1. Text.
You shall not add any thing to the vvorde vvhich I commaunde, nor take any thing from the same. Saith Moyses to the people of Israel. Deuter. 4. Vers. 2.
M. LE HVCHER MINISTER OF AMYENS IN FRANCE COMPELLED to fly from the pure word of Holy write; strucke dumme; and made to runne away.
Vppon the subiect of the B. Sacrament of the Altar.
By F. FRANCIS VERON of the Society of IESVS, encountring him with the Bible of Geneua only.
In the presence of the Duke de Longueuille.
VVith a briefe and easie meanes, by which each Catholicke may, in like manner, put to flight any Minister or Sectarie.
Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the sayd Dukes Gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, Gentleman of the Kings game.
Printed
Explication of the Title.
This Conference was held three seuerall times. In the first the Father of the Society; compelled the Minister to abandone the pure word of the holie scripture; In the 2. he putt him to silence; In the 3. he made him runne away.
Testimony of the said conference.
It is signed by the Father of the Society; by the Duke of Longueuilles Gentlemen who accompanying theyr Lord were present therat; and in parte by the Minister, which refused to subcribe to that, which putt him most to confusion. The subcriptions follow in theyr proper place.
To the Reader.
TWo things there are (good Reader) which made me (desirous of thy eternall good) to turne for thy vse this little treatise into our language. The one the breuity and pleasure it yealdeth, the other the easines and perspicuity, with which it confuteth, it instructeth. The first suteth well to that lazy humour, which heresy hath brought into our country, wherby men haue little gust to read ought, that concernes their soules, and scarse ought of that, vnles it be well seasoned with extraordinary delight. The other (supposing thy capacity, and affection to truth, which if affection misleade me not, is equall to that of most Nations, and by heresy I hope not maliciously peruerted, or at least not puruersly obstinate therin) makes me presume thou wilt easily see, and quickly leaue that [Page 4] blind mans maze, of the falsly pure pretended word, wherin thou hast beene long ledde round. Both of them, by Gods assistance, promisse vnto me no little fruite of this small worke, which is that I hartely desyre for thy soules good, and Gods greater glory. Farewell.
Thy welwiller in IESVS CHRIST. D. V.
A LETTER OF Mr. DE LA TOVR GENTLEMAN TO THE DVKE OF LONGVEVILLE. VVritten vnto Mr. de Rotois Gentleman of the Kings game.
SYR the ardent zeale I know you haue of the good and glory of our Religion, makes me suppose you wil receaue a singular content in the relation of a priuate conference, had of late in the presence of my Lord the Duke of Longueuille and his followers, of the Marques de Boniuet, of the Lady de Bourcq & diuers others aswell Catholiks as Sectaries, between Father [Page 6] Francis Veron of the Society of IESVS, preacher for this present in the great Church of this Citty, & M. le Hucher Minister of the Caluinists in the same place, touching that point of our Faith, of the body of the sōne of God in the Sacrament of the Altar. The said Father agreeing to deale with that Minister by the Bible of Geneua only, and the Confession of faith of the reformed. This conference hath had three sessions, at the first I was not present, not being aduertised of the same. Notwithstanding at the beginning of the second, the actes of the former session were read, alowed & auowed by both parties as authenticall. Wherfore I will make recitall of that which passed in the sight of my Lord, & vs that were attending on him, besides a great multitude of diuerse of the one, and the other Religion. The said Father on the morrow after the last conference which was Sunday, made an ample narration of the three passed [Page 7] meetings to aboue eight thowsand persones, assembled in the Church of our Lady to heare his sermon. The most heerof is signed as you will see after, wherfore no man can iustlie call in question a matter so cleerly testified.
Our Deuine atchieued three famous victories. For the Minister hauing promised conformably to the 31. and 5. articles of theyr Confession of their faith, to shew by the pure word of the Bible, that we erred in that beleefe we haue, that the body of our Lord is in the Eucharist, he was constrained in the first session and againe in the entrance vnto the second trial, to sly from his fortresse of the pure word, of force disclaiming from the pure scripture of Geneua: and withall aknowledged and cōfessed, that there was no expresse text in all the scripture, euen by the Geneua translation, which, setting a side all illations, did condemne vs of errour. But (quoth the Minister) by [Page 8] necessary consequence out of the pure worde of God I will make it cleare that you do erre.
The night comming on made our combatant cease the pursuite, & not driue him farther, who already sheltred himself within the ruinous edifice of a Consequence. The Father told me, that it was not of small importāce, to make the Sectaries clearly see & confesse, that they haue not for themselues the pure scripture, but only certain consequences, for (quoth he) the cause that makes so many to beginne, and continue in their reuolt from Gods Church, is for that they persuade themselues, that they haue on their sides the pure word of God; for so saith the 5. article of their Confession, that they admitt nothing for the rule of faith, but the pure word: & they do veryly suppose that that Confession conteineth nothing, but that which is in the pure worde. After the approbation of that passed before, the [Page 9] Minister at the second session was admitted to deduce his necessary consequence, by which he would demōstrate how farre we wandred from the truth. He first fetched long vagaries round about, afterward the Father so dexterously put him beside all his proofes, & in briefe brought him to such pangues, that for the finall proposition he had nothing to say against the Father, but, ô you deny to much; after which he became alltogeather speechles, as I wil more largely declare her after. Certes you would haue been extraordinarily recreated to behold, how he that erewhile made profession to proue by the pure word of God that we were Idolaters, in lieu of the pure word, had not a word to help himself, saue this only, that the Iesuite denied to much wee I am sure had good sport therin. Ours which had thus chased the Minister, still put him to these pā gues for a long time still vrging him thus. M. Minister prooue your consequence. [Page 10] Neither did he omitt to signifie plainly and alowde to the whole assemblie, to what exigents the poore Minister was brought to, who sustained the Confession of the faith of the reformed Religion, and bragged to discouer by the pure word our errours. Had not the quality of the Ministers cause been such as it was, I should haue had compassion to haue seen him in that plight, and so oppressed. He desired they would giue him that night for respite, and to thinke vppon it; but the Father denied him; he alleaged he was suddainly surprised, the other replied that he had had all the night, and morning before for his proofe of that consequence. It was not neede to take pitty of the Minister, for his fellow Sectaries had sufficient cōmiseration of him; all of them round about me beganne to change coulour, the Elders and Superintendents stood as it were astonished, & cōfounded. You may coniecture easily [Page 11] whether we were ioyfull thereat or no Alas (said one) the poore Minister wants a Chirurgian to open him a vayne. This victory was more notorious by this which followeth. The conquerour exacted of the vanquisshed to subscribe to the Acts of this conference, according to the accord made between them. A lamentable case! that the ouercome must subscribe to the actes of his owne condemnation. He refused to performe his promisse. The Father after many instant vrgings of him in vaine, turned towards my Lord, and demaunded iustice; that the Minister signe according as he had promised. The Minister desired fauour, beseeching him often that he would not cōmaund him to subscribe, after many prayers adding these wordes. I know how much it stands me vppon not to signe, for if I do so, all will be published: and the Churches (you vnderstand his meaning at least his lamenting voice discouered his [Page 12] intention) the poore congregations (he should say) of the pure reformation will be scandalized therat. The Father hauing before desired one of ours to shutt the doore, least the Minister should runne away, bid him consult with his Elders, and Superintendents, whether it were expedient to signe the actes or no: for which cause drawing them apart it was resolued that he should not signe them. I will send you shortly more at large this debate, which lasted three quarters of an howre. In fine, with the consent of the Father, they graunted him this fauour that he should not subscribe, but with these two conditions: the first that he should subscribe the morrow after; the second that he should continew the dispute. By this refusall to subscribe vnto the Actes, it is apparent how notable the victorie was on our parte.
In the third encounter our Champion gott a third victory, but in an [Page 13] other kind; will you knowe what? The Minister shamefully rann away. He was not willing to be laid againe a gasping as before, and therfore thought it better not to inter into the listes, as I will declare afterward. It was giuen out that the Superintendentes had expreslie forbidd him to venture himselfe with him, who before had vsed him so vnmercifully, for they well saw the confusion like to follow therof, to the great detriment of their Churches.
Your Religious minde makes me presume you take great delight in this chace; I will therfore giue you the whole narration. But yett before hand I wil shew you a new mā ner of hunting, which, though you be most skilfull in that sport, is perchance vnknowne vnto you. The fashion is speedy, with little paines, and most effectuall, by which practise our Huntsman hath so happily seazed on his pray: and by the same I assure my self, that euen we whose [Page 14] profession is to be better at our weapon then our penne, may chace out of breath any Minister soeuer, and make any Sectarie see how grosllie he is abused. This I haue compiled as a thing I knowe to be true, and wherof I meane to serue my self on all occasions. In this Conference I haue had experience of this practise, for therein was held no other methode; & to satisfy your desire, who I knowe are curious to learne this new manner of hunting, you may read this which followeth, the like wherof was sent vnto the Minister as a letter of defiance. Read it seriously. To me it seemes most efficacious and as easy. Wee shall all prooue hunters of these black beastes, the Ministers I meane of the pretended Religion. I would to God we could so chace away not their persons, but their errours, that we could purge all France thereof. This I now send you laid downe at large, you shall shortly haue the particulars of the conference [Page 15] aboue mentioned, in which you will see it practised.
