but euen to Infidels and of the opposite ignorance or inuisibility we speake in this matter and Protestants also as appeareth by their testimonies already rehearsed shall yet more by those which we shall repeat hereafter That they say their Church was simply inuisible 5. Further more therefore Protestants do not only teach that their Church may and hath byn inuisible respectiuely that is to this or that kind of men as we haue already heard but also they graunt that it may be simply and absolutely inuisible Luther vpon the 90. psalm tom 3. fol. 493 The Church was and abode in Popery but truly so hidden as to one that would iudge by the appearance the seemed to be no where at all Seemed to be no where And vpon the psalm 22. fol. 344 The Church is brought into the dust of death so that no where there appeareth any shew or trace of her And vpon the first chap. of Micheas tom 4. fol. 434 No trace of church appeared In the former ages there was no true forme of religion extant The Magdeburgians in the preface of their 10. Century It is very hard to find where which the Church was in this age No forme extant Likewise in the Preface of the 11. Century Euery where was darknes neither durst the Church mutter any thing Gerlachius in his 22. disput of the Church pag. 927. writeth that before Luther The true Church withdrew it selfe from the eyes sight of men into lurking holes and hid her selfe in darknesse Zuinglius in his supplication to the Bishop of Constance tom 1. fol. 120 The heauenly doctrine lay a long tyme hid Hospinian in the epistle dedicatory of the first part of his History From the yeare 1200. vntill the yeare 1515. the Church lay miserably ouerwhelmed as it were with a most deep and most strong deluge Caluin in the Preface of his Institutions God permitted that in former ages there should be no face of the true Church extant No face of the church extant And addeth of his owne doctrine It lay a long tyme vnknowne and buryed Againe For some ages all things were drowned in deep darknes And vpon the 23. chapter of the Acts vers 6. he sayth The Church was hidden from the eyes of men And in his Preface vpon Isaias Touching the oueward shew of the church nothing for many ages appeared but desolate and confused wast on all sides Beza in his book of the notes of the church pag. 99 The Church lurked in the wildernes Pareus in his 4. booke of grace and freewill cap. 6 In Constantines tyme the church began to waâ— sick to death notwithstanding the Catholike Church remayned But where In the desert as in the world withdrawne from the eyes of men Sadeel in his treatise of the vocarion of Ministers pag. 533 After the Church had a long tyme lurked the Lord called her at this tyme into light Could not be discerned Voyen in his Preface of Catalog Doct The true visible Church could not be discerned no tract of Gods grace appeared in his Church The Apology of the English Church part 4. cap. 4. diuis 2. sayth that 40. yeares agoe truth first began to spring vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of Vnheard of D. Humfrey vnto the 3. reason of F. Campian pag. 286 VVhy the picture of the Church in these later tymes cannot be seene of our aduersaries or drawne of vs c. And pag. 288 If the only names of our Fathers were extant who eyther by teaching Not so much as their names extant or monishing or writing did help the Church of Christ we should see another ranck and progresse of the Church another succession of Bispops another picture of Protestants And pag. 291 And yet they will obiect that our Church was hidden which they no where suffered aliue D. Whitaker Controu 2. quest 3. pag. 479 VVhen they aske of vs where was our Church in tymes past for so many ages we answere that it was in a close wildernesse that is that it was hidden lay secret fled the sight of men And quest 5. c. 3. pag. 499 Luther brought the fayth out of darknesse wherein before it lay drowned And cap. 4. pag. 502 Our Church was then but you will say it was not visible Not visible VVhat then therefore was it not No. For it lay hid in the wildernesse M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed colum 788 VVe say that many ages past before this our age that vniuersall defection ouerwhelmed almost all the world Not visible and that our Church was not visible at that tyme. M. Base in his 1. Century of the writers of Britanny cap. 4 From Phocas vntill the renewing of the Ghospell the doctrine of Christ lay so long in lurking holes M. Downham in his 2. booke of Antichrist cap. 2 The generall defection of the visible Church began to worke in the Apostles tyme. M. Powell in his 1. book of Antichrist c. 23 Our religion lay long tyme vnknowne and buryed vnknown buried And M. Cox Chancellour of Oxford in King Edward 6. tyme exhorting the vniuersity men to Protestantisme biddeth them pluck out truth lying long tyme lurking in Trophonius denne Thus clearely and thus many wayes they simply and absolutely graunt that their Church was inuisible vnknowne and buryed before Luther arose 6. The same also they intend They teach the Church may be simply inuisible when they say that the Church either was or can be inuisible For they would neuer say so vnlesse they knew that such was the condition of their Church before Luther began Luther vpon the 90. psalm tom 3. fol. 495 Sometymes the Church was most weake and so dispersed as it appeared no where Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg pag. 448 No where appeare It is certaine that it may fall out that the true Church may ly hidden and her visible forme not at all tymes appeare to the eyes Herbrand in his Compend of diuinity place of the Church pag. 502. writeth That the faythfull sometymes appeare not to the eyes euen of the Godly Not to the Godly Kemnitius in his common places tit the epistles of the Apostles pag. 78 Sometymes the true Church another bastard and company preuailing and ouertopping doth so as it werely hid that Elias may say I am leâ—t alone Gerlachius in his 22. dispute of the Church pag. 946 No surely if at some tyme the Church be not seene with corporall eyes therefore she is not Caluin in the Preface of his Institutions Sometyme God taketh away the outward knowledge of his Church from the sight of men Sometyme the Church hath no apparent forme And in his treatise of the true Reformation of the Church pag. 332 The Church sometyme lyeth hid and flieth the sight of men And in his Antidote of the 18. article of the Vniuersity of Paris VVe gather that the Church
Heathens Pagans and infidells And in his Apology for the Switzers Churches he defineth Schisme to be a separation from the rest of the body of the Catholike Church Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 7. reacheth that Schismatikes are not in the Church And suâ—us in his 3. booke of the Church c. 5. approueth the fame of such Schismatikes as separate themselues from the whole Church The strangers in England writing to Beza in the 24 epistle haue these words in their 13. article VVhosoeuer is lawfully excommunicated of a particuler Church or cutteth himselfe of vpon vnlawfull causes and with scandall in that doth loose all priuiledge of the Catholike Church And Beza answereth them in the name of the Church of Geneua in this manner Your thirteenth article we wholy receiue at most orthodoxall Casaubon in his 15. exercitation against Baronius num 6. It is an vndoubted truth that how often soeuer a pious flock is ioyned to a true Bishop there is a Church of God in so much that if any forsake that Church it cannot be doubted but that he is out of the Church Finally Chamier in his epistle to Armand excludeth Schismatikes out of the Church because sayth he they want the sincerity of the Sacraments English ProtestaÌ„ts Amongst our English Protestants his Maiesty in his foresayd epistle to Cardinall Peron All those testimonies of Augustin proue only this that there is no hope of saluation for those who leaue the Communion of the Catholike Church which the King willingly graunteth D. Whitaker in his 2. controuer 5. quest 6. cap. sayth It is false that hereticall and Schismaticall Churches be true Churches Againe The Catholike Church consisteth not of diuided but of vnited members And cap. 2 The true and Catholike Church is that which consisteth of Catholiks D. Fulke in his booke of the succession of the Church VVhat auailed it them to eternall saluation to haue byn sound in Religion and doctrine seing they were cut of from the Communion of the true Church in which alone saluation is and from her true head VVhat skilleth it whether one being drawne by heresy or Schisme from the body of Christ be subiect to euerlasting damnation D. Humfrey in his answere to the 3. reason of F. Campian VVe confesse that he is vndone who is separated from the followship of the Church And D. Feild in his first booke of the Church cap. 7 The name of the Catholike Church is applyed to distinguish men holding the sayth in vnity from Schismatiks And in his 2. booke c. 2. he sayth that Schismatikes are not Catholike Christians Thus we see how Protestants sometymes do teach that the true Church consisteth of Catholiks of members vnited not deuided that it hath no Schismes or Sects That Schismatiks are not Catholiks that their vnity is not true nor Catholike that their Churches ought to be forsaken that they are not vniuocally Churches nor true Churches that they are not members of the true Church but out of the Church altogeather out of the Church and actually neither of the visible nor inuisible Church and that this is an vndoubted truth which coÌ„fession of theirs must be well noted and kept in mind for thereby is ouerthrowne as we shall see in the 2. booke their only argument wherwith they endeauour to proue that their Church was before Luther and also is defaced their only essentiall mark of finding the true Church by the truth of doctrine For Schismatikes as we shall heare them confesse in the 2. booke hold true doctrine and neuertheles as here they acknowledge are not of the true Church They exclude those that deny any fundameÌ„tal article 5. In like manner they do commonly debarre from their Church all such as deny any principall or fundamentall point of fayth Melancthon in his booke of common places in the title of the Church They are not members of the Church who pertinaciously maintaine errours opposite to the foundation And in his answere to the Bauarian articles Saints may haue errours but not such as ouerthrow the foundation In his examen of those that are to take orders Agreement in the foundation LutheraÌ„s is a thing necessary to the vnity of the Church And vpon the 3. cap. of the 1. epistle to Timothy The foundation is held in the Church otherwise there should be no Church at all And in his 79. proposition tom 4 It is most certaine that those companies are not the Church of God who either are altogeather ignorant of the Ghospell or impugne some article of the foundation that is some article of fayth or doctrine of the decalogue or maintaine open idols Chemnitius in his common places pa. 3. title of the Church Neither can these be acknowledged for the true Church who imbrace fundamentall errours And the Lutherans in the conference at Ratisbon Ses 14. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg Gesner in his 24. place Adam Francis in his 11. place and other Lutherans commonly agree that the Church cannot erre Fundamentally or in the Foundation And the Confession of Saxony giueth this note to know who are in the Church SacrameÌ„taries Those who hold the Foundation As for Sacramentaries Caluin in his 4. booke of Institutions cap. 2. num 1 So soone as a lye hath broken into the castle of Religion the summe of necessary doctrine is inuerted the vse of Sacraments is fallen certainly the destruction of the Church ensueth euen as a mans life is lost when his throat is cut or his vitall parts deadly wounded And soone after It is certaine that there is no Church where lyes and errour haue gotten to the toppe And cap. 19. num 17 VVithout doubt the Church of the faythfull must agree in all the heads of our Religion Sadeel in his answere to the Theses held at Posna cap. 12 I thinke the matter is thus to be defined by the word of God that if any in what Church soeuer dissent in the foundation of sayth and be obstinate in their errours such appertaine not to the vnity of the Church The like he hath in his answere to Arthure cap. 12. Vesinuâ— in his Catechisme quest 54. cap. 4 The whole Church erreth not nor wholly nor in the foundation Polanus in his Thesis of the Church sayth The Church erreth not in the foundation The same teacheth Zanchius in his treatise of the Church c. 7. Lubbertus in his 2. booke of the Church c 3. Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 139. Bucanus in his 41. place and other Sacramentaries commonly And with them herein agree our English Protestants English ProtestaÌ„ts For thus sayth his Maiesty in his epistle to Cardinall Peron The Churches are vnited in vnity of sayth and doctrine in those heads which are necessary to saluation And D. Whitaker in the preface of his Controuersies The foundations of sayth are of that nature that one being shaken nothing in all religion remaineth sound And Contr. 2. quest 4. cap.
1 We say that the Church cannot erre in things simply necessary Which he often repeateth in the 2. cap. And quest 5. cap. 17 If any fundamentall doctrine be taken away the Church straight way falleth And cap. 18 The fundamentall articles are those on which our fayth relyeth as the house vpon the foundation Againe If any fundamentall and essentiall principle of fayth be ouerturned or shaken it cannot be truly called a Church And quest 6. cap. 3 That is no true Church which taketh away one only foundation The same he teacheth in his 1. booke of the scripture cap. 7. sect 8. and cap. 12. sect 3. M. Perkins in his explication of the Creed If any man or Church retaine or defend obstinatly or of willfull ignorance a fundamentall errour we must not account them anymore Christians or Churches D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church cap. 1 Those blemishes take away the name of the true Church which are against the grounds of fayth D. Feild in his 2. booke of the Church cap. 3 Purity free from fundamentall and essentiall errour is necessarily required in the Church D. Morton in the 1. part o◠his Apology booke 2. cap 38 Purity of doctrine in fundamentall principles of fayth is required to the being and constitution of the Church And in his answere to the Protestants Apology l. 4. c. 3. Sect. 5 The deniall of fundamentall doctrines doth exclude men from saluation and disannulleth the name of the Church in the gainsayers D. White in his way to the Church pag. 110 VVe do not thinke euery company to be the true Church that holdeth only some points of the true fayth but it is requisite that the foundation be holden And in his defence of the way cap. 17 A fundamentall point is that which belongs to the substance of fayth and is so necessary that there can be no saluation without the knowledge and explicite fayth thereof And surely they all and at all tymes ought to affirme this seeing they deliuer truth of doctrine as an essentiall marke of the Church which they must needs vnderstand and so Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 148. expresseth it of true doctrine in fundamentall points And this their doctrine touching this matter I earnestly commend to the memory of the Reader because it is necessary to find out what a Protestant is and also is one of the grounds whereby it may appeare that there was no Protestant Church before Luther because before him there was no company which held all the same fundamentall points of doctrine which Protestants do hold 6. Finally They exclude all that deny any article of fayth they sometyms shut out of their Church all those who deny any one point of fayth be it fundamentall or other For thus writeth the Apology of the Confession of Auspurge The Church of Christ is not among them who defend naughty opinions contrary to the Ghospell And Luther in his epistle to Count Albert It is not inough if in other things he confesse Christ and his Ghospell For who denieth Christ in one article or word denieth him who is denied in all because there is but one Christ Lutherās the same in all his words And vpon the 17. cap. of Deuteronomy Faith suffereth nothing and the word tolerateth nothing but the word must be perfectly pure and the doctrine alwayes sound throughout And vpon the 17. cap. of S. Matthew Fayth must be round that is belieuing all articles though small ones For who belieueth not one article rightly belieueth nothing righly as Iames sayth VVho offendeth in one is guilty of all and so who in one article doubteth or belieueth not at least obstinatly dissolueth the roundnes of the graine and so can do no good And vpon the 5. cap. to the Galathians In diuinity a small errour ouerthroweth all the doctrine Doctrine is like to a Mathematicall point it cannot be deuided that is it cannot suffer either addition or detraction And when Zuinglius and his followers desired of the Lutherans to be esteemed as their brethren Melancthon as Hospinian reporteth in his Sacramentarian history fol. 81. roughly sayd vnto them VVe meruaile with what conscience they can account vs for brethren whome they iudge to erre in doctrine And againe fol. 82. Luther grauely spake vnto them saying he greatly merueiled how they could hold him for a brother if they thought his doctrine to be vntrue And the same Melancthon togeather with Brentius writeth thus to the Lantgraue Perhaps Christians who are entangled in some errour which they do not obstinatly defend may be tolerated as brethren but they which not only bring false doctrine into the Church but also maintaine it are not to be acknowledged for brethren And againe Melancthon in his examen of those who are to take orders tom 3. There are in that company of the Church many who are not Saints but yet agreeing in doctrine The Deuines of Wittemberg in their refutation of the orthodoxall consent pag. 73 Like as he who keepeth the whole law and offendeth in one as Iames the Apostle witnesseth is guilty of all so who belieueth not one word of Christ albeit he seeme to beliue the other articles of the Creed yet belieueth nothing and is to be damned as incredulous For euery heretike did not impugne euery article of fayth but commonly each of them of purpose impugned some one or other whome neuertheles the Church iustly condemned as heretikes if they pertinaciously stood in their errours Schusselburg also in his 3. tom of the Catalogue of Heretiks pag. 85. Christian fayth is one copulatiue and who denieth one article of fayth calleth in doubt the whole body of the heauenly doctrine Which he repeateth againe in the next pag. And tome 8. pag. 361 The Lutherans do fly him who depraueth the doctrine of truth in any article whatsoeuer And in his 2. booke of Caluinisticall diuinity article 1 VVe are certaine by the testimony of Gods word that an errour in one false doctrine obstinatly defended maketh an heretike For S. Chrysostome vpon the epistle to the Galathians sayd most truly that he corrupteth the whole doctrine who ouerthroweth it in the least article And Ambrose wrote rightly to the Virgin Demetrias That he is out of the number of the faythfull and hath no part in the inheritance of Saints who disagreeth in any thing from the Catholike truth Sacramētaries Thus the Lutherans Peter Martyr in his epistle to the straungers in England tom 2. loc col 136 VVe answere all the words of God as farre forth as they proceeded from him are of equall waight and authority and therefore none may receiue this and reiect that as false Iames sayth boldly who sinneth in one becommeth guilty of all That if it haue place in keeping of the commandements is also true in points of fayth Sadeel in his index of Turriās Repetitions pag. 806 I sayd that it was no true Church which teacheth doctrine repugnant to the
