M. LE HUCHER MINISTER OF AMIENS IN FRANCE COMPELLED to fly from the pure word of Holy write; struck dumb; and made to run away.  
Upon the subject of the B. Sacrament of the Altar.  
By F. FRANCIS VERON of the Society of JESUS, encountering him with the Bible of Geneva only.  
In the presence of the Duke de Longueville.  
With a brief and easy means, by which each Catholic may, in like manner, put to flight any Minister or Sectary.  
Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the said Duke's Gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, Gentleman of the King's game.  
Printed   

Explication of the Title.  
This Conference was held three several times. In the first the Father of the Society; compelled the Minister to abandon the pure word of the holy scripture; In the 2. he put him to silence; In the 3. he made him run away.   

Testimony of the said conference.  
It is signed by the Father of the Society; by the Duke of Longuevilles' Gentlemen who accompanying their Lord were present thereat; and in part by the Minister, which refused to subscribe to that, which put him most to confusion. The subcriptions follow in their proper place.   

To the Reader.  
TWo things there are (good Reader) which made me (desirous of thy eternal good) to turn for thy use this little treatise into our language. The one the brevity and pleasure it yieldeth, the other the easiness and perspicuity, with which it confuteth, it instructeth. The first suiteth well to that lazy humour, which heresy hath brought into our country, whereby men have little gust to read aught, that concerns their souls, and scarce aught of that, unless it be well seasoned with extraordinary delight. The other (supposing thy capacity, and affection to truth, which if affection mislead me not, is equal to that of most Nations, and by heresy I hope not maliciously perverted, or at least not puruersly obstinate therein) makes me presume thou wilt easily see, and quickly leave that blind man's maze, of the falsely pure pretended word, wherein thou hast been long led round. Both of them, by God's assistance, promiss unto me no little fruit of this small work, which is that I heartily desire for thy souls good, and Gods greater glory. Farewell.  
Thy well-willer in JESUS CHRIST. D. V.   

A LETTER OF Mr. DE LA TOVR GENTLEMAN TO THE DUKE OF LONGVEVILLE. Written unto Mr. de Rotois Gentleman of the King's game.  
SIR the ardent zeal I know you have of the good and glory of our Religion, makes me suppose you will receive a singular content in the relation of a private conference, had of late in the presence of my Lord the Duke of Longueville and his followers, of the Marquis de Bonivet, of the Lady de Bourcq & divers others aswell catholics as Sectaries, between Father Francis Veron of the Society of JESUS, preacher for this present in the great Church of this City, & M. le Hucher Minister of the Caluinists in the same place, touching that point of our Faith, of the body of the son of God in the Sacrament of the Altar. The said Father agreeing to deal with that Minister by the Bible of Geneva only, and the Confession of faith of the reformed. This conference hath had three sessions, at the first I was not present, not being advertised of the same. Notwithstanding at the beginning of the second, the acts of the former session were read, allowed & avowed by both parties as authentical. Wherefore I will make recital of that which passed in the sight of my Lord, & us that were attending on him, besides a great multitude of diverse 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 above eight thousand people, assembled in the Church of our Lady to hear his sermon. The most hereof is signed as you will see after, wherefore no man can justly call in question a matter so clearly testified.  
Our Divine achieved three famous victories. For the Minister having promised conformably to the 31. and 5. articles of their Confession of their faith, to show by the pure word of the Bible, that we erred in that belief we have, that the body of our Lord is in the Eucharist, he was constrained in the first session and again in the entrance unto the second trial, to sly from his fortress of the pure word, of force disclaiming from the pure scripture of Geneva: and withal acknowledged and confessed, that there was no express text in all the scripture, even by the Geneva translation, which, setting a side all illations, did condemn us of error. But (quoth the Minister) by necessary consequence out of the pure word of God I will make it clear that you do err.  
The night coming on made our combatant cease the pursuit, & not drive him farther, who already sheltered himself within the ruinous edifice of a Consequence. The Father told me, that it was not of small importance, to make the Sectaries clearly see & confess, that they have not for themselves the pure scripture, but only certain consequences, for (quoth he) the cause that makes so many to begin, and continue in their revolt from God's Church, is for that they persuade themselves, that they have on their sides the pure word of God; for so saith the 5. article of their Confession, that they admit nothing for the rule of faith, but the pure word: & they do verily suppose that that Confession containeth nothing, but that which is in the pure word. After the approbation of that passed before, the Minister at the second session was admitted to deduce his necessary consequence, by which he would demonstrate how far we wandered from the truth. He first fetched long vagaries round about, afterward the Father so dexterously put him beside all his proofs, & in brief brought him to such pangs, that for the final proposition he had nothing to say against the Father, but, o you deny to much; after which he became altogether speechless, as I will more largely declare her after. Certes you would have been extraordinarily recreated to behold, how he that erewhile made profession to prove by the pure word of God that we were Idolaters, in am of the pure word, had not a word to help himself, save this only, that the jesuite denied to much we I am sure had good sport therein. Ours which had thus chased the Minister, still put him to these pangues for a long time still urging him thus. M. Minister prove your consequence. Neither did he omit to signify plainly and aloud to the whole assembly, to what exigents the poor Minister was brought to, who sustained the Confession of the faith of the reformed Religion, and bragged to discover by the pure word our errors. Had not the quality of the Ministers cause been such as it was, I should have had compassion to have seen him in that plight, and so oppressed. He desired they would give him that night for respite, and to think upon it; but the Father denied him; he alleged he was suddenly surprised, the other replied that he had had all the night, and morning before for his proof of that consequence. It was not need to take pity of the Minister, for his fellow Sectaries had sufficient commiseration of him; all of them round about me began to change colour, the Elders and Superintendents stood as it were astonished, & confounded. You may conjecture easily whether we were joyful thereat or no Alas (said one) the poor Minister wants a Chirurgeon to open him a vain. This victory was more notorious by this which followeth. The conqueror exacted of the vanquished to subscribe to the Acts of this conference, according to the accord made between them. A lamentable case! that the overcome must subscribe to the acts of his own condemnation. He refused to perform his promiss. The Father after many instant urge of him in vain, turned towards my Lord, and demanded justice; that the Minister sign according as he had promised. The Minister desired favour, beseeching him often that he would not command him to subscribe, after many prayers adding these words. I know how much it stands me upon not to sign, for if I do so, all will be published: and the Churches (you understand his meaning at least his lamenting voice discovered his intention) the poor congregations (he should say) of the pure reformation will be scandalised thereat. The Father having before desired one of ours to shut the door, lest the Minister should run away, bid him consult with his Elders, and Superintendents, whether it were expedient to sign the acts or no: for which cause drawing them apart it was resolved that he should not sign them. I will send you shortly more at large this debate, which lasted three quarters of an hour. In fine, with the consent of the Father, they granted him this favour that he should not subscribe, but with these two conditions: the first that he should subscribe the morrow after; the second that he should continue the dispute. By this refusal to subscribe unto the Acts, it is apparent how notable the victory was on our part.  
In the third encounter our Champion got a third victory, but in an other kind; will you know what? The Minister shamefully ran away. He was not willing to be laid again a gasping as before, and therefore thought it better not to inter into the lists, as I will declare afterward. It was given out that the Superintendentes had expressly forbid him to venture himself with him, who before had used him so unmercifully, for they well saw the confusion like to follow thereof, to the great detriment of their Churches.  
Your Religious mind makes me presume you take great delight in this chase; I will therefore give you the whole narration. But yet before hand I will show you a new manner of hunting, which, though you be most skilful in that sport, is perchance unknown unto you. The fashion is speedy, with little pains, and most effectual, by which practice our Huntsman hath so happily seized on his prey: and by the same I assure myself, that even we whose profession is to be better at our weapon then our pen, may chase out of breath any Minister soever, and make any Sectary see how grosllie he is abused. This I have compiled as a thing I know to be true, and whereof I mean to serve myself on all occasions. In this Conference I have had experience of this practice, for therein was held no other method; & to satisfy your desire, who I know are curious to learn this new manner of hunting, you may read this which followeth, the like whereof was sent unto the Minister as a letter of defiance. Read it seriously. To me it seems most efficacious and as easy. We shall all prove hunters of these black beasts, the Ministers I mean of the pretended Religion. I would to God we could so chase away not their persons, but their errors, that we could purge all France thereof. This I now send you laid down at large, you shall shortly have the particulars of the conference above mentioned, in which you will see it practised.   