A BREEFE AND EASIE meanes by vvhich each one though ignorant of deuinity, may by the sole Bible either of Geneua, or any other, shevv apperently to any Minister hovv farre he is deceaued, and to each Caluinist, hovv in all and euery point of the pretended reformation he is abused.
ENCOVNTRING a Minister or anie other Caluinist, you shall proceed in this manner.
You haue in the 31. article of the Cōfession of your faith these words. In our dayes, in which the estate of the Church was dissolued, God hath raised men after an extraordinary manner to repaire [Page 16] of new the Church which was ruinated and desolate. Thus, you say, your Religion comes to reforme our errours.
In the 5. article are these words. The word which is contayned in these bookes (he spake of the bookes of Holy Scripture) is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary for the seruice of God, and our saluation; Neither is it lawfull for men, no nor for Angells, to adde, diminish, or change. VVhence it followeth that neither Antiquitie, nor Customes, nor Multitude, nor humane wisdome nor Definitions, nor Inhibitions, nor Proclamations, nor Decrees, nor Councels, nor Reuelations, nor Miracles may be opposed to the said holy Scriptures, but on the contrarie all thinges ar to be examined; ruled, and reformed by them. These are the wordes of this article.
So that in the one and the other article mētioned togeather, you say that you, or your Religion, or your Ministers (take your choise) are raised and sent from God, to illuminate vs with the light of truth, & to shew [Page 17] vs our errours and that by the sole, and pure word of God contained in the holy Scripture.
1. First I might examine the conditions of these Reformers you thrust vpon vs. And vntill you shew me your letter patents and commission, I may iustly refuse to submitt my self to be reformed by you. What body politicque will allow the title of Reformour of their Lawes, and Customes (according to which they haue hitherto proceeded in their gouernment) in one who should say he was sent from the King for that purpose, but had no Commission to shew for the same? Notwithstanding in curtesy I do freely admitt you to the dignity and title of a Reformer, & am content to be instructed by you in the truth, and to be reformed in whatsoeuer I do erre. I would know of you.
2. According to what rules, by what line doth it please you to straighten me, to shew my errours, [Page 18] and illuminate me with the truth of the Gospell? You make me answeare in the 5. article aboue cited, that you will do all this according to the pure word of God, sett downe in Holie writt, laying aside, All Antiquity, Customes, Multitude, humane VVisdome, Definitions, Inhibitions, Proclamations, Lawes, Councels, Reuelations, Miracles. I could refuse this fashion of reforming. For why should I not, togeather with the Scripture, help my self with all other rules to discerne the truth thereby? Especially since that the Scripture no where saith, that it self alone is the rule of all verity. It seemes hard to me to renoūce al Antiquity, Coūcels, Miracles, & all the rest before sett downe. Neuertheles to ioyne with you in Conference, I am content of my owne accord to graunt you the title of Reformer by the pure written word, & am ready to renounce al those rules specified, prouided allwaies that you keepe your promise, to witt that you shew [Page 19] me my errours, by the pure Scripture.
3. There are diuers translations of the Scriptures; by which, I pray you, will you please to reforme me? Perchance you intēd by that of Geneua. I might iustly refuse to be reformed by that Bible; being it is so curtalled in diuers places, corrupted, and changed: Yet to haue your reformation I wil do you this third fauour. I am content to open my eyes and follow your Religion, if you shew my by the pure word contained in the Geneua version, both the truth of the faith you Euangelize, & allso my errours. I haue donne you three great fauours. 1. to graunt you the title of a Reformer. 2. to be a Reformer by the pure word. The third to make this triall by the pure word of the Geneua version. But looke you bring me nothing els but the pure word; for if in steede of it you shift me of with your interpretations, you forsake the Confession of [Page 20] your faith, & breake the couenants made betweene vs. For I am not so vnaduised to renounce all Antiquity, Councells, Miracles and the rest, for your interpretations and opinions.
Agreeably to this, to your owne promise, & that which is sett downe in your 5. article, I demaund two things at your hands. First that you shew me by the pure word the truth of all those articles which you will haue me to beleeue: which I am ready to do, if I see them in the Bible euen of Geneua. Secondly that by the same pure word you shew me my errours. Both of these I demand, for both of these you professe to do when as you say, that the Scripture is the rule of all truth, and you acknowledge no other. For put the case I should erre in my faith, I would be loth to leaue that, to follow a worse. No wise man, I take it, though his horse haue but one eye wil make exchāge for another that is blind; I desire [Page 21] therfore to see by the pure word the truth of yours. Which you cānot refuse to do, for you are sent to illuminate vs, & shew vs the truth. To be plaine therfore, my first demaund is, that you shew me by the pure word the Articles of your Confessiō, by which I must be illuminated, and made to knowe the right way.
In the 36. and 37. article you say that we receaue by faith, or, to vse your ordinary termes, by the mouth of faith the body of our Lord. Shew me this in the pure word, & that the supper is the figure of his body. Through all the Geneua Bible I find not so much as mention made of the mouth of faith, neither do I finde any talke of a figure in those places, where it speakes of the supper. Shew me but this, & I will straight beleeue it and abiure my former Religion. This if you do not, I must needs hold you, as you ar, for impostours.
In the 11. article it is said. Originall sinne doth continually remaine after [Page 22] Baptisme in asmuch as it is a fault, howbeit the children of God are freed from the cōdemnation due for the same, he through his gracious goodnes not imputing it vnto them. Shew me this in the pure word of Geneua.
In the 24. article. Iesus Christ is giuen vs for our sole Aduocate, The strife between vs is about that worde Sole, shew me that in the Geneua Bible.
In the 20. article. We beleeue we are made partakers of that iustice (to witt of Christians) by faith alone. All the controuersie lyeth in that word alone, and whether workes donne in the faith of Christ be necessary; shew me that worde alone in these places, where mention is made of workes donne in the faith of IESVS CHRIST, and not in these places, where the Iudaicall workes of the law are excluded from Christian iustification, for of these only do we dispute. I haue turned the Bible for the places cited in the margent for these articles, but cannot find any of these articles [Page 23] in the pure word.
Hauing quitt your hands well, in shewing me the truth of that which you desire I should beleeue, shew me as well that other thing I demaunde, to witt the errours of those articles which I now beleeue.
The articles of my faith are for example (to omitt that point of the B. Sacrement allready spoken of) That there is a Purgatory, Intercession of Saints, Auricular Confession, and the like. I acknowledge the Sanctity of Pilgrimages, of Religious vowes. Against which in your 24. article you say. Intercession of Saints is an abuse, Purgatorrie an illusion and so of religious vowes, Pilgrimages and the like. Shew me my errour in these points, & that out of the pure word. In your margent I find no text cited, which is a shrewd suspiciō that you haue none. Perchance you wil aunsweare that it sufficeth for a proofe of errour in these points, that they are not found in the holy scripture, because nothing must be beleeued [Page 24] but that which is in the scripture. My reply to this is to know of you whether this proposition. That nothing must be beleeued which is not in the holy scripture be found in the pure word of God or. If it be not, then you M. Minister in propounding this proposition to be beleeued of me, do falsify your owne fayth, and breake your promise; for you sayd you wold not admitt any other rule of truth but the scripture, which is in effect, that you will bring forth nothing but that which is in scripture, and now you thrust vpon me this proposition, which is not there to be found, & this as a fundamental proposition vpon which ar builded many others: but if this proposition be in the pure word, shew it; but take heede you bring nothing, but the pure word.
When by the pure word you shall shew me the truth of your articles, and the falshood of mine, as hath been said before, I am ready forthwith [Page 25] to acknowledge my errour, & to embrace your faith. But remember, I pray you, your promise, that you would by the pure word shew the truth of your faith and my errours; and that I renounced all antiquity, Councels, Miracles, Inhibitions, Lawes, visions vppon these termes only, and no other. Looke that in steed of the pure word, you do not shift me of with your interpretations or your owne consequences, for either that interpretation is in the Scripture, or no; if it be there, bring forth the Scripture: and that the Scripture saie of each proposition you interprete, that it is so to be vnderstood, & that you only are the organe to pronounce the same, otherwise you leaue your owne faith, and forge an other to your owne liking, of which I shall argue with you after in the like sorte; & besides that you breake your promise. I should be esteemed of small iudgment if I forsake Councells, Miracles Antiquity [Page 26] and the rest for your interpretation.
