would say c. or this is the meaning of such a Text c. but it sufficeth for vs to presse only the most obuious familiar and literall sense of the said Texts Now to that second part of the former Obiection where it is vrged that the Catholike insisting in Proofes drawne from Philosophie or from humane authorities of the Pope Fathers Councels and the like stands obnoxious to the same inconueniences whereunto the Protestant by vrgeing proofes of like nature is iudged in this discourse to runne I answere to this first that seeing the Catholike notwithstanding all due reuerence and honour to the Scripture acknowledgeth not the Scripture to be the sole rule or square of Faith that therefore hee may seeke to proue his articles from other testimonies then only Scripture Secondly I say that the Catholike beleeueth not any point as an article of faith because it receiueth it proofe from humane authorities since they are holden as morall inducements only of faith the Church of God being the Propounder of such diuine Mysteries and the reuelation of them made by God the true Formall and last Cause of our beliefe of them Lastly I answere that the supreme Bishop or generall Councell from whom the Catholike drawes his authoritie are not simply humane authorities but withall diuine and supernaturall Since the one is the head of the Church the other the mysticall body of Christ to both which himselfe hath (q) Mat. 16. 1. Tim. 3. giuen infallible assistance in points touching Mans saluation and hath (r) Mat. 18. threatned that they who finally shall denie this assistance shall neuer enter into the spirituall Canaan And thus much touching the solution of the former obiection Hitherto wee haue discoursed of the Method which is to be obserued by an vnexperienced Catholike with a ready and prepared Protestant Scripturist where if we deeply weigh what can be the last hope of such a Disputation we shall find that the finall resolution of all would runne to this point to wit to know what credit and affiance is to be giuen to certayne exorbitant constructions of Scripture forged against all true contexture of the passages themselues and crossed by the reuerent Antiquitie of the purest Ages by which course the Protestant stands no lesse chargeable in beleeuing of errours then in not beleeuing the truth So as this must be in all likelihood the issue of all for so long as the Protestant Minister perseuers in alleaging of Scripture so long he expects that we should reuerently entertayne that sense and construction of it which his worthy-selfe vouchsafeth with wonderfull pertinacie of iudgement the very Crisis of all Hereticall disease to impose vpon it thus making himselfe in the end sole Iudge both of the Scripture and of all Controuersies from thence to be proued For to admit our expositions of the Scripture he scornes solemnely affirming that it were openly to patronize superstition to follow the iudgements of the ancient Fathers in their interpreting of it he is no more willing since he is content to charge and insimulate though truly the said Fathers within the defending of our supposed errours And hence it is that diuers of our Aduersaries haue disgorged out of their impure stomachs most Serpentine and venimous speeches against those Lamps of Gods Church And answerably hereto we finde Luther the right hand of Satan thus to belch forth in his Inuectiues against the Fathers of the Primitiue Church saying (Å¿) Tom. 2. Wittenberg An. 1551. l. de serm arbitr p. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life time and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertayning to the Church Thus Luther Doctor Whitaker saith (t) Cont. Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion is a patched Couerlit of the Fathers errours sewed together The pretended Archbishop of Canterbury (u) In his defence to the answere of the Admonit p. 473. How greatly were almost all the Bishops of the Greeke Church and Latine also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free-will of Merit of Inuocation of Saints and such like Beza (x) Epist Theol. epist 1. p. 5. Itaque dicere nec immerito c. I haue been accustomed to say and I thinke not without iust cause that comparing our times with the ages next to the Apostles we may affirme that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and we more knowledge and lesse conscience So Beza Melancton (y) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the iustice of Faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar Worships Finally (z) L. de notis p. 476. Peter Martyr speaking of our Catholike doctrines thus saith So long as wee doe insist vpon Councels and Fathers wee shall be alwayes conuersant in the same Errours But who is more desirous to see at large how the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are first confessed by Protestants to teach euery particular article of our Catholike and Roman Faith Secondly reiected by the Protestants for teaching such doctrines Thirdly abusiuely alleaged by the Protestants for the more debasing of the said Fathers let him peruse (a) viz. tract 1. and 2. throughout that most exquisite and excellent Worke the very scourge of our moderne Heretikes stiled The Protestants Apologie of the Roman Church from which I acknowledge that I haue discerped these last few testimonies In this manner now you see wee find not only Vertue Learning and Antiquitie to be most shamefully traduced by Vice Ignorance and Innouation but also our selues consequently by reason of our refuge made to the Fathers Commentaries for the exposition of the Scripture to bee mightily wronged by our Aduersaries as if vnder the pretext of Antiquitie wee laboured to introduce Noueltie Now from all this it necessarily followeth that in the rigid censure of these seuen Iudges the ancient Fathers those Champions I meane of the true Israelites against the wicked Philistians whose pennes were peculiarly guided by God to the pursuite and profligations of future Heresies did most foulely contaminate and defile the beautie of the holy Scripture with their erroneous Commentaries since they beleeued nothing but what as they thought was warrantable at least not repugnant to those diuine writings thus distilling by their misconstruction of it to vse our Aduersaries owne phraze our Superstitious and Babylonian Religion But since it importeth much to the picking out of the true sense of Scripture alleaged by the Protestant against vs and consequently to the drift of this small Treatise to shew whether it is more probable that the Fathers whose ioynt interpretation of Scripture is euer coincident and conspires with ours should rather not erre in their exposition of it then our nouelizing Sectaries therefore I will more largely set downe which shall serue as the Catastrophe to close vp
