of heretiks This in summe I will say heretikes are not otherwise to be dealt with all then Infidells 〈◊〉 Iewes Caluin also in his 2. booke of Institution cap. 15. number 1. Rightly Augustin denyeth Heretikes haue the same foundation with the godly albeit they preach tâ—â— name of Christ And in his instruction against the Libertines That we may speake properly Heretikes are not oâ—ly like to wolues or theeues but much worse Beza in his booâ— of punishing Heretiks If one terme Heretikes saithleâ— apostatas he shall giue them their due title And againe Heretikes affirme Christ in word and deny him indeed Danaeus in his 5. Controuersy and 691. pag. An heretike condemned by lawfull iudgement and actually cast out of the Church is not of the visible Church nor of the inuisible neither actually or apparently so long as he remaineth in that state Polanus in his 7. booke which he termeth Syntagma cap. 5. Heretikes whiles they remayne such are not members of the Catholique Church And Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 79. The Ghospellers do esteem Antichrist in common to be euery heretike who opposeth himselfe eyther openly and plainly or closely and indirectly to Christ and his doctrine And in the 121. pag. There is no controuersy betweene vs and our aduersaries touching heretikes Schismatikes and Apostatas properly and truly so called that they are altogeather out of the Church of Christ Thus forraine Protestants In England English Protestants his Maiesty in his epistle to Cardinal Peron written by Casaubon The King damneth and detesteth those who either haue departed from the sayth of the Catholike Church and are become heretikes or from the Communion and are become Schismatikes The Apology of the Church of England part 3. diuis 3. VVe condemne all sortes of the old heretiks as the Arians the Eutichians c. and shortly all them that haue a wicked opinion either of God the Father or of Christ or of the holy Ghost or of any other point of Christian Religion for so much as they be confuted by the Ghospell of Christ we plainly pronounce them for damnable and detestable persons and defy them euen to the diuell D. Whitaker in the preface of his Controuersies If we be heretikes it is reason they should warne all theirs to fly from vs. And Controuer 2. question 1. cap. 4. That he proueth heretikes and Apostatas and Schismatikes not to be members of the true Church maketh nothing against vs. None of our men euer taught that The like he hath question 5. cap. 1. and 18. D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church cap. 1. Heretikes are not of the Church D. Morton in his Apology 1. part 1. booke cap. 3 affirmeth that Heretikes are not to be accounted of the â—hurch in truth but in name not indeed but equiuocally Finally D. White in his way to the Church pag 110. All hereticks teach the truth in some things and yet we deny them to be the Church of God And in the defence of the same way cap. 8. sect 1. There is little or no difference betweene the Diuell and an Apostata or Heretike 4. The same censure they sometymes giue of Schismatikes They exclude Schismatiks as appeareth by the words of his Maiesty D. Whitaker and Vorstius already rehearsed Besides Luther in his great Catechisme tom 5. pag. 628. affirmeth the sense of that article The Communion of Saints to be this I belieue that there is on earth a litle Congregation of Saints agreeing in all things without sectes or Schismes And Melancthon in his book against Swenfeild tom 2. LutheraÌ„s pag. 201. Neither is there more then one Church the Spouse of Christ neither doth this company consist of diuers Sectes Salomon Gesnerus in his Common places the 24. place of the Church Catholiks are opposite to Schismatikes heretiks The same teacheth Schusselburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretikes pag. 726. 727. Amongst the Sacramentaries the Switzers in their Confession SacrameÌ„taries article 17. do thus professe VVe so much esteeme the Communion with the true Church of Christ as that we teach that those cannot liue before God who communicate not with his true Church And the French Protestants in theirs article 26. VVe belieue that none can lawfully withdraw themselues from the assemblies Bullinger in his Epitome or Compendium of fayth 6. booke 11. cap They be out of this Church whâ— vpon enuy or contention separate themselues from her withouâ— cause will haue some thing peculiar to themselues Musculus also in his common places in the title of the church The vnity of Heretiks and Schismatikes is bastard and diuided True entier and Catholike vnity is not among Schismatikes And in the title of Schismatikes A Schismatike putteth himselfe in daunger of losse of his saluation in departing from the Communion of the flock of the Lord. For by that departure he is not only separated and diuided from that Ecclesiasticall and externall society of the faythfull but also from participation of the bloud and spirit of Christ Caluin likewise in his treatise of the necessity of reforming the Church VVe do professe the vnity of the Church such as is described by S. Paul to be most deare vnto vs and we accurse all them that shall any way violate it And in his fourth booke of Institutions chap. 1. numb 2 Vnlesse vnder Christ our head we be vnited to all the rest of his members there is no hope for vs of the euerlasting inheritance For we cannot haue two or three Churches vnlesse Christ be torne in pieces And num 4. Out of the lap the Church there is no saluation departure from thence is alwayes pernicious Againe num 10 God maketh so great account of the Communion with his Church as he holdeth him for a renagate and fugitiue whosoeuer obstinatly separateth himselfe from any Christian society which retaineth the true vse of the word and Sacraments And he addeth that the forsaking of the Church Is the deniall of God and Christ The like doctrine he deliuereth in his Catechisme vpon the 1. Cor. cap. 1. and other where Polanus in his Theses part 2. sayth Schismaticall Churches are to be forsaken And Bucanus in his places loc 41. of the Church quest 33. auoucheth Schismatiks to be out of the Church and quest 5. that they are not vniuocally a Church that is they haue not the true nature of a Church The same sayth Danaeus in his treatise of Antichrist cap. 17. And in his 3. booke of the Church cap. 5. writeth thus Schismaâ—ikes actually excommunicated and cast out of the Church by lawfull sentence are no more of the visible Church For sayth he the marke that you be of the visible Church is this that you outwardly professe the fayth and communicate in Sacraments with the rest of the Church And he addeth that such are neither actually of the inuisible Church but only in possibility and that the holy Fathers liken sucâ— to
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.