If the Minister pretend to warrant his interpretation by some other passage of the Scripture, for example if he vrge that those words (This is my body) must not be taken properlie but figuratiuelie, because these others (I ame a vine) haue such a signification: You shall aske him.
1. Before you passe to any interpretatiō, if he haue any plaine text, which abstracting from all interpretation doth condemne vs of errour: for example in that point of the B. Sacrament, in which we beleeue there is the true body of our Sauiour. If he haue any, lett him bring that which is cleare and plaine, and leaue that which is obscure: if he haue none, make him to confesse distinctly, that he hath no place out of the pure word, by which, without his interpretation, he can conuince vs of errour; and heere you must insist [Page 27] on this point, till he haue confessed this. After this Confession comming to the interpretation he giues, you shall.
2. Demaunde, if the Scripture say that these words (This is my Body) are to be interpreted by these (I am a vine) or no. If it say so, lett him shew the place; If not, then the Minister breaks his couenants, & doth not serue as an organe of the Scripture only. And heere the Minister is in little ease, neither can he, without renouncing their Confession, which professeth to allow of nothing to rule them, but pure Scripture, passe any farther. Neither is it needfull to pursue the matter anie farther, this being concluded, for heere haue you the Minister in the stocks; and perchaunce it will be better to keepe the Ministre in this traunce speechles, then to passe farther. Yet if you desire an other victory, & that he, which encountreth the Caluinist, be learned or expert [Page 28] in the Scripture, he may, after the confession of the two former.
3. Harken to the interpretation the Ministre brings, and aunsweare these proofes he alleageth for that interpretation. But allwaies remember that the Caluinist, by their Confession of faith, is come to instruct vs, & consequently bound to prooue his interpretation; for vs, if it conuince not, it sufficeth to deny, without obligation to giue any reasons for our deniall: for by those the Minister will finde meanes to slippe away, and will not be so quicklie caught: he will seek many by-waies, therfore as much as may be stoppe his passage. Behold how you are to proceede, when the Minister vndertakes to shew our pretended errours by text of Scripture, without consequences or illations.
When he will discouer our errours by some consequence, which he deduceth out of the pure word of God for example, we beleeue that the body [Page 29] of our Lord is in the B. Sacrament of the Altar: he will prooue by consequence deduced out of the pure and sole Scripture, that he is not there, after this manner. In the 3. of the Actes, it is said, that Heauen must conteine him vntill the Consummation of the world, therfore he is not on the earth. Behold his sillogisme. That body which is in heauen is not on the earth, the body of Iesus Christ is in heauen, therfore it is not on the earth. He must put his argument in this forme. 1. Before you come to aunswere his argument, you must aske the Minister if he haue any plaine text, which without consequence doth condemne vs of errour in this point, or no? If he haue, lett him bring it out, who professeth to reforme vs by the pure word; If he haue not, make him confesse that he hath no plaine text, by which (his consequence sett a part) we are conuinced of errour; & heere you must stay, and exact this confession of the Minister before you passe farther. [Page 30] Hauing made the Minister acknowledge this, though you may content your self with this victory (whereby you make him renounce the 5. article of their Confession of faith, and haue ouerthrowen that piller which detaines most of the Sectaries, who follow that part in their errours; who imagine they haue on their side the pure word of God, and that they builde vpon the Scripture only) and peraduenture it wil be better to proceed no farther, to the end to make it eccho oftener in the eares of these who are abused by them: Neuerthelesse he that will continew the chace, and hauing rowzed the deere from his lodge pursue him farther.
2. Giuing the Minister leaue to deduce his consequence, after the deduction thereof, the Catholicque must not straight examine the truth of the same, nor shew so quickly that it is false; but first lay hold on him, and make him shew, that his consequence is deduced out of the only [Page 31] pure word of holy Scripture, as he promissed to deduce the same, and his 5. article doth oblige him. You must therfore proceede in this fashion. It is a thing vndoubted, and knowen to all, that euery consequence, to be good, must be inferred out of two propositions; If then one of those two, out of which the Minister deduceth his consequence, be not in the Scripture, (as it happeneth ordinarily in the arguments of the aduersary against vs) heere you must demurr, and make it manifest, that the aduersarie heere abandonnes his Confession of fayth, and fayles of his promisse, in not shewing our pretended errour by cōsequence deduced out of the pure and only Scripture. For example, in the syllogisme before sett downe. That body which is in heauen is not on the earth, the body of Iesus Christ is in heauen, therfore it is not on the earth: you shall examine the Minister, whether the first proposition of this argument be [Page 32] in the pure word, or no. If it be, lett him shew it. Cleere it is, it is not there, but it is a philosophicall proposition, wherfore the Minister, which deduceth his consequence out of that, and the second adioyned, which is in the 3. of the Actes, doth not proue my errour by consequence deduced out of the pure word, but by consequence deduced out of Philosophy, and out of the word of God, and maketh such articles of faith, as are deduced out of Philosophy or Aristotle. 2. You must declare, that euery consequence must be deduced out of two propositions, placed in the true forme of a syllogisme, and that the consequence is inferred both from the propositions, and from the forme of the syllogisme; of which forme the Scripture speakes nothing, nor prescribes any rules about that matter, but only Aristotle, and Philosophy. Wherfore the Minister in proouing his consequence, is not founded [Page 33] vpon the Scripture alone, which treates not of formes of consequences. And because it belongs to Aristotle, to iudge if the consequence be good or no, the Minister building vpon consequence, must admitt for his iudge, in the controuersies of our fayth, not the pure Scripture, but Aristotle: or els at least choose for vmpyre in this cause the word of God, together with Aristotle. 3. You must demaund of the Minister, if the Scripture do teach that one must beleeue as an article of faith, not only that which the Scripture saith, but also that, which by necessary consequence followeth therevpon, or no? if he say so, make him shew the text, which without doubt he cannot throughout the whole bible: if no such be founde, then doth the Minister build his articles of fayth vpon a proposition, which is not in the pure word, to witt vpon this. That that which followeth out of Scripture by necessary consequence, must [Page 34] be beleeued as an article of saith. Howbeit the Scripture frames no such article, but the Minister only, and that not by the pure Scripture, but by humane reason: from which notwithstanding in his 5. Article he disclaimed wholy. For he wold haue vs take at his handes for an article of faith that proposition, which by consequence followeth out of the Scripture, though the termes of that proposition, deduced out of Scripture for an article of fayth, be not there sett downe. Hence is it that all the articles of the Confession of these sectaries, which are founded vpon a consequence, are not articles of fayth, being that they haue not for them theyr only rule of truth, the sole Scripture. Heere againe you must hold him. They will say perauenture that IESVS Christ, and the Apostles proued many thinges by consequence. I graunt it. But in so doing, they themselues made new Scriptures, or holy write: [Page 35] which priuiledge I thinke the Minister haue not. But they neuer taught that the Scripture, which they alledged, was the singular and sole rule of all truth, and that they spake not but by the mouth of the Scripture, as these Pretenders professe, and thyr poore flocke (which thinke they are as good as theyr wordes) persuade themselues.
3. If he that buckle with the Minister be learned, and will, after he hath often driuen the deere from his fortresse of the pure worde, course him alonge the plaine champion of humane and philosophicall reasons (though, according to my aduise, it be ordinarily more expedient, to content our selues with that before sett downe) for to cure him, if it be possible, after the aboue said he may passe to the examen of the truth, or falshod of his consequence: whether the propositions, from which it is deduced (be they taken from philosophy or holy writt) be true [Page 36] or false; and whether the forme of the argument be according to the rules of Philosophy, and so deny that which the Minister assumed falsly. Still hauing in minde that the Minister is putt to the proofe, not the Catholick, who beares the personne of the party instructed; & be sure not to change that personne. For the drift of all the Ministers fetches is, to vnload himself of that obligation to prooue his consequence: which he will bring to passe by this sleight, if he can make him, that defends, the disputant. For example. In the argument proposed. That body which is in heauen, is not on the earth; The body of Iesus Christ is in heauen; Therfore it is not on the earth. You shall deny the first proposition, and lett the Minister prooue it. If that his proofes come on to long, & he enter to farre into Philosophicall quiddities, lett the Catholicke note that it is in his free choice, to curbe the Minister short when he listeth; [Page 37] demaunding him, if all the propositions which he hath brought to prooue his consequence, be in the Scripture, or no. If they be, lett him bring them forth. Many of them questionles are drawne out of Philosophy, or grounded vpon humane reasons. If they be not, the Minister which out of them inferres his consequence, doth not deduce it out of the pure word, or (which is all one) prooues not by consequence deduced out of the pure and only word, that the Catholicke erreth, which was that he vndertooke; and moreouer denieth his Cōfession of faith: for he drawes his cōsequence ioyntly out of the word of God, and out of diuers propositions which are not in holie write. Is not this to flinch from their worde, and to renounce their articles of faith? or rather do not the Minister & his confession of faith abuse people, in promising that which they neither do, nor canne performe.
