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
the same time vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine But the body of Christ according to the former alleaged Scripture remaynes till the end of the World in Heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not here vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine 1. Now before the Catholike doe answere directly to this argument I would haue him first to demand of our Minister if for want of expresse Texts to conuince our doctrine of the Reall Presence hee is forced to vse inferences and consequences from Scripture for wee see that place of the Acts toucheth not the Question of the Reall Presence but only by consequence which kind of arguing is euermore weake and vncertayne if the Minister will not confesse so much then wish him to insist in cleere and perspicuous passages of Scripture without any furtherance of Inferences omitting the more obscure If he can be drawne to such a confession then force him thereto it much disaduantageing his cause since at other times hee professed in great gallantrie and brauerie of wordes to confute our Catholike Doctrine herein euen from the vnanswerable perspicuitie and euidencie of the Text it selfe 2. Secondly comming to the deduction of his argument in particular the Catholike is not precisely to insist in the discoursing the falshood thereof leauing this to the closure and end of the whole Dispute But hee is to shew that euery true consequence or illation is drawn from two Propositions of which if either of them bee not in the Scripture eyther expresly or at least secondarily by another illation then doth the Minister in vrging such an argument as for the most part he doth fly from his vndertaken taske of conuincing the Catholike point by the Scripture alone Here then in the former Syllogisme to wit That body which is in Heauen is not at the same time vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine But the body of Christ according to the Scripture remaines euer in Heauen Therefore the body of Christ is not here vpon earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine You are to demand of your Minister whether the first Proposition which is That body which is in Heauen is not at the same vpon the earth c. be in expresse Scripture or no if it be then let him proue it from some euident and expresse Text if it be not then force him to confesse so much and next will him to proue the same proposition at least by consequence out of some Text of Scripture But hee not being able to proue the same by Consequence then force him to confesse so much in the hearing of such as are present who may cleerly see that the Minister hath twice or thrice already abandoned the Scripture in his forme of prouing Next giue him liberty to proue the said Proposition by any other Meanes hee can He hauing no other meanes of prouing it then in this sort from Philosophie only Euerie Body possesseth or occupieth at one only place and consequently it followeth that that Body which is in Heauen is not at the same time vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine Here now our Minister is afresh to bee required to shew his Maior or first proposition which is this Euerie body possesseth or occupyeth at once but only one place out of the Scripture which he granting he cannot let him confesse so much publikely Then will him to proue it only by consequence from Scripture the which to performe hee is no more able And he then acknowledging so much suffer him to prooue his said Proposition by any other Medium he can But remember still that according to this prescribed method he be put to proue his Maior or Minor of his next ensuing argument the choice of eyther of them being left vnto your selfe first by expresse Scripture if not so at least by consequence from Scripture and lastly seeing by neither of the two former meanes hee can proue it suffer him to proue it as he may still proceeding with him punctually according to these directions in euery argument which hee shall make Which course being kept with the Minister must needes confound him in the presence of his absurd auditorie since he shall bee forced by this meanes seuen or eight times more according to the number of arguments made by him to relinquish and abandon his mayne Principle erected by himselfe to wit that nothing is to beleeued as an Article of faith but what receiueth it sole proofe from the written Word eyther in expresse Wordes or at least by necessary illation out of it 3. In the third place you are to demand according to our method in the first kind of Texts of your Minister being enuironed in these straits whether he is subiect to errour in his deductions and consequences of Scripture or no If he confesse himselfe that he may erre therein then can it not be an Article of faith which is proued thereby since faith as is noted aboue cannot bee subiect to errour or mistaking And then it followeth that it is lawfull to beleeue or not beleeue such an Article of faith as not being proued from Scripture but by doubtfull and perhaps erroneous