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
rehearseth it is an errour of Suenckfeld that men may be saued without the outward word of God and Ministery And Melancthon in his answere to the Bauarian Articles tom 3. fol. 372. affirmeth that it is the opinion of Suenckfeld and the Anabaptists That God communicateth himself to men without the ministery of the word Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen title of the Sacrament of Orders pag. 391 Iustly we disallow of Enthusiasts and Anabaptists who imagin the exercise of the outward ministery not to be needfull And title of Pâ—nnance pag. 316 The Enthusiasts are condemned who feigne that God forgiueth sinnes immediatly and without the vse of the ministery D. Whitaker Cont 2. quaest 3. c. 11. pag. 328 VVe wholy reiect reuelations which are besides the word as Fanaticall Anabaptisticall and altogether hereticall And in his 1. booke of the Scripture cap. 3. sect 1. pag. 44 VVe must expect no more immediat reuelation It is so And he addeth that Protestants hisse out all those who pretend these kind of reuelations And in the 2. book cap. 10. sect 4 VVhy are the Anabaptists held for Heretiks if the church do know matters of fayth without all externall meanes by the only instinct of the holy Ghost Pareus in his 3. booke de Iustificat cap. 3 The exception which they make of speciall reuelation is a meere iest For besides the Prophets Apostles some few Apostolicall men God doth not deale nor hath dealt with speciall reuelations but with ordinary and will haue the Church to be content with the word and the holy Ghost working in the hearts of the faythfull And cap. 8 God will not haue his church to be taught and confirmed by Enthusiasticall reuelations but by bearing of his word and ordinary vse of the Sacraments Finally Beza in the Conference of Montbelgard pag. 407. sayth That we haue no testimony in scripture of extraordinary meanes of infusing fayth Besides it was the fashion of both old and new heretiks to boast of speciall reuelations Of old heretiks witnesseth S. Augustin in his booke of heresies and Caluin in his booke of true Reformation pag. 322. Of Munster Carolstade and the Sacramentaries Luther testifieth the same vpon the 22. of Esaiae tom 4. fol. 280. Of Gentilis Caluin in his booke against him Of Storcke Manlius in his Common places pag. 482. Of Peucer and Bergius Schusselburb lib. 4. Theol. Caluin art 1. pag. 172. that I may say nothing of Luther The Protestant Church not taught by ordinary meanes Zuinglius and Caluin 12. Others therefore teach that the Protestant church before Luther receiued the fayth not by any extraordinary way but by ordinary meanes to wit by hearing some true doctrine of Popish preachers and some by reading scriptures Thus D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 3. cap. 2. pag. 424. Behold new fables and fictions for we are like to heare no other kind of stuffe of Protestants in these matters of fact not only lesse proued then the former but also lesse probable or possible For it was at least possible that God alone should haue taught his church but that before Luthers reuolt either Popish or Protestanticall preachers or the Scripture should haue taught Protestancy hath neither shew of probability nor possibility Not Protestant preachers because before Luther there were none at all as hereafter both D. Whitaker and others shall confesse For the present it may suffice that Luther vpon the 22. psalm tom 3. fol. 344. writeth That there was lest only the scripture and that comprised not in voice but in letters by which we might restore our selues to the fayth And Against Catarine tom 2. fol. 140. he sayth that the vocall ghospell being choaked and extinguished by Papists was silent in all the world Neither could the Scripture teach Protestancy not only because it teacheth no such doctrine but also because it plainly professeth Rom. 10. that none can come to fayth but by bearing of preachers lawfully sent as hereafter we shall see Protestants do confesse In the meane tyme it may suffice that Danaeus in his book of the visible church pag. 1069. writeth that S. Paul sayth that fayth commeth by hearing not by priuate reading and that we open a gap to Fanaticall spirits for to contemne their Pastors if we say that reading alone will suffice to get fayth which Protestants haue experienced For thus writeth Luther in the Preface of his Catechisme tom 5. fol. 645 There are found some this day euen of the Nobility who dare say we need no more Pastors or preachers that bookes suffice out of which euery one may learne the same things by himselfe without any mans teaching And Caluin vpon the 2. Thess cap. 4 Certaine phanaticall fellowes do bragge that they need no more the help of teachers because reading may abundantly suffice 13. Neither could those imaginary Protestants learne Protestancy of Popish preachers First because Protestants as before his shewed coÌ„plaine that Papists had extinguished all their fayth Againe because now no man learneth Protestancy of Popish preachers and besides because Papistry and Protestancy are directly opposite as Luther sayth in cap. 3. Micheae tom 4. fol. 446. and tom 7. epist ad Eslingenses and against King Henry tom 2. fol. 497 Or as Brentius speaketh in his Apology of the Confession of Wittenberg pag. 703 they differ in the very principles or as Beza writeth in his Confession cap. 7. pag. 56 In the very summe of saluation And as D. Whitaker affirmeth in his oration that the Pope is Antichrist ProtestaÌ„cy Popery quit opposite Papistry is more repugnant to Protestantisme then hoat to cold black to white How then is it possible that they should haue learnt Protestancy of Papists who teach so coÌ„trary doctrine Lastly because Protestants themselues deny it For Luther vpon the Graduall psalmes tom 3. fol. 516. thus writeth In Popery there was neuer heard one pure word of sinne of grace of the merit of Christ And fol. 568 Vnder the Pope all pulpits all Churches did sound out nothing but wicked doctrine And in cap. 2. ad Galat. tom 5. fol. 297 Seeing Papists know not what fayth is it is impossible that they should haue fayth and much lesse teach it to others And the Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the Preface No man taught that sinnes were remitted by sayth in Christ Caluin 4. Instit cap. 2. § 2. sayth that in Popery the doctrine without which Christianity cannot stand was all buryed cast out And in Respons ad Versipellem pag 360 In Popery there soundeth the bare and empty name of Christ And vpon the 2. cap. 2. Tim There is a horrible destruction of the gospell in Popery Wherfore none learnt the Protestant Ghospell either in Popery or of Popish preachers Besides althogh they cold haue learnt the faith of Popish preachers yet they should be ashamed to say that they had learned it of them whom they account the bondslaues and ministers of Antichrist
22 I deny sayth be this Succession of Pastors to be alwayes notorious to the world And in his answere to Stapletons Cauillat who will acknowledge that she alone it the true Church who can shew her Pastors in a continuall succession D. Humfrey to 3. Reason of F. Campian p. 288. confesseth that not so much as the names of the Pastors who taught their Church were extant D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest 5. cap. 6. page 508. thus writeth VVhat then was the succession of our Pastors alwayes visible No. For this is not needfull Though therefore our Pastors were not in tymes past manifest neither can we name then yet c. D. Morton in the first part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 21. sayth that the Catholike church cannot alwayes shew the ordination of Pastors D. White in his way to the church pag. 410 I haue shewed the teachers of our fayth do lawfully succeed and so alway haue done though not outwardly and visibly to the world The like he hath pag. 411. and 436. Sadel wrote his book de vocatione MinistroruÌ„ against such Protestants as thought that their ministers wanted all lawfull calling because sayd they they haue no perpetuall visible succession from the Apostles vnto these tymes And himselfe there pag. 560. confesseth that visible succession hath byn broken of for many years in the church Thou seest good reader how they plainly confesse that before Luther start vp their Pastors were vnknowne to the world not manifest their succession not always visible their names not extant nor they can be named of Protestants And indeed and effect they all confesse the same when as none of them can produce any one man worthy of credit who heard any Protestant preacher who before Luther arose preached iustification by only fayth and the other fundamentall points of Protestancy 2. Secondly Luther eyther complaineth or boasteth for sometyme he alone preached Protestancy In his Preface vpon his 1. tome At first I was alone Luther alone And in his booke of the captiuity of Babylon tom 2. fol. 63 At that tyme I alone did role this stone And against the King of England fol. 497 I alone stood in the battell I alone was compelled to cast my selfe vpon the weapons of the Emperour and the Pope I stood alone in danger forsaken of all helped of none And vpon the graduall psalmes tom 3. fol. 5â—5 In the beginning of my quarrell I took all the matter vpon my selfe and did think that by Gods help I alone should sustaine it And otherwhere as before is reported he sayth that without him others should not haue knowne one iot of the Ghospell Melancthon in the Preface of the Acts of Ratisbon tom 4. pag. 730 sayth Luther alone durst medle with the errors of the Popes schooles Zuinglius in his Exegesis to 2. termeth Luther Ionathas who alone durst set vpon the campe of the Philistians And Caluin in his Admonition to Westphalus pag. 787. saith Luther alone doubted not to set vpon all Popery Besides Luther as before we haue rehearsed writeth that the only scripture was left whereby men