KEEPE YOVR TEXT OR A short Discourse wherein is sett downe a Method to instruct how a Catholike though but competently learned may defend his Fayth against the most learned Protestant that is if so the Protestant will tye himselfe to his owne Principle and Doctrine in keeping himselfe to the Text of the Scripture Composed by a Catholike Priest Vincent Lyrinens cont Haeres Si quis interroget quempiam Haereticorum vnde probas vnde doces hoc Statim ille Scriptum est enim Tollentem Extollit It crowneth the carrier 1619. AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader GOOD READER Thou mayst vnderstand that some yeeres past there was printed a little English translation out of French concerning a Conference in France betweene a Father of the Societie and a Minister of Amiens wherein the learned Iesuite by tying the Minister to his owne principle of prouing the Points controuerted from the written Word alone did in the presence of many mightily confound the Minister This short English translation as experience hath shewed hath wrought much good vpon diuers But being aduertized that the Copyes of it are almost spent partly by losse of many and partly otherwise Therefore I haue here taken some small paynes to set downe in a short Discourse the said Method in effect holden in dispute by the former Iesuite but in seuerall points enlarged altered and moulded anew For omitting the French Confession of Fayth as being different in many articles from the doctrine of our English Protestants whereunto the former English Translation by discussing seuerall points of Faith there maintayned had speciall reference I haue first premised certayne obseruations for the better conceiuing of the Method here prescribed Secondly the Method it selfe of answering is more enlarged Thirdly where the Minister in the foresaid Conference much relyed vpon conference of Scripture it is here shewed that conference of Scripture euen by the acknowledgment of diuers learned Protestants is altogether insufficient for proofe of any Article Fourthly the Argument is here fully answered which may seeme to be taken by retorting vpon vs the Method here practized when we vndertake the Opponents part and office against the Protestant Fiftly whereas in alleaging of only Scripture the sole drift of the Protestants is to appeale to their owne interpretation of it reiecting herein the interpretation of the Primitiue Church therefore I haue here alleaged the iudgements of diuers most eminent Protestants accordingly condemning the Primitiue Fathers of flat Papistrie and consequently of their supposed false constructions giuen with vs of the Scripture Sixtly and lastly here are presented to the Reader certayne forcible arguments of Credibilitie priuiledging the Fathers aboue the Protestants in interpreting Gods sacred written Word all which seuerall passages are wanting in the foresaid English Translation And thus Christian Reader farewell and vse this my small labour to the spirituall benefit of thy Soule KEEPE YOVR TEXT A Discourse wherein is set downe a Method to instruct how a Catholike though but competently learned may defend his Religion against any learned Protestant so that the Protestant will tye himselfe to his owne Principle in keeping himselfe to the Text of the Scripture IT is too well knowne that Luther whose fall the fall of the starre in the (a) c. 9. Apocalyps may seeme to a dumbrate had no sooner by his defection from the Catholike faith endeuoured to ouerthrow the Roman Church but that there instantly was erected a new Church no no Church which brookes Innouation and Noueltie yet so reputed and after graced with the title of the Protestants Church This Church indeed this broken troupe of some few scattered and branded souldiers forsaking the ensigne of our Lord Iesus sweet Iesus doe they thus remunerate thy corporal death suffered to expiate the guilt of their eternall death labouring to iustifie her iniustifiable doctrine by declining all other proofs (b) 50. Luther in comment c. 1. ad Galat. Brent Prolog c. de Tradit Caluin l. 4. Instit c. 8. §. 8. Kemnit Examen Concil Trid. sâ—ss 4. made sole recourse to the sacred Scriptures so Malefactors flye to holy places for Sanctuarie where diuorcing the letter from the sense shee did so paraphraze the same with her adulterate Scholies and Expositions as that no Heresie so crosse to the Vnitie of Christian faith which to a vulgar eye might not seeme to be proseminated and sprung from thence Nor content herewith but further shee proceeded for Man once finally leauing God precipitates himselfe into an Abysme or infinit depth of irrecouerable inconueniences vndertaking to write most virulent Treatises against Apostolicall Traditions and the authoritie of Christs Church as ignorantly presuming that the more due reuerence was exhibited to them the lesse was ascribed to the Scripture Hereupon her members vauntingly gaue out for Heresie is euer borne with the Twinne of Pride that the superstitious Papist so pleaseth it them in their charitable language to stile vs was deadly wounded in all points of his faith with euery little splinter or passage of the written Word Which Word as is said they haue erected for the sole rule of faith auerring (c) So write the former cited Protestants besides many other As for example Beza is alleaged by D. Bancroft in his Suruey p. 219. for sole proofe of any point to say Aduerbum prouoco Cartwright in his second Reply part 1. p. 509. thus writeth We haue good cause to hold for suspect whatsoeuer in gouernment or doctrine the Primitiue times left vnto vs not confirmed by substantiall proofes of the Word D. Rainolds thus reprehendeth S. Basil and S. Chrysostome for their not admitting only Scripture in his conclusion annexed to his Conference I take not vpon mee to controule them but let the Church iudge if they considered with aduice c. D. Whitakers thus saith of Chrysostome touching the said point l. de sacra Script pag 678. I answere it is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father Finally to omit many others D. Wallet in his Synopsis p. 38. saith The Scripture is not one of the meanes but the sole whole and only meanes to worke faith that nothing is to be beleeued as an Article of faith which hath not it proofe taken from thence and that themselues will confound the poore Papist in any point whatsoeuer of Religion from the Scripture it selfe scorning to borrow any other proofes then from the writings of the Prophets the Apostles and the Euangelists But this is a meane frothy oftentation of wordes and as the learned Catholike well knoweth inuented only to retaine that grace and fauour which they haue already gained from the weake iudgements of their abused followers And therefore to represse this their inconsiderate venditation of prooning what they pretend only from the Scripture they here telling vs that as a Diamond cuts a Diamond so one place of Scripture best explicates and vnfolds another I doe challenge the Protestant peremptorily to stand to this his