A BRIEF AND EASY means by which each one though ignorant of divinity, may by the sole Bible either of Geneva, or any other, show apperently to any Minister how far he is deceived, and to each Caluinist, how in all and every point of the pretended reformation he is abused.  
ENCOUNTERING a Minister or any other Caluinist, you shall proceed in this manner.  
You have in the 31. article of the Confession of your faith these words. In our days, in which the estate of the Church was dissolved, God hath raised men after an extraordinary manner to repair of new the Church which was ruinated and desolate. Thus, you say, your Religion comes to reform our errors.  
In the 5. article are these words. The word which is contained in these books (he spoke of the books of Holy Scripture) is the rule of all truth, containing all that is necessary for the service of God, and our salvation; Neither is it lawful for men, no nor for Angels, to add, diminish, or change. Whence it followeth that neither Antiquity, nor Customs, nor Multitude, nor human wisdom nor Definitions, nor Inhibitions, nor Proclamations, nor Decrees, nor Counsels, nor Revelations, nor Miracles may be opposed to the said holy Scriptures, but on the contrary all things are to be examined; ruled, and reform by them. These are the words of this article.  
So that in the one and the other article mentioned together, you say that you, or your Religion, or your Ministers (take your choice) are raised and sent from God, to illuminate us with the light of truth, & to show us our errors 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 upon us. And until you show me your letter patents and commission, I may justly refuse to submit myself to be reform by you. What body politic will allow the title of Reformour of their Laws, and Customs (according to which they have hitherto proceeded in their government) in one who should say he was sent from the King for that purpose, but had no Commission to show for the same? Notwithstanding in courtesy I do freely admit you to the dignity and title of a Reformer, & am content to be instructed by you in the truth, and to be reform in whatsoever I do err. I would know of you.  
2. According to what rules, by what line doth it please you to straighten me, to show my errors, and illuminate me with the truth of the Gospel? You make me answer in the 5. article above cited, that you will do all this according to the pure word of God, set down in Holy writ, laying aside, All Antiquity, Customs, Multitude, human Wisdom, Definitions, Inhibitions, Proclamations, Laws, Counsels, Revelations, Miracles. I could refuse this fashion of reforming. For why should I not, together with the Scripture, help myself with all other rules to discern the truth thereby? Especially since that the Scripture no where saith, that itself alone is the rule of all verity. It seems hard to me to renounce all Antiquity, Counsels, Miracles, & all the rest before set down. Nevertheless to join with you in Conference, I am content of my own accord to grant you the title of Reformer by the pure written word, & am ready to renounce all those rules specified, provided always that you keep your promise, to wit that you show me my errors, by the pure Scripture.  
3. There are divers translations of the Scriptures; by which, I pray you, will you please to reform me? Perchance you intent by that of Geneva. I might justly refuse to be reform by that Bible; being it is so curtailed in divers places, corrupted, and changed: Yet to have your reformation I will do you this third favour. I am content to open my eyes and follow your Religion, if you show my by the pure word contained in the Geneva version, both the truth of the faith you evangelize, & also my errors. I have done you three great favours. 1. to grant you the title of a Reformer. 2. to be a Reformer by the pure word. The third to make this trial by the pure word of the Geneva version. But look you bring me nothing else but the pure word; for if in steed of it you shift me of with your interpretations, you forsake the Confession of your faith, & break the covenants made between us. For I am not so unadvised to renounce all Antiquity, councils, Miracles and the rest, for your interpretations and opinions.  
Agreeably to this, to your own promise, & that which is set down in your 5. article, I demand two things at your hands. First that you show me by the pure word the truth of all those articles which you will have me to believe: which I am ready to do, if I see them in the Bible even of Geneva. Secondly that by the same pure word you show me my errors. Both of these I demand, for both of these you profess 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 err in my faith, I would be loath to leave that, to follow a worse. No wise man, I take it, though his horse have but one eye will make exchange for another that is blind; I desire therefore to see by the pure word the truth of yours. Which you cannot refuse to do, for you are sent to illuminate us, & show us the truth. To be plain therefore, my first demand is, that you show me by the pure word the Articles of your Confession, by which I must be illuminated, and made to know the right way.  
In the 36. and 37. article you say that we receive by faith, or, to use your ordinary terms, by the mouth of faith the body of our Lord. Show me this in the pure word, & that the supper is the figure of his body. Through all the Geneva Bible I find not so much as mention made of the mouth of faith, neither do I find any talk of a figure in those places, where it speaks of the supper. Show me but this, & I will strait believe it and abjure my former Religion. This if you do not, I must needs hold you, as you are, for impostors.  
In the 11. article it is said. Original sin doth continually remain after Baptism in as much as it is a fault, howbeit the children of God are freed from the condemnation due for the same, he through his gracious goodness not imputing it unto them. Show me this in the pure word of Geneva.  
In the 24. article. jesus Christ is given us for our sole Advocate, The strife between us is about that word Sole, show me that in the Geneva Bible.  
In the 20. article. We believe we are made partakers of that justice (to wit of Christians) by faith alone. All the controversy lieth in that word alone, and whether works done in the faith of Christ be necessary; show me that word alone in these places, where mention is made of works done in the faith of JESUS CHRIST, and not in these places, where the judaical works of the law are excluded from Christian justification, for of these only do we dispute. I have turned the Bible for the places cited in the margin for these articles, but cannot find any of these articles in the pure word.  
Having quit your hands well, in showing me the truth of that which you desire I should believe, show me as well that other thing I demand, to wit the errors of those articles which I now believe.  
The articles of my faith are for example (to omit that point of the B. Sacrament already spoken of) That there is a Purgatory, Intercession of Saints, Auricular Confession, and the like. I acknowledge the Sanctity of Pilgrimages, of Religious vows. Against which in your 24. article you say. Intercession of Saints is an abuse, Purgatorrie an illusion and so of religious vows, Pilgrimages and the like. Show me my error in these points, & that out of the pure word. In your margin I find no text cited, which is a shrewd suspicion that you have none. Perchance you will answer that it sufficeth for a proof of error in these points, that they are not found in the holy scripture, because nothing must be believed but that which is in the scripture. My reply to this is to know of you whether this proposition. That nothing must be believed which is not in the holy scripture be found in the pure word of God or. If it be not, than you M. Minister in propounding this proposition to be believed of me, do falsify your own faith, and break your promise; for you said you would not admit 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 upon me this proposition, which is not there to be found, & this as a fundamental proposition upon which are builded many others: but if this proposition be in the pure word, show it; but take heed you bring nothing, but the pure word.  
When by the pure word you shall show me the truth of your articles, and the falsehood of mine, as hath been said before, I am ready forthwith to acknowledge my error, & to embrace your faith. But remember, I pray you, your promise, that you would by the pure word show the truth of your faith and my errors; and that I renounced all antiquity, Counsels, Miracles, Inhibitions, Laws, visions upon these terms only, and no other. Look that in steed of the pure word, you do not shift me of with your interpretations or your own consequences, for either that interpretation is in the Scripture, or no; if it be there, bring forth the Scripture: and that the Scripture say of each proposition you interpret, that it is so to be understood, & that you only are the organ to pronounce the same, otherwise you leave your own faith, and forge an other to your own liking, of which I shall argue with you after in the like sort; & besides that you break your promise. I should be esteemed of small judgement if I forsake councils, 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 urge that those words (This is my body) must not be taken properly but figuratively, because these others (I am a vine) have such a signification: You shall ask him.  
1. Before you pass to any interpretation, if he have any plain text, which abstracting from all interpretation doth condemn us of error: for example in that point of the B. Sacrament, in which we believe there is the true body of our Saviour. If he have any, let him bring that which is clear and plain, and leave that which is obscure: if he have none, make him to confess distinctly, that he hath no place out of the pure word, by which, without his interpretation, he can convince us of error; and here you must insist on this point, till he have confessed this. After this Confession coming to the interpretation he gives, you shall.  
2. Demand, 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, let him show the place; If not, than the Minister breaks his covenants, & doth not serve as an organ of the Scripture only. And here 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, pass any farther. Neither is it needful to pursue the matter any farther, this being concluded, for here have you the Minister in the stocks; and perchance it will be better to keep the Ministre in this trance speechless, then to pass farther. Yet if you desire an other victory, & that he, which encountereth the Caluinist, be learned or expert in the Scripture, he may, after the confession of the two former.  
3. hearken to the interpretation the Ministre brings, and answer these proofs he allegeth for that interpretation. But always remember that the Caluinist, by their Confession of faith, is come to instruct us, & consequently bound to prove his interpretation; for us, if it convince not, it sufficeth to deny, without obligation to give any reasons for our denial: for by those the Minister will find means to slip away, and will not be so quickly caught: he will seek many by-ways, therefore as much as may be stop his passage. Behold how you are to proceed, when the Minister undertakes to show our pretended errors by text of Scripture, without consequences or illations.  