might recouer the fayth But if at that tyme there had byn other Protestant Pastors the scripture had not byn alone and without Luther men might haue learnt the gospell Neither had Luther byn left alone and forsaken of all The Protestant Ministery wholy perished but some of them would haue stept out and seconded him especially after they saw that the preached without all danger 3. Thirdly Protestants do sometyme plainly say that their ministery was wholy perished before Luther arose Taken away Luther in his booke of priuate Masse tom 2. fol. 249 Papists haue taken out of the Church the true Ministery of the word And of the Institution of Ministers fol. 372. Aboloshed he writeth that Protestant ordination was by Papists abolished and extinguished And vpon the graduall psalm tom 3. fol. 568 The Church had no true Ministry vnder Antichrist No true Ministery Vpon the 25. of Genesis tom 6. fol. 319 In our tyme after those Popish monsters the true knowledge of the word and of diuine ordination was extinguished And vpon the 49. chap. fol. 655 Extinguished VVe are not the church for any ordinary succession Caluin epist 290 Because the true ranck of ordination was broken of by the tyranny of the Pope now we need haue new help to raise againe the Church BrokeÌ„ of And in Answere to Sadolet pag. 132. he writeth that when the supremacy of the Pope was set vp the true order of the Church perished Perished And of true reformation p. 322 Not without cause do we auouch the Church of God for some ages to haue byn so ioâ—ne and scattered that is it was destitute of true Pastors Beza in his Catechisme Destitute of Pastors title of the Church cap. 5 sect 18 In our tyme it came to passe thinges being so fallen downe that there was left no place for ordinary vocation And epist 5. pag. 39 In our tyme ordinary vocation Ordinary vocation no where which no where was neither could nor ought to be expected And Epist 24 Ye know being taught by fresh examples how the publike ministry being as it were ouerwhelmed for a tyme yet the church of God remaineth And epist 81 The matter came to that passe Ouerthrown to the grouÌ„d that the Ecclesiasticall order was wholy ouerthrowne euen to the foundation the vaine names therof only remayning And lib. de Notis Eccles pag. 82 They who in our memory haue freed the church from the tyranny of Antichrist had none of whome they might lawfully aske or receiue imposition of hands And epist 86 It is maniâ—est that for some ages lawfull order was quite abolished in the Church Quite abolished none not so much as the slenderest shadow of the cheifest part of ecclesiasticall calling remayning The French Confession art 31 Sometymes as in our age the state of the Church being interrupted it was needfull that some Pastors should be extraordinarily raysed of God Sadeel also de Vocat Ministrorum p. 556. sayth that true Order of Pastors was interrupted D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 6. pag. 510 VVe say that our mens calling was not ordinary but extraordinary Wholy corrupted because ordinary calling was wholy corrupted Againe The state of the Church was fallen and wholy ouerturned And pag. 612 VVhen ordinary succession was corrupted God found an extraordinary way by which the Church might be restored For God would that this restauration should be made not in the old foundation that is in succession of Bishops but after a certaine new extraordinary manner And D. White in defence of his way cap 49. pag. 421 Finding no other kind of Pastors sayth that the Protestant Pastors were euen those who liued in communion of the Roman Greek Armenian and such like Churches and addeth that his aduersary doth deceiue the reader when he intimateth that Protestants goe
thought not that he was otherwise vnderstood None was yet troubled with such a question you not yet iangling he spake more securely But the ProtestaÌ„ts which we produce liued al after that protestancy was both bred and hatched after the Catholike fayth had for many ages shined through out the world and therfore could not be ignorant what wordes of theirs might make for the Catholike fayth Cassander Erasmus-Cornelius Agrippa Marsil of Padua and preiudice their owne cause Another difference is that none of the Catholikes whose testimonyes Protestants alleage against vs is accounted of vs for a man sent extraordinarily of God and much lesse for a Prophet Euangelist or Apostle Nay Beatus Rhenanus Faber Stapulensis Orthuinus Gratius many of them are obscure writers and of small or no reckoning among vs some of them are not held for Catholikes of vs and some of them euen by the iudgments of Protestants themselues are our open enemyes But the confessions of fayth which we cite against ProtestaÌ„ts containe their faith so that they cannot be reiected of them vnles they will renounce their fayth And of the men whose testimonyes we produce one is accounted of them a (e) Humf. ad Rat. 4. Camp God another a Prophet an (f) Colloq Aldebur Schusseâ—b Catal. 13. Hunius praefat de liber arbit Euangelist an Apostle a third Elias an Angell His writings are held for inspired from heauen for a rule of fayth and equall to the writinges of the Apostles Another is called a (g) â—â—anae lib. 4 de Eccles c. 9. Beza ep 6. great and admirable Prophet others are esteemed for lights lampes bright starres props founders parents renewers of the Protestants church and religion Others are men extraordinarily sent and diuinely raised to lighten the world most of them for very learned famous well deseruing of the Protestant religion finally all for sincere Protestants The holy Fathers were wont to refute both the (h) Iustin dial cum Tryphon August l. de ciuit Chrysost hom 26. in 2. Cor. Cyril l. 6. in Iulian. Pagans superstition and the (i) Hier. cont Vigilant Ambros serm 5. de Sanctis Hilar. l. 1. 6. de Trinit heretikes errours out of the Diuels confessions Of which kind of proof (k) Apol. cap. 22. Tertullian vsing it maketh this account What more manifest then this fact what more sure then this proofe Belieue them they speake true of themselues who vse to credit them when they lye No man lyeth to his owne disgrace And S. (l) Lib. ad Demetr Cyprian VVho so sayest that thou worshipest the Gods belieue euen them whom thou worshippest And likewise Minutius in Octauio Neither do they lye to their owne shame especially if some of you be by Belieue themselues witnessing that they are Diuels and confessing the truth of themselues But our proofe taken out of the Protestants confessions of faith out of Luther such like famous Protestants testimony against Protestancy is much more euident and stronger both because it is more likely that men will confesse the truth though against themselues then the Diuell the father of lyes and sworne enemy of truth as also because the confessions of the Diuel were extorted from him by force as the Fathers themselues doe acknowledge but these of Luther and his mates come most freely from them Belieue therefore O Protestants your chiefe leaders Note your founders Instructors Prophets EuaÌ„gelists Apostles in that which they freely of their own accord coÌ„fesse of themselues of their doctrine Euen by the testimony of your own Prophets teachers belieue that ProtestaÌ„cy is newly risen first founded by Luther before knowne to none No man willingly lyeth to his owne shame no man freely confesseth that which ouerthroweth his owne cause but which he cannot deny No man knew protestancy better then they no man fauoured it more then they VVho sayth Caluin is to be credited touching Popery more then the Pope himselfe De ver â— Eccles reform And whom shal we belieue touching the author and hatching of protestancy amongst the Lutherans rather then Luther himselfe Melancthon the Century-writers Kemnice Schusselburg and the like Or amongst the Sacramentaryes rather then Zuinglius Bullinger Bucer Peter Martyr Caluin Beza Plessie and such others or amongst English Protestants rather then Iewell Fox Whitaker Fulke Humfrey Perkins and the like whose frequent and plaine confessions we heerin produce A third difference between our and the Protestants manner of proceeding in this kind of proofe is that Protestantes oftentymes alleadge Catholikes testimonyes corrupted mangled and falsifyed and sometymes also the obiections which they make against theÌ„selues insteed of their answeres as Cardinall Peron not long since shewed Plessie to haue don before the French King conferenrence at fountaine Bel-caue euen by the iudgment of Protestant themselues And it were easy to demonstrate that D. (m) Apol. part 1. l. 1. c. 23. l. 2. c. 41. part 2. l. c. 35. l. 2. c. 41. Morton hath done the like in his Apology But I produce the testimonyes of Protestants certaine and entiere at least for that sense for which I alleadge them For I haue cited none in this worke which either I haue not seene with myne owne eyes and for the most part haue quoted not only the bookes and chapters but also the leaues and pages or if I haue wanted the booke I haue cited them out of some good Author The fourth difference that of great moment is that the Catholiques whose testimonyes Protestants alleadge against is if so be they were true Catholikes were alwayes ready to reuoke and recall whatsoeuer they had written contrary to the catholik fayth to submit all their wordes or writings to the censure of the catholike Church which to be the mind disposition of all Catholiks Protestants themselues confesse For thus writeth D. (n) Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 8. Whitaker This is the condition this the consent of the Popish Church that all hang their saluation vpon one man and submit themselues to one mans iudgment And D. (o) Apol. part 1. l. 2. cap. 31. Morton Is there any Papist that thinkes any decree of the Pope can be contemned or broken without cryme or heresy Which sith it is so in vaine do they obiect any Catholikes words against the Catholike fayth For either they are not contrary thereto or if they be they are already reuoked recalled and disanulled by himselfe But the mind and proceeding of ProtestaÌ„ts is far otherwise who subiect not their opinions to the iudgment of the Church but as they thinke that she may erre so will they hold their opinions notwithstanding her sentence to the contrary and therfore iustly may we produce their testimonies against their owne Church 9. The fift difference which is much to be noted is that Protestants alleadge Catholik witnesses in matters of doctrin in which some tymes by reason of
