IT is too well knowne, that Luther (whose fall, the fall of the starre in the 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, 50. Lu­ther in com­ment. c. 1. ad Galat. Brent. Pro­log. c. de Tra­dit. Caluin. l. 4. Instit. c. 8. §. 8. Kemnit. Ex­amen. Concil. Trid. s [...]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 [Page 2] 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, 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 [Page 3] 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: 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 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, [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] of faith) it is directly false (since from the 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 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, 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 Numb. 23 and Malach. c. 3. in God, that God cannot sinne, that he willeth not 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 [Page 8] 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, [Page 9] 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 is now in Heauen (according to that Text in the Acts chap. 3. Heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time of the restitution of all things.)

Therefore the body of Christ is not now vpon the Earth or Altar.

Here now the vnlearned Catholike is to reiect (accor­ding to the Protestants owne Principle) the authoritie of this argument (though otherwise Logicall in forme) for though the Minor or second Proposition be taken out of Scripture, and is most true; yet the Maior or first Propo­sition (whereupon the weight of the argument chiefly re­lyeth) is borrowed from a Proposition in Philosophie, to [Page 10] wit, that one Body cannot be in seuerall places at one time; and thus what is here proued, is proued principally from Phi­losophie, and consequently the argument is not to be pri­zed by the Catholike, who at this present expecteth proofs only from the Scripture, and from nothing else. Thus farre concerning these few precedent obseruations, of which the Catholike is to make vse, and put in practice, as often as occasion shall be presented, when hee contesteth in dis­putation with any Protestant. It now followeth in this next place to exemplifie in one or other Article or Questi­on, how a Catholike (who is but of small reading) is more particularly to comport and carry himselfe in his conflict with a Protestant Minister, or some other such like man; who hath promised afore-hand with great iollitie of words to confirme his owne faith and refute our pretended errours only from the Scripture it selfe.

And because the Scripture is alleaged by the Prote­stant after two sorts; The first manner in obiecting the pure and expresse Word it selfe, without helpe of any illa­tions or consequences; so as the immediate and literall sense thereof is auerred by him to fall plumbe vpon the prouing of his faith or disprouing our errours.

The second in vrging a Text of Scripture for proofe or disproofe of a point; but this not in it immediate sense and construction, but only by way of necessary inferences and consequences, as himselfe affirmeth; Both these two sorts of the Protestants disputing we will consider a part, and shew, how a Catholike (not greatly seene in Diuinitie) is able to defend his faith against any learned Protestant, in­sisting only in the holy Scripture, as the sole rule of faith.

And first I will beginne with the first manner of pressing the Scripture against vs, to wit in seeming to vrge it in it immediate sense and Construction; where I am in the be­ginning to forewarne the Catholike, that hee doth seuer and distinguish these words frequently vsed by the Prote­stant in alleaging of Texts: to wit, This is the sense of such [Page 11] a Text of Scripture, or, the Scripture in this place meaneth thus, &c. from that, which that Text importeth in it plaine and familiar acception of Words: since that other construction vnderstood by the former words of the Pro­testant, is but calumniously obtruded vpon the Text. And for the better encouraging of the vnlearned Catholike herein, I can and doe assure him, that there is not any one Text through out the Bible, which the Protestant vseth to alleage against any Article of our faith, the which Text e­uen according to their owne English Translations may seeme in direct and expresse words immediatly to impugne the point, against which it is produced (yea oftentimes it doth not so much as concerne it) but that when it is obie­cted against the said Catholike point, it is forcibly wrested by the Protestant thereto, with this or the like vshering phrase: This is the sense of this Text, &c. or else it is ap­plyed against our doctrine only by helpe of weake infe­rences or sequels, of which kind of consequences we shall hereafter speake.

1. But to proceed forward. I will exemplifie my follow­ing Method in the Questions of the Reall Presence, and of Antichrist which may serue as Precedents to bee followed in all other Questions. And here if you (for I now sup­pose, that I speake to an vnlearned Catholike) bee to dis­pute with a Protestant Minister, you are, first, to demand of him, if hee can alleage any euident and expresse place of Scripture (not seconded only with his owne interpretation of it, or helpe of sequels) for the destroying of the Reall Presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist; if he can, then vrge him presently to shew it; if hee cannot (as certainly he cannot) then afore you proceed further, force him to confesse in plaine termes, that hee hath no expresse Scrip­ture without further interpretation, which doth con­demne the supposed errour of the Reall Presence.

