A LETTER OF M
r. 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 Mi
nister 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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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;
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;
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
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
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
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 Scrip
ture, euen in the Geneua Bible, ci
ted in the margent of theſe arti
cles, 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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.)
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
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
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
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?
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
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
〈◊〉
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
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
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.