KEEP YOUR TEXT. OR A short Discourse, wherein is set down a Method to instruct, how a Catholic (though but competently learned) may defend his Faith against the most learned Protestant, that is, if so the Protestant will tie himself to his own Principle and Doctrine, in keeping himself to the Text of the Scripture. Composed by a Catholic Priest.  Vincent. Lyrinens. count Haeres. 
Si quis interroget quempiam Haereticorum: unde probas,  
unde doces hoc? Statim ille: Scriptum est enim.   woodcut of a tall cross with a triple plinth, associated with the Birchley Hall secret press 
Tollentem Extollit It crowneth the carrier  
1619.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader.  
GOOD READER, Thou mayst understand, that some years passed there was printed a little English translation out of French, concerning a Conference in France, between a Father of the Society and a Minister of Amiens; wherein the learned jesuite by tying the Minister to his own principle of proving the Points controverted from the written Word alone, did in the presence of many, mightily confound the Minister. This short English translation (as experience hath showed) hath wrought much good upon divers. But being advertised, that the Copies of it are almost spent, partly by loss of many, and partly otherwise; Therefore I have here taken some small pains to set down in a short Discourse the said Method, in effect, holden in dispute by the former jesuite, but in several points enlarged, altered, and moulded anew. For omitting the French Confession of Faith (as being different in many articles from the doctrine of our English Protestant's) whereunto the former English Translation by discussing several points of Faith there maintained, had special reference; I have first premised certain observations for the better conceiving of the Method here prescribed.  
Secondly, the Method itself of answering is more enlarged.  
Thirdly, where the Minister in the foresaid Conference much relied upon conference of Scripture, it is here showed, that conference of Scripture, even by the acknowledgement of divers learned Protestants, is altogether insufficient for proof of any Article.  
Fourthly, the Argument is here fully answered, which may seem to be taken by retorting upon us the Method here practised, when we undertake the Opponents part and office against the Protestant.  
Fiftly, whereas in alleging of only Scripture, the sole drift of the Protestants, is to appeal to their own interpretation of it, rejecting herein the interpretation of the Primitive Church; therefore I have here alleged the judgements of divers most eminent Protestants, accordingly condemning the Primitive Fathers of flat Papistry; and consequently, of their supposed false constructions given with us of the Scripture.  
Sixtly and lastly, here are presented to the Reader certain forcible arguments of credibility, privileging the Fathers above the Protestants in interpreting Gods sacred written Word: all which several passages are wanting in the foresaid English Translation. And thus, Christian Reader, farewell, and use this my small labour to the spiritual benefit of thy Soul.   

KEEP YOUR TEXT. A Discourse, wherein is set down a Method to instruct, how a Catholic (though but competently learned) may defend his Religion against any learned Protestant, so that the Protestant will tie himself to his own Principle, in keeping himself to the Text of the Scripture.  
IT is too well known, that Luther (whose fall, the fall of the star in the 
(a) c. 9  Apocalyps, may seem to a dumbrate) had no sooner by his defection from the Catholic faith, endeavoured to overthrow the Roman Church, but that there instantly was erected a new Church (no, no Church, which brooks Innovation and Novelty; yet so reputed, and after graced with the title of the Protestants Church.) This Church (indeed, this broken troop of some few scattered and branded soldiers, forsaking the ensign of our Lord jesus; (sweet jesus, do they thus remunerate thy corporal death, suffered to expiate the guilt of their eternal death) labouring to justify her iniustifiable doctrine by declining all other proofs, 
(b) 50. Luther in comment. c. 1. ad Galat. Brent. Prologue. 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 fly to holy places for Sanctuary) where divorcing the letter from the sense, she did so paraphraze the same with her adulterate Scholies and Expositions, as that no Heresy so cross to the Unity of Christian faith, which to a vulgar eye might not seem to be proseminated and sprung from thence. Nor content herewith, but further she proceeded (for Man once finally leaving God, precipitates himself into an Abysm or infinite depth of irrecoverable inconveniences) undertaking to write most virulent Treatises against Apostolical Traditions, and the authority of Christ's Church; as ignorantly presuming, that the more due reverence was exhibited to them, the less was ascribed to the Scripture. Hereupon her members vauntingly gave out (for Heresy is ever borne with the Twin of Pride) that the superstitious Papist (so pleaseth it them in their charitable language to style us) was deadly wounded in all points of his faith with every little splinter or passage of the written Word. Which Word (as is said) they have erected for the sole rule of faith, averring, 
(c) 
So writ the former cited Protestants, besides many other: As for example, Beza is alleged by D. Bancroft in his Survey, p. 219. for sole proof of any point, to say: Aduerbum provoco.  
Cartwright in his second Reply, part. 1. p. 509. thus writeth: We have good cause to hold for suspect whatsoever in government or doctrine the Primitive times left unto us, not confirmed by substantial proofs 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 upon me to control them, but let the Church judge if they considered with advice, etc. D. whitaker's thus saith of Chrysostome, touching the said point, l. de sacra Script. pag 678. I answer, it is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. Finally (to omit many others) D. Wallet in his Synopsis, p. 38. saith: The Scripture is not one of the means, but the sole, whole, and only means to work faith.   that nothing is to be believed as an Article of faith, which hath not it proof taken from thence: and that themselves will confound the poor Papist in any point whatsoever of Religion from the Scripture itself, scorning to borrow any other proofs, then from the writings of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists. But this is a mean frothy ostentation of words, and (as the learned Catholic well knoweth) invented only to retain that grace and favour, which they have already gained from the weak judgements of their abused followers. And therefore to repress this their inconsiderate venditation of prooning, what they pretend, only from the Scripture (they here telling us that as a Diamond cuts a Diamond, so one place of Scripture best explicates and unfolds another) I do challenge the Protestant peremptorily to stand to this his assertion; And because I do expect at his hands, that he should forbear all other kinds of Proofs, then from Scripture alone (to the which by his own doctrine he hath precisely obliged himself) I have therefore accordingly entitled this Treatise, Keep your Text; Thereby to put him in remembrance, that in his proofs he doth not flee from the Scripture: but punctually keep himself to the same. But I am assured, that his performance herein will light short of his promise, and that such vaunting provocations will in the end resolve to fume in his own disgrace, himself thus dangerously running upon the edge of that sentence: 
(d) Pro. c. 13  Qui inconsideratus est adloquendum, sentiet mala. Because I well know, that the learned Catholic is able out of his own reading to encounter the Protestant by entering into a large field of disputation from the written Word, or otherwise; and seeing it is a degree of Victory to limit or give bounds to the assaults of the Adversary, therefore for the ignorant only (I mean the unlearned Catholic) at this time I will take some pains, and will undertake to demonstrate in this discourse, how a Catholic (though but competently read in the Scriptures, & merely ignorant in the Father's writings and other human learning) may in dispute make good and defend his Catholic faith against the learnest Protestant in Christendom, as long as the said Protestant doth punctually and precisely tie himself to his own Principle insisted upon in this Treatise, to wit, That the written Word of God is the sole rule of our Faith, and that nothing is to be believed, as an Article of Religion, which cannot be proved thereby.  

1.  Now, for the facilitating and better effecting hereof, I will premise some few observations, among the which the first is, That the Catholic is to remember, that the Protestant charging our Catholic doctrine with error and superstition, and vaunting 
(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 jewel in his Apology; by Perkins in his exposition of the Creed; and by divers others.  himself to sent from God (I mean in Luther, Caluin, and other his Predecessors) as the Restorer of the Gospel's light, & the Discoverer of our supposed errors (so many Ages heretofore generally believed) is become by this means the Plaintiff or Accuser, and the Catholic the Defendant; and therefore himself is obliged to prove, and the Catholic (as being the Defendant) only to answer: for who defendeth a Cause, is bound only to repel the suggestions and arguments of his Accuser, without urging any affirmative or positive proofs in his own Apology. The same task the Protestant undergoeth even in reason and equity itself: For, seeing it is a principle invented by the Protestant (but disclaimed by us) that nothing is to be believed as an article of faith, but what hath it proof out of the Scripture; therefore it peculiarly belongeth to the Protestant to prove by the Scripture alone, what he maintaineth against us.  
Hence it followeth, that the Catholic (as is above said) is freed at this time from proving any thing from the Scripture alone (as one that is loath to make any building on another man's Land) since it is the Protestant (and not he) who advanceth this principle, that the Scripture is to give sole proof for trial of matters of faith.  
Hereupon than we are to premonish, that a Catholic (I still here speak of one, who through want of learning is not able to become the Opponent to his Adversary) as being through the former reasons disobliged thereof, do never undergo the part of arguing or opposing, precisely still keeping the Defendants part, and without much insisting in the authorities or reasons, why he defendeth this or that point; though otherwise he may purposely be much urged thereto by the Protestant, and this to the end, that the Protestant by this means may subtly discharge himself of proving every point or position questioned, out of the Scripture alone. And according hereto (the better to keep himself 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 err in practising of it. The unlearned Catholic may here deny the Consequence, and pass over the Antecedent; because in denying the Antecedent (though otherwise it is false, and is to be denied) he maketh himself the Actor or Plaintiff in seeking to prove it from the Scripture; and so obligeth himself to prove, whereunto greater measure of learning is required, and freeth his Adversary from his former undertaken task of Proving or Opposing: The Consequence, I say, he is to deny, and so to force the Disputant to proceed on further in proving of it, out of the Scripture alone, which he never can effect.  

