appeareth froÌ„ that which is aboue deliuered touching the Protestants reprehension both of the translations of Scripture made by forrayne Protestants as also of our English Translations But if the Protestants doe reiect their owne brethrens Translations theÌ„ much lesse will they staÌ„d vnappealably to our Catholike Translations of the Scripture 4. If the Catholike proceed further in insisting in the Originals of both the Testaments The Protestants deny that the originalls of them are the same in all passages as they were first penned by the Prophets the Euangelists and the Apostles Thus for example in the new Testament where in (d) Matth c. 10. S. Matthew it is sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter (e) Beza in his Annotat. vpon the new Testament set foorth anno 1556 Beza denyeth the Originall herin iustifiing though it be thus read in all Greeke copyes extant at this day that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus was added by some one enclining to the defence of the Popes Primacy In like sort (f) Beza vbi supra Beza denyeth that the Greeke Originall in Luke 22. is at this present the same as it was first penned by the Euangelist mantayning that it is corrupted in fauour of the Reall presence 5. If he insist in such passages of Scripture whose Originalls and Translations therin are on all parts accepted for true and tell his Aduersary that the whole Church of God in her Primitiue and purer tymes euer interpreted the said passages of Scripture in that sense in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged The ProtestaÌ„t absolutly (g) So doth D. Whitakers l de Eceles contra Bellarm. controuers 2. q. 4. p. 223. Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed p. 400. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England part 4. cap. 4. and most other Protestants denyes that infallible authority of the Church of God in interpreting the holy Scripture but disclayming from it appeales to his owne Priuate spirit interpreting the same 6. If forbearing the written word of God he alledge in warranting of his fayth the vnwritten word of God I meane Apostolicall Traditions the Protestant denyes peremptorily the Authority of all such Traditions Thus for example where S. Chrysostome sayth (h) Chrysost in 2. Thessal hom 4. The Apostles did not deliuer all things by writinge but many thinges without and these be as worthy of credit as the other D. VVhitakers reiects this authority touching Traditions in these wordes (i) D. Whitak de sacra scriptura pag. 678. I answere That this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father And Cartwright in depressing the weight of Traditions maintayned by S. Augustine thus writeth (k) See Cartwright in whitgifts defence p. 103. To allow S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery agayne 7. If leauing the word of God he descend to humane authorities yet so humane as that they haue the peculiar promise of (l) Matt. 18. Christs assistance therein I meane to the graue authority of Generall Councells the Protestants deny all authority of them For D. VVhitakers openly professeth that Generall Councels (m) L. de Concil contra Bellar. q. 6. may and haue erred But Peter Martyr more fully dismasketh himselfe in denying the authority of Generall Councells for he thus plainely writeth (n) Pet. Martyr lib. de votis pag. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Popish Errours 8. If he produce the Testimonies of particuler Fathers of the Primitiue Church Marke with what contempt and indignity the Protestant denyes them for Luther thus depresseth them (o) Luth. de seruo arbitrio printed 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnles they were amended before their deaths they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church And another though no Lutherane yet of Luthers descent in this his scurrilous Pasquill thus traduceth the Fathers (p) D. Wâ—itak conâ—r contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 413. Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae Religionis cento consequutus est The Popish Religion is a patched cloath of the Fathers Errours sowed togeather see how impudent and petulant Nouelisme in fayth is in expecting precedency and taking the wall of Reuerend hoary Antiquity 9. If in such poynts which coÌ„cerne matter of fact as touching the supposed change of fayth in the visibility of the Church the vocation and mission of Pastours the vninterrupted Administration of the word and Sacraments all which are to receaue their proofe or els not to be proued at all froÌ„ the Authority of auncient most authenticall Histories If I say the Catholike do in proofe heerof produce the auncient Histories of those Primitiue tymes D. VVhitakers thus by denyall aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories (q) D. D. Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 478. Sufficit nobis c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture to discouer the disparity of faith between them and vs And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to write what they will And accordingly touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her fayth he thus coÌ„cludeth (r) Whitak vbi supra pag. 277. It is not needfull to vs to search out in Histories the beginning of this change 10. To conclude if in the last place for most demonstratiue and Affirmatiue Notes markes of the true Church the Catholike do rest as in nube Testium to vse the Apostles phrase in vniuersality Visibility vninterrupted continuance vnity Succession of Pastours Holynes of doctrine Conuersion of Kings and Nations of the Gentils c. The Protestants besides that they will not admit any Historyes in proofe of them deny and discarde the testimonies of all these Positiue Heads of proofes by erecting the Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments for notes by this meanes they reduce to their owne iudgements which is the true Church seeing they will not acknowledge the word to be purely preached or the Sacramentâ— to be rightly administred but when and where their Priuate spirit out of its Pythagorean and controwling Chaire vouchsafes so to pronouÌ„ce By all this now we may see how wholy Negatiue the Protestant is indeed so Negatiue in al points as that it may be feared he in the end will deny his owne being for as heer aboue we haue shewed that his Religion consisteth in pure denyall of our Positiue and Affirmatiue Articles so in this Chapter we haue layd downe how he labours to othrow by his like denyalls the authority of all such Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads principles from whence the Catholikes for the fortifiyng of their owne faith and Religion do drawe their proofes In which kind of proceeding the Protestant deales no otherwise with the Catholike then if a man
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)
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
1312. 1315. Latimer and by (m) Orat. in Chryso de Iuuentio Maximo Oecolampadius And as the ground heerof Intercession of Saints is auerred by (n) Oecol vbi sup Oecolampadius and (o) Fox Act. Mon. p. 1312. Latimer 8. Freewill taught by Snecanus Hemingius as (p) In his Synops printed 1600. p. 808. D. VVillet acknowledgeth and belieued by diuers Protestants mentioned in (q) Act. Mon. p. 1533. Fox his history 9. The power of Priests not only to pronounce but to giue Remission of sinnes and consequently that Confession of sinnes is allowed seeing how can the Priest know what sinnes are to be remitted what sinnes to be retayned according to the wordes of the Scripture whose sinnes you remit c. and whose sinnes you retayne c. except he know particulerly the sinnes of the peniteÌ„t is taught by the English Communion booke in the visitation of the sicke where the Priest sayth And by his Authority committed to me I absolue thee from thy sinnes c. (r) In his disp Theo. p. 301. Lobechius Doctour and Professor in the Vniuersity of Rostock by (s) In Concil loco rum scripturae repugnantium lin 194. fol. 218. Andreas Althamerus by (t) In loc com tom 1. de potestate Eccles f. 305. Sarcerius by (u) In his Margarita Theol pa. 116. 