5. affirmeth that he had reiected only the accidents of his Popish orders but retayned the substance still M. Mason in his 5. booke of the ordination of ministers cap. 12. sayth that Popish ordination consistes of two parts to wit of power to offer sacrifice of power to administer the word and Sacraments and albeit he reiecteth the former yet the later he approues as that wherein true ministery consisteth Sadeel respon ad artic abiurat 61. And Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 177. teach the same and so must all others do who hold the mission of Luther and their first ministers to haue byn ordinary and receiued from the Papists which opinion most Protestants do now follow retracting vpon better aduise their former assertion confessing that the mission of their new Reformers was not in substance extraordinary And their deeds and actions do no lesse declare their approbation and esteeme of the mission and Pastorall charge which is in the church of Rome For as Turrian reporteth lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 3. and Luther intimateth tom 2. epist ad Bohemos when the Catholike Bishops giue orders the Hussites of Bohemia steale in priuily among the rest The Lutherans also made sute to the estats of the Empire that their ministers might receiue orders from the bishops of Misnia and Numburg And in artic 10. Smalcald they professe thus If the bishops of the church of Rome would truly execute their office and looke carefully to the church and word of God it might be permitted them to giue orders vnto vs and our preachers You may adde hereunto that neither Luther nor any Reformer else euer sought other ordination then what they had receiued of Papists and that in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne the supposed Prelates earnestly be sought a Catholike Bishop to consecrate them And euen to this day if any renegate Priest ioyne himselfe to the Protestants they order him not anew but deeme him fit for their ministeriall function by vertue of the orders he receiued of Papists Now if Papists haue true Mission true pastorall charge and true Pastors True mission and Pastors inseparable froÌ„ the Church surely they haue also the true church it being impossible that the church should be seuered froÌ„ the true Pastours or that the keyes of heauen which are in the true Pastours hands should be out of the church or that the power to remit sinnes the prerogatiue of true Pastours shold be where the church is not Nay the Protestants themselues confesse as much Luther tom 4. in cap. 4. Oseae fol. 295 True it is that the Ministery is only in the Church Melancthon tom 1. Lutheri disput de Eccles Polit. fol. 483 The ordination of Ministers is one of the peculiar giftes of the Church Caluin lib. de neces reform Eccles pag. 57 This one reason is as good as thousands that who so hath shewed himselfe an enemy to true doctrine hath lost all authority in the Church D. Whitaker ad demonstrat 18. Sanderi Out of the Church there is no other seate but the seat of errour of pestilence and euerlasting destruction The same teacheth Sadeel ad Sophism Turrian loc 10. D. Feild in his 1. booke of the church cap. 14. and others 5. Fiftly it is euident by the doctrine of the Sacramentaries who hold that the children of Papists are in the couenant of God and estate of saluation through the fayth of their parents Papistâ— children saued by the fayth of their parents and may therefore be baptised much more then must they teach that the parents themselues are for their owne fayth in the couenant of God and estate of saluation which could not be were they not in the Church The antecedent is manifest by the saying of many Protestants For thus writeth Luther lib. de capt Babylon tom 2. fol. 77 Here I say that which all say that infants are holpen by the fayth of them which offer them Caluin in his Catechâ—sme cap. de lege God extendeth his bounty so farre vnto the faythfull that for their sake he is good to their children not only blessing their affaires in this world but also sanctifying their soules that they may be accounted of his flock Contr. Seruetum pag. 601 VVe think that there will be no vse of Baptisme vntill this promise I will be thy God and of thy seed be apprehended by fayth but euery one apprehendeth it not only to himselfe but also to his issue Beza part 2. Respon ad acta Montisbel pag. 118 Parents through Gods grace do apâ—rehend grace by true fayth according to the forme of the Couenant as well to their posterity as to themselues Which he oftentymes repeateth And likewise in Confes cap. 4. sect 48. and cap. 5. sect 9. and pag. 126 M. Perkins de Sacramento Baptismi tom 1. col 846 Others say that the fayth of the Parents is also the fayth of their children all the tyme of their infancy or childhood and that because parents do by their fayth apprehend the promise both for themselues and for their children VVhich opinion seemeeh to me the fittest of all The like he sayth in cap. 3. Galat. The sequele likewise is vndoubted For if the fayth of Popish parents be of force to establish their very children in the Couenant of God and estate of saluation though it reside not in them nor be their act much more doth it establish the parents themselues who haue that fayth in them and whose act it is Nor do the instances D. Morton brings against it in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. cap. 6. make any thing to the purpose as that in case of necessity an hereticall Priest or Schismatike may absolue from sinnes and an Infidell administer Baptisme Againe That if such as were free of a citty and are araigned of treason should haue issue after their condemnation their children neuertheles shall enioy the title and right of cittizens whereof their parents were destitute These examples I say are not to the purpose because he who is eyther baptized by an Infidell or absolued by an hereticall Priest enters not into the couenant of God and estate of saluation for ought that is in the person which baptizeth or absolueth him but for the Sacrament of Baptisme or Pennance which he receiueth indeed by the others administration but hath it in himselfe And the sonne of a traytor is not made a Cittizen in regard of any thing that is in the father alone but for his owne birth which appertaines to himselfe though his Father be author thereof But the Sacramentaries teach that the child of a Papist is in the couenant of God and estate of saluation not for his owne fayth for they say he hath none but for the beliefe of his father which is no way possible if the same fayth be not of force to worke the like effect in the father himselfe seeing it belongs farre more to him then to his child and therefore must
God And Beza wrote a booke of this title Of the true and visible marks of the Catholike Church D. Whitaker in answere of the 3. reason of F. Campian That we iudge to be proper to the true Church that it increase and conserue Christs word that it vse the Sacraments entiâ—rly and purely These we defend to be the most true and essentiall properties of the Church Take these away and you will leaue nothing but the carcasse of the church Againe They containe the true nature of the church which if they be present they make the church and take it away if they be taken away And D. Feild in his 1. book of the church cap. 11 VVe say that that society wherein that outward profession of the truth of God is preserued is that true church of God c. Finally to omit the words of others the same teach Wigand in his method of doctrine cap. 19. Gesner in his 24. place of the Church The Magdeburgians in the Preface of their 6. CeÌ„tury Heshusius in cap. 1.1 ad Cor. Soterius in his method title of the church Pelargus in his Compend of diuinity loc 7. Sohnius in his Thesis of the Church Bullinger in his Catechisme fol. 44. Aretius in his places part 3. fol. 50. Theses of Geneua disput 74. SummeoiÌ„ Protest former CoÌ„sessioÌ„s Thus thou seest good reader that according to the manifold iudgement of Protestants a part of the definition of the essence the marke of the Church in this life of the Church militant of the Church which is belieued of the proper Church of the Church whereof the Scripture properly speaketh when it calleth her the spouse of Christ the body of Christ of the true Church of the Church properly so termed and finally of the Catholike Church that I say it is of the definition and essence a marke of this church to be a visible company professing the faith partaking the Sacraments mutually confirming themselues and that otherwise it is as they say but a carcasse of the Church Wherefore it implieth manifest contradiction that there should at any tyme haue byn a true Church and not a visible company because nothing can be without all its essentiall parts The Protestant Church therefore which as we head was before Luthers tyme altogeather inuisible was no true and proper Church but to vse their termes a Platonicall idaea or a carkasse of a Church If any reply that when Protestants affirme the foresayd definitions properties and marks of the true Church they meane not by the name of the true Church that which is simply and absolutely the true Church but that which is the true visible Church I aske why then do they simply call it the true Church if they do not so meane why are not their words conformable to their meaning Besides the Church wherof they giue the foresayd definitioÌ„s and marks they call not only the true Church but also the Church properly so termed the spouse and body of Christ the Catholike church and such like which cannot agree to any which is but a Church in appearance only and in the sight of men but only to that which is the Church in very deed and in the sight of God Further more according to the opinion of Protestants these two termes True and Visible in the nature of the Church do one destroy the other as these two True and Painted exclude each other in the nature of a man For they imagine that the true Church is a society in something that is inuisible to wit in iustification and predestination Wherupon they deny