the obscurity of the matter a man may chance to erre slip August l. 11. cont Faust c. 5. or els in such matters of fact as were in times or places far distant from them so that themselues could not search the truth but belieued the reports of others Such a question is that of Pope Ioane in which Protestants cite no Catholike author which liued not some ages after that time wherin Pope Ioan is sayd to haue beene Or if they produce any Catholike Author in any matter of fact the truth wherof he might haue tried either he is of no credit or the matter is such as it turneth to no preiudice of the Catholike faith But we heer produce Protestants in a matter of fact such a matter as they could most easily know For what was more easy then for Luther and his fellowes to try either then or euer since whether when he first began there was in the world any Protestant company whether it were visible whether it had Pastours and the like For who can thinke that only the Protestant company could lye so close hid that neither in all Luthers time or euer since either the being or the estate or condition or place or Pastours or any thing at all therof could be espied out of so many Arguses which now in one whole age haue sifted all corners of the world to find it out And besides this is such a question of Fact as vpon the decision therof an end may be made of all cōtrouersies betweene Catholikes and Protestants For as I sayd before if Luther be the Author and beginner of the Protestant Church it is certaine that it is not the Church of Christ nor to be followed of Christians Note but to be forsaken detested To which I ad now that if Luther himself such so many learned famous Protestāts as I haue cited do by many wayes so plainly confesse that Luther was the Author therof it cannot be doubted but that he was in truth the Author of it For I alleadge not men of small credit among Protestants but such as are of greatest authority with them nor a few but many nor of one nation alone but of diuers to wit Germans Italians French English Scottes Flemings and others nor Protestants of one sort or sect but of all three namely Lutherans Sacramētaries and English Protestants So that they could not beare false witnesse in this matter either for wāt of knowledge because they were many and learned of different countries and most diligent in searching the matter and the matter it selfe most easy nor for want of good will towards the cause because they were all most earnest Protestants And to refuse the testimonies of such witnesses in a matter of fact in their owne time so easy to be knowne and so diligently searched of them what other thing is it then obstinately to refuse to know the truth of this matter so important to be knowne and wherby may be made an end of all contentions in Religion Wherfore let Protestants say as they please Note that in questions of doctrine they will not depend vpon Luther Caluin or any one or all their doctours together but vpon the scripture alone Neuertheles in matter of fact wherof the scripture saith nothing such as this is for the Scripture telleth not what was the state and condition of the Protestant Church when Luther began in what place it was what Pastours it had who saw it and the like either they must confesse that they refuse all triall knowledge of so important a truth or they must giue credit to the deposition of sufficient witnesses And if euer men were or can be sufficiēt witnesses of any matter of Fact Luther and those Protestants which here I produce are sufficient witnesses of that which I bring them for to testify And thus much touching the cause why I proue Luther to haue been the founder of Protestant Religiō only by the testimonies of Protestants Why so many Protestāts testimonyes are alleaged 10. As for the reason why I alleadge so many Protestants that is that it many appeare that it is not the priuate testimony of some one or few but the generall consent of them all or at least the common sentence of many of them And if I seeme to any Catholike ouer tedious in heaping vp so many testimonies of Protestants I pray him to cōsider that I write not this book to Catholikes to confirme them in the Catholike faith who I know to that end doe not need the testimonies of Protestants but that I write it partly to Catholikes for to furnish them with store of Protestants testimonies to stopp their mouthes and to shew them that they are right Heretikes that is condemned as the Apostle speaketh by their owne iudgement to which end a few testimonies of theirs would not suffice And therfore to such as intend this end the multitude of testimonies will not be troublesome For who that indeauoureth to vāquish most obstinate enemies will complain of the abundance of good soldiers wherof he may make choice And if I had rehearsed only some few testimonies and named the places where the rest may be found some would haue cauilled as M. Iewel did against D. Harding that I had cited dumbe witnesses Besides seing the iudgments of men are diuers it may fall out that what kind of testimonyes seem strong forcible to some others acount but weake and litle to the purpose and therfore it was behofull that there should be as it were a store-house of Protestants testimonies that euery one might take what weapon he thinketh fittest for him vse it against them But especially I gathered these testimonies of Protestants for the Protestants themselues that by their owne mens iudgement I might withdraw them from their errour And therfore I was not so fearfull to bring too many for Catholikes as carefull to prouide inough for Protestants In which I could hardly offend by multitude For as S. (p) Lib. 1. Vigil saith Mans mind possessed with the errour of a false opinion is hard and slow to perceiue truth with how many witnesses so euer it be vrged therto (ſ) De gestis cum Emerit Or as (q) Lib. de Patient Tertullian writeth much talke in matter of edification is not foule if at any time it be foule And (r) Lib. 1. cont Iou. S. Hierom delay is no losse when by delay the victory is more assured Wherupon S. Augustin counsaileth vs not to regard and delay whatsoeuer so we bring good proofe of what we say Besides (t) VVhi. cont 295. c. 17. l. 1. de script c. 11. sect Sadeel in Refut Posnan c. 12. Protestants deny that we ought to iudge of them by one or few though they be Pastors and (u) White in defence of his way c. 7. write that M. Brierly in his Protestants Apologie although it be stuffed with all kind of
written word of God And his Maiesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 97. English ProtestaÌ„tâ— in Latin I call God to witnes that I hold him not for a Christian who in this learned age belieueth that to wit that Enoch and Elias are to come And D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. c. 2. sect 3. after he had sayd that in a Church albeit corrupted with errour and superstition yet if it do not ruinate the foundation the erroneous superstitious professors may be saued adddeth VVhich notwithstanding we must so vnderstand as that the errour and superstition do not proceed from knowledge but from ignorance which ignorance is not affected but simple Thus we see that Protestants somtymes confesse that true fayth is like a graine or Mathematicall point which cannot be parted that the articles of fayth are one copulatiue and cannot be deuided that who so obstinatly denieth one article belieueth truly none that the obstinate deniall of any one poynt of fayth is sufficient to damne or to make an heretik and no brother of the faythfull or member of the Church And finally that she is no true Church who willfully maintaineth any one thing repugnant to the Ghospell or word of God Which indeed is most true and is the doctrine of the holy Fathers and Catholiks and I would to God Protestants would constantly stand vnto it 7. By all which hath byn rehearsed in this chapter out of Protestants it appeareth how many sortes of Christians Protestants do sometymes exclude out of the Church namely Papists Anabaptists Arians al Heretiks all Schismatiks all those who deny any fundamentall point of fayth and finally al who obstinatly deny any point whatsoeuer of fayth or of the word of God And how many things they sometymes require to the making and being of a Protestant to wit that he belieue all and euery point of their fayth and obstinatly dissent in none To which their doctrine if they would as I haue sayd alwayes constantly stand it would easily appeare first how small a company the Protestants Church is and how little it is spread through the world and much lesse Catholike or vniuersal seeing there is no Prouince nor scarse any citty in which all Protestants agree amongst themselues in al points of their doctrine Secondly it would easily appeare that the Protestant Church was neuer before Luther seeing there is no apparence that before him there was any company of Christians who in all points of doctrine agreed with Protestants But ProtestaÌ„ts as I sayd in the Preface accommodate their doctrine and opinions to tymes and occasions And the tymes when they deny Papists to be of the Church are when they exhort them to leaue the Roman Church or excuse their owne reuolting from her or when they dehort others from returning to her For at all these tymes it serueth to their purpose to deny that Papists are of the Church or in the way of