2.  The second observation. That the Protestant doth undertake two things. First, to prove his own doctrine to be true out of the written Word alone. Secondly, to confute our pretended errors out of the same Word. And here we are to note, that the impugning of our Catholic faith in divers articles, and the maintaining what the Protestant holdeth concerning the said articles, are two different things in themselves. For, when the Protestant impugneth our Doctrine, he commonly holdeth the Negative part; yet, besides this his negation, he for the most part affirmeth some other thing concerning the same point: as for example in the question of the Real Presence: The Protestant denieth peremptorily our Catholic doctrine herein, yet he teacheth and affirmeth withal, that the Supper of the Lord is the figure of Christ's 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 convince out of the Scripture our Doctrine herein as false, yet he can not conclude, that himself therefore erreth not: for, admit for the time, that Christ's body were not really in the Eucharist, yet can it not be inferred hereupon, that therefore the Eucharist is a figure of Christ's body, or that therefore his body is really taken with the mouth of faith: for, as our Doctrine (of a supposal) may be false, so also may the Protestants doctrine be false; I mean, what the Protestant positively affirmeth herein (since this his affirmation is not merely contradictory unto our affirmation concerning the said article: Hereupon than we are to forewarn the Protestant, that he is not only to prove from Scripture (to insist in the former example) that Christ's body is not really in the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine (as we Catholics do believe) but he is also to prove from Scripture, that the Eucharist is a figure of his body, and that Christ's body is really and truly taken with the mouth of faith: Thus must he allege some Texts of Scripture, proving, that there is a double manducation in the Eucharist; the one of the signs of Christ's body by the corporal mouth; the other of Christ's real 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) himself affirmeth something?  

3.  The third observation. That (as it is above noted) the Protestant thus obliging himself to prove not only his own affirmative Positions out of the Scripture, but also to disprove from Scripture, what the Catholics affirm concerning any articles, he is by this means compelled to prove Negative Propositions (as being mere contrary to the Catholics affirmations) from the Scripture: Thus for example, where we hold, that there is a Purgatory, that we may pray to Saints etc. the Protestant is to evict and prove out of the written Word, that there is no Purgatory, that we ought not to pray to Saints. Where we are to premonish, first, that it is not sufficient for the Protestant to say, that the former Negative Positions of Purgatory and the like, are proved sufficiently by the written Word of God, in that the written Word of God (which is by his judgement the rule of Faith) maketh no mention, that there is a Purgatory, or that we are to pray to Saints. This answer availeth not only, because (to omit that the Catholics do not acknowledge the Scripture for the rule of faith) it is directly false (since from the 
(f) Praying to Saints proved out of Luke 16. Acts 5. 2. Cor. 1. etc. As Purgatory from Matth. 5. Matth. 12. Mark. 3. Luk. 16. etc. besides out of the Maccabees.  Scripture we can prove the foresaid articles) but also in that the Protestant Minister ever with great venditation of words liberally engageth himself, positively and expressly to refute the Catholics pretended errors from the written Word itself, which he doth not by using his former evasion. Neither, secondly, can he say, that Negative Propositions (such, as there is no Purgatory, no Real Presence, and the like) are not to be proved, alleging herein the authority of 
(g) Metaph.  Aristotle, who teacheth, that that, which is not, cannot he known, and consequently cannot be proved. This, I say, forceth nothing, for the Protestant hereby discovereth his ignorance in Philosophy, seeing Aristotle in the former words understands by that, which is not, that, which is false (as the contexture of the precedent and subsequent passages in him do clearly 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 proveth infinite negative Propositions: as, that there is no Vacuum in rerum natura, that there are not many Worlds, and divers such like; a verity so generally acknowledged by all Philosophers, as that two of the Moods of arguing in the first figure (to wit, Celarent and Ferio) are invented only for proof of Negative Propositions. Add hereto for the greater convincing of this sleight, that the Scripture itself proveth sundry Negative Positions: as for example, 
(h) Rom. 9  Saint Paul proveth most amply, that God is not unjust 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 sin, that he willeth not 
(k) Eccles. 15 job 31. Psalm. 5.  Man to sin, and the like. Thus it appeareth, that the Protestant assuming to refute our supposed Errors from the Scripture, is there by engaged to prove many Negative 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 add further, that though it were true, that the Scripture by not speaking of Purgatory, disproveth the being of it; yet doth not the Scripture therefore prove, as an article of Faith, that there is no Purgatory, (which is a point here to be insisted upon) even as the Scripture speaketh nothing in a Prophetical Spirit, that Mahomet was a false prophet, and yet though the Scripture by not speaking of him, should condemn him for such, it followeth not nevertheless, to believe 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, proveth a thing not to be; another to affirm, that the Scripture proveth the not belief of the said point to be an article of Faith.  

4.  The fourth and last observation. That if the Protestant in his disputes draweth any argument either from Philosophy, from the authority of Fathers, Counsels, or any other human testimony, the Catholic may well answer, that though at other times he is well content all these several kinds of arguments to have their due respect and place, yet at this present (by reason that it is an Axiom obtruded upon him, that the Scripture alone is to determine all points of Faith) he is to reject all such reasons and moral persuasions. Neither can the Protestant justly insist in urging of them without renouncing his foresaid Principle. We are here further to instruct the Reader, that a syllogism or argument in proof or disproof of an article of Faith, whereof the one Proposition is taken from the Scripture, the other from Philosophy, or some other human authority, I say, that such a syllogism or argument doth not prove any thing only from the written Word of God; and therefore seeing the Protestants in their disputes are accustomed to frame such syllogisms, when their arguments are reduced into Logical forms, the Catholic may and aught to reject all such arguments, as long as the Protestant undertaketh to prove his faith only by the Scripture, as being by his assertion the sole rule of Faith; from which rule are excluded all Philosophical and human authorities whatsoever. Here, I say, the Catholic (I ever mean a Catholic not learned in human literature, and therefore not able to discuss the weight and force of Philosophical points or other human reasons) may well answer, that admitting such an argument for good and perfect in form, yet the authority, whereupon it lieth, is at this present to be rejected, since it is taken partly from Scripture and partly from human learning; and so the Scripture not wholly, but in part proveth the question controverted; contrary to the Axiom of the Protestants, who teach that the Scripture is not a partial, but a total rule of Faith, and who glorieth, that he is able to justify his own Protestant faith only from the Scripture without the helps of any human authorities at all.  
We will illustrate, what we here mean, in this syllogism following, whereby the Protestant laboureth to prove, that Christ's body cannot really be in the Eucharist.  
That body, which is in Heaven, is not at the same time upon the earth.  
But the body of Christ is now in Heaven (according to that Text in the Acts chap. 3. Heaven must receive Christ until the time of the restitution of all things.)  
Therefore the body of Christ is not now upon the Earth or Altar.  
Here now the unlearned Catholic is to reject (according to the Protestants own Principle) the authority of this argument (though otherwise Logical in form) for though the Minor or second Proposition be taken out of Scripture, and is most true; yet the Mayor or first Proposition (whereupon the weight of the argument chief relieth) is borrowed from a Proposition in Philosophy, to wit, that one Body cannot be in several places at one time; and thus what is here proved, is proved principally from Philosophy, and consequently the argument is not to be prized by the Catholic, who at this present expecteth proofs only from the Scripture, and from nothing else. Thus far concerning these few precedent observations, of which the Catholic is to make use, and put in practice, as often as occasion shall be presented, when he contesteth in disputation with any Protestant. It now followeth in this next place to exemplify in one or other Article or Question, how a Catholic (who is but of small reading) is more particularly to comport and carry himself in his conflict with a Protestant Minister, or some other such like man; who hath promised aforehand with great jollity of words to confirm his own faith and refute our pretended errors only from the Scripture itself.  
And because the Scripture is alleged by the Protestant after two sorts; The first manner in objecting the pure and express Word itself, without help of any illations or consequences; so as the immediate and literal sense thereof is averred by him to fall plumb upon the proving of his faith or disproving our errors.  
The second in urging a Text of Scripture for proof or disproof of a point; but this not in it immediate sense and construction, but only by way of necessary inferences and consequences, as himself affirmeth; Both these two sorts of the Protestants disputing we will consider a part, and show, how a Catholic (not greatly seen in Divinity) 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 begin with the first manner of pressing the Scripture against us, to wit in seeming to urge it in it immediate sense and Construction; where I am in the beginning to forewarn the Catholic, that he doth sever and distinguish these words frequently used by the Protestant in alleging of Texts: to wit, This is the sense of such a Text of Scripture, or, the Scripture in this place meaneth thus, etc. from that, which that Text importeth in it plain and familiar acception of Words: since that other construction understood by the former words of the Protestant, is but calumniously obtruded upon the Text. And for the better encouraging of the unlearned Catholic herein, I can and do assure him, that there is not any one Text through out the Bible, which the Protestant useth to allege against any Article of our faith, the which Text even according to their own English Translations may seem in direct and express words immediately to impugn the point, against which it is produced (yea oftentimes it doth not so much as concern it) but that when it is objected against the said Catholic point, it is forcibly wrested by the Protestant thereto, with this or the like ushering phrase: This is the sense of this Text, etc. or else it is applied against our doctrine only by help of weak inferences or sequels, of which kind of consequences we shall hereafter speak.  