consequences If he say he is not subiect to such an errour then disclaymeth he from another point of his doctrine as is afore intimated which teacheth that the whole Church then much more himselfe being but one illiterate fellow may and actually hath fowly erred in Articles of faith and deductions of Scripture 4. In the fourth place you are to demand if the Scripture doth affirme that what is deduced by necessary consequences out of it selfe for heere we suppose for the time that the Ministers Consequences from Scripture as necessary be Scripture or the beliefe of such Consequences is to be holden as an Article of faith or no Here I speake precisely of an Article of faith since it is one thing to say that a Proposition is true and to maintaine the contrary is to maintaine a falshood another thing to auerre the said Proposition to be an Article of faith Now if the Scripture saith that euery such consequence is to bee taken as Scripture the beliefe thereof as an Article of faith then desire the Minister that hee would shew you where the Scripture so saith of consequences taken out of it selfe If no such assertion is to bee found in the Scripture as certainly there is no such then how are those points to bee accounted Articles of faith at least by the Ministers owne doctrine which hee proueth from consequences of Scripture since the Scripture saith not in any place that eyther Consequences drawne from Scripture are Scripture as indeed they are not or that such consequences taken from Scripture are to bee acknowledged as Articles of faith And yet our Minister and his party generally teach that those only are Articles of faith which receiue their probation only from the Scripture deadly
wounding their owne Religion with their owne hands seeing all the reformation as they terme it which they haue made of our Catholike faith consists only in certaine pretended sequences and inferentiall deductions out of the Scripture If the Minister here reply that diuers Catholike Authours for all are not of that opinion doe teach that necessary and ineuitable consequences deduced out of the written Word are to be taken as Articles of faith then may you say first admitting so much yet such consequences are not Scripture and therefore what is proued only by them is prooued by that which is not Scripture Next demand of your Minister if hee grownd himselfe herein vpon the authoritie of some particular Catholike Writers if he doth then followeth it that hee grounds his Articles of faith not vpon the Scripture which by his owne doctrine he should doe but vpon the iudgements of certaine Men and such whom at other times hee absolutely reiecteth with all contempt and scorne And here he is to note that Catholikes as not holding the written Word to bee the sole rule of faith may without contradicting themselues teach the foresaid opinion which the Protestant cannot defend without mainly impugning and crossing his former doctrine of the Scripture being the sole Iudge of faith since as I haue said the Scripture in no place affirmeth that consequences drawne out of it selfe are to bee receiued as Articles of faith If our Minister secondly reply that our Sauiour himselfe in Matthew 22. hath argued from consequence of Scripture and prooueth thereby the Resurrection of the dead you are to answere thereto first that Christ our Lord by drawing any consequences from Scripture doth make the same consequences to become Scripture since whatsoeuer hee said which is recorded by the Euangelists is thereby become Scripture Secondly say that it is an Article of faith to beleeue that our Sauiour concludeth truly whatsoeuer hee deduceth from the Scripture by consequence since the Scripture witnesseth that he enioyed an infallible assistance of God neyther of which priuiledges can our poore Minister assume to himselfe Thirdly say it is true that the Resurrection of the dead is an Article of faith but the Scripture saith not that it is an Article of faith in that it is prooued by consequence from Scripture which is the point only here questioned of 5. In the fift place you may put your Minister in mind that euery true consequence resulteth out of two Propositions put in good forme of a Syllogisme according to the true rules of Logick but the Scripture deliuereth not any rules which are to be obserued in the forme of a Syllogisme or other approoued method of arguing therefore it followeth that when the Minister laboureth to prooue his Articles by consequences of Scripture he proueth not his Articles by only Scripture since Scripture as is said speaketh nothing of the forme of consequences and consequently in his controuersies of faith hee relyeth not vpon Scripture as only Iudge as he promised in the beginning to doe but rather vpon Aristotle who setteth downe the true rules and precepts to be obserued in consequences or at the most hee relyeth vpon the Scripture ioyned with Aristotle and then not vpon Scripture only 6. In the sixt place demand of your Minister who shall iudge of the consequence which he deduceth from Scripture whether it be good or no As for