assertion And because I doe expect at his hands that hee should forbeare all other kindes of Proofes then from Scripture alone to the which by his owne doctrine he hath precisely obliged himselfe I haue therefore accordingly entitled this Treatise Keepe your Text Thereby to put him in remembrance that in his proofes hee doth not flee from the Scripture but punctually keepe himselfe to the same But I am assured that his performance herein will light short of his promise and that such vanting prouocations will in the end resolue to fume in his owne disgrace himselfe thus dangerously running vpon the edge of that sentence (d) Pro. c. 13 Qui inconsideratus est adloquendum sentiet mala Because I well know that the learned Catholike is able out of his owne reading to encounter the Protestant by entring into a large field of disputation from the written Word or otherwise and seeing it is a degree of Victory to limit or giue bounds to the assaults of the Aduersary therefore for the ignorant only I meane the vnlearned Catholike at this time I will take some paines and will vndertake to demonstrate in this discourse how a Catholike though but competently read in the Scriptures meerly ignorant in the Fathers writings and other humane learning may in dispute make good and defend his Catholike faith against the learnest Protestant in Christendome as long as the said Protestant doth punctually and precisely tye himselfe to his own Principle insisted vpon in this Treatise to wit That the written Word of God is the sole rule of our Faith and that nothing is to be beleeued as an Article of Religion which cannot be proued thereby 1. Now for the facilitating and better effecting hereof I will premise some few obseruations among the which the first is That the Catholike is to remember that the Protestant charging our Catholike doctrine with errour and superstition and vanting (e) So Beza said in his Conference at Poysi and Fulke against Stapleton p. 2. the like is affirmed by Luther who thus writes epist ad Argent Christum à nobis primùm vulgatum audemus gloriari as also by Iewell in his Apologie by Perkins in his exposition of the Creede and by diuers others himselfe to sent from God I meane in Luther Caluin and other his Predecessors as the Restorer of the Gospels light the Discouerer of our supposed errours so many Ages heretofore generally beleeued is become by this meanes the Plaintife or Accuser and the Catholike the Defendant and therefore himselfe is obliged to proue and the Catholike as being the Defendant only to answere for who defendeth a Cause is bound only to repell the suggestions and arguments of his Accuser without vrging any affirmatiue or positiue proofs in his owne Apologie The same taske the Protestant vndergoeth euen in reason and equitie it selfe For seeing it is a principle inuented by the Protestant but disclaymed by vs that nothing is to be beleeued as an article of faith but what hath it proofe out of the Scripture therefore it peculiarly belongeth to the Protestant to proue by the Scripture alone what he maintayneth against vs. Hence it followeth that the Catholike as is aboue said is freed at this time from prouing any thing from the Scripture alone as one that is loth to make any building on another mans Land since it is the Protestant and not he who aduanceth this principle that the Scripture is to giue sole proofe for triall of matters of faith Hereupon then we are to premonish that a Catholike I still here speake of one who through want of learning is not able to become the Opponent to his Aduersarie as being through the former reasons disobliged thereof doe neuer vndergoe the part of arguing or opposing precisely still keeping the Defendants part and without much insisting in the authorities or reasons why hee defendeth this or that point though otherwise hee may purposely be much vrged thereto by the Protestant and this to the end that the Protestant by this meanes may subtilly discharge himselfe of prouing euery point or position questioned out of the Scripture alone And according hereto the better to keepe himselfe in the person of the Defendant if the Protestant should thus argue for example Praying to Saints is not to be found in the Scripture therefore you erre in practising of it The vnlearned Catholike may here denie the Consequence and passe ouer the Antecedent because in denying the Antecedent though otherwise it is false and is to be denyed hee maketh himselfe the Actor or Plaintife in seeking to proue it from the Scripture and so obligeth himselfe to prooue whereunto greater measure of learning is required and freeth his Aduersarie from his former vndertaken taske of Prouing or Opposing The Consequence I say he is to denie and so to force the Disputant to proceede on further in prouing of it out of the Scripture alone which he neuer can effect 2. The second obseruation That the Protestant doth vndertake two things First to proue his owne doctrine to be true out of the written Word alone Secondly to confute our pretended errours out of the same Word And here we are to note that the impugning of our Catholike faith in diuers articles and the maintayning what the Protestant holdeth concerning the said articles are two different things in themselues For when the Protestant impugneth our Doctrine hee commonly holdeth the Negatiue part yet besides this his negation hee for the most part affirmeth some other thing cōcerning the same point as for example in the question of the Reall Presence The Protestant denyeth peremptorily our Catholike doctrine herein yet he teacheth and affirmeth withall that the Supper of the Lord is the figure of Christs body in like sort that the body of Christ is really and truly taken by the mouth of faith Here now I say that supposing the Protestant could conuince out of the Scripture our Doctrine herein as false yet he can not conclude that himselfe therefore erreth not for admit for the time that Christs body were not really in the Eucharist yet can it not be inferred hereupon that therefore the Eucharist is a figure of Christs body or that therefore his body is really taken with the mouth of faith for as our Doctrine of a supposall may be false so also may the Protestants doctrine be false I meane what the Protestant positiuely affirmeth herein since this his affirmation is not meerely contradictorie vnto our affirmation concerning the said article Hereupon then wee are to forewarne the Protestant that he is not only to proue from Scripture to insist in the former example that Christs body is not really in the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine as wee Catholikes doe beleeue but he is also to proue from Scripture that the Eucharist is a figure of his body and that Christs body is really and truly taken with the mouth of faith Thus must he alleage some Texts