any ill or reprobate Christians to be of the true Church Wherefore as he should speake fondly who should say A true painted man so according to their owne opinion they speake as fondly when they say The true visible Church But as we can only say the true picture of a man attributing the word True to the picture not to the man so they should only The true appearance or shew of the Church gâ—uing the word True to the shew not to the Church it selfe But they are ashamed to speak so least when they inquire the marks of the true visible Church Why ProtestaÌ„ts somtyme call the visible visible Church the true Church it should appeare that they seeke not the marks of the true Church indeed but only of the shew shadow or shape of the Church And yet in very truth they seeke but the marks of the shadow of the church For the inuisible Church consisting only of the iust and elect which alone they will haue to be the true Church hath no certaine marks else we should know certainly who were the iust and elect And this themselues confesse for thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 8 ProtestaÌ„ts giue no marks of the true Catholike Church The question is not of the marks of the inuisible Church Againe VVe say the marks of the Catholike Church simply so called are knowne to God alone And D. Humfrey to 3. reason of F. Campian pa. 281. sayth that the marks do not reach vnto the nature of the true Church And the reason is manifest because as I sayd otherwise we should know who were the iust and elect 4. If any againe reply that when Protestants say The true visible Church they meane the visible Church true in doctrine in which speach there is no contradiction according to their owne opinion because they admit that the visible Church that is the society in true doctrine and right vse of Sacraments into which Church or society the wicked or reprobate may enter may be true in doctrine though they graunt not that such a Church or society be the true Church in nature or essence Which perhaps Vorstius meant in his Antibellarm pa. 180. when he sayd The outward Church is not without cause called the true church of Christ by reason of the prosession of true doctrine I answere if they so meant why did they not speak so were they ignorant that it is one thing to be true in doctrine or in speach and another to be true in nature as a lyer is a true man in nature of man but not true in his speach Or if they did know this why did they abuse the words and their hearers Moreouer though in this sense their words did not destroy themselues as they did in the former yet fondly should they as they vse to do assigne the truth of doctrine for the marke of the true Church in doctrine For this were to assigne a thing for a mark of it self as if to know a true man of his word one should giue this marke that it is such as speaketh truth Besides this were rather to define what is a true man then to giue the marke to know who is a true man And yet marks are giuen to know which is the true Church not what is the nature of the true Church 5. If yet any reply that the visible Church or
society in profession of true doctrine and right vse of Sacraments is termed of Protestants the true Church not because this Church or society is of it self the true church or the society instituted by God but because alwayes in or vnder it there is the true Church to wit the society in iustice and predestination by reason that in euery company of them that professe true doctrine and rightly vse the Sacraments there are some who are sociated and vnited in iustice and predestination Which D. Whitaker intimateth when Cont. 2. quest 4. cap. 1 pag. 485. he sayth The visible Church which holdeth and professeth true sayth is the true Church only of the part of the elect and predestinated I answere that this supposeth a thing doubtfull and perhaps false For what certainty can there be that in euery particuler company of them who professe the true fayth rightly vse the Sacraments there is alwayes a coÌ„pany of the iust and elect when as Christ sayth Many are called but few are chosen Matt. â—0 especially if as Protestants say one or two make a church Surely Danaeus Cont. 4. pag. 689. seemeth to deny this saying These visible companies are sometymes a part of that true Church sometymes none But admit that in euery company of true professors there be always a company of iust and elect what reason were this to terme the society in profession of true fayth the true Church if in deed the society in iustice predestination be the only true Church This would suffice to say that the apparent Church could neuer be separated from the true Church but not to call that society the true Church which indeed is only the outward appearance of the true Church And much lesse would it suffice to call it the church properly so termed the spouse and body of Christ the Catholike Church the Church which we professe to belieue as the Protestants haue termed the visible Church Neither can these epithets or names be giuen to any other society then to that which hath the true nature and substance of the Church indeed because they signify as properly and expresly that only Church as she can be expressed of vs by any words whatsoeuer And sith Protestants haue giuen them all to the visible church they must needs confesse that shee hath the nature and substance of the very true Church indeed and consequently that an inuisible Church is no true Church indeed 6. Fourthly I proue that the Church cannot be inuisible ProtestaÌ„ts somtyms say that the church cannot be inuisible because oftentymes Protestants do confesse it The Apology of the Confession of Ausburg chap. of the Church The Church is principally the society of fayth and of the holy Ghost in the hearts which yet hath her outward markes that she may be knowne Luther vpon the 4. chap. of Genesis tom 6. fol. 56 The Church was neuer so voyd of externall marks that it could not be not knowne where God was certainly to be sound And vpon 51. psalm tom 3. fol. 474 For Christ will not lye hid in the world but will be preached not between wals but vpon the house top Melancthon vpon the 11. of Daniel tom 2. pag. 511 It is necessary that the Church be a visible company Againe VVe seigne not an inuisible Church like to a Platonicall idea And in the Preface of his 3. tome he thinketh it so absurd to put an inuisible Church as he sayth To what tendeth that perdigious speach Monstruous to say the Church was inuible which denyeth that there is any visible Church We must needs confesse a visible Church And vpon the 3. chap. 1. Tim. tom 4. pag. 398 Others sayth he setting aside wholy the externall shew do speake of an inuisible Church as of a Platonicall idaea which is no where seene or heard Kemnice in his common places title of the Church cap. 3 God will haue vs to know where and which is the Church Therefore she must be knowne not to God only but also to vs and therupon is defined to be the visible company of them who imbrace the Ghospell of Christ and rightly vse the Sacraments Iames Andrews in his book against Hosius pag. 210 VVe are not ignorant that the church must be a visible company of teachers and hearers Againe The Church is and is called a company of men chosen of God in which the word of God soundeth incorrupt c. Hunnius in his treatise of Freewill pag. 91 God in all tymes hath placed his Church as in a high place and hath exalted it in the sight of all people and Nations Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg pag. 430 The elect are not the whole Church no if you speake only of the true church For the church consisteth not only of inward sayth in Christ but also of the outward administration of the word Sacraments Now as farre as this in outward rite is performed so farre the true Church truly is visible Beurlin in the Preface of his Refutation of Sotus I confesse the Church of Christ is alwayes to be acknowledged visible And he addeth that all confesse the same The same doctrine is taught by Gesner loc 24. by Adam Francis in his 11. place and by other Lutherans Amongst the Sacramentaries thus writeth Vrsin in Prolegomenis ad Catechcsin pag. 2 The Church must needs be seene in this world that the elect may know vnto what company they must adioyne themselues in this life Iunius Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. affirmeth that it is impious to say that the Church can wholy want a visible forme Keckerman in the 3. book of his Theologicall systeme writeth that the Church must always be sensible that other nations may know to what church they ought to adioyne themselues and that Confession of sincere doctrine can neuer faile wholy nor the visible church wholy erre Danaeus in his booke of the visible Church dareth to say that who denieth the true church of God and that visible to haue byn from the beginning of the world he without doubt sheweth himselfe to be ignorant in holy scripture Amongst our English Protestants M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 126 God hath had euer euer shall haue some Church visible vpon earth D. Feild in his 1. booke of the Church cap. 10 For seing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saued and no man can be saued vnlesse he make Confession vnto saluation for fayth hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice it cannot be but they that are of the true Church must by profession of the truth make themselues knowne in such sort that by their profession and practise they may be discerned from other men And D. White in defence of his Way cap. 4. pag. 390 I acknowledge the prouidence of God who hath left the records of history to confirme our fayth and freely graunt our religion to be false if the