When he will discover our errors by some consequence, which he deduceth out of the pure word of God for example, we believe that the body of our Lord is in the B. Sacrament of the Altar: he will prove by consequence deduced out of the pure and sole Scripture, that he is not there, after this manner. In the 3. of the Acts, it is said, that Heaven must contain him until the Consummation of the world, therefore he is not on the earth. Behold his syllogism. That body which is in heaven is not on the earth, the body of jesus Christ is in heaven, therefore it is not on the earth. He must put his argument in this form. 1. Before you come to answer his argument, you must ask the Minister if he have any plain text, which without consequence doth condemn us of error in this point, or no? If he have, let him bring it out, who professeth to reform us by the pure word; If he have not, make him confess that he hath no plain text, by which (his consequence set a part) we are convinced of error; & here you must stay, and exact this confession of the Minister before you pass farther. Having made the Minister acknowledge this, though you may content yourself with this victory (whereby you make him renounce the 5. article of their Confession of faith, and have overthrown that pillar which detains most of the Sectaries, who follow that part in their errors; who imagine they have on their side the pure word of God, and that they build upon the Scripture only) and peradventure it will be better to proceed no farther, to the end to make it echo oftener in the ears of these who are abused by them: Nevertheless he that will continue the chase, and having roused the dear from his lodge pursue him farther.  
2. Giving the Minister leave to deduce his consequence, after the deduction thereof, the Catholicque must not strait examine the truth of the same, nor show so quickly that it is false; but first lay hold on him, and make him show, that his consequence is deduced out of the only pure word of holy Scripture, as he promised to deduce the same, and his 5. article doth oblige him. You must therefore proceed in this fashion. It is a thing undoubted, and known to all, that every 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 adversary against us) here you must demur, and make it manifest, that the adversary here abandonnes his Confession of faith, and fails of his promiss, in not showing our pretended error by consequence deduced out of the pure and only Scripture. For example, in the syllogism before set down. That body which is in heaven is not on the earth, the body of jesus Christ is in heaven, therefore 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, let him show it. Clear it is, it is not there, but it is a philosophical proposition, wherefore the Minister, which deduceth his consequence out of that, and the second adjoined, which is in the 3. of the Acts, doth not prove my error 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 every consequence must be deduced out of two propositions, placed in the true form of a syllogism, and that the consequence is inferred both from the propositions, and from the form of the syllogism; of which form the Scripture speaks nothing, nor prescribes any rules about that matter, but only Aristotle, and Philosophy. Wherefore the Minister in proving his consequence, is not founded upon the Scripture alone, which treats not of forms of consequences. And because it belongs to Aristotle, to judge if the consequence be good or no, the Minister building upon consequence, must admit for his judge, in the controversies of our faith, not the pure Scripture, but Aristotle: or else at least choose for umpire in this cause the word of God, together with Aristotle. 3. You must demand of the Minister, if the Scripture do teach that one must believe as an article of faith, not only that which the Scripture saith, but also that, which by necessary consequence followeth thereupon, or no? if he say so, make him show the text, which without doubt he cannot throughout the whole bible: if no such be found, then doth the Minister build his articles of faith upon a proposition, which is not in the pure word, to wit upon this. That that which followeth out of Scripture by necessary consequence, must be believed 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 human reason: from which notwithstanding in his 5. Article he disclaimed wholly. For he would have us take at his hands for an article of faith that proposition, which by consequence followeth out of the Scripture, though the terms of that proposition, deduced out of Scripture for an article of faith, be not there set down. Hence is it that all the articles of the Confession of these sectaries, which are founded upon a consequence, are not articles of faith, being that they have not for them their only rule of truth, the sole Scripture. Hear again you must hold him. They will say peradventure that JESUS Christ, and the Apostles proved many things by consequence. I grant it. But in so doing, they themselves made new Scriptures, or holy write: which privilege I think the Minister have not. But they never taught that the Scripture, which they alleged, was the singular and sole rule of all truth, and that they spoke not but by the mouth of the Scripture, as these Pretenders profess, and thyr poor flock (which think they are as good as their words) persuade themselves.  
3. If he that buckle with the Minister be learned, and will, after he hath often driven the dear from his fortress of the pure word, course him along the plain champion of human and philosophical reasons (though, according to my advise, it be ordinarily more expedient, to content ourselves with that before set down) for to cure him, if it be possible, after the above said he may pass to the examen of the truth, or falsehood of his consequence: whether the propositions, from which it is deduced (be they taken from philosophy or holy writ) be true or false; and whether the form of the argument be according to the rules of Philosophy, and so deny that which the Minister assumed falsely. Still having in mind that the Minister is put to the proof, not the Catholic, who bears the person of the party instructed; & be sure not to change that person. For the drift of all the Ministers fetches is, to unload himself of that obligation to prove his consequence: which he will bring to pass by this sleight, if he can make him, that defends, the disputant. For example. In the argument proposed. That body which is in heaven, is not on the earth; The body of jesus Christ is in heaven; Therefore it is not on the earth. You shall deny the first proposition, and let the Minister prove it. If that his proofs come on to long, & he enter to far into Philosophical quiddities, let the Catholic note that it is in his free choice, to curb the Minister short when he listeth; demanding him, if all the propositions which he hath brought to prove his consequence, be in the Scripture, or no. If they be, let him bring them forth. Many of them questionless are drawn out of Philosophy, or grounded upon human reasons. If they be not, the Minister which out of them infers his consequence, doth not deduce it out of the pure word, or (which is all one) proves not by consequence deduced out of the pure and only word, that the Catholic erreth, which was that he undertook; and moreover denieth his Confession of faith: for he draws his consequence jointly out of the word of God, and out of divers propositions which are not in holy write. Is not this to flinch from their word, 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 can perform.  
Behold a brief, and easy method to encounter all Ministers and Sectaries. Is it not obvious even for those, who are not students in divinity, to put it in practice? There needs no more but eyes to see, and to understand 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 means evidently perceive, that all the Ministers are abusers, and how the whole troup of Sectaries is misled? Yea I dare say double abusers. For first the Minister abuseth men, in that he promiseth by the pure word to show them that, which he would have them believe: next, that he will by the pure word lay open their errors pretended, and yet performeth neither the one, nor the other. Wherefore the Ministers promising in their 31. and 5. articles to perform them both, and yet effecting neither, as by the foresaid practice is made evident; are impostors, and double impostors: as this method, which every Catholic may use, doth apparently declare. And so I have fulfilled my promise, which was to lay down a short and easy method, by which all Catholics may evidently show that each Minister in all, and every point of his pretended religion, is an abuser, & consequently that all their followers are abused.  
This therefore is my advice to all Sectaries, to those especially which seek sincerely their Salvation. Your Confession promiseth you the pure word of God, and you suppose that, according to that promise, there is nothing in your articles of faith, which is not in the pure word; Practise this method, and you shall evidently, and easily perceive how you are abused. Place on the one side the Principal articles of your faith, which I have cited before. That original sin remains after Baptism as it is a fault. That jesus Christ is our only Advocate. That faith alone justifieth, and which is chief of all. That the B. Sacrament is a figure of the body of our Saviour, which is eaten by faith. Then over against each of these articles, set down the texts, which are cited in the margin for each of them (doubtless if you had any plain text of Scripture, which taught that which is in that articles, it would have been coated in the margin) & you shall clearly see, that the pure word, setting aside interpretations, and Ministerial consequences, hath not that which is in your article: neither is there required aught but your eyes, and skill to read, to see whether that be in the pure word or no. And that your Ministers preach, that the Scripture is easy, and that every one there may learn his own salvation; you understand I am sure signification of English: why then find you not in the pure word that, which the Ministers make you believe? Assure yourselves if you find it not, it is because it is not there. Confront therefore the place cited in the margin of the article, with the article, and you shall see how egregiously you are mocked. And that you may see this more manifestly, do this following. Writ in one line one article, or if it have many parts, one only clause of the same. And if you find any text of Scripture cited for that article, or piece thereof, writ in a second line the words of the text cited, under the other line. If you find no text cited (as in many places there is not) put under the first line a cipher; for that if there were any text to authorize that article, it would be cited. This being done, compare the first line with the second: If you find in the second line a cipher, you are clearly cozened. If you find a text of Scripture, see if that, being precisely taken without medley of some thing else (that is to say, you must understand; this signifieth; or the like;) contain that article proposed; if it do not, know that you are deceived. I myself have paralleled these articles with the texts alleged in the margin; take you but the like pains, and I will assure you that in steed of the pure word, you shall oft times find a cipher; other times in the text cited you shall not find one word of the article; and in brief you shall not find there one article, or entiere clause of those in Controversy between us. Behold how you are deluded.   