of Scripture prouing that there is a double manducation in the Eucharist the one of the signes of Christs body by the corporall mouth the other of Christs reall body by the mouth of faith The same course the Protestant may be forced to take in all such articles in the which besides his denying of our doctrine himselfe affirmeth something 3. The third obseruation That as it is aboue noted the Protestant thus obliging himselfe to proue not only his owne affirmatiue Positions out of the Scripture but also to disproue from Scripture what the Catholikes affirme concerning any articles he is by this meanes compelled to proue Negatiue Propositions as being meere contrarie to the Catholikes affirmations from the Scripture Thus for example where we hold that there is a Purgatorie that we may pray to Saints c. the Protestant is to euict and proue out of the written Word that there is no Purgatorie that we ought not to pray to Saints Where wee are to premonish first that it is not sufficient for the Protestant to say that the former Negatiue Positions of Purgatorie and the like are proued sufficiently by the written Word of God in that the written Word of God which is by his iudgment the rule of Faith maketh no mention that there is a Purgatorie or that we are to pray to Saints This answere auayleth not only because to omit that the Catholikes do not acknowledge the Scripture for the rule of faith it is directly false since from the (f) Praying to Saints proued out of Luke 16. Acts 5. 2. Cor. 1. c. As Purgatorie from Matth. 5. Matth. 12. Mark 3. Luk. 16. c. besides out of the Machabees Scripture we can proue the foresaid articles but also in that the Protestant Minister euer with great venditation of words liberally engageth himselfe positiuely and expressely to refute the Catholikes pretended errours from the written Word it selfe which he doeth not by vsing his former euasion Neither secondly can he say that Negatiue Propositions such as there is no Purgatorie no Reall Presence and the like are not to be proued alleaging herein the authoritie of (g) Metaph. Aristotle who teacheth that that which is not cannot he knowne and consequently cannot be proued This I say forceth nothing for the Protestant hereby discouereth his ignorance in Philosophie seeing Aristotle in the former words vnderstands by that which is not that which is false as the contexture of the precedent and subsequent passages in him do cleerly manifest so much meaning that that which is false is not and consequently cannot be demonstrated as true for otherwise who knoweth not that Aristotle proueth infinite negatiue Propositions as that there is no Vacuum in rerum natura that there are not many Worlds and diuers such like a veritie so generally acknowledged by all Philosophers as that two of the Moodes of arguing in the first figure to wit Celarent and Ferio are inuented only for proofe of Negatiue Propositions Adde hereto for the greater conuincing of this sleight that the Scripture it selfe proueth sundrie Negatiue Positions as for example (h) Rom. 9. Saint Paul proueth most amply that God is not vniust in the predestination and reprobation of Men in like sort the Scripture demonstrateth that there is no variation or change (i) Numb 23 and Malach. c. 3. in God that God cannot sinne that he willeth not (k) Eccles 15 Iob 31. Psalm 5. Man to sinne and the like Thus it appeareth that the Protestant assuming to refute our supposed Errours from the Scripture is there by engaged to proue many Negatiue Propositions from the Scripture and this not from the silence of the Scripture not speaking of such points but from it as it particularly condemneth them And here adde further that though it were true that the Scripture by not speaking of Purgatorie disproueth the being of it yet doth not the Scripture therefore proue as an article of Faith that there is no Purgatorie which is a point here to be insisted vpon euen as the Scripture speaketh nothing in a Propheticall Spirit that Mahomet was a false prophet and yet though the Scripture by not speaking of him should condemne him for such it followeth not neuerthelesse to beleeue from the Scripture as an article of Faith that Mahomet was a false prophet since it is one thing to say that the Scripture by silence and not speaking of it proueth a thing not to be another to affirme that the Scripture proueth the not beliefe of the said point to be an article of Faith 4. The fourth and last obseruation That if the Protestant in his disputes draweth any argument either from Philosophie from the authoritie of Fathers Councels or any other humane testimonie the Catholike may well answer that though at other times he is well content all these seuerall kinds of arguments to haue their due respect and place yet at this present by reason that it is an Axiome obtruded vpon him that the Scripture alone is to determine all points of Faith hee is to reiect all such reasons and morall persuasions Neither can the Protestant iustly insist in vrging of them without renouncing his foresaid Principle We are here further to instruct the Reader that a syllogisme or argument in proofe or disproofe of an article of Faith whereof the one Proposition is taken from the Scripture the other from Philosophie or some other humane authoritie I say that such a syllogisme or argument doth not prooue any thing only from the written Word of God and therefore seeing the Protestants in their disputes are accustomed to frame such syllogismes when their arguments are reduced into Logicall formes the Catholike may and ought to reiect al such arguments as long as the Protestant vndertaketh to proue his faith only by the Scripture as being by his assertion the sole rule of Faith from which rule are excluded