masses and bookes Thus Luther 2. In like manner the Protestants in Sleidan lib. 1. fol. 258 The Pope made lawes by which true knowledg was vtterly oppressed Melancthon tom 2. Lutheri fol. 192 Scholasticall diuinity being receiued fayth was destroyed the doctrine of works being admitted The Magdeburgians Praefat. Centur. 5 Extreme abolitioÌ„ of religion There was an extreme abolition of true Religion and the word of God vnder Popery Caluin Praefat. Institut In former ages men had extinguished the light of God And 1. Institut cap. 11. § 9 Many ages since true religion was drowned and ouerthrowne 4. Institut cap. 2. § 2 The substance of Christianity buried Vnder Popery that doctrine without which Christianity cannot consist was all buryed and shut out Respons ad Sadolet pag. 128. he sayth that the necessity to leaue the Roman Church was That the light of diuine truth was extinct the word of God buryed c. And p. 130. Cheifest points of doctrine ouerthrowne from the root maketh this speach vnto God in defence of his forsaking the Roman Church There were not a few profane opinions which euen by the ground ouerthrow the cheifest points of that doctrine which thou diddest deliuer vnto vs by word Lib. de necess Refor pa. 49 VVhen the word of God was choaked with these so many so thick darknesses Luther stept forth c. pag. 62 None prayed to God with assured sayth that is in earnest neither could they for Christ being buryed in that manner as he was c. Word of God ended Respons ad Versipell pag. 358 They haue extinguished the doctrine of saluation In Psycopan pag. 388 The word of God being ended by peruerse vse and sloth now returneth to light In Rom. 11. vers 22 The truth was taken away The light put out S. deel de vocat Minist pag. 552 God suffered that light to be put out which should perpetually haue lightned vs in gouerning our life Pure worships banished Crispin Praeâ—at operum Occolampadij Both the doctrine of saluation and piety were taken away they banished out of the Church all pure worship of God Celius secundus Cario de amplitudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 33 True Christ taken out of the world And so by litle and litle true Christ was taken out of the world and Antichrist put in his steed And Hospin part 1. Histor lib. 4. pag. 291. writeth that after 800. yeares after Christ the light of the holesome and true doctrine began to be darkned till it was vtterly put out The light cleane put out Thus forraine Protestants both Lutherans and Sacramentaries 3. Amongst English Protestants thus writeth M. Bale Cent. 4. c. 6 Holesome truth perished from the earth Cent. 1. pag. 69 From this tyme anno 607 purity of heauenly doctrine vanished out of the Church The truth perished froÌ„ earth In his Apology against Priesthood and vowes fol. 3 Two things haue cheifly byn the cause of the vtter decay and full destruction of Christian religion c. Vanished out of the Church M. Powell in â—tinerarium Cambrâ—ae lib. 2 cap. 7. sayth that about the yeare 1189 There was the cheife raigne of darknesse in so much that not only preaching of the true word but also the true religion was banished and scarce the name of Christianity remayned Vtter decay full destructioÌ„ of religioÌ„ M. Fox in the Protestation before his Acts affirmeth that about the yeare 1215. and 1080 Christian sayth was extinguished And pag. 840. that Christian Religion was wholy changed into Idolatry D. Fulke ad Cauillat Sâ—apletoni Scarse name of Christianity remayned Scarce could he fiue hundred yeares after banish the true doctrine of saluation out of the Churches of Europe And finally the Apology of the English Church part 5. cap. 13. diuis 1. sayth that Papists haue broken in peeces all the pipes and conduicts haue stopped vp all the springs and choaked the fountaine of liuing waters and by damning vp all the fountains of Gods word haue brought the people into a pittifull thirst Item Not a sparck of diuine light found VVith great distresse went they scattering about seeking some sparck of heauenly light to refresh their consciences withall but that light was already throughly quenched out so that they could find none This was a rusull state this was a lamentable forme of Gods Church It was a misery to liue therein without the Ghospell ProtestaÌ„ts light thoroughly quenched out without light without all comfort Thus write these learned Protestants both English and strangers of the destruction of their doctrine their fayth their religion and Ghospell before Luther arose which do so plainly testify the substantiall destruction therof as I may well vse S. Augustins words in the like occasion If I should speake thus they would resist and cry Lib. 1. de pec mer. c. 9. that I speake not truly thought not truly For in these words if they were spoken by others they would imagin no other meaning then that which in the foresayd Protestants they will not vnderstand 4. ProtestaÌ„ts confesse their lundam art perished Neither write they otherwise of the destruction of their principall and most fundamentall article of Iustification by only fayth For thus the Confession of Anspurg cap. 20 VVhen the doctrine of fayth which ought to be principall in the Church lay so long vnknowne Sole faith vnknown as all must needs confesse that there was a most profound silence of the iustice of fayth that in sermons only the iustice of works was spoken of in Churches c. And tit de bonis operibus pag. 25 Horribly ouerwhelmed In tymes past certaine absurd opinions horribly ouerwhelmed this doctrine in which the vnlearned faigned that men did satisfy the law of God In the meane tyme there was great silence how Christ is to be apprehended by fayth And pag. 27 The was no word of fayth which is necessary for remission of sinnes And pag. 19 In tymes past there was great silence in Churches of the exercises of sayth And Praefat. Apol. Confess August in Melancthon tom 3. fol. 27 All Churches Monasteries schooles briefly all bookes of late diuines No man taught c All Prot. coÌ„fort vnknown were before mute of the iustice of fayth No man taught sinnes to be forgiuen by fayth in Christ Sacraments were impiously profaned after that opinion that they iustify by the work wrought was receiued And this opinion did wholy oppresse the doctrine of saith Praefat. Conf. Saxoniae All this comfort which is necessary to euery one how a man conuerted to God is iustified was vnknown The Protestant Princes and Cities in Sleidan lib. 21. fol. 240 The contention is about the doctrine of sayth and of the true knowledge of God which is the cheifest head of Christian life and of pure religion Vtterly extinct And it cannot say they be denyed that this doctrine was vtterly extinct and
a new doctrine brought in And lib. 13. â—ol 304 It cannot be denyed that there was no word taught of receiuing grace by Christ of remission of sinnes Luther in Catechismo Maiori tom 5. fol. 627 No maÌ„ belieued iustification without works Popery raigning fayth wholy neglected and obscured was in pitifull plight No man belieued Christ to be a Lord who had reconciled vs to the Father without our worcks Tom. 7. in c. 5. Matthaeâ— fol. 23 The Popish company saying nothing of the cheifest article of iustification by fayth in Christ c. And in 3. Symbol fol. 140. I haue obserued that all errours heresies and all impiety came into the church principally because this article or this part of Christian sayth in Iesus Christ was despised and neglected or vtterly lost And in the Epitaphe grâ—uen vpon Luthers tombe is this verse He restored to the world the difference lost before which is meant of the difference which Luther taught to be between the law and the ghospell that the law teacheth iustification by good works the ghospell by only fayth without which difference Luther professeth that Christianity cannot stand And in his table talkes cap. de morte he thus speaketh Shew me one place of iustification of fayth in the decrees in the decretals in the Clementines in all the summes and sentences Coccius to 1. pag. 1217 in all the sermons of Monks in the statutes of Synods in all the Postilles in all Hierome Gregorie c. Thus assured Luther was that before he preached of this principall article of iustification by only fayth there was no news in the whole world 5. The same confesseth his Copemate Melancthon who tom 2. Respons ad Clerum Colon. pag. 96. hath these words The doctrine of pennance was ouerwhelmed there was no word of fayth by which remission of sinnes is to be receiued and pag. 97 The doctrine of true inuocation and of the exercises of fayth lay dead If any sayth he denie that such was the state of the Church be may be disproued not only by testimonies of honest men but also by the bookes of Monkes And pag. 99 There was no speach of the hope of free mercy And lib. de vsu integri Sacramenti pag. 188 The Popes haue destroyed the true doctrine of fayth And the same Melancthon or Carion in Chronico lib. 4. pag. 418. seq These errours being setled and established by publike authority drew after them a great ruine wherewith they wholy destroyed the doctrine of iustice before God and free remission of sinnes And pag. 439 Schoole diuinity qu te trampled and extinguished the least sparkles of pure doctrine The least sparkles extinguished touching the law the ghospell fayth and iustification before God And pag 4â—3 They haue quite taken away the difference betweene the law and the ghospell Vigand lib. de bonis malâ—s Germaniae The difference betwixt the law and the ghospell was quite blotted out after the Apostles tym Quite blotted out The Magdeburgiâ—ns Preâ— Câ—â—tur 13. The doctrine of sayth without works was extinct The matter it selfe shewed that pure doctrine was vtterly supprest Kemnice in lâ—cis part 2. â—â—t de Iustificat pag. 246 In all ages the light of holesome doctrine touching iustification first decayed after more and more obscured and last was plainly lost and extinguished And pag. 244 Plainly lost In our tyme God hath restored the doctrine of iustification out of most thick darknesse And Humius Praesat lib. de libero arbit The article of â—ustification was by Luther brought into light of out of the more then Chymerian darknesse of former ages Thus the Lutherans 6. The like Confession make the Sacramentaries For thus writeth Caluin Respons ad Sadolet pag. 125 VVe say that doctrine of Iustification by