ARTICLES OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH OF the pretended reformed Churches, confronted with the pure word of holy writ; Where it is evidently showed, that the texts of Scripture, even in the Geneva Bible, cited in the margin of these articles, contain nothing of that, which those articles teach against the Catholic faith.  
which is A brief & easy means, by which every Caluinist may manifestly perceive how he is abused, and whereby each Catholic may show the same unto him.  
To save you the pains (deceived Countrymen) which I wished you to take, I have here confronted the articles of your faith controverted, with the places cited in the margin, after the fashion before set down, and have cited these texts according to the Geneva translation, Compare them with me beginning at the 24. article.  
In this article, these clauses following are set down without any text, cited in the margin, for proof of any of them; wherefore in steed of Scripture, I will give you under every clause for proof a cipher.  

Article 24.  
1. We hold that Purgatory is an Illusion.  
Proof. o.  
2. By the abuse and deceit of Satan, Monastical vows were introduced.  
Proof. o.  
3. Out of the same ware-howse proceeded Pilgrimages.  
Proof. o.  
4. Out of the same ware-howse was brought in Auricular Confession.  
Proof. o.  
5. Out of the same ware-howse sprang Indulgenees.  
Proof. o.  
6. Out of the same ware-howse proceeded all other things, by which we think to merit grace and salvation.  
Proof. o.  
7. We reject all others means, which men presume to have, to reconcile themselves to God, as derogatory from the death, and passion of jesus Christ.  
Proof. o.  
8. It is lawful for us to pray but only according to that form, which God set down in his word.  
Proof. o.  
In the 31. article you say. The estate of the Church in our times was interrupted, and hath failed; that God hath raised some after an extraordinary manner to renew the same, being ruinated and desolate.  
Proof. o.  
Behold how the Ministers, and their 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 unto you all these clauses to be believed, they prove 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 find more than a hundred clauses as well affirmatives, as negatives, for proof whereof there is no text coated, because in deed they have it not, judge then if you be abused or no.  
And who, I pray you, can in equity accuse another, unless he produce some law commanding, or prohibiting some thing violated by the party accused? Every accusation, commended to be truly an accusation, not a calumny, must be founded upon the breach of some law, and accompanied with it proofs. These Reformers do not only accuse, but making themselves judges, do condemn of Superstitions, forgery, and high treason against the divine Majesty, the holy Fathers, and us all beside in those 8. points set down (and in divers others which I omit) pronouncing their bloody sentence, by which they declare both them and us to be superstitious, deceivers, instruments of sathan in the promulgations of those devilish illusions rehearsed. This sentence pronounced, for execution of the same they have overthrown our Monasteries; profaned our holy places; and set fire on our Churches. Of what crime do they accuse us, do they condemn us? what divine law do they prove to have been violated by us? They neither prove, nor so much as cite any law, any letter of holy write, against which the holy Fathers & we have offended. And yet they accuse us, they condemn us. Shameless wretches! but yet withal impudent liars! They promise, not to behave themselves but only as instruments of the holy Scripture, and not to propose aught but that; And yet they pronounce the eight foresaid sentences, without citing one sole passage of the Scripture. See, o you sectaries, how palpably they abuse you. But to see this more clearly, and withal to take away from the Ministers all means to cirumvent you to your utter ruin.  
Consider with like attention that which ensueth. In the 5. article they would make you believe, that the pure word, which is contained in the books of holy Scripture, is the rule of all truth, and that nothing must be believed, but that which is in the pure word. This article is of great consequence; for reposing and grounding yourselves upon this, and not upon any other thing, you reject all the traditions of the Roman Church; you give your sentences of condemnation against us; you will not allow of neither Antiquity, nor Custom, nor Multitude, nor human wisdom, nor Sentences, nor Inhibitions, nor Edicts, nor Laws, nor councils, nor Visions, nor Miracles. And albeit all these make against your doctrine, you make no bones thereof, you scorn them all, saying that you will nothing but the pure Scripture, all the rest proceeds from men subject unto errors; and that all other things must be examined, ruled, and reform according to the same pure word. This article therefore is of great consequence: and with good reason, to be believed, aught to be found in the holy Scripture; which if the Ministers should frame in the force of their own brains, they deserve doubtless to be banished all honest company, as men impudently bold, which seek to make the world renounce all things abovesaid, for a proposition of their own invention; and contradict themselves: having before said, they would only carry themselves as the organ of the wholly Scripture. Let us therefore set down in one line first the article, then under that the text, cited in the margin for proof thereof.   