all Philosophicall and humane authorities whatsoeuer Here I say the Catholike I euer meane a Catholike not learned in humane literature and therefore not able to discusse the weight and force of Philosophicall points or other humane reasons may well answere that admitting such an argument for good and perfect in forme yet the authoritie wherevpon it lyeth is at this present to be reiected since it is taken partly from Scripture and partly from humane learning and so the Scripture not wholly but in part proueth the question controuerted contrarie to the Axiome of the Protestants who teach that the Scripture is not a partiall but a totall rule of Faith and who glorieth that he is able to iustifie his owne Protestant faith only from the Scripture without the helps of any humane authorities at all We will illustrate what we here meane in this syllogisme following whereby the Protestant laboureth to proue that Christs body cannot really be in the Eucharist That body which is in Heauen is not at the same time vpon the earth But the body of Christ
that Christ in the foresaid words speaketh or meaneth of his owne body but only of a (*) So is this Text expoūded by Cyprian Serm. de Coena Domini Origen l. 3. Ep. ad Rom. Chrysostome vpon this place carnall vnderstanding of spirituall things If the Minister will not yeeld to you herein then will him according to his vndertaken taske to proue out of some place of Scripture that the former words are spoken of Christs body if he say he can cause him presently to repeate it if hee confesse hee cannot as it is impossible for him to doe then let him openly acknowledge that it cannot be proued from Scripture that the former words to wit The flesh profiteth nothing doe concerne the flesh of Christ much lesse the absence of it in the Eucharist 3. Thirdly the Catholike is to demand touching the interpretation of this Text of Scripture or of any other who is to iudge whether the interpretation giuen by the Minister be good or no. If he reply that the Scripture is to iudge of it then vrge him as I admonished afore to shew any passage of Scripture teaching that his interpretation of the former Text is good and true if the Scripture affirmeth not so much then is it the bare assertion of the Minister himselfe which warranteth his former interpretations of the Texts alleaged by him for true and then the Minister forsaketh herein his mayne Principle of prouing from the Scripture alone erecting himselfe the last and supreme Iudge in all Controuersies of Faith and Religion and then consequently he performeth no more herein then all Heretikes heretofore haue beene accustomed to doe to wit strangely to alleage and detort (e) So witnesse Tertul. l. de Praescrip aduers haeres Ierom. Ep. ad Paulinum August cont Maximinū Arianum l. 1 Vincent Lyr. aduer haeres the Scripture for patronizing of their Heresies and finally to make themselues sole Iudges of interpreting the Scripture 4. Fourthly for the greater confronting of our poore Minister thus intangled you are to demand of him whether his grauitie forsooth stands subiect to errour or mistaking in his exposition of the former Texts of Scripture against the Reall Presence if he confesse that he may erre therein then followeth it that his beliefe as being founded vpon a doubtfull construction and such as may be erroneous is no longer any true beliefe since Faith in it owne nature according both to Catholike and Protestant is most certayne and infallible If the Minister say that he relyeth in the interpretation of the Texts mentioned or the like vpon other learned Ministers of his owne brotherhood then leaueth hee againe the Scripture and finally relyeth for proofe of his faith vpon the bare authorities of certayne particular men But if his vanitie rise to that height as to maintayne himselfe not to be subiect to any erroneous mistakings in interpreting the Texts of Scripture then first cause him according to his owne prescribed method of prouing to alleage some place of Scripture warranting this his supposed infallibilitie of expounding and if hee vrge any Text detorted to that end and purpose tell him that if it make for his not erring in expounding the Scripture then much more maketh it for the not erring of the whole Church of Christ therein which point notwithstanding I meane the (f) see Whitakers hereof hee Eccles cont Bellar. controu 2. q. 4. p. 223. Iewell in his Apologie of the Church of Eng and part 4. c. 4. Luther epist ad Argentinenses Perkins in his exposition vpon the Creede pag. 400. For these Protestants teach that the Church of Christ wholly erred from Austins time till Luthers dayes not erring of the whole Church in it interpreting of the Scripture himselfe denyeth But if the whole Church of Christ may and hath erred in Religion and consequently in interpreting Gods written Word as the Protestant confidently auerreth that it hath then aske the Minister with what face can he being but a member of his Church and perhaps but a bad and vnlearned member thereof assume to himselfe a freedome of not erring when hee interpreteth the Scripture 5. Fiftly and lastly it behoueth you to heare at large the Ministers interpretation of Scripture and his proofes and reasons warranting his said interpretation and then you are to desire him to make good those proofes and reasons out of the Scripture alone which he not doing then are you to denie his said Explications Proofes and Reasons not obliging your selfe as being the Defendant to shew the reason of your denyall And it is more aduantageous for you simply to denie his expositions and proofes of the same then to set downe the reasons of such your denyall For by alleaging your reasons whereunto the Defendant is neuer obliged besides the danger perhaps of your owne insufficiency discouered in labouring to make them good you giue fit occasion and oportunitie to the Minister to beginne new discourses against your Reasons and so by degrees and afore you bee aware hee leaueth his Scene and windeth himselfe out of his vndertaken taske to wit of prouing his interpretation of the Texts of Scripture by Scripture to which method if you punctually and precisely tye him without suffering him to vse any digressions or euasions by questioning of you or otherwise as by his owne Principle Doctrine and often vanting he obligeth himselfe then shall you find him presently stabled and plunged in the middest of his disputes it being impossible for him to iustifie and make good his first vndertaking or his expositions of Scripture by Scripture alone And thus farre concerning the first kind of the Ministers