only fayth was by you blotted out of the memory Blotted out of memory of men Lib de Necess Reform pag. 46 The vertue of fayth was vtterly extinct the benefit of Christ destroyed mans saluation ouerthrown And lib. de vera Reform pag. 322 By these the Apostolicall doctrine was corrupted nay destroyed and abolished Corrupted nay destroyed Iezlerus de bello Euchar. fol. 24 The doctrine of iustification was most sowly darkned corrupted Pareus lib. 5. de Iustificat cap 3 The doctrine of grace began to be obscured and at last to be vtterly oppressed in Popery Only nam of Christ remained Finally M. Fox in his Acts printed 1610. pag. 391. sayth In these later dayes the only name of Christ remayned among Christians As touching fayth the end and the vse of the law of grace and iustification by sayth of liberty of a Christian man there was no mention nor any word almost spoken of Thus both Lutheran and Sacramentary Protestants confesse their doctrine of iustification in which as we haue seene they affirme the definition life soule and all points of a Protestant to consist to haue perished byn extinguished horribly ouerwhelmed vanished out of the church no spark thereof to be found the light therof cleane put out and vtterly extinct before Luther start vp And consequently they must needs also confesse that the substance of their Church and religion was perished which could not be without the soule life definition and summe thereof 7. Neither do they lesse openly confesse that their Church was perished ProtestaÌ„ts confesse that their church perished For thus sayth Luther lib. de Captiu Babylon tom 2. fol 76 But now fayth being not spoken of the Church is extinguished by infinite laws of works and ceremonies Respons ad Catharin fol. 140. after he had sayd that the Church is conceiued formed borne nourished and conserned only by the vocall word he addeth Extinguished By the Pope and Papists the vocall ghospell being choaked and extinct was silent through all the world Tom. 3. in psal 17. fol. 285 And now that common sort of preachers reprobate what proposeth it to vs in the Church of the deeds of Saints but some small works vntill faith being extinguished there become nothing but heathenish superstition where once the Church of God was the name only of the Church left Name only of the Church left the substance quite lost In psalm 22. fol. 332 This day vnder the Popes dominion there is not lest one trace of the Church which appeares And 10. 6. in cap. 49. Genes fol. 666 The order of the Church perished The Pope hath extinguished swallowed vp the Church Caluin Respons ad Sadolet pag. 132 The matter came to that passe that it was manifest and euident to the learned and vnlearned that the true order of the Church then perished the Kingdome of Christ was throwne downe Christs Kingdome throwne downe when this dominion of the Pope was erected 4. Institut cap. 3. § 4. after he sayd that Apostles Euangelists Prophets were instituted only for that tyme when Churches were to be set vp or to be drawne from Moyses to Christ
therefore were but halfe Protestants For to vs it sufficeth that we shew Luther to haue byn the Author and beginner of whole and true Protestants such as held all points that are necessary to the making of an absolue Protestant Those confuted who say there were some visible Protestants when Luther arose CHAP. V. What a maÌ„ Illyricus was 1. SOME Protestants when we aske of them who were the visible Protestants before Luther began do not themselues name any but send vs to Illyricus or M. Fox So playeth D. Whitaker lib. 3. against Duraeus sect 12. Colloq Aldeburg Hosâ— part 2. fol. â—c 4. Beza epist 55. in Mat. 20 ver 15. in 4. Ephe. Sâ—uitet Praefat. in tom 1. Pareus lib. 5. de Amâ—sl grat cap. 1 Melancâ—h tom 2. Hesk. in Antid Schâ—sselb Praf to 2. Kemnit loc p. 261. and lib. 7. sect 1 D. Fulke of Succession pag. 324. Schusselburg in 8. tom of his Catalogue of Heretiks pag. 365. Vorstius in his Autibellarm pag. 159. Lubbert lib. 5. of the Church c. 2. and others These men do manifestly shew that theÌ„selues know not of any such visible Protestants For they would neuer lay the burden of answering this question vpon others if they could haue answered it themselues And besides they declare that they know no author worthy of credit to whome they might send vs for the answere of this so important demaund else they would neuer haue referred vs to Illyricus or M. Fox For Illyricus in the iudgement of most Protestants both Lutherans and Sacramentaries was a vagabond a hell hound an heretike a Manichee deceitfull a lyar an impostor a falsifier a Cauiller a sclaunderer a singular inuenter of sclaunders a sycophant in his own iudgement impudently blasphemous a broacher of doctrine which bringeth in Epicurisme and mortality of the soule and ouerthroweth all religion and who had nothing to impugne truth withall besides an audacious ignorance and a very diuilesh spirit This and much more write the Protestants themselues of Illyricus wherefore to send vs to such a man is plainly to confesse that they know no man of credit to whome they may referre vs. And of the like stuffe is Fox a most impudent patcher of lyes who in his false Martyrologe proposeth theeues traytors sorcerers murderers of themselues Anabaptists Papists professed enemies and some then aliue for Protestant Martyrs as Allen Cope sheweth in the sixt book of his dialogues Beside those whom Illyricus nameth before Luther himselfe dares not cal Protestants but VVitnesses of truth because forsooth they disliked some doctrine or fact of the Pope And such witnesses also they are as some of them be Popes themselues as (a) Lib. 19. Pius 2. some famous Papists as (b) Lib 15. Peter Lumbard and Gratian whome himselfe calleth the (c) Lib. 15. 16. Pillars of the Religion of the Roman Antichrist and sayth they renewed Popery euen from the foundation some professed aduersaries of ProtestaÌ„ts as (d) Lib. 19. Clichtoucus some of the holy Fathers who as before was seene condemned the very soule and summe of Protestancy some those who only disliked the corrupt manners of some Popes as (e) Centur. 6 cap. 1. Richard Hampell some Atheists as (f) Lib. 19. Machiauell some who any way (g) Praf Catal. gainsayd either the doctrine or deed of any Pope Surely for Illyricus to bring such witnesses after he had searched in all corners and raked in all chanels doth manifestly bewray that there can no true Protestants be found before Luthers tyme. For Illyricus though neuer so impudent would haue byn ashamed to haue bragged of such silly witnesses if he could haue found any true Protestants whatsoeuer Besides such felloweâ— may be only sayd to haue byn Protestants and can no way be proued to haue byn simply and absolutely Protestants such as we speake of And we care not whom any one may say to haue byn Protestants for as Luther sayth Tom. 2. fol 437. what is more easy then to say any thing but whome he can proue conuince to haue byn such without which his saying is but voluntary and ridiculous and the beliefe therof rash and vnreasonable 2. And as for those which M. Fox produceth for Protestants before Luther they liued in the year of our Lord 1521. as himselfe writeth pag. 749. in the edition of 1596. that is in the 4. year of Luthers new preaching and we aske for Protestants before Luther Besides they all abiured their fayth as himselfe confesseth pag. 750. and soone after dyed for sorrow or lingered away with shame and we aske for Protesters not Abiurers Moreouer no one of them is found to haue held that cheife and fundamentall article of Protestancy of Iustification by speciall faith albeit as Fox writeth pag. 550 There was such diligent inquisition made as that no article could be so secretly taught amongst them but it was discouered Wherefore these wretched Abiurers were no ProtestaÌ„ts but some reliques of the Wiclifists or Lollards whereof we will intreat anone The waldenses were no ProtestaÌ„ts 3. Others say that the Waldenses were the visible Protestants before Luthers rising but there is no apparent reason to say that they were true absolute Protestants to wit such as held all the whole substance necessary to a Protestant For first there is no writer before Luthers tyme who sayth that they belieued to be iustified by only fayth Neither can any such thing be gathered either out of their own opinions or out of the writings of Catholiques against them at those tymes And Illyricus in his Catalogue of witnesses printed at Geneua 1597. lib. 15. pag. 544. writeth their opinions out of an ancient Catholique writer and pag. 559. out of Aenaeas Siluius and pag. 539. relateth their Confession out of Sleidan and himselfe pag. 536. reckoneth 13. of their articles of which he hath these words These are the articles of the VValdenses albeit others part them into more branches and make them more But in none of them is there any trace of only iustifying fayth The same I say of their Confession which the sayd Illyricus hath in his Catalogue printed at Geneua 1526. yea there col 1832. he sayth that Husse and Hierome of Prage did add vnto the doctrine of the Waldenses the article of free iustification by only fayth as sayth he Syluius intimateth wherein albeit he belye both Husse and Hierome also Syluius Num. 7. because neither they knew of any such iustification as shall straight appeare neither Syluius intimateth any such matter yet it clearly bewrayeth that the waldenses belieued not iustification by only fayth Moreouer Luther as we shall now rehearse confesseth that the Waldenses knew nothing of his imputatiue iustice by only fayth How then can they be sayd to haue byn true and absolute Protestants who wanted the very soul summe and definition of a Protestant Secondly they not only belieued not iustification by only fayth but belieued the contrary
that is to be iustifyed by good works For thus sayth Luther of them in his table-talkes chap. of Suermers The VValdenses are holy workmen and belieue not that sayth without works doth iustify and know nothing at all of imputatiue iustice Cocciuâ— 10.1 lib. 8. And Bennet Morgenstern in his treatise of the church p. 1â—4 speaketh thus vnto them Yee confirme the doctrine of Antichrist touching good works iustification c. And theÌ„selues in their Apology printed at Hanow togeather with the history of Bohemia pag. 256. plainly shew that they belieue a man to be iustified by fayth charity hope penance and works of mercy and do say That deuout prayer doth purge and pennance cleanse a man 4. Thirdly the Waldenses are condemned of Protestants both Lutherans and Sacramentaries Melancthon in his Counsailes part 2. pag. 152. writeth See Refut Orthod Consensus pag. 418. I reioyce that you agree with vs in the summe of doctrine I know the VValdenses are vnlike And in Carions Chronicle printed at Paris 1357. he sayth that they sowed errors denyed all oathes and all forme of prayer besides the Lords prayer Morgenstern in his fornamed booke pag. 79. giueth this verdict of them They haue proudly neglected the light of doctrine which is kindled from heauen in this age haue with tooth and naâ—le by writing among their own men secretly defended those most grosse erros which in the year 1523. were discouered by Luther Besides Selnecer as he reporteth affirmed that they had grosse errors and such as were not to be borne withall Leonicus Antisturmius also in Danaeus in his answere to his Sonde pag. 1516. pronounceth them to be impious and Schusselburg in his 3. tâ—me of the Catalogue of heretiks pag 188. reiecteth them as heretiks Camerarius in his booke of the Church in Bohemia Poland c. pag. 273. writeth thus VVe can say that the VValdenses were neuer one with our Churches nor our men would euer ioyne themselues to them Whereof he giueth these two reasons because the Waldenses would not haue extant any publike declaration of their fayth and for peace sake did vse the Popish masse For these two causes sayth he our men did not ioyne themselues to them neither did they think that they could so do with good conscience Caluin also epist 278. thus writeth to the Waldenses themselues VVe abide in one opinion that the forme of your Confession cannot be absoluâ—ely admitted without danger And M. Iewell also in defence of the Apology part pag. 48. sayth plainly of the Albigenses They are none of ours D. Humfrey to the third Reason of F. Campian pag. 371 They are not wholy ours And Osiander in his 13. Century lib. 1. cap. 4. Pantaleon in his Chronicle pag. 98. Melancthon in the foresayd Chronicle of Carion reckon them amongst heretiks But the Albigenses were all one for religion with the Waldenses as D. Fulke sayth in these words lib. de Success pag. 332 That epistle of the Arch-bishops doth proue that the Albigenses VValdenses were all one The same also confesseth Illyricus in his Catalogue in 4. to pag 536. Where also pag. 561. he speaketh in this sort The VValdenses or Albigenses Yea the Waldenses themselues in the Bohemian Confession if it be theirs do insinuate that they are condemned of the Sacramentaries wheras they say in the 13. article that they who deny the supper of the Lord to be the true flesh and bloud of Christ do call them Idolaters Antichrist and men branded with the marke of the beast Besides Illyricus in his forecited catalogue writeth that the Thaborites who indeed sayth he followed the opinions of the Waldenses were grieuously vexed and persecuted of Rokesana and other Hussites Wherefore sith Protestants commonly challenge the Hussites for their brethren they ought not to claime also the Waldenles whose doctrine the Hussites did persecute Certainly the Confession of Bohemia which is sayd to be theirs doth plainly distinguish them from Protestants especially from Sacramentaries For art 2. they say VVe must keep the commandements in hart deed Art 5. that those which repent must confesse their sinnes to a Priest and aske absolution of him Art 9. that Priests ought to be single Art 11. that Sacraments are necessary to saluation And art 13. that the Eucharist is the true body of Christ as say they Christ plainly sayth This is my body of which word we ought to belieue the plaine sense not decliming to the right or left Whereupon it is no meruayle that Caluin in his 249. epistle denieth it to be lawfull for a Christian man to imbrace the Waldenses Confession in these words Consider you whether it be lawfull for a Christian man to imbrace the forme of the Confession of the Waldenses who without any distinction bind vp all in one bundell of damnation who precisely confesse not the bread to be presently the body of Christ Surely we think not 5. Fourthly I proue the same because the Waldenses hold many errors which the Protestants condemne Illyricus in his foresayd Catalogue pag. 545. relateth out of an ancient writer aboue 300. years agoe that they taught that a Priest being in mortall sinne cold not consecrate the Eucharist that euery oath is a mortall sinne that they disallowed matrimony And likwise out of Aeneas Syluius that they sayd it was lawfull for euery one to preach that he who was guilty of mortall sinne was not not capable of any secular or ecclesiasticall dignity Neither auayleth it any thing that now in the CoÌ„fession of Bohemia which is sayd to be the Waldenses Confession there is found the article of iustification by only fayth because that Confession was presented in the yeare 1525. as the very title thereof declareth in the Preface mention is made of Charles 5. Emperour which was after Luther had preached some years As also because Hospinian part 2. Histor fol. 11. sayth SacrameÌ„taries haue corrupted the Waldenses CoÌ„fessioÌ„ that the Waldenses Confession was renewed or rather corrupted by the Sacramentaries as the Waldenses themselues say in the Preface of their Confession printed anno 1538. as witnesseth Schusselburg lib. 2. Theol. Caluin art 6. fol. 55. Moreouer Illyricus in his Catalogue in fol. col 1502. writeth that after Luther was knowne the VValdenses did greedily purchase greater knowledge Morgenstern in his foresayd booke pag. 79. sayth that they borrow the best part of their doctrine from the Lutherans And D. Fulke in his booke of Succession pag. 360. that they learnt of those of Basle to amend certaine errors which they had receiued from their ancestors Why then shall we not think they receiued the doctrine of iustification by only fayth from Luther especially sith as I befor sayd there is no mention of it amongst them in former tymes Againe Iurgenicius in the 2. chap. of his warre of the 5. ghospell affirmeth that the Authors of the Bohemian Confession do professe in the beginning thereof that they would neuer conioyne themselues to
of Christ for thus he writeth Popery as Iudaisme heretofore signifieth that company which at least in her tyme had the true Church with it Such were the Iewes before the comming of Christ and the Papists before the comming of Luther His meaning as I suppose is that as the Christian Church is in state another church from the Synagogue because it hath other Sacraments other Sacrifyce and more points of fayth and Christ another founder of the Church distinct from Moyses so the Protestant Church is a distinct Church from the ancient Christian Church and Luther not only another Elias as they call him but also another Messias a founder and beginner of another Church distinct from that of Christ at least as far as his church differed from the Synagogue Behold Christian Reader wherto all their winding turning and doubling about the being of their Church in Popery is come Surely as S. Augustin sayd L 20. cont Faust c. 12. against the Manichees their imaginations haue lost all wayes For they are nothing bâ—â— the visions of frantike men For their remayneth no probable way to defend that their Church was heretofore in Popery It is mere frenzy to think that it waâ— in Popery virtually and implicitly like as a plant iâ— in the seed or a man in a child at the Christiaâ— Church once was in the Synagogue or that it waâ— openly distinct in Communion and Profession froâ— Papists or that it consisteth of such which either iâ— hart or at least in Profession were Papists or finally that the Church of God such as they will haâ—â— the Protestant to be was for many ages in a differeÌ„t yea a most opposite church where neither by diuine nor humane testimony it can be proued to haue byn neither can there any way be imagined by which it may with any appearance or probability be sayd to haue byn there Thus sayth S. Augustine do they dote lib. 20. coÌ„t Faust c. vl who not abiding true doctrine turne to fables 12 And out of these wherewith we haue shewed that the Protestant Church heretofore was not in Popery is refuted also Zanchius Praefat. lib. de Natura Dei where he sayth that their brethren in tymes past liued in some obscure vallies and Mountaines and met at night And D. Fulke lib. de Succes pag. 324. saying that in Europe the Church was by Antichrist thrust into obscure places but least they should be tript in their lying they name neither those mountaines nor vallyes nor places nor their night-owle-brethren nor finally proue any thing L. 14. cont Faust c. 9. But as S. Augustin sayd of Faustus They say it away they neuer seeke to proue it Or as Christ sayd of the aduersary man they sow cockle and depart It sufficeth for these new Pythagorians to powre out lyes like oracles for they assure themselues that with retchlesse men they will find credit of themselues like weeds grow without tilling Hence also is refuted the same Fulke in cap. 10. Apocal. Where he affirmeth his brethren hertofore haue liued in the Alpes in the Appenine Mountaines and in the Hereinian Forest He might better haue sayd they liued in the Wildernes of Vtopia for he proueth nothing L. 16. cont Faust c. 26 O man that I may cry out which S. Augustine thincking only of his owne talke and not thinking of any gainesayer Againe Doest thou not know lib. 4. cont Cres c. 54. or doest thou not feele with the heart of what man soeuer that in dispute where truth is sought where proofe followeth not the talke is vaine and foolish Wherefore now let vs heare their arguments or rather Sophismes wherwith sometymes they endeauour to proue that their Church was in tymes past in Popery The Sophismes wherwith some Protestant make shew to proue that their Church was heretofore in Popery refuted CHAP. X. 1. THE first argument wherewith Protestants would seeme to proue that their Church in former tymes was in Popery is grounded vpon that saying Apocal. 