example in the former alleaged illation concerning Christs body in the Eucharist to wit The body of Iesus Christ is in Heanen as we reade in the Acts c. 3. therefore it is not vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The Protestant maintaines this to bee a good consequence wee Catholikes deny it Who must now iudge whether it bee a true or a vitious consequence If the Scripture must be Iudge hereof then cause the Minister to alleage some Text of Scripture which according to our Sectaries is the rule of all truth in faith affirming the Inference to be good If the Protestant Minister himselfe must iudge of the goodnesse of the consequence and yet there is no more reason for him then for the Catholike to iudge thereof who then seeth not that the Protestant vnder the pretext of the holy Scripture maketh himselfe sole and last Iudge of Scripture it selfe of consequences drawne from the Scripture and finally of all Controuersies in Faith and Religion And here you may further adde and demand how it is possible that an ignorant Mechanicall fellow who perhaps cannot write or reade can haue true faith of any point that is deduced by consequence from Scripture since he is not able to iudge whether the Consequence bee good or vitious especially where one of the Propositions is taken from the difficult grounds of Philosophie and then much lesse can he iudge of the requisite formes of syllogismes Hee must not here insist vpon the affiance hee hath of his Ministers learning who deduceth this Consequence seeing by so doing hee forsaketh the former Principle of the Protestants to wit that articles of Faith are to receaue their proofes not from Men but only from the written Word of God Againe seeing in the Protestants censure the whole Church of God may erre as is afore vrged in consequences drawne from Scripture and in articles builded vpon the said consequences much more then may any one Minister be deceaued therein 7. In the last place of all after the Catholike hath thus fully shewed by seuerall wayes that the Minister many times in his proofes hath relinquished the Scripture whereupon afore he pretended to relye hee may descend if so hee finde himselfe furnished with sufficient learning thereto to examine the truth or falshood of the Propositions from which the Ministers consequence ariseth though perhaps it were better iudgement to rest satisfied with the former Victorie as being more easily to be discerned by the ignorant Auditorie then otherwise it could be being gayned by long and difficult disputes Now in the examining of the Propositions of the former Argument for example which was this That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth But the body of Christ is in Heauen as wee reade in the Acts chap. 3. Therefore the body of Christ is not vpon the Earth c. The Catholike I say is here to denie the first Proposition to wit That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth distinguishing for greater satisfaction that one and the same body cannot naturally or by the ordinarie course of Nature be at once both in Heauen and vpon the Earth but supernaturally and by the Power of God it may be as we hold that Christs body is supernaturally and by the omnipotency of God both in Heauen and vnder the formes of Bread and Wine where his body through Gods infinite power hath no reference to any externall coextention of Place If the Minister doe proceede on further against this distinction still drawing one argument after another out of
Philosophie or other humane authoritie the Catholike may when it please him demand of the Minister whether all the Propositions which he alleaged in so many arguments be in the Scripture or no if they be not as certainly they are not but are grounded vpon Philosophie or other humane learning then followeth it ineuitably that the Minister besides his often leauing of Scripture before hath afresh abandoned the Scripture many times after the distinction was giuen And the reason hereof is manifest because hee draweth his Consequence from the written Word of God accompanyed with some nine or ten Propositions or more or lesse according to the number of the Propositions made Which Propositions are not found in the Scripture nor can be proued from it but are taken from Philosophie or other humane literature Of all which Propositions besides that nothing is proued by Scripture alone as it is proued by the helpe of them if but any one be false or through ignorance or otherwise misse-vnderstood then necessarily it followeth that the first proofe and consequence drawne from Scripture as implicitly and potentially relying vpon the said false or misse-vnderstood Proposition be also false and consequently the article as proued thereby can be no article of Faith And thus farre of this Example of the Reall Presence yet for greater illustration of the Method here prescribed and that euery ordinarie iudgement may become more capable thereof I will proceede further in exemplifying it in another point of Controuersie maintayned by the Protestants to wit that the Pope is Antichrist Now for