alleaging Texts of Scripture in proofe or disproofe of any point controuerted Which course here set downe the Catholike is to obserue in all other Texts of Scripture which any Protestant shall vrge out of their immediate and literall Construction to proue or disproue any point controuerted betweene him and vs. In this second place it commeth in to prescribe certaine directions how an vnlearned Catholike is to answere to the Protestant Minister when hee laboureth to proue or disproue any article of Faith from the Scripture but this not immediately from the expresse and euident sense thereof whereof I haue afore entreated but only by certayne inferences and sequels necessarily as hee saith deduced out of the said Scripture This forme shall be exemplified in the former example of the Reall Presence the falsehood of which doctrine our Protestant Minister will perhaps labour to proue by an inference or deduction drawne from the pure written Word of God in the Acts chap. 3. where we reade that Heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time of the restitution of all things meaning that Christ is to stay in Heauen till the end and consummation of the World Now out of this place the Protestant Minister thus argueth as aboue I haue touched in one of my former obseruations That body which is in Heauen is not at
Temple of Salomon which was the Temple of the Iewes shall be the seate of Antichrist and not Rome from which wee gather that in the fore-said Fathers iudgements this passage of the former Text cannot be applyed to the Pope This done Cause your Minister to disproue your interpretation taken from the authoritie of the Fathers or otherwise from the Scripture alone and vrge him to shew and set downe such passages of Scripture from which hee may make shew to confirme his owne Constructions and the Reasons thereof and to refute your interpretation and the Reasons thereof which hee shall find most impossible to performe And thus farre of this Text which the Protestants are accustomed to produce as immediatly and expresly prouing without any helpe of sequels that the Pope is Antichrist Now if your Minister should vrge that place in the Apocalips ch 17. as the Protestants are woont strangely to insist therein wherein S. Iohn speaking of the Whore of Babilon saith It is that great Citie which is seated vpon seuen Hills and hath the gouernment ouer the Kings of the earth From which Text the Protestants gather by way of inference and sequell that seeing Rome is seated on seuen Hills and that the Pope of Rome vsurpeth as they say domination ouer diuers Kings And seeing that by the Whore of Babilon Antichrist is vnderstood that therefore the Pope is from hence necessarily prooued to bee Antichrist Now here againe you are to recurre to your former Method practized aboue in answering to Texts of Scripture vrged by way of consequence in disproofe of the Reall Presence And first demand of him if for want of expresse and cleere Texts he is forced to fly to obscure places of consequences and illations And if hee pretend any more euident proofes of Scripture in this point wish him omitting all doubtfull illations to insist in them alone But if he will perseuer in alleaging this Text then for greater perspicuitie you may draw it into an argument in this forme Antichrist or the Whore of Babilon is said in the Apocalips ch 17. to sit vpon seuen Hills and to tyrannize ouer the Kings of the Earth But the seate of the Pope to wit Rome is placed on seuen Hills as all men confesse and hee vsurpeth rule ouer Christian Kings and Princes Therefore the Pope is Antichrist or the Whore of Babilon 2. Next desire your Minister to proue from Scripture alone two points in your Maior or first Proposition first that by the Whore of Babilon in the 17. of the Apocalyps Antichrist is meant secondly that by the words seuen Hills we are to vnderstand literally and plainly seuen Hills and not some other thing shaddowed thereby seeing in the Apocalyps most points are deliuered in figuratiue and Metaphoricall words I say will him to proue these constructions by some expresse Texts of Scripture If hee grant he cannot then cause him to acknowledge so much openly And that done will him to prooue so much by some consequence at least of Scripture If he make shew hereof then cause him to set down that other Text from the which he seemeth to proue his fore-said construction by consequence And thus accordingly in his next new argument and all others ensuing you haue the like liberty to deny any one Proposition I mean which to you shal seem more false and to cause him to prooue the denyed Proposition first from expresse Scripture then that failing from Scripture at least by way of consequence in proouing of which you shall doubtlesly find your Minister often to relinquish the Scripture and consequently to abandon his doctrine of the Scriptures sole Iudge 3. In the third place as in the former Texts I admonished tell the Minister that if hee bee subject to errour in these deductions from Scripture to wit that by the Whore of Babylon Antichrist is meant and that the wordes seuen Hills doe here literally signifie seuen Hills then can it bee no Article of faith which is founded vpon such doubtfull proofes if he be not subiect to any such errour then most insolently he assumeth that priuilege to himselfe I meane the gift of not erring which he granteth not to the whole Church of God 4. In the fourth place will your Minister as afore we haue taught to proue which he neuer can doe that the Scripture saith that what is deduced necessarily out of it selfe for heere you may suppose the deductions to bee necessary ought to be taken as an Article of faith though otherwise we should grant that the deductions be true 5. In the fift you may tell him that seeing the Scripture speaketh nothing of the true and approued formes of Syllogismes they being deliuered by the rules of Logicke and Philosophy that therefore admitting for the time your Ministers Texts and Testimonies for probable and truely applyed yet so farre forth as concernes the formes of consequences deduced from those Texts and heere insisted vpon by your Minister the Scripture alone cannot assure vs of the soundnesse of them and consequently it cannot assure vs to rest in the former example that by the Whore of Babilon in the 17. of the Apoc. Antichrist is meant or that by the seuen Hilles in the said Chapter wee are literally to vnderstand seuen materiall Hills and consequently that the Pope is Antichrist 6. In the sixt demand of your Minister who must iudge whether this Exposition giuen by him of the