2. Next, if the Protestant Minister should seeke to ex­pound by way of conference of places those wordes of [Page 12] our Sauiour: This is my Mat. 26 body, This is my bloud. figuratiuely, by those other words of his: I am Ioh. 15. the Vine, and I am Ioh. 10. the doore, &c. both which Texts all grant to be taken in a figuratiue construction: then demand of your Mini­ster, if he can alleage any passage of Scripture, which af­firmeth, that these wordes: This is my body, &c. ought to be interpreted by those wordes, I am the Ʋine, or, I am the Doore. If there be any such passage, let it be instantly read; if the Scripture saith not so much, but only the Pro­testant Minister auerreth it from his owne coniecture, then force the Minister to confesse, that it is not the Scrip­ture, but himselfe, that teacheth, that these two figuratiue Texts of the Vine and the Doore, are to serue for a rule, whereby we are to interpret those other words of Christ: This is my body, &c. for these open Confessions (as shewing that the Minister euen in the beginning abandoneth his Principle touching his relying vpon Scripture) will much confound him in the presence of his auditorie. Adde, that such conference of Scripture is but vncertaine euen accor­ding to D. Whitaker, who thus writeth hereof, L. de Ec­cles. contra Bell. controu. 2. q. 4. p. 221. Qualia illa media or Looke what the meanes of interpreting are (speaking of confe­rence of places) such the interpretation must be; but the meanes of interpreting obscure places are vncertaine, therefore the in­terpretation must be vncertaine; and if vncertaine, then may it be false: thus He. In like manner if he vrge those words of our Sauiour: Ioh. 6. The Spirit quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, or any other Text of like nature, you may tell him, that you finde nothing in the expresse wordes and imme­diate construction of them touching the absence of our Sauiours body in the Eucharist, since these wordes say no­thing of our Sauiours body, nor so much as naming it at al. If the Minister reply, that Christ meaneth in these wordes, that his body profiteth nothing, and therefore hee would not really giue it to his Disciples to eate at the last supper; you may answere, that (besides the atrocitie of this Positi­on [Page 13] ascribing no profit to Christs body, which suffered death for the redemption of Mankind) you denie, that Christ in the foresaid words speaketh or meaneth of his owne body; but only of a So is this Text expoū ­ded 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 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 [Page 14] 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 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 [Page 15] 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 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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; [Page 25] 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 Catech. 15. Cyril, In hunc locum. Chrysostome, In Apo­log. c. 32. Tertullian, and 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 [Page 26] Sauiour: & yet according to the iudgements of L. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. Augustine, In c. 11. Danielis. Ierome, L. 6. de [...]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 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 In Epist. ad Leonem. Chalcedon: Custos Vineae, the keeper of Gods Ʋineyard.

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 C. 23. in Matthiam. Hi­larius Catech. 15 Cyril of Jerusalem, In c. 21. Lucae. Ambrose, In hunc locum. Chryso­stome, L. 20. de ciuit. Dei. c. 19. Austine, and Q. 12. ad Algasiam. Ierome: All which Fathers doe ioyntly teach, that the 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, [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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, and shall eate her flesh, and burne her with fire. Now how can the Whore here signifie Antichrist or his seate, if at his com­ming she is to be ouerthrowne and demolished? Next you may shew that the Expositions of the Fathers are diffe­rent, concerning what the Whore of Babilon here signifieth; yet not any of them can bee applyed to the Pope: for In Psal. 26. Austine, In hunc locum. Aretas, Ibidem. Haymon, and S. Bede doe vnder­stand by the Whore, which sitteth on seuen Hills, and hath domination ouer the Kings of the earth, not Rome, but the vniuersall Citie of the Deuill; which in the Scripture is often called Babilon, and is opposed to the Citie of God, which is his Church, and called Ierusalem. And by the seuen Hills, these Fathers vnderstand the generall state of all proud Men, and chiefly of earthly Kings. But L. contra Iudaeos. Ter­tullian, and Epist. 17. ad Marcell. Ierome doe indeed meane by the Whore of Babilon, Rome; to wit, Rome Ethnike, as it worshipped I­dols and persecuted Christians; but not Rome Christian; which Exposition doth nothing preiudice the Pope or vs Catholikes.

Heere now if your Minister will not rest satisfied with these Expositions, will him to refute all or any of them from the Scripture alone, as hee hath obliged himselfe by his owne doctrine to doe in acknowledging the Scripture for sole Iudge of all Religious Controuersies.

To conclude, you may for the close of all tell your Mi-Minister, that rhis and the other Text alleaged are so farre from prouing the Pope to bee Antichrist; that diuers lear­ned Protestants (as holding the proofes deduced from them to be most in consequent) doe maintaine, that Anti­christ is not yet come.

Of this Opinion, to wit, that Antichrist is not yet come (and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist) is Zan­chius, [Page 31] In Epist. Paul. ad Phi­lip. Boloss. & Thess. p. 246. and Franciscus In his Booke enti­tuled Anti­christus siue Prognostica finis mundi, p. 74. Lambertus, both markable and learned Protestants. And from hence (you may tell him) it proceedeth, that M ^r. Doue in his Sermon touching the second comming of Christ thus writeth: Some Pro­testants make a doubt, whether Antichrist bee yet reueiled or no. A point so euident that our English Puritanes in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the High Court of Parliament, doe charge and censure most seuerely our English Protestants (besides for other things disliked by them) for teaching, that the Pope is not Anti­christ.