117. Spandeb urge finally by (x) In Swenckfildio Caluinis p. 55. Iacobus Helbrunerus And hence it is that Absolution is affirmed by MelaÌ„cthon to be as his words are (y) Melancth in Apol. Confess Aug. Art 13. de numero vsu Sacramentorum fol. 161. properly a Sacrament 10. The Indifferency of Communion vnder one or both kinds maintayned by (z) Luth. in Ep. ad Bohemos l. de vtraque specie Sacram. Luther by (a) Melancth in Cent. Ept. Theol ep 74. p. 252. Melancthon and (b) Bucer in the Confession of Ratisbon Bucer Luthers wordes are these (c) Luth in cap. â—â— abâ— c. aâ— Eucharistia They sinne not agaynst Christ who vse one kind seeing Christ hath not commaunded to vse both but hath left it to the will of euery one c. 11. That there are certaine vnwritten Traditions to be obserued is confessed by (d) In his treatise of the Church p. 2â—9 D. Field of the Baptisme of Infants by (e) l. epist Swingl Oecolamp p. 301. Oecolampadius and by (f) to 2 l. ac Baptis fol. 90. Swinglius and in like manner by our (g) In his defence p. 539. Doctour Whitgift of the Tradition of Easter by (h) D. Couel in his Answere to Iohn Burges p. 139. D. Couell of the Tradition of the vse of the Crosse and the name (i) D. Couel in his examination of the Plea of the Innocents pag. 104. Archbishop by (k) Hooker Eccles Pol. l 2. sect 7. pag. 118. M. Hooker who answereth diuers Authorities out of certaine Fathers vsually alledged by other Protestants in behalfe of only Scripture And finally by the Archbishop of Canterbury touching Apostolicall Ordination in the Conference before the King pag. 11. 12. That the Commandements may be kept and are not impossible taught by M. (l) Eccles Pol. lib. 2. pag 113. Hooker by D. (m) Lib. de perfest obedient legis Dei Castalâ—o by M. (n) In his reformed Catholike pag. 26. 51. Perkins (o) In his defence of M Hoker art 7. pag. 54. D. Couell 13. That there are Euangelicall Counsells which are such as that a man in performing them doth more then he is by God commaÌ„ded is taught by (p) In assert art â—0 Luther (q) Eccles Pol. lib. 3. sect 8. pa. 140. M. Hooker and (r) In his defence of M. Hooker art 8. pag. 50.51.52 D. Couell Ad heerto that our good workes proceeding from fayth and in regard of Christs passion and promise are Meritorious deseruing is maintayned by (s) In loc com de bonis operib circa meâ—â—um Melancthon by the Publike (t) Pag. 495. 27â— Confessions in the Harmony by (u) In Margar. Theol. p. 48. 50. Spandeburge by (x) Eccles Pol. l â— sect 72. pag. 208. M. Hooker 14. Peters Primacy maintayned by (y) As he is alledged by D. Whitgift in his defence pag. â—73 469. Caluin by (z) VVhitgift vbisupra D. VVhitgift by (a) Musculus so alledged by D. VVhitgift vbi supra Musculus and by (b) D. Bridg. In his defeÌ„ce of the gouernemeÌ„t c. pag. 445.446 D. Bridges Bishop of Oxford 15. Prayer for the dead defended by (c) as witnesseth Vrbanus Rhegius in prima parte operum in formula cautè loqueÌ„di cap. de Sanctorum cultu Luther Vrbanus Rhegius by (d) In his scripâ—a Anglicana p. 450. Martin Bucer by (e) Fox Act. Mon. pag. 149. WilliaÌ„ Torpe and (f) Printed 1549. fol. 116. 140. by the Communion booke in King Edwards reigne 16. Touching vniuersality of grace and that Christ dyed for all with intention on his part to haue all men saued if so they will accept of his grace which doctrine ouerthroweth the Protestants doctrine of Reprobation being but a meer Negation to the doctrine of the Vniuersality of Grace Now this doctrine of Vniuersality of grace is taught by (g) In lib. Epist. Oecol Swingl 1. pag. 274. Swinglius by (h) In his treatise of prayer in generall for all mankind M. Smith by (i) In method descript pag. 430. Snecanus by (k) In his Questions vpon Genesis pag. 118. M. Gibbons by (l) Enchiridion clas 3. pag. 220. 221. Hemingius by (m) In method Theol. lib. 2. p. 431. 435. 436. Hiperius by (n) Eccles policy l. 5. pag. 104. M. Hooker by (o) Vpon the Apocal in English f. 79 Bullinger and finally by most of the learned Lutheranes and diuers other learned Caluinists as witnesseth (p) In his Theses p. 159. 163. 194. 166. 167. sequent Huberus as also by diuers learned Bishops of England and other English Doctours all who are thetefore at this tyme styled Armanians by their Aduersaries 17. VVorshipping of Images defended by certayne Protestants of Germany as (q) In his respons ad acta colloq Montis-Belgar part altera pag 23. Beza witnesseth by Bilney a Protestant as (r) Act. Mo p. 462 464. M. Fox confesseth And answerably heerto the bowing and reuerence giuen at the name of Iesus seeing this is the same to the eare which the Image is to the Eye is taught by Queene Elizabeths (s) Art 25 Iniunctions by (t) In epist. Pauli ad Philippens Coloss Thessal in Philip. ca. 2. v. 10 f. 12â— col 2. ZaÌ„chius by (u) In his defence pag. 742. D. VVhitgift by (x) In his summons for sleepers p. 30. M. Leonard VVright by (y) In loc co n p 59. Musculus 18. That Christ was from his Natiuity full