foresaid Text be good or no If he say the Scripture must iudge will him to alleage some Text of expresse Scripture If he saith that the Protestant Church or himselfe must iudge then put him in minde that he abandoneth his former doctrine of the Scriptures sole Iudge of Articles of faith flyeth to the authoritie of Man therein Lastly you may aske him if he would bee content as in reason he ought that the authoritie of the ancient Fathers might bee admitted touching the fore-said exposition of the former Text If he would then followeth it that besides his forsaking hereby the Scripture as Iudge hee would be conuicted of errour therein seeing the Fathers are traduced by the Protestants to be Patrones not only of other Catholike Opinions but also of this particular question to wit that the Pope is not Antichrist 7. In the seuenth and last place if you bee not content with his former ouerthrow you may if your reading and learning shall enable you so farre examine more particularly the passage of the former Scripture and shew from the contexture of the place it selfe first that by the Whore of Babilon Antichrist cannot possibly bee vnderstood seeing in the same Chapter of Apocalyps we reade that the ten hornes of the Beast there described at the comming of Antichrist shall make the Whore of Babilon desolate and consume her with fire for thus we there reade And the ten hornes which thou sawest vpon the Beast are they that shall hate the Whore and shall make her desolate
this Discourse such aggrauating circumstances on both sides which so farre-forth as they concerne the interpreting of Scripture may iustly seeme to aduance the Fathers and depresse or vnderualiew our Sectaries they being such as in a cleere and dispassionate eye or in the libration of an eauen and stable hand shall be able I hope to weigh much and cause in this point an euidency of Credibilitie at least if not an euidency of Truth and to admonish vs to call to mind that counsell in Iob (b) Iob c. 8. Diligenter inuestiga patrum memoriam and againe (c) Ibidem Interroga generationem pristinam But to beginne 1. The Fathers liued in the times neere (d) Ignatius and Dionysius the Apostles Scholars Iust Martyr Irenaeus in the second Age. Tertull. Origen Cyprian in the third Athanas Ambr. Hilar Basil Nazianz. in the fourth Chrys Ierom. Augustin in the fift to Christ some conuersing with his Apostles others with their Scholars and therefore the more easie for them to know what expositions of Scripture were first deliuered and what Faith first preached Adde to this that the very practice of their Religion then vsed the Church then remayning by the acknowledgement of our Aduersaries in her integritie of faith serued as a Comment to them of the Scriptures Our Sectaries appeared so many ages after and indeed so late to wit in these our owne Canicular and vnlucky dayes as that their very writings wherein they first vented forth their doctrine may bee said to bee as yet scarce drie Men at this present liuing who can remember their first reuolt and insurrection so euident it is that their beliefe was neuer heard of before the deplorable apostasie of Luther Luther the Adam of his vnfortunate posteritie vpon whom is deriued by his fall an Originall Contumacy as I may terme it against the Church of Rome their perdition following ineuitably except they baptize themselues in the teares of an vnfeigned and contrite submission But to proceede 2. The Fathers for no small number of them euen from their Cradle Mothers breasts did suck those (e) Ignat. Epiphan Athanas Basil Nazianzen Chrysost Cyrill Theodoret. c. were Greeke Fathers in which tongue the new Testament was written tongues wherein a great part of the Scripture was first written and therefore they are much aduantaged the Letter being the shell of the sense for the picking out of the true meaning thereof Our Sectaries what insight they haue in the said tongues is only by Arte and industrie which euer subscribeth to Nature whereof if wee compare them with the Fathers herein they will appeare to be but yong and Alphabeticall Linguists which disparitie of theirs must needs be great since the Tongues in this respect may bee truely termed the Porters of Learning or the Mines wherein the riches of knowledge are found 3. The Fathers deliuered their sentence interpretations of Scripture many ages before the points of Faith and Doctrine for which they were vrged were euer questioned of and therefore what they writ was free from all partialitie and preiudice of iudgement the false glasse which euer reflecteth backe the sight of any thing in an vntrue forme Our Sectaries now after their Religion hath once got one wing doe after shape such constructions of Scripture as are most sutable to their Positions thus where in reason Faith is to bee framed according to the sense of Scripture here with them the sense of Scripture is to be measured by their faith 4. The Fathers though writing in different Ages different Countries different Tongues vpon different occasions like the earth which is most stably setled in an vnstable place euen with wonderfull agreement consent and constancie an infallible Character of Gods holy Spirit for non est Deus dissentionis 1 Cor. 14. sed pacis do interpret all the chiefe passages of Scripture vrged either by vs or our Aduersaries in one and the same sense in regard whereof it is lesse probable that God should permit so many so vertuous so learned men ioyntly to erre therein Our Sectaries indeed inter-league and jump together in wresting Gods Word from all Catholike sense but that done then beginne their irreconciliable warres and disagreements in seeking to appropriate the seuerall (f) Thus for example in that place of Matth. c. 16. Tues Petrus by the word Rocke Erasmus vnderstandeth euery one of the faithfull Caluin Christ Luther and the Centurie writers doe vnderstand thereby the confession of Faith Constructions to the vpholding of rich ones peculiar and different opinion thus they being instantly resolued in themselues from whom to flye but not whom to follow a Document to teach vs that Heresie is euer in labour with Discord and Vnion against the true Church presently ingenders Disvnion within the false Church for it is certaine that the seuerall Doctrines of our Aduersaries could yet neuer be wounded vp in one generall Confession 5. The Fathers did cut of all lets and impediments which might hinder eyther Deuotion or Study the two wings wherwith Mans vnderstāding mounts vp to the speculation of the highest Mysteries Hence it proceeded that they embraced perpetuall Chastitie contemned all Riches and Honours chastized their bodies with Fasting Prayer and other spirituall Disciplines thus according to the Alchymist making Mortification immediate to precede Vinification so as this course of abandoning the World besides Gods speciall assistance to all such truely Noble and Heroicall Designes cleereth and enlighteneth much the speculatiue power of the Soule the only faculty proper for knowledge otherwise ouer-clowded with the mists of wordly cares anxieties and distractions Our Sectaries though commonly at the first they euer haue the Gospell in their mouthes thus acting the Prologue with the Spirit but the Epilogue or Conclusion with the Flesh are in the end become so loth to be spotted with the least aspersion or touch of Superstition since (g) Osiander in Epitom Cent. 4. p. 99 p. 100. 