Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	tradition_n	word_n	write_a	3,323	5	10.7817	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14357	M. le Hucher minister of Amyens in France compelled to fly from the pure word of holy write; strucke dumme; and made to runne away Vppon the subiect of the B. Sacrament of the altar. By F. Francis Veron of the Society of Iesus, encountring him with the Bible of Geneua only. In the presence of the Duke de Longueuille. VVith a briefe and easie meanes, by which each Catholike may, in like manner, put to flight any minister or sectarie. Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the sayd Dukes gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, gentleman of the Kings game.; Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. English	Véron, François, 1575-1649.; Catcher, Edward, 1584?-1624?	1616 (1616)	STC 24675.5; ESTC S107356	29,473	96

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

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

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 shal be 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 Subscriptions of the Conference the summe vvherof is contained in the beginning of this letter VVEE the subsigned Gentlemen of the Duke of Longueuille being present with our said Lord at the Conferences of which the narration is before set downe do testifie that they haue truly passed as it is declared Giuen at Amyens the 12. of February 1615. Pelletot Foucaucourt Le Cheualier de Moyencourt Gondreuille Tannere Goustimenil Courtauenel Certaine poincts collected out of this practise and other experiences of this kind reduced to six heads for the more warie proceeding of Catholiques with Sectaries of our age THE 1. poinct Seeing that our new Sectaries doe suppose vs Catholiques to be deceaued in our beleefe and that they ar sent to reforme vs by the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture er the Catholique enter into conference with anie Sectarie let him first demaund what he vnderstandeth by the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture whither the Old and new Testament with all the parts of eche both as we Catholiques doe or els what Then let the Catholique request the Sectarie to proue by the onlie vvritten vvord as he tooke vppon him that the whole Bible or such parcels as he doth admit for holie Scripture or reiect ar in deede or at not holy Scripture He cannot doe it but by Tradition and by the Catholique Church her authoritie The 2. is No Catholique conferring must seeke to proue our opinions which the Sectaries disalowe of for we ar in possession and defendants not plainetifes The 3. is The Catholique must not in any case permit the Sectarie to bring anie proofe whatsoeuer other then the onlie vvritten vvord of Scripture and this also without anie interpretation glose or consequence of his owne braine The 4. is Let not the Catholique suffer his Aduersary to leape from pale to pearch and from one Controuersie to another vntill he be conuinced of errour in his beleefe and this by the onlie vvritten vvord The 5. is The Sectarie not proouing by the onlie vvritten vvord that which he promised as not able to performe it the Catholique must constraine ether him or some els there present to subscribe that he could not prooue what he vndertooke in such sort as he ought to haue donne The 6. and last is The Catholique must confer and consider with attention the places of Scripture alledged by Sectaries to disproue our doctrine for ordinarilie they make no more to the purpose then appeare to a nut For example to prooue that vve must beleeue the onlie vvritten vvord they bring forth these places Deuter 4. v. 2. Deuter. 12. v. 32. Galat. 1. v. 8. Apocalip 22. v. 18. which make nothing against vs or for them For by the first and second we should according to the sense of our aduersaries beleeue nought els but that which is in the Deuteronomie by the third nothing but that epistle of S. Paul by the last nought els but the Apocalipse See theire madnes and foolery and looke to theire water