Article 5.  
The written word is the rule of all truth: or else, as you commonly say. Nothing is to be believed, but that which is in the written word. In the margin of this article you cite 4. texts for proof of the contents.  

1. Text.  
You shall not add any thing to the word which I command, nor take any thing from the same. Saith Moses to the people of Israel. Deuter. 4. Vers. 2.   

2. Text.  
That which I command you, that shall you do, neither shall you add any thing, nor diminish. Deut. 12. Vers. 32.  

Examen.  
Hear is not any word of the article in these passages, for you neither find (written word) nor (rule of all truth) which are the two terms of the article; wherefore this pure word doth not contain that, which the article affirmeth. Let us weigh it more exactly. 1. Moses' spoke unto the jews of that only, which he ordained, to wit of the judaical law, and of no other. 2. he spoke not of the written word, of which alone the article is, but universally of the word. 3. Albeit he spoke unto Christians, and of the only written word: have we increased the books of Moses? have we added aught unto them? 4. Think you that the Prophets composing new Scriptures, and joining them with the books of Moses, have infringed this precept? 5. if Moses forbidden to believe any thing but that, which he ordained; we must neither believe the Psalms of David, nor the other Prophets, nor the Gospel: for he ordained not that which these contain. Perceive you not how ridiculous a thing it is, to allege this text, to verify by the pure word your article? which saith, the written word is the rule if all truth. The same article is proved by an other passage. Galat. 1. Vers. 8.    

3. Text.  
Although we, or an Angel from heaven preach otherwise, then that which we have preached unto you, be he accursed.  

Examen.  
In this text I neither read (written word) nor (rule of all truth) which are the two terms of the article; wherefore the text hath not that, which the article teacheth. Nay it contains not one only word thereof, come to the examen. 1. Is there in the text any mention of the written word? of which only we dispute, and the article speaks of no other. 2. Who knoweth not that the Apocalypse was revealed, and writ after that epistle of S. Paul? and yet besides that, which S. Paul evangelized, it also must be believed. Or is he which preacheth, and believeth the Apocalypse accursed? Or rather is S. Paul accursed, who preached many things afterward, which are not in that epistle to the Galathians? who is there of so small capacity, 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 very opening of the epistle, crieth out against those, which together with the law of Christ, would join Circumcision against the doctrine of the Apostles. The words immediately going before, make the matter more clear. I marvel saith he to the Galat: 1. Vers. 6. 7.8. that leaving him, who hath called you unto the grace of Christ, you are so soon transferred unto an other Gospel: which is not another, unless there be some that trouble you, & will invert the Gospel of Christ: But although we, or an Angel from heaven preach to you otherwise then that, which we have preached to you, be he accursed. Is it not evident that S. Paul rejecteth 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 wit: That the written word is the rule of all truth.  
The last passage, cited for the foresaid article, is out of the Apocalypse 22. Vers. 18. in these words.    

4. Text.  
I testify to every one, hearing the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy City, and of these things that be written in this book.  
Neither do I read in this passage (written word of the entire Bible) of which only the Article entreats, nor (rule of all truth) wherefore the text saith not, that the pure word of the entire Bible is the rule of all truth, as the Article averreth, rather the text consents not in one only term with the article. Examine it. 1. Is it not manifest, that S. john spoke not but of the word contained in the Apocalypse? which the Ministers will not allow to be the rule of all truth; to what purpose then for proof 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. john said, that nothing must be added to that word of the Apocalypse in this sense, and after this Ministerial paraphrase (that nothing must be believed which is not therein contained) than he which should believe the Gospel, the Epistles of S. Paul, of S. john, and others, and the old testament, should be accursed. Where were the Ministers wits, think you, when to prove that nothing must be bleeved, but that which is in the Bible, they alleged this passage? 3. To add to the Apocalypse, is to thrust in something as part of that sacred book: do we do so? What frantic people are your Ministers? and you, o Caluinists? how grossly doth your Confession of faith abuse you, which treats you in such a fashion, as if you had not eyes to read, nor judgement to understand the signification of one pure text? How many Ministerial glosses are here wanting, to make these texts speak that, which this article contains? Let us go on.  
Whence have you, that the books of the old and new Testament are holy Scripture? how know you that these books are Canonical? By the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost, so you answer in the 4. article That he makes us decern them from other Ecclesiastical books. 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 reform by the same. For it is not the rule of this verity, and that of greatest consequence: to wit, that the books of the old and new Testament are canonical, and written by divine revelation. Again, to reject any book from the number of the Canonical (as for example you do reject that of Tobias, and admit the Gospel of S. Matthew) you guide not yourselves by this rule of the pure word, but, as you give 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 aught to baptise little infants? That we must not rebaptize heretics, which have been baptised in the name of the B. Trinity; that we must keep holy sunday, and not saturday; you believe that the Mother of God remained always a virgin. Notwithstanding you find not one text of Scripture, to justify any of these points; why do you then contradict yourselves 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 have learned either 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 faithful men, which shall be fit to teach others also. Do not you perceive a divine 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 divine as those, which are set down in writing? I omit many other authorities to this purpose, by the way only citing these, for that it is not my intent to justify, and prove unto you in this treatise that, which we believe. My only scope is to show unto you, that you are abused; and that the pure word teacheth no such thing, as your articles report. This have I performed in this article, which I have examined with the texts cited for the same; for the Article saith, that the written word is the rule of all truth; and in the passages alleged, we neither read written word, nor the rule of all truth. Wherefore they have not that which the article saith, otherwise, knowing to read, we should see it there. For conclusion hereof 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 us, which are in great number. Revew them, and in so many points acknowledge yourselves deceived.  
I have at large examined this article, aswell for that, as hath been showed, it is of greatest importance; as also for that the falsehood thereof being discovered, the Ministers are bereaved of the most efficacious, and ordinary means they had to defend themselves, in these conflicts; for they always fly for refuge to this Proposition, That nothing must be believed, bus that which is in the Scripture Their custom is to question us, where find you Purgatory in the Scripture? or the real presence of the body of jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Altar etc. For, say they, if it be not there, it is superstition to believe it. And by this means, in am of reforming our pretended abuses by the pure word, they cunningly engage us to prove our faith. A wily devise. Catholics look unto their fingers, and be sure that when they make you such questions, you take not upon you to be disputants: but although you have many authorities, yet bring no place of Scripture to justify your cause. Mark well the wiliness of the Adversaries. They are bound by their .31. article to reform us, and by their. 5. to do it by the pure word: by this disguise and fair appearance drawing many to their part. But their practice is after another fashion. For knowing well that they are never able to perform that, which they have bound themselves unto, to disengage themselves from this obligation, by a fine devise they endeavour to make us the plaintiffs, questioning us after the fashion aforesaid. And if in answer of their questions, you bring some express texts for yourself, behold, by this the Minister hath got his neck out of the collar, and having before hand quit himself of all Anquity, Fathers, Miracles etc. he will turn of the Scripture at his own pleasure, and in fine delude you, though you have ten clear texts for your purpose: Of this we have daily experience. Handle him in an other fashion. You must never let him change his coat. He is obliged by the Confession of his faith to show you by the pure word your errors; hold him to it there to his testimonies of the pure word, which must set down your pretended errors; Do but this, and I warrant you the Minister will quickly be brought upon his knees; and have a care you release him not, but keep him down. But how? urge him still with this, that he show you some express text of Scripture which saith, That there is no Purgatory; or That, the body of jesus Christ is not in the Eucharist. It is his charge to do it, who hath pawned his word to show us by the pure word our errors. But if he hope to scape the torture by this sleight, saying that he sufficiently showeth our error in that (as he saith) we cannot show by the Scripture Purgatory, or the real presence: Have a care, that though you have many clear texts on your side, bring none, make not yourselves Plaintiffs, for so he will be delivered from the rack; but press him eagerly that he shw you that he promised, or at least, that nothing must be believed but that, which is in the Scripture (for by this maxim alone doth he argue you of error) And then that after he hath done this, you will produce your places. Not being able to show this proposition in the whole Scripture (as by the precedent examen I have showed he cannot) he is driven to a non plus, nor hath he any means to scape away. Thus shall you show briefly & evidently, that their 31. and 5. articles are false, which promised to reform our pretended abuses by the pure word, and cannot do it: And that the Mimisters are egregious impostors, which under such a fair pretext have seduced so many thousands of souls. And you of the pretended religion, put but your Ministers to this trial, and you will see them presently fall speechless, and yourselves apparently abused.  
Before we pass any farther, I cannot omit to examine briefly one clause of the 24. article, which I before let pass, for that for it there is cited in the margin a text, which is not done in the other clauses.  
An other clause of the 24. article.  Out of the ware-howse of the devil, proceed the forbidding to marry, and the free use of meats, and the ceremonious observation of some days.  