103. no better they repute the Fathers liues as that they prostitute themselues as Drugges to the Word being become euen breathlesse through their earnest pursuite of Temporall pleasures dignities and sensualitie and raueling out their whole time in the gaining and enioying thereof but the lesse maruell since it is written (h) Rom. 8. that those who are after the flesh fauour the things of the flesh 6. The Fathers I meane diuers of them through Gods boundlesse Omnipotency vntwisting at his pleasure the thred of Nature for most easie it is to that powerfull hand which first created Nature to dis-nature all things created haue wrought many stupendious and astonishing Miracles some whereof were done in proofe and confirmation of their (i) Vide Cyprian Serm. de lapsis Ambr. de obitu Satyr c. 7. Optat. l. 2. contra Donatist Nazian in Cypr. Aug. de Ciuit Dei l. 22. c. 8. Chrysost l. contra Gētil Euseb l. 7. c. 14. Religion and though
the rest of them performed did not fall plumbe and immediatly vpon the strengthning of their doctrine yet they all demonstrate that the exhibitors of such were of a true faith and doctrine since God is not able this disabilitie in him is power this weaknesse strength to concurre miraculously with a man of an erroneous religion especially when such proceedings might bee calumniously wrested to the supporting of falshood In the number of these Miracles wrought by them and the raising vp of the dead the supernaturall curing of diseases the certain foretelling of accidentall euents meerely depending of Mans Will and the like the only sealing arguments and such as most forcibly checke Mans incredulity Our Sectaries though emulous of the Catholike Church her glory herein could neuer truly vaunt of restoring to life or miraculously curing a dead Flye or a scabd Horse Nay most of them disclayme (k) D. Morton in his Apologie Cath. part 1. l. 2. c. 25. Sutcliff in his Examination of the Suruey of D. Kellison and almost all other Protestants so farre in this point that they boldly auouch only thereby to dis-countenance those of Catholike times that all true Miracles haue ceased euer since the Apostles dayes and errour controuled by the most graue testimonies of ancient Authours and by the certaine experience of these our times adde hereto that it were the greatest Miracle for Gods hands so many Ages together to bee manicled and tyed especially where so often iust occasion hath beene presented from working of Miracles 7. To conclude the Fathers I speake of sundry of them for professing only their faith and Religion haue endured with inuincible Fortitude and immooueable Resolution through the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost most exquisite torments diuers of them in the most tempestuous and rugged state of the Church conquering the Persecutors cruelty by their owne patient suffering of Martyrdome (l) As Ignatius Polycarpus Cyprian and others death death which because their birth to Immortalitie (m) Tertull. l. de Anima Paradisiclauis sanguis Martyris Our Sectaries excepting some few Mechanicall fellowes burnt here at home for their obstinacy in Queen Maries time are so farre from suffering any pressures by profession of their faith as that most of them haue made their Religion a rush to the worldly preferments they by it only enioying as by want of it losing riches honours aduancements and other as I may terme them such glorious miseries so as perhaps it may be said that their greatest persecution considering Gods secret iudgements and future punishments is that they haue not tasted any persecution and their most dangerous miserie that they haue liued wholly exempt from miserie And thus farre now touching the ballancing of the ancient Fathers with our present Sectaries But to come to an end of this short Mescelene or compounded Treatise here I remit to all impartiall iudgements the consideration of two Points proued in these few Leaues First and primatiuely that though the Protestant setteth downe a Basis or ground-worke of his Religion and vantingly vndertaketh accordingly that all articles of Faith are to receaue their proofe only from the sacred Scripture which holy Writings we Catholikes affect with all due respect reuerence and honour yet is he not able to proue the points of his owne faith or to impugne ours from the said head only but is forced after he hath framed one or two Syllogismes or Arguments to flie from Scripture either to some humane authoritie or to his owne priuate spirit for his interpreting the Scripture bearing himselfe herein like to the Ostrich which as the Prophet saith is great of feathers but short of flight Secondly and but incidently when as the Protestant maketh his owne particular iudgement the last and highest Tribunall from whence his exposition of Scripture receaues it warrant and whereas this his construction mainly impugneth the construction giuen by the ancient Fathers since the Fathers maintayning our Catholike doctrine euen in the Protestants acknowledgement must consequently maintayne our Catholike sense of the Scripture that the Fathers through diuers priuileges found in them but wanting in the Protestant Ministers are much aduantaged aboue our Aduersaries for the deliuering of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture And this made manifest by all probable and morall inducements so as Reason it selfe doth heare reason and pleade in behalfe of the Fathers and the light of Nature proclaymeth to vs in this point their light of Grace all such others as maintayne the contrarie being through their wilfull relinquishing of all naturall iudgement and vnderstanding herein worthily comprehended within the admonition or reprehension of the regall Prophet (q) Psal 31. Nolite fieri sicut Equus aut Mulus quibus non est intellectus FINIS