saluation which at other tymes as we shall see in the next chapter they are content to graunt And the tymes when they exclude Anabaptists Arians Heretiks Schismatiks and all that deny either fundamentall or other articles of fayth out of the Church are when either the euidence of truth enforceth them thereto or when they are ashamed to acknowledge such vgly monsters for brethren and members of their Church or would exhort such as haue left their company to returne vnto them and keep others from forsaking them or finally would brag of the agreement and purity in doctrine of their company For at those tymes it serueth their turne to renouÌ„ce all the foresayd kind of men whom at other tymes especially when we demaund of them who were of their Church before Luther they are most willing to receiue as their kind brethren diligently scraping gathering such shreeds and clouts when they perceiue their owne nakednes and beggary which themselues when they thought they were rich and had no need thereof most disdainfully cast on the dunghills as shall appeare in the chapters following CHAP. II. That Protestants sometymes account Papists for members of their Church IN the former chapter we haue seene how sparing Protestants sometyms be in admitting others into their Church now we shall see how liberall they be at other tymes in so much that they graunt not only all those whome in the former chapter they reiected but also their professed enemies idolaters Infidells Atheists Antichrist himselfe and all whosoeuer vnder the name of Christians impugne the deeds or doctrine of the Pope to be their brethren their fellowes and members of their Church This we will shew concerning the Papists in this chapter and of the others afterward 1. That Protestants sometymes do acknowledge Papists to be in the Church is manifest First by their open confession thereof LutheraÌ„s For in the preface of their Confession of Auspurg speaking of themselues and Papists Papists serue vnder christ they say VVe are all soldiers vnder one Christ And Luther in his epistle against the Anabaptists as Caluin in his booke against the Chaunter of Lions and D. Whitaker in the place hereafter cited do confesse writeth The kernel of Christianity in Popery That in Popery is true Christianity yea the kernell of Christianity and many pious and great Saints Againe If Christianity be vnder the Pope then it must be the body and member of Christ And vpon the 28. chapter of Genesis VVe confesse that there is a Church among the Papists because they haue Baptisme absolution the text of the Ghospell and many godly men are among them Caluin in his 140. epistle to Soziâ— I think I haue sufficiently proued that in Popery there remayneth some Church albeit halfe destroyed and if you will broken and deformed And vpon the 2. câ—ap of the 2 epistle to the Thessalonians The Body of Christ I confesse it is the temple of God in which the Pope ruleth and he calleth it the very sanctuary of God And de vera reform pag. 332. SacrameÌ„taries â—ayth that S Paul affirmeth that Antichrist whom he will haue to be the Pope shall sit in the temple of God And lib. de scandalis pag. 103 In the midest of Gods temple And lib. cont Precentorem pag. 372 In the very sanctuary of God And Respons ad Sadolet In the midest of Gods sanctuary Surely this is to graunt that the Romane Church in which the Pope sitteth is the very temple and very sanctuary of God And in his answeare to Sadolet VVe deny not those to be Churches of Christ which you gouerne In his 4. booke of Institutions chap. 2. num 11. he sayth that among Papists Gods couenant remayned inuiolable Not yet killed And num 12 VVe deny not that there are Churches among them Neither deny we but there remaine Churches vnder his the Pope he meaneth tyranny but which he hath almost killed Iunius in his book of the Church cap. 17. writeth that the Popish
that before Luthers tyme they seeke their Church in Popery and amongst the Papists 2. Secondly I prooue this same out of that which diuers tymes they graunt that the Roman Church holdeth all the fundamentall articles of fayth That Papists hold the foundation of fayth which themselues commonly teach as hereafter shall be shewed to suffice to make a Church Their Confession of Auspurg in the 21. chapter hath these wodrs This is almost the summe of doctrine among vs in which as it may seeme there is nothing which differeth from scripture or from the Catholike Church or from the Roman Church LutheraÌ„s so farre as it appeareth by writers All the dissention is about some few abuses which haue crept into Churches without certaine authority Whereby we see that the first and auncientest Protestants The suÌ„me of faith in Popeâ—y publikly professed that they differed not from the Roman Church in the summe of doctrine but that all their disagreement was about some few abuses And albeit the wordes be somewhat altered in the printed copies yet that they were in the originall copie which was presented to Charles 5. Emperour is manifest by Fabritius who repeateth them so out of that copie by Pappus in his 3 defence against Sturmius who so also reporteth them by Zanchius in his dispute between two Deuines where he repeateth these wordes out of the said Confession There is nothing in our doctrine which differeth from the church of Rome as far as it is knowne by writers and finally by Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his censure vpon the said Confession it being sent vnto him by the Protestants where he thus writeth to them Yee say yee agree in all things with the Latins Cocleus anno 1â—28 VseÌ„berg causa 17. and that the difference betwixt you and them is only touching some abuses likwise Luther in his foresaid epist cont Anabap VVe confesse that in Popery is much good belonging to Christians yea all Christian good All ChristiaÌ„ good to wit that in Popery is the true Scripture true baptisme the true Sacrament of the altar the true keyes for remission of sinnes the true office of preaching the true Catechisme as the Lords prayer the ten commaundements and the articles of faith Whereupon Schusselburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretikes pag. 439. saith VVe deny not but that Luther sayd that all Christian goods are in Popery What was needfull to saluation and came from thence vnto vs Iohn Regius in his consideration of the censure c Albeit the Ministery of Papists be corrupted with many traditions and inuentions of men yet it had that which was necessary to saluation to wit the Canonicall scripture the Creed c. Leonard Crenâ—zen The bishop of Rome holdeth the same foundation of the Catholike faith 1. Cor. 3. The fouÌ„dation of Fayth which I and the Catholik Apostolik Church do acknowledge although there be some difference of opinions in certaine circumstances Thus the Lutherans Of the Sacramentaries SacrameÌ„taries Iunius in his 5. controuersy lib. 3. cap. 19. writeth thus of Papists Lutherans and Caluinists VVe agree in the essentiall foundation Essentiall foundation Zanchius in his foresayd preface In despite of the Diuell that Church of Rome hath kept the principall grounds of fayth Principall grounds of fayth Boysseul also in his forenamed confutation pag. 79 VVe acknowledge that it is pure in the cheife articles of Christian Religion And Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 188. It is manifest that there are many in that company of Papists who rightly hold the fundamentall points The fundamentall points of our Religion And of the English Protestants his Maiesty in his monitory epistle pag. 148. plainly intimateth that Papists do stick vnto the auncient foundations of the old true Catholike and Apostolike fayth M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 128. sayth Touching those maine points of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist English ProtestaÌ„ts we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ D. Whitaker in his 2. cont quest 5. cap. 14 Papists haue the Scripture Baptisme Catechisme the articles of fayth the ten commandments the Lords prayer The main points and those things came to vs from them D. Whitgift in his answere to the admonition pag. 40 Papistry confesseth the same articles of fayth that we do although not sincerely And pag. 62 Papists belieue the same articles of fayth that we do M. Perkins in the preface of his reformed Catholike By a reformed Catholike I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church The necessary heads yet so as he pares of and reiects all errours in doctrine whereby the sayd religion is corrupted D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 3. cap. 18. sect 1 VVe may graunt that God may cooperate with them to the conuersion of Infidels The ghospell of saluation so far as the Ghospell of Christ which is the power of God to saluation is preached by them D. White in defence of his way cap. 38 In the substantiall articles of fayth we agree with them Lastly D. Hall in his foresayd booke sayth The substantiall articles that the Romane Church is one touching the common principles of fayth Those things which she holdeth together with vs make a Church As farre as she holdeth the foundation she is a church 3. Thirdly the same point is proued The articles which make a Church by that they graunt some to be saints whom they acknowledge also to haue liued and died Papists For of S. Bernards holines thus writeth Luther vpon the 4. cap. to the Galathians Bernard a man so holy pious chast c. The Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the chapter of answere to the ArgumeÌ„ts Antony Bernard That they say some Papists be saints Francis Dominicke and other holy Fathers Brentius in his Apology for the Confession of Wirtenberg pag. 297 I iudge Bernard to haue byn a man indued with great piety and to liue now happily with Christ Caluin in his 4. booke of institutions c. 7. num 22 Gregory and Bernard holy men Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 181 VVe graunt Bernard indeed to haue byn pious Lubbert in his 6. booke of the church c. 7 VVe think Bernard to haue byn truly holy D. Whitaker cont 3. quest 5. c. 14 I take Bernard to haue byn holy indeed And D. Morton in his Apology part 2. lib. 2. c. 23 I confesse Bernard was a Saint And as plainly do they confesse that he was a Papist For thus Luther in the place now cited Let vs imagine that Religion and discipline of the ancient Popery to flourish now and to be obserued with that rigour with which the Eremits Hierome Augustin Bernard Francis and many others obserued it And in his booke of abrogating Masse Bernard Bonauenture Francis Dominicke with their