1.  But to proceed forward. I will exemplify my following Method in the Questions of the Real Presence, and of Antichrist which may serve as Precedents to be followed in all other Questions. And here if you (for I now suppose, that I speak to an unlearned Catholic) be to dispute with a Protestant Minister, you are, first, to demand of him, if he can allege any evident and express place of Scripture (not seconded only with his own interpretation of it, or help of sequels) for the destroying of the Real Presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; if he can, then urge him presently to show it; if he cannot (as certainly he cannot) then afore you proceed further, force him to confess in plain terms, that he hath no express Scripture without further interpretation, which doth condemn the supposed error of the Real Presence.  

2.  Next, if the Protestant Minister should seek to expound by way of conference of places those words of our Saviour: This is my 
(a) Mat. 26  body, This is my blood. figuratively, by those other words of his: I am 
(b) joh. 15.  the Vine, and I am 
(c) joh. 10.  the door, etc. both which Texts all grant to be taken in a figurative construction: then demand of your Minister, if he can allege any passage of Scripture, which affirmeth, that these words: This is my body, etc. aught to be interpreted by those words, I am the Vine, or, I am the Door. If there be any such passage, let it be instantly read; if the Scripture saith not so much, but only the Protestant Minister averreth it from his own conjecture, then force the Minister to confess, that it is not the Scripture, but himself, that teacheth, that these two figurative Texts of the Vine and the Door, are to serve for a rule, whereby we are to interpret those other words of Christ: This is my body, etc. for these open Confessions (as showing that the Minister even in the beginning abandoneth his Principle touching his relying upon Scripture) will much confound him in the presence of his auditory. Add, that such conference of Scripture is but uncertain even according to D. Whitaker, who thus writeth hereof, L. de Eccles. contra Bell. controu. 2. q. 4. p. 221. Qualia illa media or Look what the means of interpreting are (speaking of conference of places) such the interpretation must be; but the means of interpreting obscure places are uncertain, therefore the interpretation must be uncertain; and if uncertain, then may it be false: thus Herald In like manner if he urge those words of our Saviour: 
(d) joh. 6.  The Spirit quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, or any other Text of like nature, you may tell him, that you find nothing in the express words and immediate construction of them touching the absence of our saviours body in the Eucharist, since these words say nothing of our saviours body, nor so much as naming it at al. If the Minister reply, that Christ meaneth in these words, that his body profiteth nothing, and therefore he would not really give it to his Disciples to eat at the last supper; you may answer, that (besides the atrocity of this Position ascribing no profit to Christ's body, which suffered death for the redemption of Mankind) you deny, that Christ in the foresaid words speaketh or meaneth of his own body; but only of a 
(*) So is this Text expounded by Cyprian, Serm. de Coena Domini. Origen. l. 3. Ep. ad Rom. Chrysostome upon this place.  carnal understanding of spiritual things. If the Minister will not yield to you herein, then will him (according to his undertaken task) to prove out of some place of Scripture, that the former words are spoken of Christ's body: if he say he can, cause him presently to repeat it: if he confess he cannot (as it is impossible for him to do) then let him openly acknowledge that it cannot be proved from Scripture, that the former words, to wit, The flesh profiteth nothing, do concern the flesh of Christ, much less the absence of it in the Eucharist.  

3.  Thirdly, the Catholic is to demand touching the interpretation of this Text of Scripture, or of any other, who is to judge, whether the interpretation given by the Minister be good or no. If he reply, that the Scripture is to judge of it; then urge him (as I admonished afore) to show 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 himself, which warranteth his former interpretations of the Texts alleged by him, for true; and then the Minister forsaketh herein his main Principle of proving from the Scripture alone, erecting himself the last and supreme judge in all Controversies of Faith and Religion: and then consequently he performeth no more herein, than all Heretics heretofore have been accustomed to do, to wit, strangely to allege and detort 
(e) So witness Tertul. l. de Praescrip. adverse. haeres. jerom. Ep. ad Paulinum. August. count Maximinun Arianum, l. 1 Vincent. Lyr. adver. haeres.  the Scripture for patronizing of their Heresies; and finally, to make themselves sole judges of interpreting the Scripture.  

4.  Fourthly (for the greater confronting of our poor Minister thus entangled) you are to demand of him, whether his gravity (forsooth) stands subject to error or mistaking in his exposition of the former Texts of Scripture against the Real Presence; if he confess, that he may err therein, then followeth it, that his belief (as being founded upon a doubtful construction, and such as may be erroneous) is no longer any true belief, since Faith in it own nature (according both to Catholic and Protestant) is most certain and infallible. If the Minister say, that he relieth in the interpretation of the Texts mentioned, or the like, upon other learned Ministers of his own brotherhood, then leaveth he again the Scripture, and finally relieth for proof of his faith upon the bare authorities of certain particular men. But if his vanity rise to that height, as to maintain himself not to be subject to any erroneous mistake in interpreting the Texts of Scripture, than first cause him (according to his own prescribed method of proving) to allege some place of Scripture, warranting this his supposed infallibility of expounding; and if he urge 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 mean the 
(f) see whitaker's hereof he Eccles. count Bellar. controu. 2. q. 4. p. 223. jewel in his Apology of the Church of Eng and, part. 4. c. 4. Luther epist. ad Argentinenses. Perkins in his exposition upon the Creed, pag. 400. For these Protestants teach, that the Church of Christ wholly erred from Augustine's time till Luther's days.  not erring of the whole Church in it interpreting of the Scripture) himself denieth: But if the whole Church of Christ may and hath erred in Religion, and consequently in interpreting Gods written Word (as the Protestant confidently averreth, that it hath) then ask the Minister, with what face can he (being but a member of his Church, and perhaps but a bad and unlearned member thereof) assume to himself a freedom of not erring, when he interpreteth the Scripture?  