proofe hereof the Protestant Minister doth commonly vrge that Text in the second of the Thessalonians chap. 2. viz. Vnlesse there come a reuolt first and the Man of Sinne be reuealed the sonne of Perdition which is an Aduersarie and is extolled aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that hee sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God c. Out of which words our Aduersaries doe teach that the true portrayture or delineation of the Pope may be taken since say they this former Text doth euen literally and expressely personate the Pope 1. Now here againe according to the former method the Catholike is first to demand of the Protestant Minister who alleageth this place whether this Text in cleere and expresse wordes or only but by his owne presumed construction either nameth the Pope or speaketh of him in direct termes That it nameth not him it is euident That it is to be vnderstood of the Pope we denie but our Minister affirmeth 2. Therefore secondly you are to require your Minister to shew by conference of Scripture or otherwise where the Scripture affirmes that the points contayned in this former Text to wit a Discession or reuolt the Man of Sinne the sonne of Perdition one that is extolled aboue all that is God and finally one that sitteth in the Temple of God as God are to bee vnderstood of the Bishop of Rome If the Minister say there are some such Texts auerring so much will him to shew them if he grant that there is not any as of necessitie hee must then is the former Text wrested to the Pope only through the Ministers wilfull misse-application and misse-interpretation 3. Thirdly demand of your Minister who shall iudge whether this foresaid Text bee to bee vnderstood of the Pope or no. If the written Word must iudge as according to his owne Principle it ought then cause him to produce some passage of Scripture warranting so much if no other Scripture doth warrant so much then resteth it that the Minister soly becomes Iudge thereof and so he abandoneth the Scripture for Iudge and erecteth himselfe as Iudge 4. Fourthly enquire of your Minister as afore in the example of the Reall Presence whether the Minister in his application or interpretation of this Text of Scripture bee subiect to errour or no If hee bee then followeth it that the beleeuing the Pope to be Antichrist as being proued from the interpretation of this Text of Scripture deliuered by the Minister is no article of faith since it is grounded vpon that authoritie which is subiect to errour If the Minister say that he cannot erre in this his construction then as is afore deliuered hee swarueth from that generall doctrine of the Protestants which teacheth that the whole Church of God and then consequently any one member may and hath foulely erred in construction of Scripture and in points of faith deduced from such constructions 5. In the fift and last place examine his interpretation of the former Text more particularly and shew if your sufficiency of learning will extend so farre for otherwise content your selfe with your former demands how seuerall points in this Text cannot in any sort be applyed to the Pope and how the ancient Fathers haue interpreted the same Text in a most different sense from the Ministers interpretation and in the same sense which wee Catholikes deliuer as for example that the Reuolt or Discession here specified is not meant of any reuolt from truth of Doctrine as the Protestants affirme but a reuolt or departure from the obedience of the Roman Empire as (a) Catech. 15. Cyril (b) In hunc locum Chrysostome (c) In Apolog c. 32. Tertullian and (d) In 2. Thessal 2. Ambrose doe expound these wordes Againe that the Pope is not extolled aboue all that is God is euident and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist since hee acknowledgeth God and Christ our Sauiour yet according to the iudgements of (e) L. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. Augustine (f) In c. 11. Danielis Ierome (g) L. 6. de â—â—â—â—tate Hilarius and others Antichrist shall in expresse and direct words deny Christ not acknowledging him in any sort as the Redeemer of the World That the Pope confesseth himselfe to be the seruant of God which by the former Text Antichrist shall not doe and that therefore he sitteth not in the Temple of God as God is also cleere And therefore answerably hereto wee reade that Damasus then Pope of Rome was called by (h) In 1. Timoth 3. Ambrose Rector domus Dei the gouernour of the House of God and that the Bishop of Rome was in like manner stiled by the Councell of (i) In Epist ad Leonem Chalcedon Custos Vineae the keeper of Gods Vineyard Lastly that by the Temple of God in the former Text is not to be vnderstood the Church of the Christian but the Temple of the Iewes as wee Catholikes maintaine and shew out of the ancient Fathers to wit out of (k) C. 23. in Matthiam Hilarius (l) Catech. 15 Cyril of Jerusalem (m) In c. 21. Lucae Ambrose (n) In hunc locum Chrysostome (o) L. 20. de ciuit Dei c. 19. Austine and (p) Q. 12. ad Algasiam Ierome All which Fathers doe ioyntly teach that the