man Sonis Respons ad Spondeum c. 10. pag. 365. Heretiks are within the Church Lubbert lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 3 It is manifest that heretikes are some as yet in the visible Church some also in the church of the elect Iunius lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 4 Heretiks absolutely are of the Church vnlesse they be such as ouerthrow fundamentall articles of religion Cap. 3 n. â—â— Bullinger teacheth the same Decad. 2. serm 8. and it is the common doctrine of the Protestants who as is before proued exclude none from being members of their Church that deny only such articles as are not fundameÌ„tall Howbeit some of them vpon hereticall priuiledge as Tertullian speaketh will not haue such called heretiks Lib. de carne Coâ—isti cap. â—5 being indeed more ashamed of the name then of the thing it selfe Zanchius likewise lib. 1. epist ad Dudit pag. 150. sayth that hereticall and Schismaticall sects are within the Church Tilenus in Syntag. disput 14 Heretiks euen those that subuert the foundation and Schismatiks in regard of outward Communion are in the Church till either of themselues they go to the enemies side or are cast out by the lawfull iudgement of the Church And D. Feild in his first booke of the Church cap 14 Seing God gaue the power of the keyes and the dispensation of his word and Sacraments only to his Church if Heretiks be not of the Church they do not then baptize And cap. 7 They that are partakers of the heauenly calling and sanctified by the profession of diuine truth and the vse of the meanes of saluation are of very diuers sortes as heretikes Schismatiks hypocrites and those that professe the whole sauing truth in vnity and sincerity of a good and sanctified heart All these are partakers of the heauenly calling and sanctified by the profession of truth and consequently are all in some degree and sort of that society of men whome God calleth out vnto himselfe separateth from Infidels which is rightly named the Church D. Whitaker contr 4. quest 5. c. 3. pag 679 All heretiks are within the Church Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 128 VVe must acknowledge euen heretikes themselues to be though a maymed part yet a part of a visible Church Againe If an Infidell should pursue to death an heretike professing Christianity only for Christian Prosession sake could we deny vnto him the honour of Martyrdome By which words it is plaine that they admit heretiks not only into the visible Church but into the inuisible also or company of the elect and predestinate to saluation And D. Andrews in his answere to Bellarmines Apology cap. 5. pag. 121. denyeth that the words Catholik and Heretike are opposite wherefore vnlesse he will debarre and shut out some Catholiks from the Church he must needs giue admittance to heretiks seing by his owne verdict they may be Catholiks D. White in defence of his way cap. 38. pag. 367 The second sort of the militant Church are hypocrites and vnsound members that are not called effectually but disobey the truth whereof they make profession such are heretiks schismatiks c. Touching their acceptations of Schismatiks besides what hath byn already alleaged D. Feild in his first booke of the Church cap. 13. Writeth thus They challenge Schismatiks The departure of Schismatiks is not such but that notwithstanding their schisme they are and remaine parts of the Church of God Iunius in the place before quoted layeth clayme to those Schismatikes VVho sayth he seuer not themselues from the whole Church but only from a part thereof But D. Mortoâ— in the 1. part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth absolutely without any acception or restraint at all Schismatiks are of the Church And lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 288 Variances sayth he and schismes do not betoken the false Church And D. Willet in his Synopsis cont 2. quest 3. pag. 104 VVe say that Schismatiks though they hold some false points of doctrine yet if their errours be not fundamentall and if they retaine the purity of doctrine in all points necessary to saluation and the administration of the Sacraments may make a particular Church by themselues These are their acknowledgements touching Heretikes and Schismatikes in generall They acknowledge the Grecians Let vs now descend to particularities and see the courteous admission they giue to some of them by name 8. The Grecians and other Easterne Schismatiks yea heretiks to for the most part find that fauour at their hands as they vouchsafe to account them members of their Church His Maiesty epist ad Card. Peron pa. 13 hath thus The Churches of Rome Greece Antioch Aegipt Aethiopia Muscouy and others more are members of the Catholike church D. Whiâ—e in defence of his way c. 37. pag. 355 The visible churches of Greece Aethiope Armenia and Rome with the nations contayned therin haue in them the true church of God wherin men may be saued D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 7. sayth that the Assyrian Churches keep the true foundation of Christian fayth The same especially of the Grecians teacheth Luther tom 2. lib. de captiu Babylon fol. 65. in Assert art 37. fol. 114. Innius cont 4 lib. 4. cap. 6. Sedeel Respons ad Thes Posnan cap. 12. D. Whitaker lâ—b 7. cont Duraeum sect 3. Bucanus loco 41. quest 5 D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 5. 28. D. Fulke de Success pag. 120. Burhill pro Tortura Torti c. 15. and others 9. And sometymes they are not lesse free-harted towards westerne heretike Melancthon in locis à Maulio editiâ—tit de Eccles pag. 491. writeth that two girles who were burnt as he sayth for Anabaptisme They challenge the Anabaptists held the foundation of sayth and died in a good Confâ—ssion And Zuinglius tom 2. lib. de Author sedit fol. 134. seq exhorting his fellowers not to reuolt from his doctrine for the debates and quarels between the Protestants and the Anabaptists calleth both parts most learned and sonnes of the same Father Neither must thou sayth he giue any man way to shake and weakeâ— thy sayth although thou see that men of the greatest learning moue disputes and fall by the cares with much â—agernesse of contention touching externall matters he meanes baptisme but let this be rather thy stedfast persuasion that by the Sonne of God we are all made sonnes of the same Father Againe Neither am I wont to speake these things for that I am so greatly moued with the baptisme of children And ibidem lib. de Baptismo fol. 96. he sayth that baptisme is a matter of ceremony which the church may omit or take quite away Oecolampadius in his 2. booke of epistles p. 363. sayth baptisme is an externall thing which by the law of charity may be dispensed withall And Musculus in locis tit de haeresi pag. 605. reckons the Anabaptists amongst those who
sayth he keeping the foundations of fayth about secondary matters haue fallen into misbeliefe And Bucanus loc 41. de Eccles quest 5. auoucheth plainly that Anabaptists are a Church Like as a man attainted with leprosy or out of his wits is a man Hi◠Maiesty epist ad Card. Peron pag. 25. sayth Some reckon baptisme among those things which whether we haue or want the matter is not great And D. Whitaker cont 4. quest 7. cap. 2. pag. 716. sayth we may abstaine from baptisme so there be no contēpt and scandall in the fact Finally D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. albeit in the 6. chapter he make a doubt whether Anabaptists retaine and hold the foundation yet in the 2. cap. sect 10. speaketh thus The Anabaptists exclude Protestants and all different professions from the hope of spirituall life yet do not Protestants iudge the state of euery Anabaptist to be so vtterly desperate We see how they teach that Anabaptists hold the foundation and deny but an externall secondary and ceremoniall matter and such as may be omitted so it be don without scandall that Anabaptists and themselues are sonnes of the same Father that they are in the state of saluation and that they are a church as a man tainted with leprosy is a man Now concerning the Arrians of these tymes M. Morton in his booke of the Kingdome of Israel and the Church pag. 94. And the Arrians auoucheth plainly that their Churches are to be accounted the Churches of God Because sayth he they hold the foundation of the Ghospell Hooker in his 4. Daneus in c. 53. Aug. de hares VVhitak ad Rat. 10. pag. 241. Parentius in Instruct Gall. p. 27. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 181. writeth thus The Arians in the reformed churches of Poland c. Nay some of the Protestants lay clayme to that old heretike Aërius for that he agreed with them in denyall of prayer for the dead and some other points yet that he was stained with Arianisme S. Epiphanius who liued in those tymes haer 75. and S. Augustin 53. witnesses whole credit herein can no way be impeached do plainly testify They lay claime to their professed enimies 10. Lastly they forbeare not sometymes to challenge for their owne such as were their profest enemies as is certaine by their clayme to the Papists and Grecians who condemned and branded their doctrine with the marck of heresy And the Sacramentaries pretend a right to Luther and the Lutherans In Concil Trid In Censura Orient howbeit it is well known that both the Master and the sect haue diuers tymes censured and condemned their doctrine by name as in the Confessions of Auspurg Mansfeld Antwerpe that of Sueueland set forth anno 1563. in the booke of Concord in the visitation of Saxony and else where it appeareth And that in the Conference of Marpurge and Montbelgard they gaue them the repulse and flatly refused to admit them for brethren Nay as Lanatherus writeth lib. de dissid Euchar. anno 1556 There haue byn many Synodes held by the Lutherans wherein they consulted what way they might take to quell and make an end of the Sacramentaries And they shew the same encroaching desire in personall Claimes For Illyricus in his Catalogue lib. 19. col 1917 enrolleth amongst his witnesses Clicthouaeus an earnest and vehement aduersary both of Luther and Occolampadius D. Humfrey in vita Iuelli claymeth Erasmus for a maintayner and Champion of the truth Rainolds l. 1. de Idolat cap. 2. M. Fox vouchsafes him a place in his kalender of Protestant Saints and Verheiden sets his pourtraiture amongst the Worthies and Pairs of their religion Vorstius in Append Respons ad Sladum pag. 136. accounteth him one of his owne that is sayth he one of the reformed D. Whitaker Contr. 4. quest 5. cap. 3. pag. 693 sayth It is most apparent that Erasmus thought the same of religion that we do And yet Erasmus himselfe lib. 16. epist 11. professeth that he acknowledgeth not Luther and impugneth openly both him and his doctrine And as Amidorfius writeth in epist apud Lutherum tom 2. fol. 487. The summe of Erasmus doctrine is this that Luthers doctrine is heresy O tho Brunsfelsius in his answere to Erasmus spunge layth these things to his charge Thou makest protestation neuer to haue conuersation or fellowship with those men who imbrace the ghospell vnder Luthers name Againe It is well knowne and confest that of so many enemies of the Protestant ghospell no one euer did it more harme then thou Hutterus in Expostulat Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 72. Iames Andrew lib. cont Hosium p. 110 D. Iames l. de corrupt scripturae Patrum pag. 66. and others say the like of him D. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani will haue King Henry 8. to haue byn a member of their Church D. Fulke lib. cont Heskins Sander sect 82. sayth he was a member of the Catholike church of Christ And D. Andrews in Resp ad Apoll. Bellarm. cap. 1. sayth He was a true defender of the true sayth Bucer epist dedicat Comment ad Rom He imbraced the pure Ghospell of Christ reiecting those forgeries of men which are repugnant to it And yet it is most certaine that he sharply persecuted and pursued Protestants euen vnto death And as Melancthon writeth to him in epist tom 4 He oppressed the truth then appearing and shewing it selfe And as Cambden sayth in Apparatu Annalium Anglie Protestants he burnt for heretikes Of Charles 5. Scultetus in Conc. secular pag. 10. writeth thus It is knowne by vndoubted demonstration that Charles 5. departed this life trusting to the same comfort an◠the same sayth which Luther drew from the sacred welsprings and broached to the people Iames Andrews lib. cont Hosium pag. 233. hath the like and yet in the same sermon p. 27. he sayth To this alone he bent his whole endeauours that he might pluck vp the Lutheran religion by the rootes M Doue in his booke of Recusancy will needs persuade vs that Bellarmine himselfe is a Protestant or at least no right Papist What meruaile is it if these men be so hardy as to challenge the ancient Fathers seing they are not ashamed to claime in this manner their professed enemies such as are knowne to all the world and are yet aliue That Protestants sometymes acknowledge Idolaters Infidels Antichrist himselfe and Atheists to be members of their Church CHAP. IV. 1. THAT they sometymes confesse idolaters are members of their Church Protestāts challenge idolaters is euident First for that they refuse not to receiue Papists as we haue heard before in exclamations and outcries against whose idolatry their tongues and pennes are set most a worke for to their worship of the Eucharist of Saincts of images of reliques they afford no milder name And secondly it appeareth by their owne words For M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy pag. 126. sayth Christians
they should be vnderstood rather according to Saint Hieromes meaning then according to their owne most proper most plaine and most frequent words especially when as Luther sayth tom 1. fol. 414 Many thinges are borne withall in the Fathers who were knowne to be orthodoxe which we may not imitate 8. Wherefore out of all which hath byn rehearsed in this chapter I thus frame my second demonstration If so be that before Luther arose there were not one only Protestant in the whole world but that all euery man followed a different Religion Luther was the Author and beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion But that is true as manifestly appeareth by the manyfold and open confessions of Luther and many and most famous Protestants Therefore c. That Protestants confesse their Church and religion to haue byn altogeather inuisible before Luther appeared CHAP. IV. 1. THE fourth demonstration wherewith we will proue Luther to haue byn the Author of the Protestant church and religion we will draw out of that which they confesse of the inuisibility thereof before Luther brake out And by the way I must aduertise the Reader of two things The one is that by the name of the Church is not to be vnderstood only the men who are of the Church but their society in religioÌ„ wherby they make a church wherefore those Protestants speake not to the purpose who to excuse the absurdity of their doctrine touching the inuisibility of the Church say they meane not that the men whereof it consisted were inuisible men for it sufficeth that they confesse that they were inuisible worshippers of God according to the Protestant manner or that their society in this kind of worship of God was inuisible Note The other point is that in these kind of questions VVhether before Luther the Protestant Church were VVhether it were visible Colloq Batisban Ses 1.6 10.17 Iuel Def. Apol. par 5. c. 15. d. 1. VVhither it had Pastors and the like the Catholiks hold the negatiue part and Protestants the affirmatiue and that it belongeth to the affirmer to proue what he affirmeth wherein if he faile he is ouercome and it is not needfull for the denyer to proue his denyall but is sufficient reasonably to answere the proofes of the affirmer which if he performe he hath wonne the cause As if one like Anaxagoras would say that there were many worlds besides this or that such and such things haue byn done in tymes past he were bound to proue what he sayth he that should deny such matters were not bound to proue his denyall but only reasonably to answere his aduersaries arguments And the reason is manifest because for to affirme or belieue any thinge we must haue reason or proofe thereof bur for the not belieuing of it we need no other reason then to shew that there is no sufficient reason why it should be belieued Hereupon Luther in his booke against Henry 8. King of England tom 2. fol. 340 sayd He must be taught the principles of disputation who hauing to proue his affirmation vrgeth his aduersary to proue his denyall And Vorstins in his Antibellarm pag. 464 It is inough for the denyer probably to deny Wherefore in these kind of questions Protestants ought to be vrged to performe their part that is to proue what they affirme to wit that before Luthers tyme their Church was had Pastors and the like which if they cannot do they must needs confesse that in this debate they haue lost their cause And they ought not to presse vs to proue that before Luther their Church was not had not Pastors c. Because as I sayd herein we are only the defenders and denyers Tom. 1. fo 389. 473. and therefore it sufficeth for vs to shew that no reasons which the Protestants alledge conuince a reasonable man to belieue that there was any such Church before Luther appeared which if we do we haue wonne the cause That the ProtestaÌ„ts Church was inuisible to strangers Neuerthelesse that I may vse Luthers words in the booke before cited Albeit it belong not to vs to proue the negatiue let vs do it 2. First therefore touching the inuisibility of the Protestant Church before Luthers tyme Protestants confesse that it was inuisible to Papists to enemies to the world and to all that were not of it For thus sayth Sadcel in his Refutation of the 61. article pag. 538 VVe deny not that the Godly men lurcked vnder Popish darknesse and we giue God thanks that such persons families Inuisible to Papists and companies were for a tyme inuisible and vnknowne to the Pope and all his Catchpoles seing they were for a long tyme like sparckles couered with much ashes The same he sayth in his answere to Arthur cap. 8. and to the Sophismes of Turrian loco 10. and to the Repetition of them pag. 706. Danaeus in his booke of Antichrist cap. 38. writeth That there were very few Protestants and those dwelling in wildernesses and also vnknowne to others vnknown to others Iunius in his 4. booke of the Church cap. 5. speaketh thus of Protestants before Luther They professed their sayth amongst themselues but not before dogges wild beasts who would runne vpon them D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quaest 2. cap. 2. pag. 458. VVas it the Protestant Church manifest to all No but to those only who had eyes And pag. 468 There was no true Church on earth Knowne only to ProtestaÌ„ts which appeared to all And quest 6. cap. 2. pag 359 VVe care not for their obiecting solitude vnto vs. For we are not ashamed to haue recalled our Church out of this kind of solitude D. Fulke to the Cauillations of Stapleton The whole forme of the Church was for some ages vnknowne to the vngratefull world And in his booke of succession pag. 118 They confessed Christ but not alwayes before heretiks but before themâ—elues and the Church And in his notes vpon the 11. cap. of the Acts If by visible you vnderstand that which is seene and knowne to the whole world it is not true that the Church was alwayes visible D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology booke 1. cap. 16. sayth They professed secretly not publikely D. White in his way to the Church pag. 95 That they professed among themselues Osiander in his Manuel pag. 59 In the visible Church of Rome there was the inuisible company of belieuers hidden to the eye of the world Caelius secundus Curio in his booke of the lardgnes of the Kingdome of God pag. 212 It came to passe that for many yeares the Church lay hid and that the Cittizen of this Kingdome could scarce or not at all be discerned from others And the Scots in their generall confession VVe say that this is the only true Christian sayth which is now reuealed to the world Thus they acknowledg that before Luthers tym Protestants were vnknown to the Pope and his officers to their