Behold a breefe, and easy methode to encounter all Ministers and Sectaries. Is it not obuious euen for those, who are not students in deuinity, to putt it in practise? There needs no more but eyes to see, and to vnderstande English, to know if the pure word without additions, interpretations, or consequences of others, do say such a thing, or no. Do you not by this meanes euidently perceaue, that all the Ministers are abusers, and how the whole troope of Sectaries is misledde? Yea I dare say double abusers. For first the Minister abuseth men, in that he promiseth by the pure word to shew them that, which he would haue them beleeue: next, that he will by the pure word lay open their errours pretended, and yett performeth neither the one, nor the other. Wherfore the Ministers promising in their 31. and 5. articles to performe them both, and yet effecting neither, as by the forsaid practise is made euident; [Page 39] are impostours, and double impostours: as this methode, which euery Catholick may vse, doth apparently declare. And so I haue fulfilled my promise, which was to lay downe a short and easie methode, by which all Catholiques may euidently shew that each Minister in all, and euery point of his pretended religion, is an abuser, & consequently that all their followers are abused.
This therfore is my aduice to all Sectaries, to those especially which seeke sincerly theyr Saluation. Your Confession promiseth you the pure word of God, and you suppose that, according to that promise, there is nothing in your articles of fayth, which is not in the pure word; Practise this methode, and you shall euidently, and easily perceaue how you are abused. Place on the one syde the Principall articles of your faith, which I haue cited before. That original sinne remaines after Baptisme as it is a fault. That Iesus Christ is our [Page 40] only Aduocate. That faith alone iustifieth, and which is cheefe of all. That the B. Sacrament is a figure of the body of our Sauiour, which is eaten by faith. Then ouer against each of these articles, set downe the textes, which are cited in the margent for eache of them (doubtles if you had any plaine text of Scripture, which taught that which is in that articles, it wold haue been coated in the margent) & you shall cleerly see, that the pure word, setting aside interpretations, and Ministeriall consequences, hath not that which is in your article: neither is there required ought but your eyes, and skill to reade, to see whether that be in the pure word or no. And that your Ministers preach, that the Scripture is easie, and that euery one there may learne his owne saluation; you vnderstand I ame sure signification of English: why then finde you not in the pure word that, which the Ministers make you beleeue? Assure your selues if you find [Page 41] it not, it is because it is not there. Confront therfore the place cited in the margent of the article, with the article, and you shall see how egregiously you are mocked. And that you may see this more manifestly, doe this following. Write in one line one article, or if it haue many partes, one only clause of the same. And if you finde any text of Scripture cited for that article, or peece therof, write in a second line the words of the text cited, vnder the other line. If you find no text cited (as in many places there is not) put vnder the first line a cypher; for that if there were any text to authorize that article, it would be cited. This being donne, compare the first line with the second: If you find in the second line a cypher, you are cleerly cosened. If you find a text of Scripture, see if that, being precisely taken without medly of some thing els (that is to say, you must vnderstande; this signifieth; or the like;) containe [Page 42] that article proposed; if it do not, know that you are deceaued. I my self haue paralelled these articles with the textes alledged in the margent; take you but the like paines, and I will assure you that in steed of the pure word, you shall oft tymes finde a cypher; other tymes in the text cited you shall not find one worde of the article; and in breefe you shall not find there one article, or entiere clause of those in Controuersy between vs. Behold how you are deluded.
ARTICLES OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF the pretended reformed Churchs, confronted with the pure word of holy writt; Where it is euidently shewed, that the textes of Scripture, euen in the Geneua Bible, cited in the margent of these articles, conteine nothing of that, which those articles teach against the Catholick faith.
which is A breefe & easy meanes, by which euery Caluinist may manifestlie perceaue how he is abused, and wherby each Catholicke may shew the same vnto him.
To saue you the paines (deceaued Countrymen) which I wished you to take, I haue heere confronted the articles of your faith controuerted, with the places cited in the margēt, after the fashion before sett downe, [Page 44] and haue cited these textes according to the Geneua translation, Compare them with me beginning at the 24. article.
In this article, these clauses following are sett downe without any text, cited in the margent, for proof of any of them; wherfore in steede of Scripture, I wil giue you vnder euery clause for proofe a Cypher.
Article 24.
1. VVe hold that Purgatory is an Illusion.
Proofe. o.
2. By the abuse and deceipt of Sathan, Monasticall vovves vvere introduced.
Proofe. o.
3. Out of the same vvare-hovvse proceeded Pilgrimages.
Proofe. o.
4. Out of the same vvare-hovvse vvas brought in Auricular Confession.
Proofe. o.
5. Out of the same vvare-hovvse sprang Indulgenees.
Proofe. o.
6. Out of the same vvare-hovvse proceeded all other things, by vvhich vve thinke to merite grace and saluation.
Proofe. o.
7. VVe reiect all others meanes, vvhich men presume to haue, to reconcile themselues to God, as derogatory from the death, and passion of Iesus Christ.
Proofe. o.
8. It is lavvfull for vs to pray but only according to that forme, vvhich God sett dovvne in his vvord.
Proofe. o.
In the 31. article you say. The estate [Page 46] of the Church in our times vvas interrupted, and hath failed; that God hath raised some after an extraordinary manner to renevv the same, being ruinated and desolate.
Proofe. o.
Behold how the Ministers, and theyr Confession of faith do abuse you, and how often in one only article. They promise you, not to instruct you but by the holy Scripture, and proposing vnto you all these clauses to be beleeued, they prooue none of them by any text of Scripture, nor bring as much as one place of Scripture for confirmation of them. Examine the articles, you will finde more then a hundred clauses as well affirmatiues, as negatiues, for proofe wherof there is no text coated, because in deed they haue it not, iudge then if you be abused or no.
And who, I pray you, can in equity accuse another, vnles he produce some lawe commaunding, or prohibiting some thing violated by the party accused? Euery accusation, commended to be truly an accusation, not a calumny, must be founded vpon the breach of some lawe, and accompanied with it proofes. These Reformers doe not only accuse, but making themselues iudges, doe condemne of Superstitions, forgery, and high treason against the deuine Maiesty, the holy Fathers, and vs all besides in those 8. poyntes sett downe (and in diuers others which I omitt) pronouncing theyr bloody sentence, by which they declare both them and vs to be superstitious, deceauers, instruments of sathan in the promulgations of those diuelish illusions rehearsed. This sentence pronounced, for execution of the same they haue ouerthrowen our Monasteries; prophaned our holy places; and set fire on our [Page 48] Churches. Of what crime doe they accuse vs, do they condemne vs? what deuine law doe they prooue to haue ben violated by vs? They neyther prooue, nor so much as cite any law, any letter of holy write, against which the holy Fathers & we haue offended. And yet they accuse vs, they condemne vs. Shameles wretches! but yet withall impudent liars! They promise, not to behaue themselues but only as instruments of the holy Scripture, and not to propose ought but that; And yet they pronounce the eight forsayd sentences, without citing one sole passage of the Scripture. See, o you sectaries, how palpably they abuse you. But to see this more cleerly, and withall to take away from the Ministers all meanes to circumuent you to your vtter ruine.
Consider with like attention that which ensueth. In the 5. article they wold make you beleeue, that the pure word, which is conteined in [Page 49] the bookes of holy Scripture, is the rule of all truth, and that nothing must be beleeued, but that which is in the pure word. This article is of great consequence; for reposing and grounding your selues vppon this, and not vppon any other thing, you reiect all the traditions of the Romane Church; you giue your sentences of condemnation against vs; you will not allow of neyther Antiquity, nor Custome, nor Multitude, nor Humane wisedome, nor Sentences, nor Inhibitions, nor Edicts, nor Lawes, nor Councells, nor Visions, nor Miracles. And albeit all these make against your doctrine, you make no bones thereof, you scorne them all, saying that you will nothing but the pure Scripture, all the rest proceeds from men subiect vnto errours; and that all other things must be examined, ruled, and reformed according to the same pure word. This article therfore is of great consequence: and with good reason, to be beleeued, ought to be found in [Page 50] the holy Scripture; which if the Ministers should frame in the force of their owne braynes, they deserue doubtles to be banished all honest company, as men impudently bold, which seeke to make the world renounce all things abouesaid, for a proposition of their owne inuention; and contradict themselues: hauing before said, they would only carry themselues as the organe of the wholy Scripture. Let vs therfore set downe in one line first the article, then vnder that the text, cited in the margent for proofe thereof.
Article 5.