And thus farre of this second example, and of the Me­thod to be holden herein in disputing with your Minister; where you are to aduertize him, that seeing in his Dis­putes hee must relye much vpon conference of Scriptures, that this course is holden most vncertaine euen in the iudgements of the Learned Protestants, to wit, of D. L. de Ec­cles. contra Bellar. contr. 2. q. 4. p. 22. Whitakers (aboue alleaged) of Vbi supra. Beza and of M ^r. So vrged by Hooker in the Preface of his Ec­cles. Politie, p. 28. Hooker. And here according to this method of an­swering, I could wish the Catholke to bee well practized in the Question it selfe of the Scripture being sole Iudge, when the Protestant seeketh to proue the same only from Scripture; seeing this Question containeth implicitly in it selfe all other Questions and Controuersies of faith.

Now, against this former Method of disputing and an­swering, if it should be obiected by any, that the learned Catholike when he maintaineth at any time the part of the opponent, stands exposed to the same danger (and so, dum capit, capitur) to the which the Protestant in this Discourse is said to lye open: since the Catholike often insisteth in consequences drawne from Scripture; vrgeth Reasons de­duced from Naturall or Morall Philosophy; warranteth his owne Expositions of Scripture by the testimonie of Men, to wit, of the Pope and generall Councels; and so Meteor-like (in regard of Diuine and Humane Authori­ties) hangeth betweene Heauen and Earth. To this I an­swere, [Page 32] that learned Catholike is not preiudiced by this my Method.

And first concerning Consequences drawne from Scrip­ture, though the Catholike doth freely embrace them (as not holding the expresse Scripture alone to bee the rule of faith) yet so farre forth, as concernes only Scripture, he in­sisteth not in them alone, but he is able to produce expresse plaine, and literall passages of Scripture prouing his Arti­cles of faith without any helpe of Scripturall consequen­ces, though neuer so necessary; Of which kind of proofe the Protestant is wholly depriued, and therefore flyeth for refuge only to supposed illations from Scripture, or to some obscure passages thereof, which in expresse termes speake nothing of the Question, for which they are al­leaged; but only are strangely detorted by his most wilfull mis-application.

For example of the perspicuous Texts of Scripture in defence of our Catholike faith, I will insist in some few of them for some delibation and taste of the rest.

And first concerning the Reall Presence (afore mentio­ned) wee vrge those plaine wordes of Christ: To Mat. 26. wit, this is my body, &c. This is my bloud, &c.

In like sort for the Primacie of Peter we vrge that pas­sage: Thou Mat. 16. art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it.

For the not erring of the Vniuersall Church wee insist (besides in the former Text) in those words of the 1. Tim. 3. A­postle, Who calleth the Church: the pillar and foundation of truth. How then can the Church erre?

That Priests may truly forgiue sinnes, we rest vpon the promise of Christ made to his Apostles (who were Priests) and in them to his Successours: Whose sinnes Iohn 20. you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen them; and whose sinnes you shall re­tayne, they are retayned. What more euident?

That Baptisme truely remitteth Originall Sinne (con­trary to the Protestants Doctrine) wee prooue from that [Page 33] most perspicuous place: Iohn 3. Except a Man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit, hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen.

Finally (to omit infinite other passages of Scripture of the like conuincing euidency for our Catholike Articles and Religion) that Workes doe iustifie and not only Faith, wee produce Saint Iames, saying in expresse words, thus: Iames 3. Doe you not see, that a Man is iustified by Works, and not by Faith only? How literally and punctually hee proues the Point controuerted.

In all which places we find the Catholike Conclusion it selfe (for which they are vrged) literally set downe; and our Aduersaries therefore, as acknowledging so much, are forced to flie to figuratiue constructions of them. Neither doe we neede to forge any strange or mysticall constructi­on of them (as the Protestant in his allegations of Scrip­ture is accustomed to doe) saying, only by our owne war­rant: This the Scripture here 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 [Page 34] 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 Mat. 16. 1. Tim. 3. giuen infallible assistance in points tou­ching Mans saluation, and hath 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 [Page 35] 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: 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: Cont. Du­raeum, l. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion is a pat­ched Couerlit of the Fathers errours sewed together.

The pretended Archbishop of Canterbury: 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 Free­will, of Merit, of Inuocation of Saints, and such like.

Beza: 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: 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, 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 [Page 36] 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 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 this Discourse) such aggrauating circumstances on both [Page 37] 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: Iob c. 8. Diligenter inuestiga patrum memoriam: and againe, Ibidem. Interroga generationem pristinam. But to beginne.

1. The Fathers liued in the times neere 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 Ignat. E­piphan. Atha­nas. Basil. Nazianzen. Chrysost. Cyrill. Theodoret. &c. were Greeke Fathers, in which tongue the new Testament was written. tongues, [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] appropriate the seuerall 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 Ʋinifica­tion) 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 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, Rom. 8. that those who are after the flesh, fauour the things of the flesh.

6. [Page 40] 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 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 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 [Page 41] 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 & As Igna­tius, Polycar­pus, Cyprian, and others. death: death, which, because their birth to Immortalitie: 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 [Page 42] (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: