wanton complacency in repeating the word I deny thus writeth * See Duraeus in cōfut respōs VVhitaker ad decem rationes Camp rat 10. I deny that God can make Christs body to be present in the Eucharist I deny seauen Sacnaments I deny grace to be giuen by Sacraments I deny freewill in man I deny good workes I deny praier for the dead I deny Christ to be borne of a Virgin I deny that he descended into hell I deny the Communion of Saints I deny the forgiuenesse of sins Thus Beza To whose denyalls I will make bold to add one more to wit I deny that Beza houlding these Negations can be saued And thus these former Men who as afore did Luther Zuinglius and Bucer much vaunt of their proficiēcy in this their negatiue controlling of the Romane Church for Caluin being expostulated by some how endles he and his sect were in going out from their former proceedings thus salueth the point (y) Caluin lib. de scādal extant in Tractat. Theolog. They do as if a man should accuse vs that at the first breaking of day we see not yet the Sunne shining at noone day But what Is not Protestancy come yet to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perfection of its negatiue Reformation by all the former Protestants No verily For the Protestants Reformatiō in regard it is neuer at an end is like herein to Eternity which is euer spending it selfe and yet neuer lessens For in this next place step in the Brownists and the Anti-trinitarians both of them challenging to themselues a new Reformation euen in the Negatiue part Thus do the Brownists for exāple deny the (z) Barrowes booke in his discourse agaynst Vniuersities Lords prayer and (a) See Halls Apology sect 30. agaynst the Brownists Baptisme of Infants which they say is the marke * In Hals descript to the Separat before the Epistle dedicatory of the Beast They also deny our (b) Hall vbi supra materiall Churches (c) Barrows vbi supra Vniuersities To conclude with the Anti-trinitarians they yet vrging a further Negatiue Reformation do heervpon deny the blessed Trinity and diuinity of Christ condemning the Catholike Article of the Trinity for the most notable relique or brand of all Romish corruption for thus M. Hooker writeth hereof (d) M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 4. pag. 18◠The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland thinke the very beliefe of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption c. Hitherto of the Protestants Reformations of the Catholike and Romane fayth and all this by meere Negatiues I meane Negatiues to the Affirmatiue cōtrary Articles taught by the Church of Rome from whence we may well inferre that the fayth of a Protestant in regard of such his Negatiue Religion is a meere wast deuastation of all true fayth and that his beliefe consisteth only in not belieuing Now that the Iudicious Reader may more fully and intensly obserue how many Articles of our Catholike Religion the Protestāt denyeth I will heere amasse the chiefest of them together though most of them haue beene aboue expressed that so the Reader may haue a full Synopsis or sight of them all at once The Protestant then denyeth the Reall presence the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse the visibility of the Church the Churches freedome from errour the succession of Pastors vniuersality of grace freewill praier to Saints Purgatory prayer for the dead Pilgrimages diuers parts of Canonicall Scripture Papall Iurisdiction of Bishops power of Priest-hood to remit sinnes Monasticall life vowed chastity single life of priests prescript fasting-dayes the Grace and Necessity of Baptisme fiue Sacraments Christs descending into Hell besides some others So wholly negatiue are the Protestants in all the Articles controuerted at this day between them and the Church of Rome Neither can our Aduersaries reply that they hould diuers Affirmatiue points ventilated at this day betweene vs and them we retayning the Negatiues as for exāple Parity of Ministers Mariage of Priests and other Votaries Reprobation Christs only Mediatorship by way of intercession Christs suffering in soule c. To this I answere that these poynts are Affirmatiue in words but meerly negatiue in sense like some drugs which are pleasant in the tast but dangerous in the operation since they are negatiues to the Monarchy of the Churches gouernment to vowed chastity to Vniuersality of Grace to the intercession of Saints and to the all-sufficiency of Christs corporall death all which our Catholike points are Affirmatiue Such is the subtility of Innouatiō in doctrine as to inuest their Negatiue Tenets in Affirmatiue Titles that thereby they may seeme more specious regardable And thus farre concerning the foresaid Prolegomena That the Protestants haue often corrected and reformed their Translations of the Bible and the Liturgy or Common-booke of prayer in fauour of their Negatiue Religion euery later excepting agaynst the former as corrupt and impure CHAP. III. I Will subnect to the former Prolegomena this passage following which is to shew that after our Protestants had newly moulded their Religion by their pure-impure negatiues then instantly their next labour was to make new Translations of the Holy Scripture and to reforme their publike Liturgy or booke of Common prayer according to their afore chosen negatiue Religion And as the Protestants at seuerall times more more reformed their Religion by increase of Negatiues so they also at the said seuerall tymes made new Translations of the Bible and set forth new bookes of common-Common-Prayer euer sortable to their last negatiue Reformation Thus we see how this censuring and reforming humour is the very eye comportment and carriage of Protestancy From which course of theirs the iudicious Reader may obserue the preposterous method taken by the Protestants heerein For whereas themselues do teach that fayth and Religion is to be extracted out of the true infallible sense of the Scripture consequently that their iudgements in the Scripture ought to be knowne to precede in tyme before faith yet with thē the faith was first established and then the Scripture was after by their Trāslations squared to their fayth Thus with them it fell out that the Scripture was true in such and such a poynt because it confirmed by their translation their new assumed negatiue fayth and not that their fayth was true because it was consonant to the Scripture before it was so translated by them so making their fayth the square of the Scripture and not the Scripture the square of their fayth But to come first to the seuerall Translations of Scripture the later euer condemning the former as not sufficiently translated in full defence of their negatiue Positions And first Luther trāslated the Scripture presently after his open reuolt and Apostasy This translation was as the first much admired so blazing starres at their first appearance are much gazed vpon yet because it warranted many affirmatiue
to apply this to our present purpose the obiectum adaequatum to speake in the Philosophers idiome of Protestancy is only the denial of such affirmatiue Catholike points wherin ProtestaÌ„cy differeth at this day froÌ„ the Church of Rome not in its beliefe of those few affirmatiue Articles wherein the Protestants as yet agree with the sayd Church According heerto it did fall out that in the first infancy of the late appearing faith of Protestants the first stampers thereof at their publike meeting voluÌ„tarily for their better distinguishing of themselues from the Catholikes imposed to themselues the name of Protestants and to their fayth the title of Protestancy implying by that word that they protested themselues absolutely to deny such such affirmatiue points of fayth which the Church of Rome at that tyme euer afore maintaines and affirmes For if we respect those few doctrines wherin they did agree with the Church of Rome the Protestants had no reason to vse any such terme of distinguishment seeing both sides did belieue the same Articles Therefore of necessity the word Protestancy as seruing for a character or signature of its separation from our Catholike fayth is to be restrayned to such points wherin the Protestants by their denyall of them then dissented from the Church of Rome But by this we may see how loath is Nouellisme in doctrine to impath it selfe in the beaten tract of Reuerend Antiquity or to runne in the accustomed known channel wherin the stream of Christian ReligioÌ„ in former tymes had its course And thus far of this point the conclusion being that Protestancy as Protestancy only consisteth in denyall of such affirmatiue points which the Church of Rome affirmes to be true not in belieuing with the sayd Church certayne chiefe points of Christianity aboue expressed THE II. PROLEGOMENON In such points of fayth wherein Protestancy dissenteth from the Romane Church al the said points are meerly Negations to the contrary affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Church of Rome CHAP. II. MY second Prolegomenon is to demonstrate by gradation how the ProtestaÌ„ts as aboue is intimated haue reformed or if you will refined their Religion in seuerall points of Fayth and this only by pure Negatiues to the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue Assertions of them Thus did the Protestants reforme our supposed errors with their owne true and reall errors so the (a) Luc. 18. Pharisy reproued the Publicans sinne with farre greater sinne But to dissect the particulers Luther the Prodromus of these calamitous tymes was first an acknowledged Catholike Priest as himselfe (b) So witnesseth Sleydan in li 16. fol. 232. writeth This man first begun his Reformation with a mincing hesitation trepidatioÌ„ of iudgment busied himself only with the denial of Pardons but by litle little taking greater courage he next proceedeth to the denyall of (c) Luther in captiuit Babilon tom 2. fol. 63. Papall Iurisdiction and (d) Luth. de votis Monastiâ—is in tom 2. Wittemberg Monasticall state professioÌ„ And being once fleshed in his profession he daily more more sharpining his censuring rasour cut of at one blow (e) Luth. tom 2. fol. 63. foure Sacraments He finally concluded with the denyall of the (f) Luth. de abrogaÌ„da missa priuata in tom 2. fol. 244. Masse Priesthood of seueral parts of (g) Luth praefat in epist. Iacob vide Bulling vpon the Apocalips englished cap. 1. Canonicall Scripture (h) Luth. de seruo arbitrio in tom 2. fol. 424. of freewill of Iustification of workes Thus far proceeded Luther And that the denyall of these former points did not happen at one time but by degrees appeareth in that the further he proceeded in this his denyal of Catholicke Articles the more he reputed himselfe reformed and in his later writinges he intreateth pardon of his reader for his presumed defect in his former writings he thus excusing himselfe The (i) tom 1. WitteÌ„b in praefat tom 2. fol. 63. Reader may find how many and how great things I humbly granted to the Pope in my former writings which in my later these times I hold for greatest blasphemy and abomination therfore pious Reader thou must pardon me this errour O see how pride of iudgement the Hypostasis of heresy masketh it selfe vnder the borrowed veile of religious zeale From Luthers loines immediatly descended Zuinglius Bullinger Bucer and some others But these vngrateful and disobedient Impes did not rest satisfied with their Fathers reformation but retayning it for good as far as it went proceeded much further in their NegatioÌ„s of the Articles of the Roman Religion since they denyed the Reall (k) Zuinglius tom 2. fol. 375. 416. Presence denyed (l) Zuing. tom 2. fol. 378. Purgatory and praying for the dead denyed (m) Vide Luth. in ep ad GeorgiuÌ„ Spalatinum praying to Saints denyed (n) See Whitgifts defence in the examination of places fol. penul the vse of Images finally denyed (o) Lib. intituled agaynst Symbolis part 1. c. 2. Sect. 30 crossing of ones selfe Thus farre these men made their progresse in their Negatiue Religion who conspired with their Father through their desire euer of further reformation by excepting in their later writings against their former as not being (p) See Zuingl to 2. fol. 202. vide Bucer Script Anglicana pag. 680. Negatiue inough and yet we are taught by the abortiue Apostle 1. Cor 5. that modicum fermentum totam massaÌ„ corrupit Buâ— to proceed higher for as yet the Scene of a Negatiue Reformatio leaueth not the Stage FroÌ„ these former men did spring Caluin Beza the Puritans of England Scotland Geneua which men as being presumed to be wholy spiritualized and as it were obsest with the holy Ghost such is the pride of Nouelisme made a farre more refyned and sublimated Reformation and all by Negatiues then their Predecessours had done For almost all the other Affirmatiue Catholike Articles passed vnder the fyle of their dislike And therewith they wholy denied the said articles The chiefe articles denied by these Enthysiasts to omit diuers of them for breuity are these following (q) D. Willet in his speciall booke entituled Lymbomastix most Puritanes Christs descending into hell the Headship of the Church to reside in one alone (r) Denyed by Beza Caluin Knox in whole Treatises vniuersality of grace (Å¿) Vide the Suruey of the Booke of common Prayer the power of priest-hood to remit sinnes (t) denied by Caluin as appeareth by SchlusseÌ„b in Theolog Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 60. and by D Willet in Synopsis pag. 432. Baptisme by lay persons in tyme of necessity (u) Conâ—l in his examen pag 63. 64. Ceremonies and (x) Vide Whitgifts defence pag. 259. Church apparell c. But the denyall of Beza shall serue as a Chorus to the former particuler denyalls who taking as it should seeme a
Articles of our Catholike fayth neuer denyed by Luther therefore Zwinglius doth in great acerbity of words traduce him for such his Translation thus inueighing against him (a) Zwingl tom 2. ad Luther lib. de Sacram pag. 412. 413. Thou Luther dost corrupt the word of God thou art seene to be a manifest corrupter and peruerter of the holy Scriptures Now by reason of Luthers presumed false Translation a new Translation was after set forth by the Deuines of Basill which traÌ„slation was neuertheles wholly coÌ„demned by Caluin Beza as not fauouring inough their negatiue Fayth for thus Beza writeth therof (b) Beza in resp ad defens respons Castal The Basill Translation is in many places wicked and altogeather different from the mynd of the Holy Ghost Heerupon a third translation of the Scripture was made by Caluin and Beza wholy presumed to be according to the holy Ghost yet it is found so defectiue impure that Molinaeus a learned Protant putteth vpon it this Theta or marke of coÌ„demnation (c) Molin in sua TraÌ„slat Noui Testam Part. 12. fol 110. Caluin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe he vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides he addeth to the text The same Protestant thus also auerreth of Beza (d) Ibid. part 20. 30. 40. c. Beza actually changeth the Text. And thereupon instaÌ„ceth in diuers of Beza his corruptions But Castalio the remarkeable Protestant is not afrayd to reprehend Beza his Translation in this full manner (e) In defens TraÌ„slat pag. 170. To note the errours of that â—ranslation would require a great volume Finally Castalio himself composed a translatioÌ„ yet so defectiue and impure that Beza by way of recrimination condemneth it to vse Beza his owne words (f) Beza in Testam in praefat in Annot. in Math 3. in 1. Cor. 1. c. as Sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall And thus much for some tast and delibation of our forayne Protestants Translations of the Scripture ech later translation accusing the former for imperfect and impure as not being Negatiue inough in behalf of their Negatiue Religion so certayne it is that the very pulse life and energy of Protestancy are meere Negations But before we end this poynt we will cast our eye vpon our English Translations of the Bible and see what entertaynement they find at the hands of other more reformed and Negatiue Protestants for though diuers English translatioÌ„s haue beene made of the Bible the later euer condeÌ„ning the former for not being reformed or negatiue inough yet the Puritans whose grace chiefly resteth in disgracing their Predecessours and who are most deuoted to this negatiue faith condemne all the sayd translations as false and impure For Carleile the Puritan thus censureth them (g) Carleile that Christ desceÌ„ded not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. sequent The English Translations haue depraued the sense obscured the Truth and deceaued the ignorant in many places they do detort the Scripture from it right sense And other English Puritanes do vomit out their iudgement of the English translation in these wordes (h) Abrid gâ—ment of the booke giuen to his Maiesty by the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the text and that sometymes to the changing and obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost And heerupon they sollicited the late King for a new tranon which was granted to them and after published by authority But how can we rest assured that they wil vnchangeably satisfy theÌ„selues with this last translation will not in tyme be as earnest for another Now let vs descend to their often alteration of their publike Prayer-booke made by the aduice of Crammer Peter Martyr and Bucer and as the Statute sayth (i) In the statuts of 2. 3 Edward 6. cap. 1. made by the ayde of the holy Ghost This prayer-prayer-booke retayned diuers Affirmatiue points of the Romane and Catholike Religion for it (k) All these with diuers other Catholike points are expresly set downe in the booke of common-coÌ„mon-prayer printed in folio by Edward Whit-Church cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum anno 1549. admitted Baptisme by lay Persons in tyme of necessity as also grace giuen in that Sacrament in like sort it retayned absolution of the sicke penitent giuen by the Priest in these wordes By authority committed to me I absolue thee of all thy sinnes accordingly it retayned speciall coÌ„fession of the sicke penitent It further allowed the anointing of the sicke Penitent It maintained the consecration of the water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse It also retayned the vsage of Chrisme and of the childs annointing and of Exorcisme Briefly to omit many other dogmaticall and Affirmatiue points of the Romane fayth and Religion it maintayned prayer for the dead and intercession and offering of prayers by the Angells But this Liturgy or Booke of common Prayer was houlden during the reigne of Queene Elizabeth ouer Papisticall as ech man knowes And therupon the sayd Praier-booke was reformed in her tyme and made more Negatiue by culling out of it the former Affirmatiue Catholike points yet this was not done in so full a manner as it gaue contentment for Maister Parker thus complayneth thereof (l) against Symbolizing part 2. cap. 5. sect 2. pag. 4. The day-starre was noâ— risen so high in their dayes when yeâ— Queene Elizabeth reformed the defects of King Edwards Communion bookâ— c. (m) Ibid. sect 17. pag. 39. yet so altered as when it was proposed to be confirmed to the Parlament it was refused To whose iudgement Cartwright the Puritan thus subscribeth (n) Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 41. the Church of England changed the Booke of common Prayer twice or thrice after it had receaued the knowledge of the Gospell And yet the last change made is so imperfect in the iudgement of the Puritanes as that they wishing a new Common prayer booke to be composed thus censure of the former (o) In Whitgifts defence pag. 474. The forme of the communion booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist as the reading of the Epistles and Ghospells c. the most of the prayers the manner of ministring Sacraments c. of Confirmation c. Neyther are our Puritanes lesse forbearing to charge the CoÌ„munion booke as being in their iudgement ouer Affirmatiue for thus some of them do write (p) In the booke intituled The petitioÌ„ of twenty two Preachers in London Many things in the Communion booke are repugnaÌ„t to the word of God And agayne In the Communion booke there be things of which there is no sense there is contradiction in it euen of necessary and essentiall points of Religion And vpon this their dislike the Puritans at the (q) Pag. 58 Conference at Hampton Court motioned that they might not be
forced to subscribe to the Communion Booke In this last place let vs examine a litle the Liturgy of the Brownists This their forme of Prayer is so Negatiue as that reiecting all other matters it chiefly consisteth of an extemporall conceaued Prayer singing a Psalme and a Sermon And yet the singing of a Psalme was in doubt once to be taken away by some of the Brownists as being but a humane Inuention and thereupon some of them do style singing of Psalmes in the Church (r) In the bobke called the new age of old names cap. 2◠p. 122 howling of wolues croking of Rauens c. By all this we may see how variable and inconstant the Protestants haue discouered themselues to be in admitting of the Booke of common Prayer which point D. Doue an eminent Protestant as making a recapitulation of seuerall formes of their Communion booke thus writeth (s) Persuasions to English Recusants pag. 31. Concerning the Booke of Common Prayer when the Masse was first put downe King Henry had his English Liturgy and that was iudged absolute and without exception but whē King Edward came to the Crowne that was condemned and another in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approoue as very consonant to Gods word VVhen Queene Elizabeth began her Raigne the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new deuised and allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her raigne we grew weary of that Booke and great meanes haue been made to abandone that and establish another VVhich although it was not obtayned yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common Prayers we be so wanton that we know not what we would haue Thus plainely and fully D. Doue of this point And thus much to shew how the Protestants and their descendants haue made seuerall Translations of their Bible and composed diuers formes of Liturgy or Common-prayer euery later Translatiō of the Scripture and euery later forme o◠Common-prayer being more Negatiue then the former From all which we may most certainly conclude and so extract Truth out of falshood that as yet the Protestants haue neuer enioyed a sincere Translation of the Scriptures or an Orthodoxall Liturgy or forme of Common-prayer That Protestancy is a Non-Entity proued from the Principles of Schoole Diuinity and Philosophy CHAP. IIII. NOW after we haue manifested the former poynts which are but certaine graduall steps to the mayne question heer to be intreated of it followeth that by the applying the sayd points to certayne acknowledged and receaued Theorems and Principles of Schoole diuinity we are to euict the certainty of our assumed Thesis or Position to wit that Protestācy is a meer Non-entity Wherefore for the better illustration of this subiect we are to call to mynd that the Schoolemen do teach that (a) S. Thomas part 1. qu. 16. Omnis res est vera secundum quod habet propriam formam suae naturae And againe (b) S. Thomas vbi supra Vnumquodque sicut custodit suum esse ita custodit suam veritatem Euery thing as it keepeth its essence or being so it keepeth its truth And yet more (c) S. Thomas vbi supra vide Durād lib. 1. distinct 20. q. 6. and Viguerius de anima cap. 2. sect 2. Aristot in Metaphys 9. Verum non potest apprehendi