5.  Fiftly and lastly, it behoveth you to hear at large the Minister's interpretation of Scripture, and his proofs and reasons warranting his said interpretation; and than you are to desire him to make good those proofs and reasons out of the Scripture alone, which he not doing, then are you to deny his said Explications, Proofs, and Reasons, not obliging yourself (as being the Defendant) to show the reason of your denial. And it is more advantageous for you, simply to deny his expositions and proofs of the same, then to set down the reasons of such your denial. For, by alleging your reasons (whereunto the Defendant is never obliged) beside, the danger, perhaps, of your own insufficiency discovered in labouring to make them good, you give fit occasion and opportunity to the Minister to begin new discourses against your Reasons, and so by degrees (and afore you be aware) he leaveth his Scene, and windeth himself out of his undertaken task, to wit, of proving his interpretation of the Texts of Scripture by Scripture; to which method, if you punctually and precisely tie him, without suffering him to use any digressions or evasions by questioning of you, or otherwise (as by his own Principle, Doctrine, and often vaunting he obligeth himself) then shall you find him presently stabled and plunged in the midst of his disputes; it being impossible for him to justify and make good his first undertaking, or his expositions of Scripture by Scripture alone. And thus far concerning the first kind of the Ministers alleging Texts of Scripture in proof or disproof of any point controverted: Which course here set down, the Catholic is to observe in all other Texts of Scripture, which any Protestant shall urge out of their immediate and literal Construction, to prove or disprove any point controverted between him and us.  
In this second place it cometh in to prescribe certain directions, how an unlearned Catholic is to answer to the Protestant Minister, when he laboureth to prove or disprove any article of Faith from the Scripture, but this not immediately from the express and evident sense thereof (whereof I have afore entreated) but only by certain inferences and sequels, necessarily (as he saith) deduced out of the said Scripture.  
This form shall be exemplified in the former example of the Real Presence; the falsehood of which doctrine our Protestant Minister will (perhaps) labour to prove by an inference or deduction, drawn from the pure written Word of God in the Acts chap. 3. where we read, that Heaven must receive Christ, until the time of the restitution of all things, meaning, that Christ is to stay in Heaven till the end and consummation of the World. Now, out of this place the Protestant Minister thus argueth, (as above I have touched in one of my former observations.)  
That body which is in Heaven, is not at the same time upon the earth under the forms of Bread and Wine.  
But the body of Christ, according to the former alleged Scripture, remains till the end of the World in Heaven.  
Therefore, the body of Christ is not here upon the earth under the forms of Bread and Wine.  

1.  Now, before the Catholic do answer directly to this argument, I would have him, first, to demand of our Minister, if for want of express Texts to convince our doctrine of the Real Presence, he is forced to use inferences and consequences from Scripture; for we see, that place of the Acts toucheth not the Question of the Real Presence, but only by consequence (which kind of arguing is evermore weak and uncertain) if the Minister will not confess so much, then wish him to insist in clear and perspicuous passages of Scripture, without any furtherance of Inferences, omitting the more obscure. If he can be drawn to such a confession, then force him thereto, it much disaduantageing his cause, since at other times he professed in great gallantry and bravery of words to confute our Catholic Doctrine herein, even from the unanswerable perspicuity and evidency of the Text itself.  

2.  Secondly, coming to the deduction of his argument in particular, the Catholic is not precisely to insist in the discoursing the falsehood thereof (leaving this to the closure and end of the whole Dispute.) But he is to show, that every true consequence or illation is drawn from two Propositions, of which if either of them be not in the Scripture either expressly, or at least secondarily by another illation, then doth the Minister in urging such an argument (as for the most part he doth) fly from his undertaken task of convincing the Catholic point by the Scripture alone. Here then in the former Syllogism: to wit, That body which is in Heaven, is not at the same time upon the earth under the forms of Bread and Wine. But the body of Christ, according to the Scripture, remains ever in Heaven; Therefore the body of Christ is not here upon earth under the forms of Bread and Wine. You are to demand of your Minister, whether the first Proposition (which is, That body which is in Heaven is not at the same upon the earth etc.) be in express Scripture or no; if it be, then let him prove it from some evident and express Text; if it be not, then force him to confess so much; and next will him to prove the same proposition at least by consequence out of some Text of Scripture. But he not being able to prove the same by Consequence, then force him to confess so much in the hearing of such as are present, who may clearly see, that the Minister hath twice or thrice already abandoned the Scripture in his form of proving.  
Next give him liberty to prove the said Proposition by any other Means he can. He having no other means of proving it, then in this sort from Philosophy only; Every Body possesseth or occupieth at one only place; and consequently it followeth, that that Body, which is in Heaven is not at the same time upon the earth under the forms of Bread and Wine. Here now our Minister is afresh to be required to show his Mayor or first proposition (which is this: Every body possesseth or occupieth at once but only one place) out of the Scripture, which he granting, he cannot, let him confess so much publicly. Then will him to prove it only by consequence from Scripture, the which to perform he is no more able. And he then acknowledging so much, suffer him to prove his said Proposition by any other Medium, he can. But remember still, that according to this prescribed method, he be put to prove his Mayor or Minor of his next ensuing argument (the choice of either of them being left unto yourself) first, by express Scripture, if not so, at least by consequence from Scripture; and lastly, seeing by neither of the two former means he can prove it, suffer him to prove it, as he may, still proceeding with him punctually (according to these directions) in every argument, which he shall make. Which course being kept with the Minister must needs confound him in the presence of his absurd auditory, since he shall be forced by this means seven or eight times more (according to the number of arguments made by him) to relinquish and abandon his main Principle erected by himself; to wit that nothing is to believed as an Article of faith, but what receiveth it sole proof from the written Word either in express Words, 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 environed in these straits, whether he is subject to error in his deductions and consequences of Scripture or no? If he confess himself, that he may err therein, then can it not be an Article of faith, which is proved thereby, since faith (as is noted above) cannot be subject to error or mistaking: And then it followeth, that it is lawful to believe or not believe such an Article of faith, as not being proved from Scripture, but by doubtful, and perhaps erroneous consequences. If he say, he is not subject to such an error, then disclaimeth he from another point of his doctrine as is afore intimated) which teacheth that the whole Church (than much more himself, being but one illiterate fellow) may and actually hath foully erred in Articles of faith, and deductions of Scripture.  

4.  In the fourth place you are to demand, if the Scripture doth affirm, that what is deduced by necessary consequences out of itself (for here we suppose for the time, that the Ministers Consequences from Scripture as necessary) be Scripture, or the belief of such Consequences is to be holden, as an Article of faith or no? Here I speak precisely of an Article of faith, since it is one thing to say, that a Proposition is true, and to maintain the contrary is to maintain a falsehood; another thing to aver the said Proposition to be an Article of faith. Now if the Scripture saith, that every such consequence is to be taken as Scripture, & the belief thereof as an Article of faith, then desire the Minister, that he would show you where the Scripture so saith of consequences taken out of itself. If no such assertion is to be found in the Scripture (as certainly there is no such) then how are those points to be accounted Articles of faith (at least by the Ministers own doctrine) which he proveth from consequences of Scripture? since the Scripture saith not in any place, that either Consequences drawn from Scripture are Scripture (as indeed they are not) or that such consequences taken from Scripture are to be acknowledged, as Articles of faith; And yet our Minister and his party generally teach, that those only are Articles of faith, which receive their probation only from the Scripture: deadly wounding their own Religion with their own hands, seeing all the reformation (as they term it) which they have made of our Catholic faith, consists only in certain pretended sequences and inferentiall deductions out of the Scripture. If the Minister here reply, that divers Catholic Authors (for all are not of that opinion) do teach, that necessary and inevitable 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 proved only by them, is proved by that, which is not Scripture: Next demand of your Minister, if he ground himself herein upon the authority of some particular Catholic Writers; if he doth, then followeth it, that he grounds his Articles of faith not upon the Scripture (which by his own doctrine he should do) but upon the judgements of certain Men, and such, whom at other times he absolutely rejecteth with all contempt and scorn. And here he is to note, that Catholics, as not holding the written Word to be the sole rule of faith, may without contradicting themselves, teach the foresaid opinion, which the Protestant cannot defend without mainly impugning and crossing his former doctrine of the Scripture being the sole judge of faith; since (as I have said) the Scripture in no place affirmeth, that consequences drawn out of itself, are to be received as Articles of faith. If our Minister, secondly, reply, that our Saviour himself in Matthew 22. hath argued from consequence of Scripture, and proveth thereby the Resurrection of the dead, you are to answer thereto, first, that Christ our Lord by drawing any consequences from Scripture, doth make the same consequences to become Scripture; since whatsoever he said, which is recorded by the Evangelists, is thereby become Scripture: Secondly, say that it is an Article of faith to believe, that our Saviour concludeth truly, whatsoever he deduceth from the Scripture by consequence, since the Scripture witnesseth, that he enjoyed an infallible assistance of God; neither of which privileges can our poor Minister assume to himself: 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 proved 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 every true consequence resulteth out of two Propositions put in good form of a Syllogism, according to the true rules of Logic, but the Scripture delivereth not any rules, which are to be observed in the form of a Syllogism, or other approved method of arguing; therefore it followeth, that when the Minister laboureth to prove his Articles by consequences of Scripture, he proveth not his Articles by only Scripture (since Scripture (as is said) speaketh nothing of the form of consequences) and consequently in his controversies of faith, he relieth not upon Scripture, as only judge, (as he promised in the beginning to do) but rather upon Aristotle, who setteth down the true rules and precepts to be observed in consequences, or at the most he relieth upon the Scripture joined with Aristotle, and then not upon Scripture only.  