The vvritten vvord is the rule of all truth: or els, as you commonly say. Nothing is to be beleeued, but that vvhich is in the vvritten vvord. In the margent of this article you cite 4. textes for proofe of the contents.
2. Text.
That vvhich I commaund you, that shall you doe, neither shall you adde any thing, nor diminish. Deut. 12. Vers. 32.
Examen.
Heere is not any worde of the article in these passages, for you neyther finde (written word) nor (rule of all truth) which are the two termes of the article; wherfore this pure word doth not conteine that, which the article affirmeth. Lett vs weigh it more exactly. 1. Moyses spake vnto the Iewes of that only, which he ordained, to witt of the Iudaicall law, and of no other. 2. he spake not [Page 52] of the written worde, of which alone the article is, but vniuersally of the word. 3. Albeit he spake vnto Christians, and of the only written word: haue we increased the bookes of Moyses? haue we added ought vnto them? 4. Thinke you that the Prophets composing new Scriptures, and ioyning them with the bookes of Moyses, haue infringed this precept? 5. if Moyses forbid to beleeue any thing but that, which he ordayned; we must neyther beleeue the Psalmes of Dauid, nor the other Prophets, nor the Ghospell: for he ordained not that which these conteyne. Perceaue you not how ridiculous a thing it is, to alledge this text, to verify by the pure word your article? which sayth, the written word is the rule if all truth. The same article is prooued by an other passage. Galat. 1. Vers. 8.
3. Text.
Although vve, or an Angell from [Page 53] heauen preach othervvise, then that vvhich vve haue preached vnto you, be he accursed.
Examen.
In this text I neither read (written word) nor (rule of all truth) which are the two termes of the article; wherefore the text hath not that, which the article teacheth. Nay it containes not one only word therof, come to the examen. 1. Is there in the text anie mention of the written word? of which onlie we dispute, and the article speakes of no other. 2. Who knoweth not that the Apocalipse was reuealed, and writt after that epistle of S. Paule? and yet besides that, which S. Paule euangelized, it also must be beleeued. Or is he which preacheth, and beleeueth the Apocalipse accursed? Or rather is S. Paule accursed, who preached manie things afterward, which are not in that epistle to the Galathians? who is there of so small capacitie, [Page 54] that in the reading of this chapter doth not see, that the word (otherwise) is the same in sense with (against.) The Apostle, as it is manifest at the verie opening of the epistle, crieth out against those, which togeather with the law of Christ, would ioyne Circumcision against the doctrine of the Apostles. The wordes immediatlie going before, make the matter more cleere. I maruaile saith he to the Galat: 1. Vers. 6. 7.8. that leauing him, who hath called you vnto the grace of Christ, you are so soone transferred vnto an other Ghospell: which is not another, vnles there be some that trouble you, & will inuert the Ghospell of Christ: But although we, or an Angell from heauen preach to you otherwise then that, which we haue preached to you, be he accursed. Is it not euident that S. Paul reiecteth that only, which is against that which he had preached? Then it is apparent also, that this text makes nothing for that, which the article contains to witt: That [Page 55] the written word is the rule of all truth.
The last passage, cited for the forsaid article, is out of the Apocalipse 22. Vers. 18. in these wordes.
4. Texte.
I testifie to euerie one, hearing the vvordes of the prophecie of this booke. If any man shall add to these things, God shall adde vppon him the plagues vvritten in this booke. And if anie man shall diminish of the vvords of the booke of this prophecy, God shall take avvay his part out of the booke of life, and out of the holy Citty, and of these things that be vvritten in this booke.
Neither do I reade in this passage (written word of the entyre Bible) of which only the Article intreats, nor (rule of all truth) wherfore the text sayth not, that the pure word of the entire Bible is the rule of all truth, as the Article auerreth, rather the text [Page 56] consents not in one only terme with the article. Examine it. 1. Is it not manifest, that S. Iohn spake not but of the word conteyned in the Apocalipse? which the Ministers will not allowe to be the rule of all truth; to what purpose then for proofe of that Article, That the pure word of the entire Bible is the rule of all truth, do they bring out this text? 2. if S. Iohn sayd, that nothing must be added to that word of the Apocalipse in this sense, and after this Ministerial paraphrase (that nothing must be beleeued which is not therin contained) then he which should beleeue the Ghospell, the Epistles of S. Paul, of S. Iohn, and others, and the old testament, should be accursed. Where were the Ministers witts, thinke you, when to proue that nothing must be bleeued, but that which is in the Bible, they alledged this passage? 3. To adde to the Apocalipse, is to thrust in somthing as part of that sacred booke: doe we [Page 57] doe so? What frantik people are your Ministers? and you, o Caluinists? how grossely doth your Confession of fayth abuse you, which treats you in such a fashion, as if you had not eyes to reade, nor iudgment to vnderstand the signification of one pure text? How many Ministeriall glosses ar heere wanting, to make these textes speake that, which this article contaynes? Lett vs go on.
Whence haue you, that the bookes of the old and new Testament are holy Scripture? how know you that these bookes are Canonicall? By the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost, so you aunsweare in the 4. article That he makes vs decerne them from other Ecclesiasticall bookes. It is not then by the holy Scripture that you know this, for your inward persuasion is not the written word. Consequently it is false, That the pure word is the rule of all truth, and that all things must be examined, ruled, and reformed by the same. For it is not the rule of this verity, [Page 58] and that of greatest consequence: to witt, that the bookes of the old and new Testament are canonicall, and writen by deuine reuelation. Again, to reiect any booke from the number of the Canonicall (as for example you doe reiect that of Tobias, and admitt the Ghospell of S. Mathew) you guide not your selues by this rule of the pure word, but, as you giue it out, of the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost. See how your articles destroy each other. Tell me farther. Do you hold that one may, and ought to baptize little infants? That we must not rebaptize hereticques, which haue been baptized in the name of the B. Trinity; that we must keepe holy sunday, and not saturday; you beleeue that the Mother of God remayned alwayes a virgin. Notwithstanding you finde not one text of Scripture, to iustify any of these points; why do you then contradict your selues and your article, which [Page 59] teacheth, that the written word is the rule of all truth. Doth not S. Paul in the. 2. to the Thessalon. 2. vers. 15. exhort saying. Stand, and hold fast the instructions (our translation reads traditions) which you haue learned eyther by our word, or by our epistle. Note that he makes mention of the word besides that, which is written in Scripture; and in the 2. to Timothe. 2. Vers. 2. The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, these commend to faythfull men, which shall be fitt to teach others also. Doe not you perceaue a diuine word, taught not by writing, but by word of mouth? In the. 1. to the Cor. 11. Vers. 34. Other things I will set in order when I come. Such ordinances by word of mouth, are they not as well deuine as those, which are sett downe in writing? I omit many other authorities to this purpose, by the way only citing these, for that it is not my intent to iustify, and prooue vnto you in this treatise that, which [Page 60] we beleeue. My only scope is to shew vnto you, that you are abused; and that the pure word teacheth no such thing, as your articles report. This haue I performed in this article, which I haue examined with the textes cited for the same; for the Article saith, that the written word is the rule of all truth; and in the passages alledged, we neyther read written word, nor the rule of all truth. Wherfore they haue not that which the article saith, otherwise, knowing to reade, we should see it there. For conclusion heereof the Caluinists, in this article of greatest importance, are therefore abused, and by consequence in all the rest I before marked, which are out of this deduced against vs, which are in great number. Reuew them, and in so many points acknowledg your selues deceaued.
