of Christ was once established is the Authority of the Church and this is called Amussis regula or the Propounder This propoundeth to her children to be belieued all those things which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued Now let vs examine whether these two points so necessary to true fayth doe accord to the fayth of Protestancy or not And first touching Prima veritas reuelans which is God I heere say that no reuelation of God touching the beliefe of things meerely Negatiue as the points of Protestancy are as afore I intimated is necessary for who will say that we cannot belieue that there are not many worlds without the speciall reuelation thereof by God Seeing we perceaue that children Heathēs and Infidels who while they continue in that their state are not capable of Gods supernaturall reuelations do not belieue that there are many worlds By the same reason then I say that no reuelatiō of God is necessary to giue assent of iudgement that there is no Purgatory no place in Hell for Children vnbaptized no inherent Iustice no praying to Saints and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatiues Now as touching the second poynt which is the Authority of the Church propounding to her Children the things by God reuealed we know that in this our age Luther was the first who denyed many Articles of Catholike Religion heer now agayne I expostulate what Church did propound to Luther that these points were to be denyed and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denyall of them It cannot be sayd the Catholike Church propoūded them to him to be denyed because the Catholike Church did then and at all tymes belieue the Affirmatiues to them as true as that there is a Purgatory that we may pray to Saints c. And to say that the Protestant Church did propound to Luther the denyall of the sayd poynts is most absurd Seeing at Luthers first bursting out and his first denying of the sayd poynts there was no Protestant but himselfe and therefore no Protestant Church then was but in being The verity of which point besides that it is heerafter prooued frō the acknowledged inuisibility of the Protestāt Church in those dayes is euicted euen from the ingenuous Cōfessions of learned Protestants for thus doth Benedictus Morgensternensis a Protestant contest of this point saying (d) Tractat de Eccles p. 145. It is ridiculous to say that any before Luther hath the purity of the Gospell And vpon this ground it is that Bucer styleth Luther (e) In lib. Apolog. of the Church part 4. c. 4. the first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine Marke you not how our Aduersaries do subtily make the tytles of the Gospell of the Apostle of the reformed doctrine c. to serue as certayne veyles or curtains to hide their bad cause frō the eyes of the ignorant Thus far to demonstrate both from the definition of Fayth set downe by S. Paul and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true fayth that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernaturall fayth is but an absolute Nullit◠of fayth That Protestancy cannot be defined and that therefore it is a Non-entity CHAP. VIII EVery thing that hath a reall Existence or Being may haue its nature explicated by the definition of it so as euery true reall thing is capable of being defyned This definition consisteth of two parts to wit of Genus and Differentia as Logick teacheth the Genus doth comprehend the Essence of the thing defined the differentia or some other Proprieties in lieu thereof doth more particulerly constitute the thing defyned and distinguisheth it from all other things for example A man is defined to be Animal rationale A liuing Creature enioying Reason Heere the word Animal demonstrates the Essence of Man Rationale doth constitute man in definition and maketh him to differ from all other sublunary Creatures Now then if Protestancy or a Protestant cannot be defyned for want of Genus and differentia then wanteth it a true Essence and is but an Intentionall notion of the mynd To defyne a Protestant in these wordes thereby to set the best glasse vpon their Religion A Protestant is a Christian who belieueth the Articles of Fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture This indeed is a specious definition seruing only to lay some fayre colors vpon the rugged grayne of Protestancy and but to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant But withall this definition is most false for seueral reasons First because though a Protestant be a Christian yet quatenus he is a Protestant the word Christian is not genus to him as aboue is said for the word quatenus implying a reduplicatiue formality hath reference not to the Genus in a definition but only to the differentia as aboue is noted For the word Protestant as is formerly declared is a word only of distinction thereby to make him differ from the Catholike but in the word Christian they both accord and agree Agayne euery different Sect or Heresy will mantaine with as great venditation confidēcy as the Protestant doth that its Religion or Heresy is agreable to the true sense of the Scripture will vye with the Protestant