6.  In the sixth place, demand of your Minister, who shall judge of the consequence, which he deduceth from Scripture, whether it be good or no: As for example, in the former alleged illation concerning Christ's body in the Eucharist, to wit: The body of jesus Christ is in Heanen (as we read in the Acts c. 3.) therefore it is not upon the earth under the forms of Bread and Wine. The Protestant maintains this to be a good consequence, we Catholics deny it. Who must now judge, whether it be a true, or a vicious consequence? If the Scripture must be judge hereof, then cause the Minister to allege 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 himself must judge of the goodness of the consequence (and yet there is no more reason for him, then for the Catholic to judge thereof) who then seethe not, that the Protestant under the pretext of the holy Scripture maketh himself sole and last judge of Scripture itself, of consequences drawn from the Scripture, and finally of all Controversies in Faith and Religion? And here you may further add, and demand how it is possible, that an ignorant Mechanical fellow (who perhaps cannot write or read) can have true faith of any point, that is deduced by consequence from Scripture, since he is not able to judge, whether the Consequence be good or vicious (especially where one of the Propositions is taken from the difficult grounds of Philosophy) and then much less can he judge of the requisite forms of syllogisms. He must not here insist upon the affiance he hath of his Minister's learning, who deduceth this Consequence, seeing by so doing he forsaketh the former Principle of the Protestants; to wit, that articles of Faith are to receive their proofs not from Men, but only from the written Word of God. Again, seeing in the Protestants censure, the whole Church of God may err (as is afore urged) in consequences drawn from Scripture, and in articles builded upon the said consequences; much more than may any one Minister be deceived therein.  

7.  In the last place of all, after the Catholic hath thus fully showed by several ways, that the Minister many times in his proofs hath relinquished the Scripture (whereupon afore he pretended to rely) he may descend (if so he find himself furnished with sufficient learning thereto) to examine the truth or falsehood of the Propositions, from which the Minister's consequence ariseth: though perhaps it were better judgement to rest satisfied with the former Victory; as being more easily to be discerned by the ignorant Auditory, then otherwise it could be, being gained 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 Heaven, is not upon the Earth.  
But the body of Christ is in Heaven, as we read in the Acts, chap. 3.  
Therefore the body of Christ is not upon the Earth, etc.  
The Catholic (I say) is here to deny the first Proposition; to wit, That body, which is in Heaven, is not upon the Earth: distinguishing for greater satisfaction, that one and the same body cannot naturally, or by the ordinary course of Nature, be at once both in Heaven and upon the Earth; but supernaturally and by the Power of God it may be; as we hold that Christ's body is supernaturally and by the omnipotency of God, both in Heaven, and under the forms of Bread and Wine; where his body through God's infinite power hath no reference to any external coextention of Place.  
If the Minister do proceed on further against this distinction, still drawing one argument after another out of Philosophy or other human authority, the Catholic may (when it please him) demand of the Minister, whether all the Propositions, which he alleged in so many arguments, be in the Scripture or no? if they be not (as certainly they are not, but are grounded upon Philosophy or other human learning) then followeth it inevitably, that the Minister (besides his often leaving of Scripture before) hath afresh abandoned the Scripture many times after the distinction was given. And the reason hereof is manifest, because he draweth his Consequence from the written Word of God, accompanied with some nine or ten Propositions, or more or less, according to the number of the Propositions made: Which Propositions are not found in the Scripture, nor can be proved from it, but are taken from Philosophy or other human literature. Of all which Propositions (besides that nothing is proved by Scripture alone, as it is proved by the help of them) if but any one be false, or through ignorance or otherwise misse-understood; then necessarily it followeth, that the first proof and consequence, drawn from Scripture (as implicitly and potentially relying upon the said false or misse-understood Proposition) be also false; and consequently, the article, as proved thereby, can be no article of Faith. And thus far of this Example of the Real Presence: yet for greater illustration of the Method here prescribed, and that every ordinary judgement may become more capable thereof, I will proceed further in exemplifying it in another point of Controversy, maintained by the Protestants, to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist.  
Now, for proof hereof, the Protestant Minister doth commonly urge that Text in the second of the Thessalonians, chap. 2. viz. Unless there come a revolt first, and the Man of Sin be revealed, the son of Perdition, which is an Adversary, and is extolled above all, that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself, as though he were God, etc. Out of which words our Adversaries do teach, that the true portraiture or delineation of the Pope may be taken, since (say they) this former Text doth even literally and expressly personate the Pope.  

1.  Now here again, according to the former method, the Catholic is, first, to demand of the Protestant Minister, who allegeth this place, whether this Text in clear and express words, or only but by his own presumed construction, either nameth the Pope or speaketh of him in direct terms. That it nameth not him, it is evident: That it is to be understood of the Pope, we deny, but our Minister affirmeth.  

2.  Therefore, secondly, you are to require your Minister, to show by conference of Scripture or otherwise, where the Scripture affirms, that the points contained in this former Text, to wit, a Discession or revolt; the Man of Sin; the son of Perdition; one, that is extolled above all, that is God; and finally, one, that sitteth in the Temple of God, as God, are to be understood of the Bishop of Rome: If the Minister say, there are some such Texts averring so much, will him to show them; if he grant, that there is not any (as of necessity he must) then is the former Text wrested to the Pope, only through the Ministers wilful misse-application and misse-interpretation.  

3.  Thirdly, demand of your Minister, who shall judge whether this foresaid Text be to be understood of the Pope or no. If the written Word must judge (as according to his own 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 solely becomes judge thereof; and so he abandoneth the Scripture for judge, and erecteth himself as judge.  

4.  Fourthly, inquire of your Minister (as afore in the example of the Real Presence) whether the Minister in his application or interpretation of this Text of Scripture be subject to error or no? If he be, then followeth it, that the believing the Pope to be Antichrist (as being proved from the interpretation of this Text of Scripture delivered by the Minister) is no article of faith; since it is grounded upon that authority, which is subject to error. If the Minister say, that he cannot err in this his construction, than (as is afore delivered) he swerveth from that general doctrine of the Protestants, which teacheth, that the whole Church of God (and then consequently any one member) may and hath foully 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 show (if your sufficiency of learning will extend so far, for otherwise content yourself with your former demands) how several points in this Text cannot in any sort be applied to the Pope: and how the ancient Fathers have interpreted the same Text in a most different sense from the Minister's interpretation, and in the same sense which we Catholics deliver: as for example, that the Revolt or Discession here specified, is not meant of any revolt from truth of Doctrine (as the Protestants affirm) but a revolt 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, do expound these words.  
Again that the Pope is not extolled above all, that is God, is evident, and consequently, that the Pope is not Antichrist; since he acknowledgeth God and Christ our Saviour: & yet according to the judgements of 
(e) L. 20. de Civit. Dei c. 8.  Augustine, 
(f) In c. 11. Danielis.  Jerome, 
(g) L. 6. de ●●●●tate.  Hilarius and others, Antichrist shall in express and direct words deny Christ, not acknowledging him in any sort, as the Redeemer of the World. That the Pope confesseth himself to be the servant of God (which by the former Text Antichrist shall not do) and that therefore he sitteth not in the Temple of God, as God, is also clear: And therefore answerably hereto we read, that Damasus then Pope of Rome was called by 
(h) In 1. Timoth. 3.  Ambrose: Rector domus Dei, the governor of the House of God: and that the Bishop of Rome was in like manner styled by the Council of 
(i) In Epist. ad Leonem.  Chalcedon: Custos Vineae, the keeper of God's Vineyard.  
Lastly, that by the Temple of God in the former Text is not to be understood the Church of the Christian, but the Temple of the jews, as we Catholics maintain, and show 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 civit. Dei. c. 19  Austin, and 
(p) Q. 12. ad Algasiam.  Jerome: All which Fathers do jointly teach, that the Temple of Solomon (which was the Temple of the jews) shall be the seat of Antichrist, and not Rome; from which we gather that in the foresaid Father's judgements this passage of the former Text cannot be applied to the Pope.  
This done. cause your Minister to disprove your interpretation (taken from the authority of the Fathers or otherwise) from the Scripture alone; and urge him to show and set down such passages of Scripture, from which he may make show to confirm his own Constructions and the Reasons thereof, and to refute your interpretation and the Reasons thereof, which he shall find most impossible to perform. And thus far of this Text, which the Protestants are accustomed to produce, as immediately and expressly proving without any help of sequels, that the Pope is Antichrist.  
Now if your Minister should urge that place in the apocalypse, ch. 17. (as the Protestants are wont strangely to insist therein) wherein S. john speaking of the Whore of Babylon, saith: It is that great City, which is seated upon seven Hills, and hath the government over the Kings of the earth. From which Text the Protestants gather by way of inference and sequel, that seeing Rome is seated on seven Hills, and that the Pope of Rome usurpeth (as they say) domination over divers Kings; And seeing that by the Whore of Babylon Antichrist is understood, that therefore the Pope is from hence necessarily proved to be Antichrist.  
Now, here again, you are to recurre to your former Method practised above in answering to Texts of Scripture urged by way of consequence in disproof of the Real Presence.  
And first demand of him, if for want of express and clear Texts he is forced to fly to obscure places of consequences and illations. And if he pretend any more evident proofs of Scripture in this point, wish him (omitting all doubtful illations) to insist in them alone. But if he will persever in alleging this Text, then for greater perspicuity you may draw it into an argument in this form.  
Antichrist or the Whore of Babylon is said in the apocalypse, ch. 17. to sit upon seven Hills, and to tyrannize over the Kings of the Earth.  
But the seat of the Pope (to wit, Rome) is placed on seven Hills, as all men confess; and he usurpeth rule over Christian Kings and Princes.  
Therefore the Pope is Antichrist or the Whore of Babylon.  

2.  Next desire your Minister to prove from Scripture alone two points in your Mayor or first Proposition: first, that by the Whore of Babylon in the 17. of the Apocalyps, Antichrist is meant; secondly, that by the words, seven Hills, we are to understand literally and plainly seven Hills, and not some other thing shadowed thereby; seeing in the Apocalyps most points are delivered in figurative and Metaphorical words. I say, will him to prove these constructions by some express Texts of Scripture; If he grant he cannot, then cause him to acknowledge so much openly; And that done, will him to prove so much by some consequence at least of Scripture: If he make show hereof, then cause him to set down that other Text, from the which he seemeth to prove his foresaid construction by consequence: And thus accordingly in his next new argument and all others ensuing, you have the like liberty to deny any one Proposition (I mean, which to you shall seem more false) and to cause him to prove the denied Proposition, first, from express Scripture, then that failing, from Scripture at least by way of consequence: in proving of which you shall doubtlessly find your Minister often to relinquish the Scripture, and consequently to abandon his doctrine of the Scriptures sole judge.  

3.  In the third place (as in the former Texts I admonished) tell the Minister, that if he be subject to error in these deductions from Scripture (to wit, that by the Whore of Babylon Antichrist is meant, and that the words, seven Hills, do here literally signify seven Hills) then can it be no Article of faith, which is founded upon such doubtful proofs: if he be not subject to any such error, then most insolently he assumeth that privilege to himself (I mean 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 have taught) to prove (which he never can do) that the Scripture saith, that what is deduced necessarily out of itself (for here you may suppose the deductions to be 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 approved forms of Syllogisms, they being delivered by the rules of Logic and Philosophy; that therefore admitting for the time your Ministers Texts and Testimonies for probable, and truly applied; yet so far forth, as concerns the forms of consequences (deduced from those Texts, and here insisted upon by your Minister) the Scripture alone cannot assure us of the soundness of them; and consequently it cannot assure us (to rest in the former example) that by the Whore of Babylon in the 17. of the Apoc. Antichrist is meant; or that by the seven Hills in the said Chapter we are literally to understand seven material Hills, and consequently that the Pope is Antichrist.  

6.  In the sixth, demand of your Minister, who must judge, whether this Exposition given by him of the foresaid Text be good or no? If he say the Scripture must judge, will him to allege some Text of express Scripture. If he saith that the Protestant Church or himself must judge, than put him in mind, that he abandoneth his former doctrine of the Scriptures sole judge of Articles of faith, & flieth to the authority of Man therein: Lastly, you may ask him, if he would be content (as in reason he ought) that the authority of the ancient Fathers might be admitted touching the foresaid exposition of the former Text; If he would than followeth it, that (besides his forsaking hereby the Scripture as judge) he would be convicted of error therein; seeing the Fathers are traduced by the Protestants to be patrons not only of other Catholic Opinions, but also of this particular question, to wit, that the Pope is not Antichrist.  

7.  In the seventh and last place, if you be not content with his former overthrow, you may (if your reading and learning shall enable you so far) examine more particularly the passage of the former Scripture, and show from the contexture of the place itself; first, that by the Whore of Babylon Antichrist cannot possibly be understood; seeing in the same Chapter of Apocalyps we read, that the ten horns of the Beast there described at the coming of Antichrist, shall make the Whore of Babylon desolate, and consume her with fire; for thus we there read: And the ten horns, which thou sawest upon the Beast, are they, that shall hate the Whore, and shall make her desolate, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. Now how can the Whore here signify Antichrist or his seat, if at his coming she is to be overthrown and demolished? Next you may show that the Expositions of the Fathers are different, concerning what the Whore of Babylon here signifieth; yet not any of them can be applied to the Pope: for 
(q) In Psal. 26.  Austin, 
(r) In hunc locum.  Aretas, 
(s) Ibidem.  Haymon, and S. Bede do understand by the Whore, which sitteth on seven Hills, and hath domination over the Kings of the earth, not Rome, but the universal City of the Devil; which in the Scripture is often called Babylon, and is opposed to the City of God, which is his Church, and called jerusalem. And by the seven Hills, these Fathers understand the general state of all proud Men, and chief of earthly Kings. But 
(t) L. contra judaeos.  Tertullian, and 
(u) Epist. 17. ad Marcell.  Jerome do indeed mean by the Whore of Babylon, Rome; to wit, Rome Ethnic, as it worshipped Idols and persecuted Christians; but not Rome Christian; which Exposition doth nothing prejudice the Pope or us Catholics.  
Hear 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 he hath obliged himself by his own doctrine to do in acknowledging the Scripture for sole judge of all Religious Controversies.  
To conclude, you may for the close of all tell your Mi-Minister, that rhis and the other Text alleged are so far from proving the Pope to be Antichrist; that divers learned Protestants (as holding the proofs deduced from them to be most in consequent) do maintain, 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, 
(x) In Epist. Paul. ad Philip. Boloss. & Thess. p. 246.  and Franciscus 
(y) In his Book entitled Antichristus sive Prognostica finis mundi, p. 74.  Lambertus, both markable and learned Protestants. And from hence (you may tell him) it proceedeth, that Mr. Dove in his Sermon touching the second coming of Christ thus writeth: Some Protestants make a doubt, whether Antichrist be yet revealed or no. A point so evident that our English Puritans in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the High Court of Parliament, do charge and censure most severely our English Protestant's (besides for other things disliked by them) for teaching, that the Pope is not Antichrist.  
And thus far of this second example, and of the Method to be holden herein in disputing with your Minister; where you are to advertise him, that seeing in his Disputes he must rely much upon conference of Scriptures, that this course is holden most uncertain even in the judgements of the Learned Protestants, to wit, of D. 
(z) L. de Eccles. contra Bellar. contr. 2. q. 4. p. 22.  whitaker's (above alleged) of 
(a) Vbi supra.  Beza and of Mr. 
(b) So urged by Hooker in the Preface of his Eccles. Polity, p. 28.  Hooker. And here according to this method of answering, I could wish the Catholke to be well practised in the Question itself of the Scripture being sole judge, when the Protestant seeketh to prove the same only from Scripture; seeing this Question containeth implicitly in itself all other Questions and Controversies of faith.  
Now, against this former Method of disputing and answering, if it should be objected by any, that the learned Catholic 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 lie open: since the Catholic often insisteth in consequences drawn from Scripture; urgeth Reasons deduced from Natural or Moral Philosophy; warranteth his own Expositions of Scripture by the testimony of Men, to wit, of the Pope and general Counsels; and so Meteor-like (in regard of Divine and human Authorities) hangeth between Heaven and Earth. To this I answer, that learned Catholic is not prejudiced by this my Method.  
And first concerning Consequences drawn from Scripture, though the Catholic doth freely embrace them (as not holding the express Scripture alone to be the rule of faith) yet so far forth, as concerns only Scripture, he insisteth not in them alone, but he is able to produce express plain, and literal passages of Scripture proving his Articles of faith without any help of scriptural consequences, though never so necessary; Of which kind of proof the Protestant is wholly deprived, and therefore flieth for refuge only to supposed illations from Scripture, or to some obscure passages thereof, which in express terms speak nothing of the Question, for which they are alleged; but only are strangely detorted by his most wilful misapplication.  
For example of the perspicuous Texts of Scripture in defence of our Catholic faith, I will insist in some few of them for some delibation and taste of the rest.  
And first concerning the Real Presence (afore mentioned) we urge those plain words of Christ: To 
(c) Mat. 26.  wit, this is my body, etc. This is my blood, etc.  
In like sort for the Primacy of Peter we urge that passage: Thou 
(d) Mat. 16.  art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
For the not erring of the Universal Church we insist (besides in the former Text) in those words of the 
(e) 1. Tim. 3.  Apostle, Who calleth the Church: the pillar and foundation of truth. How then can the Church err?  
That Priests may truly forgive sins, we rest upon the promise of Christ made to his Apostles (who were Priests) and in them to his Successors: Whose sins 
(f) john 20.  you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. What more evident?  
That Baptism truly remitteth Original Sin (contrary to the Protestants Doctrine) we prove from that most perspicuous place: 
(g) john 3.  Except a Man be borne again of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Finally (to omit infinite other passages of Scripture of the like convincing evidency for our Catholic Articles and Religion) that Works do justify and not only Faith, we produce Saint james, saying in express words, thus: 
(h) james 3.  Do you not see, that a Man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only? How literally and punctually he proves the Point controverted.  
In all which places we find the Catholic Conclusion itself (for which they are urged) literally set down; and our Adversaries therefore, as acknowledging so much, are forced to fly to figurative constructions of them. Neither do we need to forge any strange or mystical construction of them (as the Protestant in his allegations of Scripture is accustomed to do) saying, only by our own warrant: This the Scripture here would say etc. or, this is the meaning of such a Text etc. but it sufficeth for us, to press only the most obvious, familiar, and literal sense of the said Texts.  
Now to that second part of the former Objection, where it is urged, that the Catholic insisting in Proofs drawn from Philosophy, or from human authorities of the Pope, Fathers, Counsels, and the like, stands obnoxious to the same inconveniences, whereunto the Protestant by urgeing proofs of like nature, is judged in this discourse to run.  
I answer to this, first, that seeing the Catholic (notwithstanding all due reverence and honour to the Scripture) acknowledgeth not the Scripture to be the sole rule or square of Faith, that therefore he may seek to prove his articles from other testimonies, then only Scripture.  
Secondly, I say, that the Catholic believeth not any point as an article of faith, because it receiveth it proof from human authorities; since they are holden as moral inducements only of faith; the Church of God being the Propounder of such divine Mysteries, and the revelation of them made by God, the true Formal, and last Cause of our belief of them.  
Lastly, I answer, that the supreme Bishop or general Council, from whom the Catholic draws his authority, are not simply human authorities, but withal divine and supernatural. Since the one is the head of the Church, the other the mystical body of Christ; to both which himself hath 
(q) Mat. 16. 1. Tim. 3.  given infallible assistance in points touching Man's salvation, and hath 
(r) Mat. 18.  threatened, that they, who finally shall deny this assistance, shall never enter into the spiritual Canaan. And thus much touching the solution of the former objection.  
Hitherto we have discoursed of the Method, which is to be observed by an unexperienced Catholic 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 final resolution of all would run to this point; to wit, to know what credit and affiance is to be given to certain exorbitant constructions of Scripture, forged against all true contexture of the passages themselves, and crossed by the reverent Antiquity of the purest Ages; by which course the Protestant stands no less chargeable in believing of errors, then in not believing the truth. So as this must be in all likelihood the issue of all: for so long as the Protestant Minister persevers in alleging of Scripture, so long he expects, that we should reverently entertain that sense and construction of it, which his worthy-selfe vouchsafeth with wonderful pertinacy of judgement (the very Crisis of all Heretical disease) to impose upon it: thus making himself in the end sole judge both of the Scripture, and of all Controversies from thence to be proved. For to admit our expositions of the Scripture, he scorns, solemnly affirming, that it were openly to patronize superstition; to follow the judgements 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 errors: And hence it is, that divers of our Adversaries have disgorged out of their impure stomaches most Serpentine and venomous speeches against those Lamps of God's Church. And answerably hereto we find Luther (the right hand of Satan) thus to belch forth in his invectives against the Fathers of the Primitive Church, saying: 
(s) Tom. 2. Wittenberg. An. 1551. l. de serm. arbitr. p. 434.  The Fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures, they have erred all their life time; and unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. Thus Luther.  
Doctor Whitaker saith: 
(t) Cont. Duraeum, l. 6. p. 423.  The Popish Religion is a patched Coverlit of the Father's errors sewed together.  
The pretended Archbishop of Canterbury: 
(u) In his defence to the answer of the Admonit. p. 473.  How greatly were almost all the Bishops of the Greek Church, and Latin also, for the most part, spotted with doctrines of Free-will, of Merit, of Invocation of Saints, and such like.  
Beza: 
(x) Epist. Theol. epist. 1. p. 5.  Itaque dicere nec immerito etc. I have been accustomed to say, and I think not without just cause, that comparing our times with the ages next to the Apostles, we may affirm, that they had more conscience and less knowledge, and we more knowledge and less 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 justice of Faith, increased Ceremonies, and devised peculiar Worships.  
Finally, 
(z) L. de notis. p. 476.  Peter Martyr speaking of our Catholic doctrines, thus saith: So long as we do insist upon Counsels and Fathers, we shall be always conversant in the same Errors.  
But who is more desirous to see at large, how the Fathers of the Primitive Church are, first, confessed by Protestants, to teach every particular article of our Catholic and Roman Faith. Secondly, rejected by the Protestants for teaching such doctrines. Thirdly, abusively alleged 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 Work (the very scourge of our modern Heretics) styled, The Protestants Apology of the Roman Church; from which, I acknowledge, that I have discerped these last few testimonies.  
In this manner now you see, we find not only Virtue, Learning, and Antiquity, to be most shamefully traduced by Vice, Ignorance, and Innovation, but also ourselves, consequently by reason of our refuge made to the Father's Commentaries for the exposition of the Scripture, to be mightily wronged by our Adversaries, as if under the pretext of Antiquity we laboured to introduce Novelty. Now, from all this it necessarily followeth, that in the rigid censure of these seven judges, the ancient Fathers (those Champions, I mean, of the true Israelites, against the wicked Philistians, whose pens were peculiarly guided by God to the pursuit and profligations of future Heresies) did most foully contaminate and defile the beauty of the holy Scripture, with their erroneous Commentaries (since they believed nothing, but what (as they thought) was warrantable, at least not repugnant to those divine writings) thus distilling by their misconstruction of it (to use our Adversaries own phrase) our Superstitious and Babylonian Religion. But since it importeth much to the picking out of the true sense of Scripture, alleged by the Protestant, against us, and consequently to the drift of this small Treatise, to show, whether it is more probable, that the Fathers (whose joint interpretation of Scripture is ever coincident, and conspires with ours) should rather not err in their exposition of it, than our novelizing Sectaries; therefore I will more largely set down (which shall serve as the Catastrophe to close up this Discourse) such aggravating circumstances on both sides, which, so farforth, as they concern the interpreting of Scripture, may justly seem to advance the Fathers, and depress or undervalue our Sectaries; they being such as in a clear and dispassionate eye, or in the libration of an even and stable hand, shall be able (I hope) to weigh much, and cause in this point an evidency of credibility at least, if not an evidency of Truth, and to admonish us to call to mind that counsel in job: 
(b) job c. 8.  Diligenter investiga patrum memoriam: and again, 
(c) Ibidem.  Interroga generationem pristinam. But to begin.  

1.  The Fathers lived in the times near 
(d) Ignatius and Dionysius, the Apostles Scholars; just. Martyr, Irenaeus, in the second Age. Tertull. Origen, Cyprian, in the third. Athanas. Ambr. Hilar. Basil. Nazianz. in the fourth. Chrys. jerom. Augustin. in the fift.  to Christ, some conversing with his Apostles, others with their Scholars; and therefore the more easy for them to know, what expositions of Scripture were first delivered, and what Faith first preached. Add to this, that the very practice of their Religion then used (the Church then remaining, by the acknowledgement of our Adversaries, in her integrity of faith) served, as a Comment to them of the Scriptures. Our Sectaries appeared so many ages after, and indeed so late (to wit, in these our own Canicular and unlucky days) as that their very writings, wherein they first vented forth their doctrine, may be said to be, as yet, scarce dry; Men, at this present living, who can remember their first revolt and insurrection: so evident it is, that their belief was never heard of before the deplorable apostasy of Luther; Luther, the Adam of his unfortunate posterity, upon whom is derived, by his fall, an Original Contumacy (as I may term it) against the Church of Rome; their perdition following inevitably, except they baptise themselves in the tears of an unfeigned and contrite submission. But to proceed.  

