his business, to speak with those who have dealings with him, in the presence of the jailers of the archiepiscopal prison, who are enjoined to treat him well and discreetly, according to his station.’[537] [Sidenote: Baudichon.] Two points were gained; Baudichon was to be treated like a prisoner of mark, and his case was to be laid before the king. The memory of the _estrapades_ of Paris was too recent for the evangelicals to entertain very lively hopes: it was, however, a gleam of light. The judges themselves, feeling that the matter was becoming difficult and success doubtful, undertook to obtain a recantation from Baudichon, which would, besides, be more glorious for Rome (they thought) than a sentence of death. On the 21st of May, therefore, the court having called to their aid two inquisitors skilful in controversy, Nicholas Morini and Jean Rapinati, summoned Maisonneuve before them; when Father Morini endeavored to prove to him out of Scripture the material presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Baudichon understood the passages quoted differently from the doctors. Refusing to stop at the material substance, the flesh (as they did, and also the people of Capernaum who are blamed in the Gospel), he held to our Saviour’s words: _It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life_.[538]—‘I understand these words as well as you, and better, but I will not enter into any discussion. I am not bound to answer inquisitors.’[539] The court, provoked by these refusals, resolved to put the grand question to him: ‘Do you yield obedience to our holy father the pope of Rome?’ To the great disappointment of the vicars-general and inquisitors, he simply replied: ‘I am not bound to answer.’—‘We are your judges in this matter,’ they exclaimed with irritation; ‘we order and summon you to answer.’[540] But he would not; and then, recovering from their emotion, they tried to surprise him by an insidious question. Alexander, who had preached the Gospel at Lyons with such energy, had just been thrown into prison. If De la Maisonneuve acknowledged him for his friend, they might easily class them together. The judges therefore asked him insidiously, ‘whether Jacques de la Croix, _alias_ Alexander, had not in former times eaten and drunk at his house?’—‘If he has eaten and drunk at my house,’ responded Baudichon, ‘I hope it did him good.’ And that was all. It was impossible to make the prisoner fall into the trap: his good sense foiled all the plots of his adversaries.