text for text of Scripture by detortiō of it for the supporting of its heresy as we find by the exāple of the Ariās Eutichians Pelagians the rest who euer fraught their pestiferous writings with an aboūdāce of scripturall authorities And the like course doe our later Heretikes also take to wit the Brownists the Family of loue and the Anti-trinitarians so true is that sentence of old Vincensius Lyrinensis (a) Contra haeres Si quis interrogat quem piam Haereticorum vnde probas vnde doces hoc statim ille Scriptum est enim Thus we see that those wordes to wit who belieueth the Articles of fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture supplying the place of differentia in the former definition may be applyed to all sects indifferently if their owne Interpretation of Scripture may take place aswell as to the Protestant And therefore as being of too great an extent it doth not distinguish a Protestant from any other Sectary yet the nature of a true definition requireth that the definition and the thing defined should be of an equal expansion and largenes that is that the definition and the thing defined should conuertibly be affirmed the one of the other Lastly I say that this former definition of a Protestant or Protestancy is but a meer Paralogisme or Sophisme called Petitio Principij being but a poore and needy begging of the thing as proued which still remaynes in controuersy For I eternally deny that Protestancy is according to the true sense of Scripture And this denyall our learned Catholike deuines haue sufficiently iustifyed and made good in their writings against the Protestant Now then this former definition being deseruedly exploded
the Fathers and the Protestants speake of this kind of proofe First then Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. thus writeth heerof It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues With whome conspires S. Austin lib. contra Donatistas cap. 24. saying the truth is more forcible to wring out Confession then any racke or torment To both which Fathers D. VVhitaker contra Bellar. l. de Eccles controuers 2. q. 5. c. 14 subscribes in these wordes The ArgumeÌ„t must be strong and efficacious which is taken from the Confession of the Aduersaries And I doe freely acknowledge that the truth is able to extort testimonies euen froÌ„ its enemyes Thus D. VVhitaker Now that these Protestants maintaining our former Catholike Articles were persuaded that the sayd Catholike points receaued their warranted proofe from the sacred Scripture appeareth euideÌ„tly from this one Consideration to wit because all the former alledged Protestants some foure or fiue only excepted do wholy reiect the doctrine of Traditions confidently vnanimously teaching that nothing is to be belieued as an Article of Fayth but what hath its expresse warrant and authority from the written word of God 6. The last resultancy is that the many Negatiue Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in Iudaisme Turcisme and an vtter abnegation of Christian Religion The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my Assertion for diuers of them neuer stayed in the endles progresse of refyning their Religion by Negations till at the close of all they denyed all Articles of Christian Religion and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity therupon apostating from Christianity they became most blasphemous Iewes or Turkes so true it is that Turcisme and Iudaisme is the last colour dye or tincture that Protestancy taketh Some few Examples heereof among many I will in this place retaile And first Dauid George who was a markable Protestant and once Professour at (s) OsiÌ„ad Cont. 1â— part 2. p 641. saith of Dauid Geoâ—ge vtebatur publiâ—o verbi Ministerâ—o Basiliensi Basill did after many Negations wholy deny the Christian Faith became a diuellish (t) See Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp 1568. published by the Diuines of Basill Apostata Againe Andreas Volanus an eminent Caluinist not only became a Turke but corrupted diuers others with his pestileÌ„t writings (u) In Paâ—anesi agaynst the B. Trinity Ochinus also who with Peter Martyr first planted Protestancy by his denying of many Articles of our Catholike Religion heer in England in King Edward the sixt his dayes did finally become a Iew. This is witnessed by (x) In his booke de tribus Elohim Zanchius (y) In Theolog Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 9. Conradus Slusselburge two Protestants and (z) Beza in Poligaâ— pag. 4. Beza who tearmeth Ochinus impurus Apostata Laelius Socinus once brought vp in the schoole of Geneua forsook his Christianity and did write a booke against the B. Trinity of whome Beza thus speaketh (a) Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81. Mihi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse In like sort AlamaÌ„nus a Swinglian and once deare to (b) So witnesseth Conrad Slusselb in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art 2. Beza in the end denyed the Christian faith became a Iew of whome Beza thus coÌ„plaineth A lamannum affirmant ad IudaismuÌ„ defecisse Lastly Neuserus who was chiefe Pastour of Heidelberge in the Palatinate in the end abnegated all Christian Religion and becomming a Turke caused himselfe to be circumcised at Constantinople as (d) OsiaÌ„der Cent. 16. part 2. p. 818. Osiander the ProtestaÌ„t doth witnesse thus writing of him Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis c. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantinopoli circumcisus But I will close vp this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus who thus writeth of himselfe and of other Caluinists denying the Blessed Trinity (e) OsiaÌ„der relateth that Neuserus did write these words froÌ„ Constantinople being there circumcised to one Gerlachius a Protestat Preacher at Tubinga vid. Osiander in epitom Cent. 16. pag. 209. None is known in our times to be made an Arian but an Arian is not much inferiour to a Turke or Iew who was not a Caluinist as Seruetus BlaÌ„drata Paulus Alchiamus Gentilis Gebraldus Siluanus and others therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme Thus Neuserus And thus farre of these former Porismata and concerning this last we heere see how the many small riuers as I may terme theÌ„ of our Negatiue Reformations neuer cease running till in the end they all disgorge themselues into the mayne Ocean of Apostasy and Infidelity So certayne it is that a Caluinist being lastly sublimated and refyned by Negations becommeth an Arian Turke or Iew. That the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church are not one and the same Church though some Protestants teach the Contrary for the supporting of their owne Church CHAP. XX. SVch is the refractory coÌ„tumacy of Innouation of fayth that when it is driuen to the greatest straytes by way of dispute yet before it will acknowledge its owne Errours it will labour to take saÌ„ctuary though in the middest of its own enemies According heerto we finde that when the Protestants are irrepliably and most dangerously pressed with the Inuisibility or want of succession of Pastours in their Church that for such want their Church cannot be true Church of God They then as being depriued of all other euading meanes are content out of the immensenesse forsooth of their owne good will but indeed for the better supporting of their Church to acknowledg that the Protestant Church and the Catholikes are both but one and the same Church But do the Catholikes accept of this their kindnes No (a) Virg. Aenead Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Their Calumny heer resteth in that without such their Tenet their own Church euideÌ„tly appeareth to come to vtter ruine dissolution The truth of this poynt is so cleare as that M. Hooker thus writeth hereof (b) lib. 3. Eccles Pol. p. 130 VVe gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of Iesus-Christ And D. Couell (c) D. Couell in defence of Hooker I cannot but wonder that they of Rome will aske where our Church was before Luther As if any were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church But M. Bunny no vulgar Protestant dismasketh himselfe more openly touching this point withall sheweth the reason why himselfe and his brethreÌ„ so greedily begge this so much desired reconciliation for thus he writeth (d) Bunny an his Treatise VVe are no seueral Church from them nor they from vs c. All the diffirence betweene vs is concerning the truer members And againe (e) Ibid. pag. 109. It was euill done of them who first vrged such a separation And then after he giueth his reason in these playne wordes (f)
which is the Iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs. Thus farre to shew that the Catholike and Protestant doe not belieue one and the same Creed and consequently that one the same Church cannot consist of Catholikes and Protestants Secondly the authority of Generall Councells condemning seuerall particuler doctrines for Heresies and the like authority of particuler Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church touching their like cōdemnation of many Protestanticall Tenets for Heresies do sufficiently euict that the Protestant Church and the Catholicke Church cannot be one and the same Church for if they could then would it follow that the former old Heresies aboue displayed in the tenth Chapter and now houlden by the Protestāts should be no heresies for if the Professours of the Roman fayth the maintainers of the sayd strange doctrines could be members of one Church then great wrong was offered by the Fathers and Councells to brand such men in those former tymes for Heretiks and their doctrines for Heresies We may add heerto that if the ancient learned Fathers did teach that a man by holding onely one errour or heresy did cease therby to be a mēber of Christs Church as for example Iouinian for teaching that Virginity and Matrimony were equall the Manichees for taking away Freewill c. what would the said Fathers conceaue if they had liued in our dayes should obserue the Protestants to incorporate and ingrosse in their fayth and religion almost twenty distinct heresies condemned in those ancient times as is aboue shewed would these Fathers thinke you be persuaded that the Romane Church and these men could make one and the same Church From this then it followeth that eyther Generall Councels and particuler Ancient Fathers did erre commit great ouersight in condēning of strange opinions for heresies which were not heresies or that the Protestāts the Catholikes cannot be mēbers of one the same Church since certayne it is that the true Church of Christ cannot professe any one Heresy Now that heretikes are not Mēbers of Christs Church therfore that the doctrines and innouations mantayned by such men cannot be taught belieued by the Mēbers of Christs Church shall appeare from the great dislike and auersion which both Christs Apostles and the ancient Orthodoxall Fathers did euer beare agaynst such men And first may occurre that diuine sentence (p) ad Titum c. 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first or second admonition auoyde knowing that he who is such is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his owne iudgment And agayne the same Apostle (q) epist ad Galat. c. 5. The workes of the flesh be manifest which are fornication vncleanes impurity dissention (r) So it is translated in the English Bible of the yeare 1576. Heresies c. They which do these things shall not obtayne the Kingdom of God To come to the Fathers S. Austin sayth (s) Aust. in ◠11. in Marchaun He is an Heretike who belieueth falsly touching any part of Christian doctrine Which Father in another place thus fearefully censureth of an Heretike (t) Aust l. 4. contr Donatist c. 8. If a man be an Heretike certainely no mā doubteth but for this alone that he is an Heretike he shall not possesse the Kingdome of God Cyprian Dominus noster c. (u) Cypr. l. 1. ad Mag. when our Lord Iesus-Christ did testify in the ghospell that those were his Enemies who were not with him he noted not any one Heresy but he manifestly sheweth that all Heretikes whosoeuer are his Enemies c. I will conclude with Ambrose thus saying (x) Ambrose l 6. in Luc. c. 〈◊〉 Heretikes seeme to challenge Christ to them for no man will deny the name of Christ neuertheles he indeed denyeth Christ who doth not cōfesse all points of fayth instituted by Christ. Now from these testimonies I conclude that both the Catholikes and Protestants cannot make one and the same Church of God seeing their disagreements in matters of Religion are so great irreconciliable as that the one part as houlding meer contrary doctrines in fayth to the other must needs therefore be taken for Heretikes in the iudgement of the other party consequently not taken as the Members of Christ his Church My last argument which heer I vse shal be ad hominem as the Logitian calls it The Protestants we know do call in the foam of their impure language the Pope Antichrist and Catholikes the Members of Antichrist Now if Protestants and Catholikes be in one and the same Church then followeth it if for the tyme we admit the former dreame for true that Antichrist and the Members of Antichrist do make the head the members of Christs Church How absurd this is incompatible with common reason I referre to any iudicious man to censure and the rather considering the Protestants themselues doe thus teach (y) Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneua p. 245. In Babylon meaning therby the Church of Rome there is no holy Order or Ministery indeed but a meere vsurpation Thus farre to demonstrate that for the freeing and clearing of Protestancy from the former scars of being Inuisible an Irreality a Non-Entity c. it cannot be iustly replyed if any such reply should be suggested that seeing the Protestant Church the Catholike Church are both but one Church and seeing the Catholike Church cannot be charged with the spots Inuisibility or being a Non-Entity c. that therfore neyther can the Protestant Church be so charged Thus our Aduersaries we see labour to make the splendour of the truth of Christian fayth to cast its beames indifferently vpon Protestancy and the Catholike Roman fayth notwithstanding the great dissentions touching fayth betweene these two Religions which is as difficult to iustify as to mantayne that the sunne can at one and the same tyme shine vpon vs and our Antipodes THE CONCLVSION LEarned Protestants for whose sake this my labour was first attempted Heer now my pen as performing I trust what it did assume stayes it selfe yet before it giueth its last stop it is to make bold by turning it selfe towards you to expatiate a litle in discourse You haue seene by perusing of the former Treatise Protestancy to be fully and punctually dissected and for the Catastrophe and closure of all it is found to be empty of all Reality and but an Intentional Name or VVord And since it is a Non-Ens it consequently then may be inferred that Protestaancy and its Religion is false for if Philosophy teacheth vs that Ens Verum conuertuntur as you well know then by force of reason law of contrarieties it followeth that Non Ens Falsum conuertuntur You are instructed also as being learned by Philosophy that Quae habent vltimam dispositionem ad Introitum Non Esse desinunt per se Esse And so by Analogy we may heere say of Protestancy that Protestancy by seuerall reformations