Text.  
In the last times certain shalt departed from the faith, attending to spirits of errors, forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from meats, which God created for the faithful, to receive them with thanks giving, for every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected. 1. Timoth. 4. Vers. 3.  

Examen.  
By this clause the Article seems to reprehend the Catholicque Church, but wrongfully. For. 1. she forbids not to marry, otherwise no Catholic could be married, but that he must break the precept of the Church; she only causeth that to be kept, which God in his Scriptures commandeth: to wit, that men fulfil their vows, and for this cause that Priests, and others which have vowed chastity, and continency, observe their vows, whereby it followeth that they may not marry. Neither doth the text alleged say aught to the contrary. 2. I admire the little judgement of the Ministers; do they think that the Physicians commanding their patients to abstain from some meats for a time to recover their health, do go against the Apostle, and teach a devilish doctrine?  
I am more amazed at the impudence of these men, who reading the prohibition of some meats made by the Apostles, gathered together in the 1. Council. Act. 15. vers. 28. in these words It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you, than these necessary things. Among other things that you abstain from blood 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 devil proceedeth the prohition of some meats; terming hereby the holy Ghost sathan, and the first sacred Council of the Apostles, the ware-howse of the devil, and their prohibition an abuse and illusion. S. Paul, which assisted at that sacred Council, is far of from censuring in that manner that precept, which he with the rest had decreed to abstain from certain meats. But foreseing that there would come heretics, that would forbid marriage as a thing in itself unlawful, and invented by the devil; and some meats as nought in themselves and of their own nature (so did the Maniche, Martion and Tatian, as S. Augustine, with others recounteth) these the Apostle condemneth. The Church is far distant from this error. Thus do S. Augustine, S. Chrisostome, S. Hierome, and S. Ambrose expound this place; and the reason which the Apostle bringeth for his condemnation contained in these words, every creature of God is good, doth authorize the same. And it belongs to the Minister, who is plaintiff, to prove the contrary. Finally, the Church doth not absolutely command to abstain from meats, for it forbiddeth not fish, whice is meat; nor at all times, but only certain particular meats, and at certain times; which thing the Apostle reprehends not, who speaketh of these, who absolutely command to abstain from meats, and that without limitation to any times. 3. for the proof of the 3. clause of the observation of days, the article hath cited no text, in that therefore it deceiveth.  
An other clause of the 24. article.  JESUS CHRIST is given us for the sole Advocate: All that which men have imagined about the intercession of Saints departed, is nought else but an abuse and deceit of Satan.  

Examen.  
The only point of controversy between us in the first clause of this article, is of the word (sole) for thes two texts are cited in margin, for the second clause nothing, the first in the 1. Timoth. 2.5.    

Text.  
There is one only God, and one only mediator between God and men, man JESUS CHRIST.  

Examen.  
I will set down the text entirely, to make it more clear that he saith not that, which the article teacheth: behold the Apostles words.  God will that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of truth, for there is one only God, and one only mediator between God and men, man JESUS CHRIST who gave himself for reedmption of all. 
I find not in this passage alleged the terms (of Advocate, of intercession) of which we debate, neither find I that Saints are shut out from that office of Advocate, as saith the article. And if the Minister say that the name of mediator, as S. Paul understands it, is the same with Advocate; I answer first, that the Minister, or rather his Confession of faith, must prove that the name of mediator is taken for mediator, and Advocate by intercession, and not for mediator and Advocate by redemption; He I say must prove this, and that by the pure word alone, otherwise the place alleged consenteth not with the Confession of faith, neither doth it reject the intercession of saints. 2. I make answer (which by the place entirely cited doth appear) that S. Paul spoke of one Mediator (they are the Apostles own words) who hath given himself a redemption for all: of such a Mediator he saith that he is one alone, neither do the Catholics teach that the Saints are such mediators. This passage therefore proves nothing against Catholics, neither doth it say that JESUS CHRIST is given us for our sole Advocate, nor that to believe the intercession of Saints is an abuse, and deceit of the devil. ●. This word (sole) hath been added by the Ministers in the Geneva Bible for it is neither in the Greek nor Latin text: and S. Paul to the Galat. 3. calleth Moses' Mediator.  
The second passage, alleged for this clause in their Confession, is in the 1. epistle of S. john. 2. Vers. 1.2.    

2. Text.  
These things I write unto you, that you sin not. But & if any one sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, JESUS Christ the just: for he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only; but also for those of the whole world.  

Examen.  
Is it not manifest, that he speaketh not of every Advocate, but of an Advocate which is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, to wit by the effusion of his blood? The catholics hold not any other such Advocate, but our Saviour. To what purpose then is it to bring this passage, which toucheth not that which is in controversy? And mark well that it is the Ministers part, who is Plaintiff, to show that the name of Advocate is here taken for any intercessor, even him, who is not a propitiation for the sins of the world by his passion; and all this by the pure word. 2. Besides, if the Minister will pertinaciously understand by the name of Advocate him, who is not a propitiation for the sins of the world which is of his own head without the pure word, yea against the pure word alleged.) This word only) of which we only strive, not being in this text, this place vere●eth not this article that JESUS Christ only Advocate.  
Let us come to the 20. Article.  
These are the words.     

Article. 20.  
We believe that we are made partakers of that justice (to wit Christian) by faith alone.  
Texts cited in the Margin of this Article.  
Man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. Rom. 3. Vers. 28.  
Man is not justified by the works of the Law, but only by the faith of JESUS Christ. Galat. 2. Vers. 16.  
Before faith came we were kept under the la, shut up unto that faith which was to be revealed. Therefore the law was our Pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but when that faith is come now we are not under a Pedagogue Galat. 3. Vers. 23.  

Examen.  
I read not one word, in all these texts, of the works of Christian faith, of which alone, and of no others we speak, and hold necessary to justification. It is manifest that this pure word alleged, speaketh of works of the judaical religion, styled commonly by S. Paul by the name of the Law, and not of the works of Christian Religion. These passages therefore say only, that Christian faith without Circumcision, and other ceremonies of the jews, doth justify. Who denieth this? is this all one, or as much as to say that Christian faith, without the works, which proceed from the said faith in JESUS Christ, as is penance, doth justify? Which is that the article teacheth. Wherefore this pure word seconds not that which the article sayeth. I am amazed at the impudence, or ignorance of the Ministers: S. Paul discoursing so largely in five whole chapters of that epistle to the Galathians, against those which would join with Christian faith Circumcision, and other works of judaisme; and the very titles of those chapters in the Geneva translation noting the same: yet the adversaries will allege these against them, who hold that Christian works are necessary to justification. Open but the epistle, and thou wilt detest such abusers; the whole epistle showeth that which I say. It shall suffice for proof hereof to cite the words of the. 5. chapter. 2. verse. Behold I tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing, and I testify again to every man circumciding himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law; you are evacuated from Christ, that are justified in the law. You are fallen from grace, for we by faith expect the hope of justice. In JESUS Christ neither circumcision availeth aught, vor prepuce, but faith working by charity. Do not you falsify? doth not S. Paul teach in these last words the contrary to your article? The Apostle opposeth Christian Religion, which is called faith in Christ, unto the judaical religion, which is named the law; and teacheth that this later is not necessary to justification, but that the former sufficeth, and doth not oppose Christian faith to Christian works. The last text cited for the foresaid article, hath as little energy as the precedents. it is this of S. john 3. Vers. 15.16.  As Moses exalted the Serpent in the desert, so must the son of man be exalted, that every one which believeth in him, perish not, but may have life everlasting. For so God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that every one that believeth in him, perish not, but have life everlasting. 
The word (only) of which only is our variance, and which is in your article, teaching that faith only justifieth, is not in this text: wherefore this, unless you add thereto the word (only) makes nothing to your purpose; and how often doth this speech, to believe in JESUS Christ, signify to profess the Gospel, and live according to the same? for faith, saith S. james in the 1. chapter 17. verse. If it have not works is dead. Doth not S. Paul. Galat. 5. Vers. 6. say that that which justifieth is faith, working by charity? Doth not our Saviour pronounce this sentence; if thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments? But I am not bound to prove, that faith alone without Christian works doth not justify, it is you that are engaged to prove by the pure word, that that alone doth justify; alone, I say, for of that alone do we dispute. In the 11. article it is said that.    

Article 11.  
Original sin after Baptism is still sin, as it is a fault; howbeit the condemnation thereof is taken away in the children of God, who of his merciful goodness doth not impute it unto them.  
In proof of this is alleged one only place in the margin. Rom. 7. Vers. 7.  

Text.  
What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbidden, but sin I did not know, but by the law, for concupiscence I knew not, unless the la did say, thou shalt not covet.  

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 us in this point. Go on.  
Let us examine the 36. and 37. articles, which speak of the B. Sacrament: which since it is obscurely spoken of, for more perspicuity I will borrow somewhat out of your Catechism.  
The 1. clause of the 36. article.  We testify that the Supper is a testimony of the unity, which we have with JESUS Christ; whose body (you say in your Catechism in the 53. lesson or Sunday) is not included under the bread, nor his blood within the chalice, that we must not seek him in these corruptible elements. For proof you allege this text.   

Text.  
The cup of benediction which we do bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we do break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for being many, we are one only bread, and one only body, for we all partake of one only bread. 1. Corinth. 10. Vers. 16.17.  

Examen.  
I read not in this text (testimony of the unity with JESUS Christ) the text therefore agrees not with the article. But I read communion of blood, communion of body, which is a different matter from testimony of unity with JESUS Christ, and showeth that the body of JESUS Christ may be found in these corruptible elements, under 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 blood of JESUS Christ, serveth no less for the soul to eat and drink, than bread and wine doth for the body. These Articles say not in express terms that the body of JESUS Christ is not in the Eucharist to cover with obscurity their error; to disperse this darkness I must borrow some light from their Catechism in the 53. lesson. we must not (saith it) understand that the body is enclosed within the bread, nor the blood within the chalice; but contrariwise, to have the verity of this sacrament, we must lift up our hearts on high to heaven, where JESUS Christ is, and not seek him in these corruptible elements. For this clause you cite two texts.    

1. Text.  
I am the living bread, that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. john. 6. Vers. 51.  

Examen.  
First I read not in this text (signs which testify) but this expressly, that Christ is the living bread, not common bread made of flower, and baked; but which is his flesh, which saith he, I will give for the life of the world; As also in the giving of it he said, Take, This is my body, which shallbe given for you. Was it a sign, or figure of his body, which was nailed one the cross: was it not his proper body? This clause than is false. 2. The ministers, who have promised to propose nothing but the pure Scripture, how do they thrust upon us this clause so weighty, The body of JESUS Christ is not contained, and included within the bread, nor the blood etc. Without any written word? see their fraud, and how well they keep their word in a matter of greatest moment.    

2. Text.  
JESUS took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you; do this in commemoration of me. In like manner after supper he took the cup saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, this do ye, as often as you shall drink thereof in remembrance of me. 1. Corinth. 11. Vers. 24.  

Examen.  
Who can find out in this text. Signs which testify; figure; sign of the body of JESUS Christ; which is not in the bread, nor the blood in the chalice? all which the article teacheth. The text than helps them nothing; nay how could the text more clearly reject the adversaries belief, which is that the body is not under the bread nor the blood within the chalice. Let the calvinists consider if they be abused or no: The Ministers have entered bonds to show by the pure word, That the supper is a sign which tesstifieth, a figure of the body of our saviour, which is not under the bread, and of the blood which is not within the chalice: and to cancel their obligations, they bring for payment this text of Scripture, in which (being it is written down) if you read it not, either you want your sight, or they deceive you. Rather see you not the contrary? then say they are doubled jugglers.  
An other clause of that Article.  
After affirming that JESUS Christ doth nourish, and quicken us with the substance of his body, and of his blood, that which the Catholics believe also; they add, (in which we disagree) without alleging any text for the same (wherefore put underneath for proof a cipher as before.)  
1. We hold notwithstanding, that this is done spiritually.  
Proof. o.  
2. The supper is a figure of the body, or, In the supper is figured the body of JESUS Christ.  
Proof. o.  
3. Because the mystery of this supper is celestial, it cannot be taken but by faith, or to use their vulgar phrase, by the mouth of faith: Those which bring with them a pure faith as a vessel, receive truly that which the signs testify; commonly they say, That in the supper is eaten the body of JESUS Christ by the mouth of faith and in the 53. Sunday of their Catechism, it is said, to have the verity of the Sacrament, we must lift up our hearts to heaven where it is.  
Proof. o.  
Behold many articles, and of great consequence proved by a cipher. Behold how you are abused. The Ministers make you believe all this, not being able to show for it any text of Scripture. The consequence will be, that your supper is purely their own invention: This by your principles I show. For you have no pure texts which say that, which you affirmatively believe of the supper, of which you hold those three things aforesaid principally. It is figure etc. that by the mouth of faith the body eateh etc. you should distinctly set down that, which of our faith you deny in this matter, from that which therein you positively believe: for how be it that we did err (of which I have showed the contrary) and that your negative propositions JESUS Christ is not in the Eucharist, and the like were true; it followeth not that that, which you affirmatively believe, most needs be true; and that you err not therein. Because one goeth wrong one way, is he, which takes an other, certain to go right? may not both be out of their way? Examine therefore your assertions, and you find not any show of texts that teach, that the supper is a figure of the body etc. nor which speak of the mouth of faith. Consequently your whole supper is a human invention. Which being so, in my opinion in the eating a good capon, or a cock, you may more easily remember the death of the son 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 & memory, then of a piece of bread; which is no more holy, then that you eat commonly at your table.  
It may be that some Calvinist, thinking himself better skilled in the Scriptures, than the Ministers which composed the Confession of faith, and cited for proof thereof those sacred texts they judged most favourable, will urge, to prove the supper to be a figure, that, which our Saviour said john. 6. Vers. 63. It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words which I speak unto you are spirit and life. For awnswere. 1. You must understand, that your Ministers are at variance, whether in the 6. of S. john any thing be spoken of the supper. Caluin in the fourth book of his Instit. cap. 17. §. 33. Kemnicius, and Zuinglius deny it. How then will you establish this firm article of your faith upon so weak a foundation, doubted of by these of your own faction? How can you serve yourselves of that passage against us, either for your figure, or for your Spiritually? 2. I read not in this text figure: and if any one say that spirit and figure is all one; I may not believe him without his proof, and that by the pure Scripture. And who perceives not how ridiculous this devise is? the devils are spirits, are they figures? the Angels and our souls are spirits? are they also figures? God himself is he not a most pure spirit? is he a figure? it belongs not to me to explicate this place. I only show that the pure word saith not that, which the article containeth, & consequently the Ministers mock us. Yet by the way, know that the sense of this text is, that our Saviour would not give us to eat his flesh dead, and in pieces (as we eat of the ordinary flesh, as the Capharnaites imagined) to eat of flesh in this manner, proffitteth nothing to salvation; but flesh animated by his spirit, and quickened by his divine life: in this manner we eat it. In which fashion we cannot eat any other flesh, for it must first be dead, before it nourish us. Remember finally that I do not by this Scripture prove my faith, this sufficeth me, that in these words you read not either figure of body, or that we hold that it is done spiritually, in such manner that the body is not contained there, this, I say, sufficeth to make you know you are misledd. For since you read it not, (which doubtless if it were there, you might) the pure word warranteth not that which this article containeth.  
Behold Sir the art, which in this letter I promised to discover unto you: is it not a rare & worthy hunting-game? have you ere this seen such coursing? F. Veron in teaching it me, told me that, which I know will give it no small lustre in your eye: that he received the origine, and substance thereof from the R.F. Gontery, which famous hunter was the author, and inventor of this so efficacious, and facile sport; who also used no other in his disputes a-against the Ministers, judging this the best, and most powerful of all. And you know well, that that fearful scourge of the Heretic is most expert in these combats 〈◊〉 being so beaten a soldier in those wars, each prudent man will make a great esteem of his advise herein. He hath put to slight the Ministers of Dieppe, of Caen, of Sedan etc. and among the rest some Allmaines he found at Tourlac. But how? Truly by no other means but this, by the pure Scripture alone, and that after the Geneva Translation, by the practice before set down: Saving that he bridled them in more shortly, for he never suffered them in any point debated, to proceed by consequences, which they said they would deduce out of the Scripture, unless they first subscribed, that they could not enter combat with us by the pure written word.  
I should now send you the relation promised of this Conference, between F. Veron, and the Minister Hucher, but because the printer, by reason of the great frosts could not dispatch the same so soon, as I hoped; not to keep you wholly in suspense, I send you the summary thereof, together with the means to buckle with the Sectaries. The whole Conference is under the press, you shall have it within eight days; join it to this fashion of hunting which I now send you, for in that you will see the practice of this kind of chase, used by the Father in this conflict. Hear will you also see, by this so successful and remarkable victory, the efficacy of this art. It is scarcely possible to put a man to more confusion, than the Minister was in. The fame of this victory struck the sectaries to the heart. Seeing the title of this epistle before it was printed, they were much offended at it, but all parts thereof are easily justified, by the Acts of the Conference signed. Behold out of them the Ministers own words. He having promised to show by the pure word, that JESUS Christ is not in the Eucharist, after a little pressing said; The truth is, that these words (the body of JESUS Christ is not in the Eucharist) are not in the Scripture. And after being urged a little harder, he confessed beside twice, before all the assembly, that he had not any text in Scripture, which, setting aside all consequences, contained formally and expressly the sense of this proposition. JESUS Christ is not in the Eucharist, which notwithstanding he before undertook to show by the pure word; and so to reform the jesuite in his error. Is not this as much as to confess, that he could not by the pure word reform us in this point? is not this to forsake it? is not this to renounce the office and exercise of a reformer? think you these fits proceed from a merry heart? wherefore with reason the epistle bears for title The Minister of Amiens constrained to renounce the pure word of holy write: He stayed so long dumb, and in presence of so many persons, and of such quality, that there is no tergiversation: and refused so long time in the third session, to come to the proof of that, in which the day before he was struck speechless, or also to deal in any other point; that the flight is as evident, as the day light. Wherefore the epistle hath right unto his title. Within few days you shall see the narration at large, well subscribed and signed; in the mean time notwithstanding, for justification of the summary thereof, set down in the beginning of this letter, I have procured these subscriptions following.      

Subscriptions of the Conference, the sum whereof is contained in the beginning of this letter.  
WE the subsigned Gentlemen of the Duke of Longueville, being present with our said Lord at the Conferences, of which the narration is before set down, do testify that they have truly passed as it is declared. Given at Amiens the 12. of February. 1615.  
Pelletot, Foucaucourt, Le chevalier de Moyencourt, Gondreville, Tannere, Goustimenil, Courtavenel.   

Certain points collected out of this practice, and other experiences of this kind, reduced to six heads, for the more wary proceeding of Catholics with Sectaries of our age.  
THE 1. point. Seeing that our new Sectaries do suppose us Catholics to be deceived, in our belief, and that they are sent to reform us by the only written word of Scripture, ere the Catholic enter into conference with any Sectary, let him first demand what he understandeth by the only written word of Scripture: whither the Old and new Testament, with all the parts of each both, as we Catholics do; or else what? Then let the Catholic request the Sectary to prove by the only written word, as he took upon him, that the whole Bible, or such parcels as he doth admit for holy Scripture, or reject, are in deed, or at not holy Scripture. He cannot do it; but by Tradition, and by the Catholic Church her authority.  
The 2. is. No Catholic conferring, must seek to prove our opinions, which the Sectaries disallow of; for we are in possession, and defendants, not plainetifes.  
The 3. is. The Catholic must not in any case permit the Sectary to bring any proof whatsoever, other than the only written word of Scripture, and this also without any interpretation, gloze, or consequence of his own brain.  
The 4. is Let not the Catholic suffer his Adversary to leap from pale to perch, and from one Controversy to another, until he be convinced of error in his belief, and this by the only written word.  
The 5. is. The Sectary not proving by the only written word, that which he promised, as not able to perform it; the Catholic must constrain either him, or some else there present, to subscribe that he could not prove what he undertook, in such sort, as he ought to have done.  
The 6. and last is. The Catholic must confer, and consider with attention the places of Scripture, alleged by Sectaries to disprove our doctrine; for ordinarily they make no more to the purpose, then appear to a nut. For example to prove that we must believe the only written word: 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 us, or for them. For by the first and second, we should, according to the sense of our adversaries, believe nought else, but that which is in the Deuteronomie; by the third, nothing but that epistle of S. Paul; by the last, nought else but the Apocalypse. See their madness, and foolery, and look to their water.