nisi apprehēdatur sub ratione entis Truth cannot be apprehended but as it is apprehended as a thing hauing a reall being And hence it is that they conclude Res quaelibet vera est absolutè Euery thing in that it is a thing is true And agayne in more expresse tearmes Fundamentum veritatis est entitas rerum The foundation of truth is the Entity or being of things With whome assenteth S. Austin thus teaching (d) Aug. in Soliloq l. 2. cap. 8. verum est id quod est From all which their last inference is that Ens Verum conuertuntur Euery thing that is is true and euery truth hath a reall Entity Now the maine source frō whence all these scholasticall sentences receaue their spring is because euery Entity or being is frō God (e) Genes 1. who wholy made all things and that all Truth proceeded likewise from God who is (f) Iohn 14. truth it selfe But now touching that which is not but only is a priuation or denyall of that which is the Schoolmen further teach (g) S. Thomas part 1. q. 17. Intellectus decipitur nō circa quid est sed circa quid non est The vnderstāding is deceaued not about that which really is but about that which is not And further (h) S. Thomas vbi supra falsum est id quod non est apprehendere vt esse quod est non esse That is false which is not to be apprehended as it is a thing but as it is not And from hence they conclude that of such defects and priuations as lying falshood c. there is no efficient but a deficient cause and that all such proceede only from the Diuell (i) Iohn 8. the father thereof And according heereto your owne Peter Martyr thus truly discourseth (k) Peter Martyr in Commō places in English part 1. c. 17. pag. 184. An euill thing hath no efficient but a deficient cause if any will search out this efficient cause it is euen like as if he would see darknes with his eyes or comprehend silence with his eares which being Priuations it is no need they should haue efficient causes Thus farre Peter Martyr which saying is sortable to the iudgment of (l) Austin de ciuit Dei lib. 12. cap 7. S. Austin himselfe so vndenyable a truth it is that what is in it selfe Nothing cannot proceed from God who is but One yet All things most simple yet contayneth in himselfe eminenter the perfection of All things And thus it is certaine that he cannot make nothing who yet of nothing made all things since to make that which is not is not so much to make as rather a not-making to the performance whereof Impotency not Power is required Now from these former doctrinal speculations in Schoole diuinity acknowledged for true euen by al learned Men eyther Catholike or Protestant it is vnauoydably euicted that all truth which is as is aboue demonstrated euer apprehended subratione entis is positiue therefore in reality of sense euermore affirmatiue as on the cōtrary side that errour or falshood which is no other thing then a denyall of some truth is vpon the same ground and by force and law of Contrarieties alwayes Negatiue But to preuent the willfull or ignorant mistaking of our A duersaries for some men are of that liuor and harsh morosity as that they euen meditate how to contradict my meaning heere is not that euery verball Affirmatiue Proposition doth containe in it selfe a truth of reall Entity for it is willingly acknowledged that
haue a true reference ad Idem From whence it then followeth that the one side at least if not both in these former contradictions hath no reality or truâ— subsistence of Being And heereupon then I conclude that since all these former alledged men are accepted by the Church of England as good Protestants and all their meere contrary doctrines in the former poynts are taught for good Protestancy that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines whose nature requires a Not-be ng of one poynt is no reall and truly subsisting fayth but a meere Chymera and Non-entity The points of Protestancy touching which the Professours of Protestancy and especially the Caluinists amongst themselues do so diametrically differ are amoÌ„g others these following VVhether God doth decree and will sinne or but only permit sinne VVhether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church whether as aboue is intimated the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of fayth or but Sacramentally only present whether in case of Adultery the innocent party may marry againe whether the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme and the vse of the Surplisse be lawfull whether Bishops be Antichristian or lawfull whether Christ suffered in soule the paines of Hell besides many others The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another yet all is good Protestancy as before is sayd and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants and Professours of the Gospell that euen by the law and nature of Contradictories the one syde must euer want a reall subsisting Being and thereupon it followeth that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine must be in it selfe a very nothing This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our aduersaries in Articles of Protestancy is made more manifest by recalling to mynd what is aboue set down touching the great violent dissentions of the ProtestaÌ„ts concerning their translatioÌ„s of Scripture their booke of Common praier But leauing that as aboue touched the same will likewise be made euident by remembring in what acerbity of style the Protestants haue writ one against another euer intimating thereby that the different doctrines differently maintained by them were truly Contradictories and therefore the Tenets of the one syde at least meere irreall as wanting all true Being But to contract this poynt I will particulerly insist as most conducing to the subiect in hand first in setting downe the expresse words in their owne dialect of the English Protestants and the English Puritanes and after I will put downe some few tytles of Protestants