill he came to the words that made against him to witt that Saints prayers will not help their children yf they be negligent which condition yet the glosse omitteth not but expresseth yt in other equiualent words thus yf they follow not the faith and works of their parents Wherfore this shift helpeth neyther Plessis nor his proctor any thing at all And as for the Malheureux B. of Eureux he may perchance be called malheureux that is to say vnluckie to the Hugonots of France for that hauinge byn once so cheefe a man of their party hath since his conuersion so learnedly luckily battered their sect as no man more in France nor perhaps in Europe and they do well feele the blowes but otherwise the reproach is foolish to call him vnlucky And this is all which O. E. can diuise to bring forth for defence or excuse of the falsification obiected in leauinge out S. Hieroms restriction yf children be negligent but now let vs heare another obiection made by the Bishop answered by O. E. It was also heere obiected saith he that Hieromes words in Ezechiel make nothing against prayers to Saints but it must be remembredâ— that the controuersy heere was not whetherâ— M. Plessis had vvell concluded out of that place but vvhether he had rightly alleaged yt c. Well Syr and we haue shewed now that he alleaged it not rightly hauinge left out the principall clause that he should haue put in and if yow graunt also as yow seeme thervnto enclyned that he hath not rightly concluded then is he dooble false to witt both in alleagation conclusion but somwhat I hope yow will diuise to excuse his collection and conclusion though the authors words themselues be against it Lett vs see then what yt is Besides that saith he vve answere that it is no vveake argument to conclude thus as Plessis doth out of S. Hierome vve must not trust in the prayers of men and therfore are not to rely vpon the prayers of men departed this life But I say to the contrary that it is a weake and wicked argument to conclude thus as the words lye in S. Hierome vve must not rely vpon the prayers of men though neuer so holy yf vve be negligent of our owne parts ergo vve must not trust in the prayers of Saints departed though vve be neuer so diligent to liue vertuously our selues this I say were an absurde manner of argument and conclusion and yet this is the argument and conclusion of Plessis and of O. E. for impugning prayers to Saints deceased against which false conclusion the Bishop in his refutation of Plessis reply doth alleadge aboue a dozen most plaine and effectuall places out of S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and other Fathers which plainly and perspiciously do approue the doctrine and practise of prayer to Saints deceased in their dayes and O. E. durst not take vpon him to aunswere any one of them but pullinge downe his hatt ouer his eyes passed by them as he had not seene them But let vs heare his last conclusion Finally saith he Hierome wryting vpon the epistle to the Galathians doth flatly demne prayers made to Saints departed and for dead men sayinge Dum in hoc saeculo sumus c. VVhilst vve are in this vvorld vve may help one another by prayers or counsells but vvhen we come before the trihunall of Christ neither Iob nor Daniell nor Nâ—â— can pray for any man but euery one shall beare his owne burden And do you see what plaine places these fellowes bring forth and how flatly they conclude This place yf yow remember was alleaged by Plessis in the conference answered by the Bishop that being meant euidently of the day of iudgement made nothinge against prayer before that day nor could he reply any thinge at that tyme nor did he afterward in his discourse as appeareth by the Bishops refutation fol. 146. and 147. but only stood vpon his vaine distinction and refuge of lyuinge and dead Saints which shift to auoyde most euident authorityes of the Fathers the Bishopp refuteth dy diuers places alleaged out of S. Hierome himselfe one namely against Vigilantius where he obiecteth to that heretike the very same words vsed heere by his scholler O. E. Dicis in libello tuo quod dum viuimus c. Thou saist saith he in thy booke that vvhilst vve are in this life vve may pray one for another but that after death no mans prayer shal be heard
base and vnworthy aduersaryes pleasure is saith he to contend with me about certayne small quyrks and questions about certayne pretended vntruthes and falsifications c. And againe Your honour shall perceaue the great weaknesse of our aduersaryes and the pouerty of the principall actors in the same vvho abandoninge the mayne points in controuersie begin now to picke quarrells at words allegations points quotations and other by-matters and ceasing to ioyne with vs and like diuines to argue and dispute fall to plaine calumniation and rayling Thus he And heere againe I doubt not but the Lord Vmpyre will laugh to heare Sutcliffe accoumpt the falsification of Fathers Doctors and auncient wryters and this both in words sense alleaging them expressely against their owne meaninge to be but quirkes quarrells and questions about words points quotations and other such by-matters as yf two contending about some great inheritance and the one obiectinge that his aduersary had falsifyed the euidences whereby the whole controuersy must be tryed the other should answere that these are but quirks and by-matters And this is the accoumpt which Maister Sutcliffe and his people do make of false or true dealinge or changinge choppinge alteringe or peruertinge the authors whome they alleage as yt maketh best for their purpose But we on the contrary side must heere professe as men bound to strict truth that we esteeme highly of these matters not only in cheefe points of controuersies the beleefe wherof concerneth our soules but euen in lesse matters also for that they discouer a badd mynd wicked conscience whersoeuer they are found wittingly and willingly comitted and yet are not we so rigorous in this point but that we do easily allow vnto Maister Sutcliffe that which in this epistle to Syr Robert he demandeth for himselfe sayinge Do what a man can yet may â—ther marginall notes be misplaced or words stand-disorderly or things be mistaken This I say we easily graunt neither was there euer I thinke any controuersie hitherto betweene vs about misplacinge of marginall notes or disorderly standinge of words so they altered not the true sense of the authors which yet yt hath pleased Maister Sutcliffe disorderly to bring in to the end he might seeme that the accusations laid against him are for such trifles but neither these trifles nor the mistakinge of matters themselues so yt be without fraud are vrged by vs against them but only where wilfull deceyt is euident and where the deceauer cannot morally be thought to haue byn ignorant of his deceyt These I say are the faults which we obiect vnto Maister Sutcliffe and his fellowes and not misplacing of marginall notes or mistandinge of words points or quotaetions nay we may ad a further degree of false dealinge that hath no excuse in the world which is that where the falshood is euideÌ„t and cannot be denyed nor by any probable meanes defended yet not to confesse the same nor to excuse yt by ignorance forgetfullnes trust vpon other men or by any like error but to continue and bolster out the same by other sleights and new frauds this I say is the highest degree of all falshood and impudency vsed as now yow haue seene both by Maister Plessis in his reply after his first confutation and much more by Maister Sutcliffe his aduocate in his broken defence and the like we shall see practised againe by him afterward in this Chapter vpon like occasions of defendinge himselfe and his owne wrytings Concerninge which wrytings he demauÌ„deth in his said epistle to Syr Robert Cecill as also in his preface to the reader a certaine priuiledge from the ciuill law which is that when diuers cases are proposed by one party in law to be admitted or excepted against by the other and that the other excepteth only against some and letteth passe the rest then yt is to be vnderstood saith the law that those which are not excepted against are admitted Which benefitt Maister Sutcliffe would haue allowed to his chalenge that is wheras E. O. hath excepted only against some 26. places of Fathers and Doctors corrupted and falsifyed by him all the rest besides these 26. might be held as free from corruption Yf lawyers say true saith he that exceptions confirme the rule in cases not excepted then hath my aduersary confirmed the mayne discourse against Persons and his adherents hauinge not said any thing vnto yt but only excepted against a few places wherof he taketh 13. to be vntruly alleaged and 13. to be falsifyed And againe in his preface to the reader yf he be not able to except against more places then 26. or ther about yt is cleere that I haue said true in the rest and that I haue argued and alleaged authorityes to good purpose So he And will not heere our iudge laugh againe thinke yow to see this poore man endeauour so diligently to authorize his booke by the accusations of his aduersary and by a priuiledge drawne from the Ciuill law The rule alleaged of exceptions doth hold only where some few cases are proposed to be excepted against by the aduerse party but it holdeth not in a mayne booke where the points are many and almost infinite that are handled and proposed and out of which is lawfull for any accuser to take his accusations where he will without authorizinge or ratifyinge the rest and in our common law of England no man can be ignorant but that yf one should be accused for example for stealinge of 5. sheepe and should acquitte himselfe therof yet this would not barre any other accuser that would afterward call him into tryall for hauing stolen fiftye more Wherfore Maister Sutcliffe can not shroud himselfe by this but that other men also may examine his chalenge besides E. O. as we haue seene that VV. R. hath done and gathered out an infinite huge heape of vntruthes and if I ghesse not amisse not much lesse then a hundred in one Chapter Wherfore seing Sutcliffe is so earnest to prouoke intreate aduersaryes to wryte against him yt is reason he prepare himselfe to answere all commers not to slipp away vnder the shaddow of a Ciuilian rule or priuiledge for so much as he is an Englishman consequently must be tryed by the common law of the land And this may suffice for this first part of his new worke standinge in epistles prefaces except yow would haue a breefe example represented yow heere at this very beginning of the manner of answering and shiftinge which he meaneth to vse afterwards in his whole discourse and therby know the man his talent euen at his first entrance Heare then how he answereth a speach of his aduersary touching the continuance of Catholike Religion My aduersary saith he calleth Popish Religion Catholike affirmeth it was plaÌ„ted heere by Gregory the great c. and that it was alwayes visible since Christ c. but he should do well to shew how true