2.  The Fathers (for no small number of them) even from their Cradle & Mother's breasts did suck those 
(e) Ignat. Epiphan. Athanas. Basil. Nazianzen. Chrysost. Cyrill. Theodoret. etc. were Greek Fathers, in which tongue the new Testament was written.  tongues, wherein a great part of the Scripture was first written; and therefore they are much advantaged (the Letter being the shell of the sense) for the picking out of the true meaning thereof. Our Sectaries, what insight they have in the said tongues, is only by Art and industry (which ever subscribeth to Nature) whereof if we compare them with the Fathers herein, they will appear to be but young and Alphabetical Linguists: which disparity of theirs must needs be great, since the Tongues in this respect may be truly termed the Porters of Learning, or the Mines, wherein the riches of knowledge are found.  

3.  The Fathers delivered their sentence & interpretations of Scripture, many ages before the points of Faith and Doctrine (for which they were urged) were ever questioned of, and therefore what they writ, was free from all partiality and prejudice of judgement; the false glass, which ever reflecteth back the sight of any thing in an untrue form. Our Sectaries, now after their Religion hath once got one wing, do after shape such constructions of Scripture, as are most suitable to their Positions: thus, where in reason Faith is to be 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, upon different occasions (like the earth, which is most stably settled in an unstable place) even with wonderful agreement, consent, and constancy (an infallible Character of God's holy Spirit, for, non est Deus dissentionis, 
1 Cor. 14.  sed pacis) do interpret all the chief passages of Scripture, urged either by us or our Adversaries, in one and the same sense; in regard whereof it is less probable, that God should permit so many, so virtuous, so learned men jointly to err therein. Our Sectaries indeed inter-league and jump together in wresting God's Word from all Catholic sense, but that done, then begin their irreconcilable wars and disagreements, in seeking to appropriate the several 
(f) Thus for example in that place of Matth. c. 16. Tues Petrus, by the word Rock, Erasmus understandeth every one of the faithful, Caluin Christ, Luther and the century writers do understand thereby the confession of Faith.  Constructions to the upholding of rich ones peculiar and different opinion: thus they being instantly resolved in themselves from whom to fly, but not whom to follow: a Document to teach us, that Heresy is ever in labour with Discord, and Union against the true Church presently engenders Disunion within the false Church; for it is certain, that the several Doctrines of our Adversaries could yet never be wounded up in one general Confession.  

5.  The Fathers did cut of all lets and impediments, which might hinder either Devotion or Study (the two wings, wherewith Man's understanding mounts up to the speculation of the highest Mysteries.) Hence it proceeded, that they embraced perpetual Chastity, contemned all Riches and Honours, chastised their bodies with Fasting, Prayer and other spiritual Disciplines (thus according to the Alchemist, making Mortification immediate to precede Vinification) so as this course of abandoning the World (besides God's special assistance to all such truly Noble and Heroical Designs) cleareth and enlighteneth much the speculative power of the Soul, (the only faculty proper for knowledge) otherwise overclouded with the mists of worldly cares, anxieties, and distractions. Our Sectaries, though commonly at the first they ever have the Gospel in their mouths (thus acting the Prologue with the Spirit, but the Epilogue or Conclusion with the Flesh) are in the end become so loath to be spotted with the least aspersion or touch of Superstition, (since 
(g) Osiander in Epitome. Cent. 4. p. 99 & p. 100 & 103.  no better they repute the Father's lives) as that they prostitute themselves as Drugs to the Word; being become even breathless through their earnest pursuit of Temporal pleasures, dignities, and sensuality; and ravelin out their whole time in the gaining and enjoying thereof; but the less marvel, since it is written, 
(h) Rom. 8.  that those who are after the flesh, favour the things of the flesh.  

6.  The Fathers (I mean divers of them) through God's boundless Omnipotency, untwisting at his pleasure the thread of Nature (for most easy it is to that powerful hand, which first created Nature, to dis-nature all things created) have wrought many stupendious and astonishing Miracles: some whereof were done in proof and confirmation of their 
(i) Vide Cyprian. Serm. de lapsis. Ambr. de obitu satire. c. 7. Optat. l. 2. contra Donatist. Nazian. in Cypr. Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. Chrysost. l. contra Gentil. Euseb. l. 7. c. 14.  Religion; and though the rest of them performed did not fall plumb and immediately upon the strengthening of their doctrine, yet they all demonstrate, that the exhibiters of such were of a true faith and doctrine; since God is not able (this disability in him is power, this weakness, strength) to concur miraculously with a man of an erroneous religion; especially when such proceed might be calumniously wrested to the supporting of falsehood; In the number of these Miracles wrought by them, and the raising up of the dead, the supernatural curing of diseases, the certain foretelling of accidental events merely depending of Man's Will, and the like: the only sealing arguments, and such as most forcibly check Man's incredulity. Our Sectaries (though emulous of the Catholic Church her glory herein) could never truly vaunt of restoring to life, or miraculously curing a dead Fly or a scabbed Horse: Nay, most of them disclaim 
(k) D. Morton in his Apology: Cath. part. 1. l. 2. c. 25. Sutcliff in his Examination of the Survey of D. Kellison, and almost all other Protestants.  so far in this point, that they boldly avouch (only thereby to discountenance those of Catholic times that all true Miracles have ceased ever since the Apostles days: and error controlled by the most grave testimonies of ancient Authors, and by the certain experience of these our times: add hereto, that it were the greatest Miracle, for God's hands so many Ages together to be manacled and tied (especially where so often just occasion hath been presented) from working of Miracles.  

7.  To conclude, the Fathers (I speak of sundry of them) for professing only their faith and Religion have endured with invincible Fortitude and immovable Resolution (through the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost) most exquisite torments; divers of them in the most tempestuous and rugged state of the Church conquering the Persecutors cruelty by their own patiented suffering of Martyrdom & 
(l) As Ignatius, Polycarpus, Cyprian, and others.  death: death, which, because their birth to Immortality: 
(m) Tertull. l. de Anima.  Paradisiclavis, sanguis Martyris. Our Sectaries (excepting some few Mechanical fellows burnt here at home, for their obstinacy, in Queen Mary's time) are so far from suffering any pressures by profession of their faith, as that most of them have made their Religion a rush to the worldly preferments, they by it only enjoying (as by want of it losing) riches, honours, advancements, and other (as I may term them) such glorious miseries; so as, perhaps, it may be said, that their greatest persecution (considering God's secret judgements and future punishments) is, that they have not tasted any persecution; and their most dangerous misery, that they have lived wholly exempt from misery. And thus far now touching the balancing 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 impartial judgements the consideration of two Points, proved in these few Leaves. First and primatively, that though the Protestant setteth down a Basis or groundwork of his Religion (and vantingly undertaketh accordingly) that all articles of Faith are to receive their proof only from the sacred Scripture (which holy Writings we Catholics affect with all due respect, reverence, and honour) yet is he not able to prove the points of his own faith, or to impugn ours, from the said head only; but is forced, after he hath framed one or two Syllogisms or Arguments to fly from Scripture, either to some human authority, or to his own private spirit for his interpreting the Scripture; bearing himself herein like to the Ostrich, which (as the Prophet saith) is great of feathers, but short of flight. Secondly, (and but incidently) when as the Protestant maketh his own particular judgement, the last and highest Tribunal, from whence his exposition of Scripture receives it warrant; and whereas this his construction mainly impugneth the construction given by the ancient Fathers (since the Father's maintaining our Catholic doctrine, even in the Protestants acknowledgement, must consequently maintain our Catholic sense of the Scripture) that the Fathers through divers privileges found in them (but wanting in the Protestant Ministers) are much advantaged above our Adversaries, for the delivering of the intended sense of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture: And this made manifest by all probable and moral inducements: so as Reason itself doth hear reason, and plead in behalf of the Fathers, and the light of Nature proclaimeth to us in this point their light of Grace; all such others, as maintain the contrary, being through their wilful relinquishing of all natural judgement and understanding herein, worthily comprehended within the admonition or reprehension of the regal Prophet:  

(q) Psal. 31.  Nolite fieri sicut Equus aut Mulus, quibus non est intellectus.  
FINIS.