Bookes written one against another from which the Reader may euen depose that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different bookes against other Protestants defending the contrary must of necessity be in themselues contradictory and incompatible one with another But to begin with our English Protestants And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritanes (l) In his booke dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory They are headstrong and hardened in Errour they strike at the mayne points of fayth shaking the foundation it selfe and calling to question Heauen and Hel the diuinity and Humanity yea the very Soule and Saluation of our Sauiour himselfe And yet more in the same place The Puritanes haue pestilent Heresies c. They are Hereticall and sacrilegious M. Powell thus styleth the Puritanes (m) Powel in his coÌ„sideratioÌ„s They are notorious manifest Schismatikes cut of from the Church of God The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them (n) In the Suruey of pretended discipline cap. 5. 2. 4. The Puritanes do peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriture and Fathers to serue their owne turne Now the Puritanes on the other syde are ready to repay the ProtestaÌ„ts former curtesy in their owne laÌ„guage for thus they write (o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplicatioÌ„ to the high court of Parlament Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops their adherents do much swarue â—rom the same c. And agayne (p) This appeareth in the booke of Constitutions and Câ—nons Ecclesiassticall printed aÌ„no 1604 The worship in the Church of EnglaÌ„d corrupt superstitious vnlawfull â—epugnant to the Scriptures The Arâ—icles of the Bishops Religion are erroâ—eous their rites Antichristian By this we may discerne what mutuall recrimination and what â—reconciliable repugnancy there betweene the English moderate â—rotestant and the English Puâ—itan and this euen in great matâ—ers and of highest consequence â—nd therefore the former M. Parks â—onfesseth sincerely and ingenuâ—usly of this point thus saying (q) M. Parks vbi supra p. 3. The Protestants deceaue the world â—nd make men belieue there is agreeâ—ent in all substantiall points They â—ffirme there is no question among theÌ„ of the truth And this much touching our domesticall Protestants and Puritanes In the next place I will descend to forrayne Protestants and for greater breuity among many huÌ„dred of bookes written by Protestants against Protestants see heer the (r) Isa 19. Aegyptian set against the Aegyptian ech one fighting against his brother I will content my selfe with setting downe the titles only of ten of them From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude that the Controuersies being the subiect of those bookes are not of that adiaphorous and indifferent nature as that the Tenets of both sydes might be true but that the Patrones of both sides did hould cotradictory doctrines and such as that granted by supposall the truth and Being of the one part the other of necessity waÌ„teth all reality of Being And to begin 1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus IudaizaÌ„s Hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate deitate Christi Spiritus sancti c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittenberg anno 1593. 2. Alberti Graueri Bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi braptae 1598. 3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blaspemos errores Swinglianorum CaluiuistaruÌ„ Tubingae anno 1586. 4. Anti-paraeus Hoc est refuâ—atio venenati Scripti à Dauide Paâ—aeo editi in defensione stropharum â—orruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluiâ—us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1â—98 5. Denominatio Imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. 6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. 7. Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563 8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graues perniciosi
by reasō that this greeke word maketh vp the number to wit b Apocal. 13. 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shal at his comming both in their denyalls and workes labour mightily to euert Christian Religion And if S. Iohn sayth truly that euery one who in any sort denieth Iesus to be Christ may figuratiuely be tearmed Antichrist (i) Ioan. 1. Quis est mendax nisi qui negat Iesum esse Christum hic est Antichristus c. how fully simply and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his comming deny Iesus to be Christ And consequently shall deny all the particular mysteries of Christianity 3. My third Resultancy respecteth the Protestants seuerall different Translations of the Scripture and their seuerall different settings forth of their Comon Booke of Prayer as is aboue shewed and yet euen at this day they are neither content with the last Trāslation of the Bible or last publishing of the Booke of Common Prayer though all corrected and reformed by way of Negatiues but charging thē with many vntruths corruptions and blasphemyes most earnestly thirsting after a new Translation and a new composition of the Communion Booke if so they could obtayne it From whence we conclude from their owne pens that hitherto the Protestāts neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture and a forme or cōmon Booke of Praier free from Errours Now this being granted by thē how mightily are the Protestants foyled thereby For first whereas their owne doctrine is that the (k) Luth. so teacheth praefat Assertionis suae Caluin lib. 4. Instit c. 9. Kemnit in Examen Concil Trident. sess 4. Melancthon locis de Ecclesia Scripture is the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Religion they are heerby by their owne implicite confessions euen as yet depriued of this Iudge seeing themselues do grant that the pure and vncorrupted Scripture and not as it is abastarded with deprauations ought to be this Iudge Agayne to be depriued of the true Scripture as themselues by acknowledging all former Translations to be impure false must consequētly grant they are is to be depriued of one of Gods chiefest pledges of mans saluation the Scripture of God and the necessary deductions out of it being the spirituall meates wherwith with reference to his saluation the vnderstanding of mans soule is chiefly fed nourished * Ioan 6. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt And as touching the want of a true Communion Booke of Praier the which the Protestāts by their former excepting against al Communiō Books hitherto published do acknowledg to want the Protestants do heerin potentially grant that hitherto they haue not known how and in what manner they ought to pray which how great a spiritual detrimēt it is who seeth not since by Praier we ouercome him who is inuincible praier indeed being the mother daughter of teares by which teares seconded with the help of the Sacraments the blemishes and spots of our soules are washed out (l) Psal 50. Lauabis me super niuem dealbabor 4. The fourth It is in the former passages proued euen from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene Inuisible or rather during those tymes vtterly extinct Now this confessed disparition vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men doth necessarily inuolue in it selfe that the Protestant Church is not nor can be the true Church of God since the true Church of God must at all tymes enioy a continual vneclipsed splendour of its owne visibility I will enleauen this my Assertiō both with the authority of holy Scripture the volūtary acknowledgmēts of our learned aduersaries And not to ouercharge the Reader with a needles surplusage of many testimonies some few and those pertinent shall serue And first we thus read to be prophecyed of the Church of God (m) Isa 60 The Iles shall waite for thee their Kings shall minister vnto thee and thy gates shall be continually open neyther day nor night shall they be shut that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils And in the new Testament it is sayd of our Sauiour (n) Ephes 4. He gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of Saints c. till we all meete in the vnity of faith that is as is els where in this Treatise shewed euen by the Protestants scholia (o) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testamēt in Ephes 4 for euer Now these former diuine Oracles prouing an vninterupted visibility of the Church of God are attēded on with the like acknowledgments euen of the Protestants for Melancthon after he had alledged certaine places of Scripture in proofe of the Churches euer visibility doth thus write (p) Melancthon in lotis com edit anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia Hi similes loci c. These and such lyke places of Scripture non de Idaea Platonica sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur And D. Field accordeth therto thus saying (q) D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 10. It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vaine in prouing that there is alwayes hath beene a visible Church c. for all this we most willingly yield vnto Finally D. Humfrey thus sealeth vp the truth hereof (r) D. Humfrey in Iesuitis part 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam Conclusio est clarissima It is a manifest Conclusion that the Church is to be conspicuous or visible Now heer aboue is deliuered first that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Inuisible Secondly as proued both from the Scriptures and from our Aduersaries doctrine that the true Church of God must at all tymes be visible and conspicuous If thē you will mingle these two Ingredients togeather you shall finde that the Compound made of them will be this That the Protestants Church for want of a continuall visibility at all tymes is not the true Church of God The same deductiō of prouing the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God may be made from the confessed want of administring the word Sacraments in the sayd Church For seeing the Administration of the word Sacramēts are the essentiall Notes of the true Church in the Protestants iudgments seeing withall by their owne Confessions aboue expressed their Church hath wanted for more thē a thousand yeares togeather this so necessary Administration of the word and Sacraments it then ineuitably followeth that the Protestant Church for want of these Essētial notes of the true Church is not the true Church of God euen by their owne doctrine 5. The fifth is to obserue the aboue confessed Truth of our Catholike Religion in all the chiefest Articles euē from the Aduersaries pens This is the greatest most conuincing proofe that can be desired for heere marke what both
THE NON-ENTITY OF PROTESTANCY OR A Discourse wherein is demonstrated that Protestancy is not any Reall thing but in it selfe a Platonicall Idaea a wast of all Positiue Fayth and a meere NOTHING VVritten by a Catholike Priest of the Society of IESVS Dormierunt somnium suum NIHIL inuenerunt Psalm 73. Vae Prophetis insipientibus qui sequuntur Spiritum suum NIHIL vident Ezech 13. Permissu Superiorum 1633. TO THE IVDICIOVS AND LEARNED PROTESTANT LEARNED MEN This Treatise vvas for you chiefly first vndertaken The Ground-vvorke vvhereupon the Systema or Frame thereof is built is a mixture of Philosophy and Schoole-diuinity Points vvith reference to the more ignorant Protestant being as the Schoole Dialect is extra sphaeram Actiuitatis that is beyond the limited apprehēsion of their shallovv narrovv conceits It is but small you see in Quantity but I hope it vvill hould out in vveight The subiect of it is vnusuall and to my knovvledge heertofore ex professo not much vvalked in or tracted It is also no doubt nauseous and displeasing to you seeing it attempteth to prooue that your Religion is in