I haue at large examined this article, aswell for that, as hath been shewed, it is of greatest importance; [Page 61] as also for that the falshood therof being discouered, the Ministers are bereaued of the most efficatious, and ordinary meanes they had to defend themselues, in these conflicts; for they alwayes fly for refuge to this Proposition, That nothing must be beleeued, bus that which is in the Scripture Their custome is to question vs, where finde you Purgatory in the Scripture? or the reall presence of the body of Iesus Christ in the sacrament of the Altar &c. For, say they, if it be not there, it is superstition to beleeue it. And by this meanes, in lieu of reforming our pretended abuses by the pure word, they cunningly engage vs to prooue our faith. A wyly deuise. Catholicks looke vnto their fingers, and be sure that when they make you such questions, you take not vppon you to be disputants: but allthough you haue many authorities, yett bring no place of Scripture to iustify your cause. Marke well the wilines of the Aduersaries. They are bound [Page 62] by their .31. article to reforme vs, and by their.5. to do it by the pure word: by this disguise and faire apparence drawing many to their part. But their practise is after another fashion. For knowing well that they are neuer able to performe that, which they haue bound themselues vnto, to disingage themselues from this obligation, by a fine deuise they endeuour to make vs the plaintifs, questioning vs after the fashion aforesaid. And if in awnswere of their questions, you bring some expresse textes for your self, behold, by this the Minister hath gott his neck out of the coller, and hauing before hand quitt himself of all Anquity, Fathers, Miracles &c. he will turne of the Scripture at his owne pleasure, and in fine delude you, though you haue ten cleere textes for your purpose: Of this we haue dayly experience. Handle him in an other fashion. You must neuer lett him change his coate. He is obliged [Page 63] by the Confession of his faith to shew you by the pure word your errours; hold him to it there to his testimonies of the pure word, which must sett downe your pretended errours; Doe but this, and I warrant you the Minister will quickly be brought vpon his knees; and haue a care you release him not, but keepe him downe. But how? vrge him still with this, that he shew you some expresse text of Scripture which sayth, That there is no Purgatory; or That, the body of Iesus Christ is not in the Eucharist. It is his charge to do it, who hath pawned his word to shew vs by the pure word our errours. But if he hope to scape the torture by this sleight, saying that he sufficiently sheweth our errour in that (as he sayth) we cannot shew by the Scripture Purgatory, or the reall presence: Haue a care, that though you haue many cleere textes on your side, bring none, make not your selues Plaintifs, for so he will [Page 64] be deliuered from the rack; but presse him eagrely that he shw you that he promised, or at least, that nothing must be beleeued but that, which is in the Scripture (for by this maxime alone doth he argue you of errour) And then that after he hath donne this, you will produce your places. Not being able to shew this proposition in the whole Scripture (as by the precedent examen I haue shewd he cannot) he is driuen to a non plus, nor hath he any meanes to scape away. Thus shall you shew breefly & euidently, that their 31. and 5. articles ar false, which promised to reforme our pretended abuses by the pure word, and cannot do it: And that the Mimisters are egregious impostours, which vnder such a faire pretext haue seduced so many thowsands of soules. And you of the pretended religion, put but your Ministers to this triall, and you will see them presently fall speechles, and your selues apparently abused.
Before we passe any farther, I cannot omitt to examine breeflie one clause of the 24. article, which I before let passe, for that for it there is cited in the margent a texte, which is not donne in the other clauses.
An other clause of the 24. article.
Out of the vvare-hovvse of the deuill, proceede the forbidding to marrie, and the free vse of meates, and the ceremonious obseruation of some daies.
Text.
In the last times certaine shalt depart from the faith, attending to spirits of errours, forbidding to marry, commaunding to abstaine from meates, vvhich God created for the faithfull, to receaue them vvith thanks giuing, for euerie creature of God is good, and nothing to be reiected. 1. Timoth. 4. Vers. 3.
Examen.
By this clause the Article seemes to reprehend the Catholicque Church, but wrongfullie. For. 1. shee forbids not to marrie, otherwise no Catholick could be married, but that he must breake the precept of the Church; shee onlie causeth that to be kept, which God in his Scriptures commaundeth: to witt, that men fulfill their vowes, and for this cause that Preests, and others which haue vowed chastity, and continencie, obserue their vowes, wherby it followeth that they may not marrie. Neither doth the text alledged say ought to the contrarie. 2. I admire the little iudgment of the Ministers; doe they thinke that the Physitians commaunding their patients to abstaine from some meates for a time to recouer their health, doe goe against the Apostle, and teach a deuilish doctrine?
I ame more amazed at the impudency of these men, whoe reading [Page 67] the prohibition of some meates made by the Apostles, gathered togeather in the 1. Councell. Act. 15. vers. 28. in these wordes It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs, to lay no further burden vppon you, then these necessary things. Among other things that you abstaine from bloud and that which is strangled. They dare, abusing the text cited, say, not without execrable blasphemy, against the holy Apostles, and against the holy Ghost. That from the ware-howse of the diuell proceedeth the prohition of some meates; terming heereby the holy Ghost sathan, and the first sacred Councell of the Apostles, the ware-howse of the deuill, and theyr prohibition an abuse and illusion. S. Paul, which assisted at that sacred Councell, is farr of from censuring in that manner that precept, which he with the rest had decreed to abstaine from certayn meates. But forseeing that there wold come heretiques, that wold forbidde mariage as [Page 68] a thing in it self vnlawfull, and inuented by the deuill; and some meates as naught in themselues and of their owne nature (so did the Maniche, Marcion and Tatian, as S. Augustine, with others recounteth) these the Apostle condemneth. The Church is farr distant from this errour. Thus doe S. Augustine, S. Chrisostome, S. Hierome, and S. Ambrose expound this place; and the reason which the Apostle bringeth for his condemnation conteined in these words, euery creature of God is good, doth authorize the same. And it belongs to the Minister, who is plaintife, to prooue the contrarie. Finally, the Church doth not absolutelie commaund to abstaine from meates, for it forbiddeth not fish, whice is meate; nor at all times, but onlie certaine particular meates, and at certaine times; which thing the Apostle reprehends not, who speaketh of these, who absolutelie commaunde to abstaine from meates, and that [Page 69] without limitation to any times. 3. for the proofe of the 3. clause of the obseruation of daies, the article hath cited no texte, in that therfore it deceaueth.
An other clause of the 24. article.
IESVS CHRIST is giuen vs for the sole Aduocate: All that vvhich men haue imagined about the intercession of Saintes departed, is nought els but an abuse and deceipt of Sathan.
Examen.
The onlie pointe of controuersie between vs in the first clause of this article, is of the word (sole) for thes two textes are cited in margent, for the second clause nothing, the first in the 1. Timoth. 2.5.
Texte.
There is one only God, and one onlie mediatour betvveen God and men, man IESVS CHRIST.
Examen.
I will set downe the texte entierly, to make it more cleere that he saith not that, which the article teacheth: behold the Apostles wordes.
God vvill that all men be saued, and come to the knovvledge of truth, for there is one only God, and one only mediatour betvveene God and men, man IESVS CHRIST vvho gaue himselfe for reedmption of all.
I finde not in this passage alledged the termes (of Aduocate, of intercession) of which we debate, neither finde I thar Saints are shutt out from that office of Aduocate, as saith the article. And if the Minister say that the name of mediatour, as S. Paul vnderstands it, is the same with Aduocate; I aunsweare first, that the Minister, or rather his Confession of faith, must prooue that the [Page 71] name of mediatour is taken for mediatour, and Aduocate by intercession, and not for mediatour and Aduocate by redemption; He I say must prooue this, and that by the pure word alone, otherwise the place alledged consenteth not with the Confession of faith, neither doth it reiect the intercession of Saintes. 2. I make aunsweare (which by the place entirely cited doth appeare) that S. Paul spake of one Mediatour (they are the Apostles owne words) who hath giuen himselfe a redemption for all: of such a Mediatour he saith that he is one alone, neither doe the Catholickes teach that the Saintes are such mediatours. This passage therfore prooues nothing against Catholicques, neither doth it say that IESVS CHRIST is giuen vs for our sole Aduocate, nor that to beleeue the intercession of Saints is an abuse, and deceipt of the deuill. [...]. This word (sole) hath beene added by the Ministers in the Geneua [Page 72] Bible for it is neither in the Greeke nor Latin texte: and S. Paule to the Galat. 3. calleth Moyses Mediatour.
The seconde passage, alledged for this clause in their Confession, is in the 1. epistle of S. Iohn. 2. Vers. 1.2.
2. Texte.
These things I vvrite vnto you, that you sinne not. But & if any one sinne, vve haue an Aduocate vvith the Father, IESVS Christ the iust: for he is the propitiation for our sinnes, and not for ours only; but also for those of the vvhole vvorlde.
Examen.
Is it not manifest, that he speaketh not of euery Aduocate, but of an Aduocate which is a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world, to witt by the effusion of his bloud? The Catholicques hold not any other such Aduocate, but our Sauiour. To what purpose then is it to [Page 73] bring this passage, which toucheth not that which is in controuersie? And marke well that it is the Ministers parte, who is Plaintife, to shew that the name of Aduocate is heere taken for anie intercessour, euen him, who is not a propitiation for the sinnes of the world by his passion; and all this by the pure worde. 2. Besides, if the Minister will pertinaciously vnderstand by the name of Aduocate him, who is not a propitiation for the sinnes of the world which is of his owne head without the pure word, yea against the pure word alledged.) This word only) of which wee only striue, not being in this text, this place vere [...]eth not this article that IESVS Christ only Aduocate.
Let vs come to the 20. Article.
These are the wordes.
Article. 20.
VVe beleeue that vve are made partakers of that iustice [Page 74] (to witt Christian) by faith alone.
Textes cited in the Margent of this Article.
Man is iustified by faith, vvithout the vvorkes of the lavve. Rom. 3. Vers. 28.
Man is not iustified by the vvorkes of the Lavve, but only by the faith of IESVS Christ. Galat. 2. Vers. 16.
Before faith came vve vvere kept vnder the lavv, shut vp vnto that faith vvhich vvas to be reuealed. Therfore the lavve vvas our Pedagogue in Christ, that vve might be iustified by faith, but vvhen that faith is come novv vve are not vnder a Pedagogue Galat. 3. Vers. 23.
Examen.
I reade not one word, in all these textes, of the workes of Christian faith, of which alone, and of no others we speake, and hold necessary to iustification. It is manifest that this pure word alledged, speaketh of workes of the Iudaicall religion, styled commonly by S. Paul by the name of the Lawe, and not of the workes of Christian Religion. These passages therfore say onlie, that Christian faith without Circumcision, and other ceremonies of the Iewes, doth iustifie. Who denieth this? is this all one, or as much as to say that Christian faith, without the workes, which proceed from the said faith in IESVS Christ, as is penance, doth iustifie? Which is that the article teacheth. Wherfore this pure worde seconds not that which the article sayeth. I am amazed at the impudency, or ignorance of the Ministers: S. Paul discoursing so largely in fiue whole chapters of that epistle to the Galathians, [Page 76] against those which would ioyne with Christian faith Circumcision, and other workes of Iudaisme; and the very titles of those chapters in the Geneua translation noting the same: yet the aduersaries will alledge these against them, who hold that Christian workes are necessarie to iustification. Open but the epistle, and thou wilt detest such abusers; the whole epistle sheweth that which I say. It shall suffise for proofe heereof to cite the words of the. 5. chapter. 2. verse. Behold I tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall proffit you nothing, and I testifie againe to euerie man circumciding himself, that he is a debter to doe the whole law; you are euacuated from Christ, that are iustified in the law. You are fallen from grace, for we by faith exspect the hope of iustice. In IESVS Christ neither circumcision auaileth ought, uor prepuce, but faith working by charity. Do not you falsefye? doth not S. Paul teach in these laste wordes the contrarie to your article? [Page 77] The Apostle opposeth Christian Religion, which is called faith in Christ, vnto the Iudaicall religion, which is named the lawe; and teacheth that this later is not necessary to iustification, but that the former suffiseth, and doth not oppose Christian faith to Christian workes. The last texte cited for the foresaid article, hath as little energy as the precedents. it is this of S. Iohn 3. Vers. 15.16.
As Moyses exalted the Serpent in the desert, so must the sonne of man be exalted, that euerie one vvhich beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting. For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but haue life euerlasting.
The word (only) of which only [Page 78] is our variance, and which is in your article, teaching that faith only iustifieth, is not in this text: wherefore this, vnles you add thereto the word (only) makes nothing to your purpose; and how often doth this speech, to beleeue in IESVS Christ, signifie to professe the Ghospell, and liue according to the same? for faith, saith S. Iames in the 1. chapter 17. verse. If it haue not workes is dead. Doth not S. Paul. Galat. 5. Vers. 6. say that that which iustifieth is faith, working by charitie? Doth not our Sauiour pronounce this sentence; if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements? But I am not bound to prooue, that faith alone without Christian workes doth not iustifie, it is you that are engaged to prooue by the pure worde, that that alone doth iustifie; alone, I say, for of that alone doe we dispute. In the 11. article it is said that.
Article 11.
Originall sinne after Baptisme is still sinne, as it is a fault; hovvbeit the condemnation thereof is taken avvay in the children of God, vvho of his mercifull goodnes doth not impute it vnto them.
In proofe of this is alledged one only place in the margent. Rom. 7. Vers. 7.
Texte.
VVhat shall vve say then? is the lavve sinne? God forbid, but sinne I did not knovv, but by the lavve, for concupiscence I knevv not, vnles the lavv did say, thou shalt not couet.
Examen.
Here is not in the text one word contained in the article; wherefore this Confession, promising to say nothing but by the pure word, abuseth [Page 80] vs in this point. Go on.
Let vs examine the 36. and 37. articles, which speake of the B. Sacrament: which since it is obscurely spoken of, for more perspicuity I will borrow somewhat out of your Catechisme.
The 1. clause of the 36. article.
VVe testifie that the Supper is a testimonie of the vnitie, vvhich vve haue vvith IESVS Christ; vvhose body (you say in your Catechisme in the 53. lesson or Sunday) is not included vnder the bread, nor his bloud vvithin the chalice, that vve must not seeke him in these corruptible elementes. For proofe you alleadge this texte.
Text.
The cuppe of benediction [Page 81] vvhich vve do blesse, is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ? and the bread vvhich vve do breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ? for being manie, vve are one only bread, and one only body, for vve all partake of one only bread. 1. Corinth. 10. Vers. 16.17.
Examen.
I reade not in this text (testimony of the vnity with IESVS Christ) the text therfore agrees not with the article. But I reade communion of bloud, communion of body, which is a different matter from testimony of vnity with IESVS Christ, and sheweth that the body of IESVS Christ may be founde in these corruptible elements, vnder the accidents of bread and wine; which this article denieth.
An other clause of the same article
In the supper are Signss, which testify that the body and bloud of IESVS Christ, serueth no lesse for the soule to eate and drinke, then bread and wine doth for the body. These Articles say not in expresse termes that the body of IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist to couer with obscurity theyr errour; to disperse this darknes I must borrow some light from theyr Catechisme in the 53. lesson. we must not (sayth it) vnderstand that the body is inclosed within the bread, nor the bloud within the chalice; but contrariwise, to haue the verity of this sacrament, we must lift vp our hartes on high to heauen, where IESVS Christ is, and not seeke him in these corruptible elements. For this clause you cite two textes.
1. Texte.
I am the liuing bread, that came dovvne from heauen: if any man eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer, and the bread vvhich I vvill giue is [Page 83] my flesh, vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld. Iohn. 6. Vers. 51.
Examen.
First I reade not in this text (signes which testify) but this expressely, that Christ is the liuing bread, not comon bread made of flowre, and baked; but which is his flesh, which sayth he, I will giue for the life of the world; As also in the geuing of it he sayd, Take, This is my body, which shalbe giuen for you. Was it a signe, or figure of his body, which was nayled one the crosse: was it not his proper body? This clause then is false. 2. The ministers, whoe haue promised to propose nothing but the pure Scripture, how doe they thrust vppon vs this clause so weighty, The body of IESVS Christ is not contained, and included within the bread, nor the blood &c. Without any written word? see theyr fraude, and how well they keepe theyr word [Page 84] in a matter of greatest moment.
2. Texte.
IESVS tooke bread, and hauing giuen thankes brake it, and said take, eate. This is my bodie, vvhich is broken for you; do this in commemoration of me. In like manner after supper he tooke the cuppe saying, this cuppe is the nevv testament in my blood, this do ye, as often as you shall drinke therof in remembrance of me. 1. Corinth. 11. Vers. 24.
Examen.
Who can finde out in this texte. Signes which testify; figure; signe of the body of IESVS Christ; which is not in the bread, nor the bloud in the chalice? all which the article teacheth. The text then helpes them nothing; nay how could the text more cleerly reiect the aduersaries beleefe, which is that the body is not vnder the bread [Page 85] nor the bloud within the chalice. Let the Caluinistes consider if they be abused or no: The Ministers haue entred bondes to shew by the pure word, That the supper is a signe which tesstifieth, a figure of the body of our sauiour, which is not vnder the bread, and of the bloud which is not within the chalice: and to cancell theyr obligations, they bring for paiment this texte of Scripture, in which (being it is written downe) if you reade it not, eyther you want your sight, or they deceaue you. Rather see you not the contrary? then say they are doubled iuglers.
An other clause of that Article.
After affirming that IESVS Christ doth nourish, and quicken vs with the substance of his body, and of his bloud, that which the Catholickes beleeue also; they add, (in which we disagree) without aledging any texte for the same (wherefore put vnderneath for proofe a cypher as before.)
[Page 86]1. VVe hold notvvithstanding, that this is donne spiritually.
Proofe. o.
2. The supper is a figure of the body, or, In the supper is figured the bodie of IESVS Christ.
Proofe. o.
3. Because the misterie of this supper is celestiall, it cannot be taken but by faith, or to vse their vulgar phrase, by the mouth of faith: Those vvhich bring vvith them a pure faith as a vessell, receaue trulie that vvhich the signes testifie; commonlie they say, That in the supper is eaten the bodie of IESVS Christ by the mouth of faith and in the 53. Sunday of their Catechisme, it is said, to haue the veritie of [Page 87] the Sacrament, vve must lift vp our hartes to heauen vvhere it is.
Proofe. o.
Behold many articles, and of greate consequence proued by a Cypher. Behold how you are abused. The Ministers make you beleeue all this, not being able to shew for it any texte of Scripture. The consequence will be, that your supper is purely their owne inuention: This by your principles I shew. For you haue no pure textes which say that, which you affirmatiuely beleeue of the supper, of which you hold those three thinges aforesayd principally. It is figure &c. that by the mouthe of fayth the body eateh &c. you should distinctly sett downe that, which of our fayth you deny in this matter, from that which therein you positiuely beleeue: for how be it that we did erre (of which I haue shewed the contrary) and that your [Page 88] negatiue propositions IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist, and the like were true; it followeth not that that, which you affirmatiuely beleeue, most needes be true; and that you erre not therein. Because one goeth wrong one way, is he, which takes an other, certaine to goe right? may not both be out of their way? Examine therfore your assertions, and you finde not any shew of textes that teache, that the supper is a figure of the body &c. nor which speake of the mouth of faith. Consequently your whole supper is a humane inuention. Which being so, in my opinion in the eating a good capō, or a cock, you may more easely remember the death of the sonne of God, for that therein is made mention of the crowing of a cock; then in eating a bit of bread. For which cause you shall do more prudently, to make of them a figure & memorie, then of a peece of bread; which is no more holie, then that you eate commonlie at [Page 89] your table.
It may be that some Caluiniste, thinking himselfe better skilled in the Scriptures, then the Ministers which composed the Confession of faith, and cited for proofe therof those sacred textes they iudged most fauourable, will vrge, to prooue the supper to be a figure, that, which our Sauiour said Iohn. 6. Vers. 63. It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh proffiteth nothing, the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life. For awnswere. 1. You must vnderstand, that your Ministers are at variance, whether in the 6. of S. Iohn anie thing be spoken of the supper. Caluin in the fourth booke of his Instit. cap. 17. §. 33. Kemnicius, and Zuinglius deny it. How then will you establish this firme article of your faith vpon so weake a foundation, doubted of by these of your owne faction? How can you serue your selues of that passage against vs, either for your figure, or for your Spiritually? [Page 90] 2. I reade not in this text figure: and if anie one say that spiritt and figure is all one; I may not beleeue him without his proofe, and that by the pure Scripture. And who perceaues not how ridiculous this deuise is? the diuells are spirites, are they figures? the Angells and our soules are spirittes? are they also figures? God himself is he not a most pure spiritt? is he a figure? it belongs not to me to explicate this place. I only shew that the pure word saith not that, which the article conteineth, & consequently the Ministers mock vs. Yet by the way, knowe that the sense of this texte is, that our Sauiour would not giue vs to eate his flesh dead, and in peeces (as we eate of the ordinarie flesh, as the Capharnaites imagined) to eate of flesh in this manner, proffitteth nothing to saluation; but flesh animated by his spirite, and quickened by his deuine life: in this manner we eate it. In which fashion we cannot eate anie [Page 91] other flesh, for it must first be dead, before it nourish vs. Remember finally that I doe not by this Scripture prooue my faith, this suffiseth me, that in these words you reade not either figure of body, or that we hold that it is donne spiritually, in such manner that the body is not contained there, this, I say, suffiseth to make you know you are misledd. For since you reade it not, (which doubtles if it were there, you might) the pure word warranteth not that which this article containeth.
Behold Syr the arte, which in this letter I promised to discouer vnto you: is it not a rare & worthy hunting-game? haue you ere this seene such coursing? F. Veron in teaching it me, told me that, which I know will giue it no small luster in your eye: that he receaued the origine, and substance therof from the R.F. Gontery, which famous hunter was the authour, and inuentour of this so efficacious, and facile sport; who also vsed no other in his disputes a-against the Ministers, iudging this the best, and most powerfull of all. And you know well, that that fearfull scourge of the Hereticke is most expert in these combats [...] [Page 92] being so beaten a soldiour in those warres, each prudent man wil make a great esteme of his aduise herein. He hath putt to slight the Ministers of Dieppe, of Caen, of Sedan &c. and among the rest some Allmaines he founde at Tourlac. But how? Truly by no other meanes but this, by the pure Scripture alone, and that after the Geneua Translation, by the practise before set downe: Sauing that he brideled them in more shortly, for he neuer suffered them in any point debated, to proceed by consequences, which they said they would deduce out of the Scripture, vnles they first subscribed, that they could not enter combate with vs by the pure written word.
I should now sende you the relation promised of this Conference, between F. Veron, and the Minister Hucher, but because the printer, by reason of the great frostes could not dispatch the same so soone, as I hoped; not to keepe you wholy in suspence, I send you the summary thereof, togeather with the meanes to buckle with the Sectaries. The whole Conference is vnder the presse, you shall haue it within eight daies; ioyne it to this fashion of hunting which I now send you, for in that you will see the practise of this kinde of chace, vsed by the Father in this conflict. Heere will you also see, by this so [Page 93] succesfull and remarkable victory, the efficacy of this arte. It is scarcely possible to putt a man to more confusion, then the Minister was in. The fame of this victory strooke the sectaries to the harte. Seeing the title of this epistle before it was printed, they were much offended at it, but all partes thereof are easily iustified, by the Actes of the Conference signed. Behold out of them the Ministers owne wordes. He hauing promised to shew by the pure word, that IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist, after a little pressing said; The truth is, that these vvords (the body of IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist) are not in the Scripture. And after being vrged a little harder, he confessed besides twice, before all the assembly, that he had not any text in Scripture, which, setting aside all consequences, conteyned formally and expresly the sense of this proposition. IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist, which notwithstanding he before vndertooke to shew by the pure word; and so to reforme the Iesuite in his errour. Is not this as much as to confesse, that he could not by the pure word reforme vs in this point? is not this to forsake it? is not this to renounce the office and exercise of a reformer? thinke you these fittes proceede from a merry hart? wherfore with reason the epistle beares for title The Minister of Amiens constrained [Page 94] to renounce the pure vvord of holy vvrite: He stayed so long dumme, and in presence of so many personnes, and of such quality, that there is no tergiuersation: and refused so long time in the third session, to come to the proofe of that, in which the day before he was struck speechles, or also to deale in any other point; that the flight is as euident, as the day light. VVherfore the epistle hath right vnto his title. VVithin few dayes you shall see the narration at large, well subscribed and signed; in the meane tyme notwithstanding, for iustification of the summary thereof, sett downe in the beginning of this letter, I haue procured these subscriptions following.
Subscriptions of the Conference, the summe vvherof is contained in the beginning of this letter.
VVEE the subsigned Gentlemen of the Duke of Longueuille, being present with our said Lord at the Conferences, of which the narration is before set downe, do testifie that they haue truly passed as it is declared. Giuen at Amyens the 12. of February. 1615.
Pelletot, Foucaucourt, Le Cheualier de Moyencourt, Gondreuille, Tannere, Goustimenil, Courtauenel.
Certaine poincts collected out of this practise, and other experiences of this kind, reduced to six heads, for the more warie proceeding of Catholiques with Sectaries of our age.
THE 1. poinct. Seeing that our new Sectaries doe suppose vs Catholiques to be deceaued, in our beleefe, and that they ar sent to reforme vs by the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture, er the Catholique enter into conference with anie Sectarie, let him first demaund what he vnderstandeth by the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture: whither the Old and new Testament, with all the parts of eche both, as we Catholiques doe; or els what? Then let the Catholique request the Sectarie to proue by the onlie vvritten vvord, as he tooke vppon him, that the whole Bible, or such parcels as he doth admit for holie Scripture, or reiect, ar in deede, or at not holy Scripture. He cannot doe it; but by Tradition, and by the Catholique Church her authoritie.
The 2. is. No Catholique conferring, must seeke to proue our opinions, which the Sectaries disalowe of; for we ar in possession, and defendants, not plainetifes.
The 3. is. The Catholique must not in any case permit the Sectarie to bring anie proofe whatsoeuer, other then the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture, and this also [Page 96] without anie interpretation, glose, or consequence of his owne braine.
The 4. is Let not the Catholique suffer his Aduersary to leape from pale to pearch, and from one Controuersie to another, vntill he be conuinced of errour in his beleefe, and this by the onlie vvritten vvord.
The 5. is. The Sectarie not proouing by the onlie vvritten vvord, that which he promised, as not able to performe it; the Catholique must constraine ether him, or some els there present, to subscribe that he could not prooue what he vndertooke, in such sort, as he ought to haue donne.
The 6. and last is. The Catholique must confer, and consider with attention the places of Scripture, alledged by Sectaries to disproue our doctrine; for ordinarilie they make no more to the purpose, then appeare to a nut. For example to prooue that vve must beleeue the onlie vvritten vvord: they bring forth these places. Deuter 4. v. 2. Deuter. 12. v. 32. Galat. 1. v. 8. Apocalip. 22. v. 18. which make nothing against vs, or for them. For by the first and second, we should, according to the sense of our aduersaries, beleeue nought els, but that which is in the Deuteronomie; by the third, nothing but that epistle of S. Paul; by the last, nought els but the Apocalipse. See theire madnes, and foolery, and looke to theire water.