18 Goe out of her Babylon my people Therefore Gods people were in Babylon that is say theâ— in Popery Thus argueth Luther in cap. 12. Genes tom 6. fol. 144. And in cap. 19. fol. 234. The Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 8. Plessy lib. de Eccles cap. 10. and others commonly Yea M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike tract 22. writeth that by this commandement it may be gathered that the true Church is and was long tyme in the Roman Church Wherein he speakes more truly then he meant For the true Church is and was alwayes in the Romane but the Protestant neither is nor was there To the argument I answere that this place can be no sufficient ground of fayth among the Protestans because their Angel their Apostle and Euangelist Martyn Luther denyeth the Apocalipse to be Canonicall Scripture Againe though indeed it be canonicall Scripture yet for the most part it is so obscure as but very few places therof are fit to grouÌ„d any point of fayth as is euident both by the booke it selfe which is well nigh all Mysticall and allegoricall and by the iudgement of the Fathers and confession of Protestants Euseb l. 7. cap. 20. For thus sayth S. Denis Patriarch of Alexandria of the Apocalipse I verily think that almost in euery sentence there lyeth some mysticall and merueilous sense Likewise S. Hierome Epist ad Paulin. The Apocalipse hath as many mysteries as words And S. Augustin In the booke of the Apocalipse many obscure things are told and there are few things therein lib 20. de Ciuit. c. 17. by light whereof the rest may be sought ought with labour And with Protestants D. Andrewes in his answere to Bellarmines Apology cap. 9 Is he ignorant that concerning the Apocalipse nothing certaine or of fayth is yet prescribed by the Church that it may be lawfull to vse one only kind of interpretation and no other as if it were so cleare and euident that it were a hainous offence to leaue it or to dissent any way from it Yea as any may with greatest probability shew the prophesies there to be fulfilled so is it free for any to vse his iudgement to follow his own opinion in explicating them And D. Whitaker Cont. 4. quest 5. cap. 3 pag. 677 It is well inough knowne that Iohn in the Apocalipse speaketh not of cleare and open matters but of obscurt and hidden M. Brightman in his Preface of the Apocalipse In so great abundance of ancient and new expositions the Apocalipse yet as all agree needeth an Apocalipse And M. Sheldon in his booke of the miracles of Antichrist cap. 4. pag. 54 calleth it a darck Mysticall prophecy in which sayth he quot verba tot latent Mysteria And pag. 226 The Apocalipse is a booke wholy mysticall which doth excepting some few doctrinall rules and exhortations to vertue in types figures formes and resemblances describe and foretell the future euents of the
renewer of Euangelicall truth and doctrine Bucer Resp ad Episc Abrincen pag. 613. writeth that God by Luther hath merueilously and happily restored the summe of the Ghospell in our age Restored the summ of the Ghospell Restored Religion D. Whitaker cont 2. quest 5. cap. 12. pag. 528 Luther only tooke vpon him to restore religion corrupted and to renew the ancient and true doctrine And ad Rat. 10. Campiani calleth him the Renewer of the old sayth or as the English Apology termeth him the promulgator of this doctrine D. Humphrey in Prolegomenis pag. 82. saith VVe reuerence Luther as a great renewer of Religion And what is it to be a renewer Restorer Setler of a thing corrupted especially if he restore the summe thereof as Bucer sayd that Luther restored the summe of Religion but to be an Author or maker of it according to the very substance thereof 5. Finally they plainly graunt that Luther was the first to whom Protestancy was reuealed that he layd the first foundation of Protestant Religion and that he was the captaine Luther first to whome Protestats was reuealed Author and Begetter therof Luther himselfe in sermone Quid sit homini Christiano praestandum tom 7. fol. 274. speaketh thus to Protestants I was the first whome God set in these lists I was also the first to whome God vouchsafed to reueale these thinges which are now preached vnto you Behould Christian Reader a new (a) Theod. l. 2. c. 18. Aetius surnamed Atheist who sayd that those thinges were now reuealed to him by God which hitherto he would haue to be hidden vnto all A new (b) Basil l. cont Eun. Eunomius who sayd that he had seund a new way to God and vnheard of which none before had perceaued A new (c) Vinc. c. 42. Nestorius who gloried that he first vnderstood the Scripture A new Cataphryge (d) Athan. de Synod who sayd VVe haue the first reuelation of vs beginneth the Christian sayth For of thee Luther began the Protestant fayth and thou wert the first to whom the God of this world as the Apostle speaketh vouchsafed to reueueale those thinges which haue beene preached to Protestants Praescrip cap. 34. To thee alone that I may vse Tertullians wordes hath truth been reuealed Forsooth thou hast found greater fauour and more plentifull grace at the Diuells hands Againe in exposit Papaselli tom 2. Laid the first foundation of Protestācy fol. 398. Luther hath these words VVhen I layd the first foundation of this cause as Bullinger Praefat. Comment in Ioan. writeth of Zuinglius saying VVhen Zuinglius layd the first foundation of Euangelicall doctrine Moreouer Luther tom 1. fol. 206. writeth thus to his most inward fellow Melancthon The citty is full of the noyse of my name An Herostratus and all men desire to see the man the Herostratus of so great a fire Ye see how in a letter to his most assured friend he confesseth himselfe to be the Herostratus that is the Author of that fire wherewith not the temple of Diana but the temple of God burneth Melancthon also acknowledged the like as it appeareth by these words of Luther in a letter to him tom 9. Wittemberg Germ. fol. 416. Thou writest Author leader that for my authorityes sake thou didst follow me as the author and leader or captaine in this matter Behould how Melancthon accounted Luther the Author And what suspicion is there that Melancthon should in this matter write otherwise to him then he thought Schusselburg tom 8. Catal. pag. 363. defineth true Lutherans or Protestants to be those who imbrace the doctrin of the Gospell amending Popish abuses of which amendement sayth he Luther was the Author And the same meane they who call Luther the Author of the Protestant reformation For they protest amendment or reformation is indeed as hath beene shewed before a substantiall mutation or change of religion and therefore the Authour of such an amendment or reformation is indeed the Author of a new Church and religion D. Sutcliue lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 3. pag. 237. writeth in this manner VVho were the first Authors of raysing the Church fallen downe Author as Cranmer and other our Bishops also Luther Zuinglius c. And cap. 7. pag. 328. The Princes who first followed the Authours of restoring religion Osiander in Sleidan fol. 22. sayd that Luther Melancthon had made a certaine diuinity which sauoured more the flesh then the spirit Maker Lobechius disput 1. pag. 26. calleth Luther the first deuiser of the Confession of Auspurg Deuiser And Melchior Neofanius Pastour of the Church of Brunswich in loc Kemnitij part 2. sayth How much doth all Duch-land owe to worthy Luther for his great deserts who was the Author of pure Religion Authour D. Couel also in his defens of Hooker art 19. pag. 130. plainely confesseth that some Protestants make Luther and Caluin Authours of the religion which they hold And M. Horne in his harbour maketh England speake in this manner Begetter I am thy Country England which brought forth blessed man Iohn VViclise who begot Hus who begot Luther who begot truth And heereupon it ariseth that as Rescius in his Ministromachia p. 15. reporteth the Lutherans call Islebium where Luther was borne their new Bethleem A new Bethleem Forsooth because there was borne their new Messias the begetter Author and founder of their religion Mark now Reader how Luther by his owne and other Protestants confession was the first to whome Protestant doctrine was reuealed layd the first foundation of the Protestant cause was the Authour of the Protestant amendment or reformation was the deuiser of the first Protestant Confession was the Herostratus of the Protestant fire finally was the leader maker begetter and Authour of the Protestant Church and Religion Which is in plaine termes the very same which in all this booke I endeauour to proue Iustly therefore may Protestants sing to Luther as Lucretius did to his Epicure the Author beginner of Epicurisme Lib. 3. Those also of Basse were not ashamed in the Epitaph of his tombe to call Oecolampadius the first author of Euangelicall doctrine in that citty as report Hospin and Lauather in their Hostories an 1531. and Iunius lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 8. Neither was it peculiar to Luther to spread deuises vnder the name of religiō For thus writeth Iezler de bello Euchar. fol. 26. of Ministers Matters deuised of some few we thrust vpon the whole world And King Henry 8. when he began to encline to Protestancie set forth articles with this title Articles deuised of his Maiesty 6. And from this euidēce acknowledgement that Luther was the Author of Protestant religion it proceedeth First that Luther oftentimes calleth it his doctrine his gospell his word his cause his part For so he speaketh tom 1. fol. 138. tom 2. fol. 23. Protestancy is Luthers doctrine 29.