it selfe a meere Non-Entity It s Being consisting in a Not-being and Essence in vvant of Essence That Religiō of yours I meane vvhich at this day hath inuaded seuerall parts in Europe vvhose high flight is mantained only vvith the vvings of certayne Princes Commonvvealths povver and greatnes vvhich violently carries vvhere it reignes all things before it vvith the impetuous streame of its ovvne torrent briefly to vvhich for our not yielding obedience in our ovvne Coūtry so great heauy mulcts and pressures are imposed vpō Recusants though euen in al Iustice the paying of Nothing is a sufficient penalty for the not professing of vvhat is Nothing I confesse it is painfull to discourse vvell of Nothing as it is difficult to run a diuision of knovvledge vpon the ground of ignorance Neuertheles since your ovvne learning vvill force you to giue assent to those Theorems of Diuinity and Philosophy vpō the Arch vvherof the vveight of the vvhole Treatise resteth I am not vvholy in despayre but that at the closure of all your morning more retired thoughts as being voyded of preiudice may perhaps entertaine it vvith a more indifferent and impartiall Censure If you heere demand hovv can this great Attempt of mine be performed for great in your Iudgements it must yet needs be thought in shevving that Protestancy is in its ovvne Nature a Non-Entity that its All is Nothing as not hauing any reality of Being to support it to this I ansvvere omitting other reasons heerafter insisted vpon that since Protestancy consisteth only in the denyalls and Priuations of Affirmatiue points of our Christian and Romane Fayth vvhich denyalls and Priuations in their ovvne nature are Irreall as heerafter vvill be euicted that therefore it is vvholy disuested of all true Subsistence or Being For vvho obserueth not that Protestancy is a Religion resting more in denyalls of Truths then in defence of Positiue and formall Errours The veyle vnder vvhich Protestācy masked it selfe vvhen it first entred vpon the stage vvas the outvvard apparence of a gratefull Reformation vvhich vvord of Reformation is by them vsed as in opposition to a precedent Corruption from vvhich the Protestants professe to rescue and deliuer the Church of God Which Corruption they say vvas first brought in by the Bishop of Rome (a) Symon de Voron in his discourse vpon the Catalogue of Doctours Epist to the Reader VVho ouervvhelmed the vvhole vvorld in the dreggs of Antichristian filthynes abominable Superstitions Traditions c. Thus did the first Protestants thinke good to cloath their naked Religion in the fayre attire of a presumed Reformation vvhich Reformation consisteth onely in an vtter subuerting and destroying of most of our Affirmatiue Catholike Articles of fayth and in lieu of them in introducing the Negatiues so as by this proceeding the Protestants may be said to speake allusiuely to trench ouer neere vpon Gods Omnipotēcy in attempting to exercise the tvvo Acts of Creation Annihilation peculiar to his diuine Maiesty for their ovvne Protestant faith as grounded only vpon Negatiues and Priuations they haue dravvne out of an Abysse and Informity of Nothing and our Positiue and Affirmatiue Catholike fayth they labour vvhat they can by such their molitions to reduce to Nothing And although the Protestants doe endeauour to enamell guilde ouer their Negatiue fayth vvith many detorted misapplyed Texts of Sacred Writ by the help of the Priuate reuealing Spirit their Oedipus that so it may appeare glorious in an erring eye neuertheles certaine it is that after such testimonies are truly ballanced and vveighed by the Authority of the vvhole Church of God all such fading splendour of Protestancy doth but resemble the light of a Glovv-vvorme vvhich the neerer one comes to it the lesser it appeares til in the end it vvholy vanisheth avvay But seeing a short Preface best sorteth to a short discourse I vvill heer stay my Penn remitting the learned Reader to the diligent impartiall perusall of these ensuing Leaues assuring him that it impugneth the light of Reason since God and Nothing are incompatible that he vvhome the Philosophers for his greater Perfection of Essence style Ens Entium should be truly honoured vvith a Religion vvhich is a Non-Ens Your in Christ Iesus W. B. THE CONTENTS OF the seuerall Chapters Certaine Prolegomena of which the first is CHap. 1. That in all positiue Affirmatiue points of Faith the Protestants do agree with the Catholikes The Protestants borrowing the sayd Affirmatiue points frō the Church of Rome Chap. 2. The second Prolegomenon viz. In such points of fayth wherin Protestancy differeth from the Romane Church all the sayd points are meerely Negations to the contrary Affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Church of Rome Chap. 3. That the Protestants haue often corrected and reformed their Translations of the Bible and the Lyturgy or common Booke of Prayer in fauour of their Negatiue Religion euery later excepting against the former as corrupt and impure Chap. 4. That Protestancy is a Non-Entity proued frō the Principles of Schoole Diuinity Philosophy Chap. 5. The Non-Entity of Protestancy by reason of its Negations proued from the like supposed Example of a Philosopher denying most Principles of Philosophy Chap. 6. That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denyall of most if not all of such points of Religion wherein the Protestant by his lyke denyall of them differeth from the Catholike Chap. 7. That Protestancy is but a Nullity of Fayth and consequently with reference to fayth a Non-Entity proued from the definition of Fayth and other conditions necessarily annexed thereto Chap. 8. That Protestancy cannot be defined And that therefore it is a Non-Entity Chap. 9. That Protestancy consisteth of Doctrines meerly Contradictory in themselues and that therefore Protestancy is a Non Entity Chap. 10. That Heresy
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