S. Augustine was present and vpon both the said Councells earnest request the same was accursed also by Pope Innocentius the first as testifyeth S. Augustine epist. 90. 92. 93. And this is the first shift Secondly of all the Fathers that spake of this matter against him and S. Augustine by name in almost infinite places he maketh his aduersary to alleage only one text out of the said Father and we must beleeue him for that we haue not his aduersaryes treatise S. Augustines place is lib. 3. de anima cap. 9. but cyteth not his words yet aunswereth them thus To S. Augustine I answere that he speaketh of such as dy in originall sinne and seeme to contemne baptisme This is the most blockish refuge that possibly can be imagined for first all men before baptisme dy in originall sinne and secondly S. Austen speaketh of infants that haue not capacity to contemne baptisme his words are these Noli credere noli dicere noli docere c. do not thou beleeue do thou not say do thou not teach yf thou wilt be a Catholike that infants preuented by death before they be baptized can come to receaue pardon of originall sinne Behould then the forehead of Sutcliffe that would wype of both this and infinite places of S. Augustine more expressely auouchinge the same doctrine by such a sensles sleight Damnari animas◠saith he wryting to S. Hierome ◠si sine baptismo de corpore exierint sancta scriptura sancta testis est Ecclesia that the soules are damned that passe out of this world without baptisme both holy scripture and holy Church is wittnesse now would I demaund of Sutcliffe whether euer he read these places or not yf he did not then must he confesse himselfe to be ignorant or willfull in that he would aunswere S. Augustine without lookinge vpon him yf he did and aunswered as he doth then is he both malitious and shameles But now thirdly to the authority of their communion-booke brought against him by E. O. sayinge that none is saued that is not regenerate by baptisme he answereth thus It is impious to tye Gods grace to Sacraments c. VVe exclude not extraordinary courses Wherin first as yow see he reiecteth plainly the authority of the said Communion-booke that tyeth saluation to regeneration by baptisme secondly yow must remember that the question whether this doctrine of Sutcliffe of extraordinary courses and sauinge men without baptisme be Catholike conforme to the vniuersall doctrine of ancient Fathers or noe wherof he speaketh not one word nor alleageth any one testimony to prooue his opinion Catholike that is to say generall and vniuersall but only saith vve exclude not extroordinary courses and telleth vs not who these vve are for that it cannot be the Church of England which set forth the said communiō booke and consequently hauing neyther the auncient Church nor our Church at this day nor the Church of England to stand with him I would gladly know how he will make his opinion Catholike that is vniuersall And thus much of the third shift The fourth is in his answere to his owne words alleaged against him by E. O. whervnto he aunswereth thus I do confesse that infants dyinge in originall sinne are damned to hell fire but I hope no man will say that all that dy before baptisme albeit they much desired yt and beleeued in Christ Iesus died in originall sinne O slippery euasion our questiō heere is Sir Mathew of infants that cannot desire baptisme For as for others that be of age and do desire yt they may be saued by baptisme in desire as before is graunted Againe your immediate words before in this very sentence doe speake of infants for you say I do confesse that infants are damned to hell fire and what a fellow are yow then which say in the second part of the same sentence albeit they much desire yt and beleeue in Christ Iesus Thirdly yow said a little before that vvant of baptisme did soud infants to hell and now yow say that infants dying in originall sinne are damned to hell fire which though in our sense is all one that hold infants dying without baptisme do dy in originall sinne yet in your sense that hold that infants may dy before baptisme yet freed from originall sinne is altogeather differēt consequētly a meere consenage so to alter your words for deceauing your reader But now we come to the last shifting answere of all which is such and so vnintelligible as no man reading considering the same can otherwise thinke but that the author was either distempered or bereaued of his senses when he framed it I shall relate it in his owne words lett the reader iudge of it He concludeth finally saith he to wit E. O. that seing the vvant of baptisme doth send infants to hell these are Sutcliffes owne words before recyted ergo baptisme is necessary to Saluation but his consequent is weake and of no valew for many dy for want of knowledge and for want of small matters and not only of baptisme and yet God is not necessarily tied to saue none but such as are baptized sicke men dody for want of phisicke and yet is not phisicke absolutely necessary In this place therfore the detector wandreth out of his way yet effecteth nothinge Thus he and heerwith endeth his whole defence vpon this second charge giuen him by E. O. and suerely yf he wrote yt not more then halfe a sliepe or when he was greatly distracted in other matters I know not what to thinke or say of yt Many saith he dye for want of knowledge for want of small matters not only of baptisme Eyther he meaneth heere of eternall or temporall death yf of eternall how can yt be caused by the want of small matters yf of temporall how is it caused by want of knowledge or how agrees it with the death caused by want of baptisme which is eternall how agreeth yt also with sendinge to hell which is to endure euerlastingly againe yf a man dy precisely or only for want of phisicke then was phisicke absolutely necessary to saue that mans life otherwayes he did not dy absolutely for want of phisicke so wheras he accuseth the detector for wandringe out of the way and effectinge nothinge this man reeleth vp and downe in the way and effecteth his owne disgrace and shame with all readers and lookers on And now by the examination of these 2. places yow may see the fashion of this mans answering and how easy a matter it is and may be for any man to take vpon him the answering of all aduersaryes whatsoeuer in this manner and by these two examples yow may ghesse at all the rest And albeit I would gladly end heere hauing byn longer then I purposed yet can I not without examining one place more which is the fourth in order concerning prayers