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
the Waldenses and therefore the Bohemian Confession is not the Waldenses Confession Nor albeit therein be mention of iustification by only fayth can it be inferred that therefore the Waldenses did belieue it Finally as I haue often sayd and it must be alwayes inculcated I regard not whome any one sayth to haue byn Protestants but whom he proueth to haue byn such Neither whome he can proue to haue byn Protestants in part and in some sort but whome he can proue to haue byn absolutely and wholy Protestants at least for the substance of Protestancy Neither will it auaile any whit to complaine that we haue burnt the writings of the Waldenses by which they might proue that they were true Protestants For if they haue nor wherwithall to proue they were true Protestants they in vaine do feigne it Besides we asked of Luther his followers to produce one man Waldensian or other who had byn a true Protestant before Luthers preaching for which end there was no need of writings but of liuing men Wiclif was no true Protestant 6. In like sort I proue that Wicliffe and his followers were not true and absolute Protestants First because the Wiclifists are by name condemned togeather with other heretiks of Protestants in their Apology of the Confession of Auspurg chap. of the Church in these words VVe haue plainly inough sayd in our Confession that we disalow the Donatists and VViclifists Secondly because neither in Wiclifs booke nor of any of his schollers is there any signe of sole iustifying fayth neither did euer any Catholike writer contend with them there about Thirdly because as Melancthon writeth in his epistle to Myconius in his 1. tom printed at Bâ—sle pag. 416 VViclif neither vnderstood nor held the iustice of fayth Yea Husse his principall follower as we shall anon rehearse belieued that works did iustify And Wiclif himselfe in Thomas Walden tom 3. tit 1. cap. 7. bid euery one hope in the proper iustice of his life and men to trust in their merits which thing alone doth separate him farre inough from the Protestants campe Fourthly because the Wiclifists are reckoned amongst Heretiks of many Protestants as of Schusselburg tom 3. Catal pag. 190. of Kemnice in fundament is Coenae pag. 114. of Pantalcon in his Chronicle and of Matthias Hoe disput 27. they are termed most monstrous monsters And D. Cay in his 2. booke of the antiquity of Cambridge obiecteth Wicliffe to the Oxford men as a flaine of their vniuersity Fiftly wiclif taught diuers things which Protestants dislike And to omit these things which Catholikes obiect vnto him Canisius to 3 antiq lectionum Rokesana Prince of the Hussites in his dispute with Catholiks before the King of Bohemia hath these words These are the articles of VViclif That tithes are meere almes That the Clergy ought to haue no ciuill gouernment If a King be in mortall sinne that he is no more a King Which last article Osiander in his 15. Century repeateth thus There is no temporall Lord no Prelate no Bishop whiles he is in mortall sinne And Melancthon in his foresayd epistle VViclif doth plainly sophistically and seditiously wrangle vpon ciuill dominion And in his dispute of the right of Magistrats VViclif is mad who thinketh the wicked to haue no Dominion And in his Commentaries vpon Aristotles Politiques VViclif would haue those who haue not the holy ghost to loose their Dominion So that I meruaile how D. Andrews in his answere to the Apology of Bellarmine could say that it is a sclaunder that Wiclif taught so when as not only Catholiks but euen Hussites and Protestants do affirme it Moreouer Wiclif as Osiander reporteth in the place aforecited did condemne lawfull oathes and taught that all things fell out according to absolute necessity And Melancthon in his sayd epistle giueth this sentence of him I haue looked into VViclif but I haue found in him many other errors Wiclife held not iustice of sole faith by which one may iudge of his spirit He at all vnderstood not nor held the iustice of sayth He fondly confoundeth the ghospell and politique affaires would haue Priests to haue nothing proper c. And in his common places chap. of Ecclesiasticall power That superstition of VViclif is pernicious and seditious which driueth the ministers of the Church to beggery and denyeth that it is lawfull for them to hold any thing proper M. Stow also in his Cronicle anno 1376. writeth that he taught that Neither King nor lay man could giue any thing to the church for perpetuity Finally Vadianus in his fiâ—t book of the Eucharist pag. 168. confesseth that in many things he fouly erred Hussites no Protestants 7. Husse likewise and his partners we proue not to haue byn true and absolute Protestants First because it cannot be proued that they held the foresayd article of iustification by only fayth and the other fundamentall points of Protestancy Secondly because Husse is by name reiected of Luther who in the defence of his 30. article tom 2. thus writeth of him He agreeth not with me He gaue not a litle to the idol of Rome He seemeth not to repugne against the Popes Monarchy And vpon the 2. psal tom 3. fol 395 Husse did not condemne the sacrifice of Masse as we do And vpon the 9. chapter of Isaias tom 4. fol. 108. he sayth that Husse held a doctrine most pestilent most pernicious horrible and wholy impious yea very diuelish And in his Lypsicall dispute tom 1. fol. 260 I know and that very well that an euill Prelate is not to be reiected and therefore I damne the article of Husse And both there and other where Tom. 1. fo 30. 291. 292. 251. oftentymes denieth himselfe to be a Bohemian by which he meant an Hussite And in his table-talkes chapter of Sâ—ermers sayth Husse belieued that works with fayth do iustify which point alone excludeth him from the number of Protestants Husse belieue not sole faith And in the chapter of Antichrist Husse departed not one iot from the Papists but only reproued vices and naughty life Which also affirmeth Hierome of Prage Husse his fellow in M. Fox vpon the 11. chapter of the Apocal. Where also M. Fox himselfe writeth that Husse agreed with the Papists touching transubstantiation Masse Vowes Predestination Free will formed fayth cause of iustification and merits of works which plainly declare how litle he held of Protestancy Lastly when Bellarmine wrote that there was not in the world when Luther began any religion but Paganisme Iudaisme Mahometisme Grecisme Nestorianisme Hussites heresy and the Romane fayth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 3. pag. 502. denyeth these to haue byn all For sayth he our Church was then In which words he professeth the Protestants to be a different church from the Hussites Iunius also lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 6. acknowledgeth that some Protestant deny Hussites to be of their Church And Luther vpon the 53.
Chapter of Isaias tom 4. fol. 220. thus writeth There is no religion in the world which receiueth this opinion of iustification by only fayth and we our selues in priuate do scant belieue it though we publikely defend it By which words he sheweth that neither Hussytes nor Waldenses nor any Christians besides Protestants and scarce they also do belieue the principall and most fundamentall article of Protestancy howsoeuer openly they professe it That the Church cannot be so inuisible as Protestant confesse theirs to haue byn before Luthers tyme. CHAP. VI. 1. BY the name of the Church we vnderstand not as I sayd before only the men but men sociated or the society of men in the fayth worship of God Wherfore that a church be sayd visible not only the men but their worship of God must be visible Neither by this word visible do I vnderstand here that only which can be seene but whatsoeuer is sensible according both to the vulgar phrase of speach wherewith we say See how it soundeth as S. Augustine noteth and also after the phrase of scripture Lib. 10. Confess c. 35. wherein as the same holy Doctour obserueth All sensible things are called visible And Protestants as is before shewed do confesse that before Luthers rising their Church was simply inuisible Lib. 1. de mor. Manich c. 20. and vnseene of any either of those within or without her And necessarily they must say so because they can name none at all who before Luther arose did see a company of men who professed to belieue iustification by only fayth and the rest of the fundamentall principles of Protestancy yea they affirmed that it was so inuisible Ca. 4. n. 11. as it implyed contradiction to haue byn seene of any That the Church cannot be inuisible 2. Now that the Church Militant or liuing on earth cannot be so inuisible I proue first because it is against an article of fayth of diuers Protestants And if perhaps any hereupon imagine that either Protestants neuer graunted the contrary or that if they did graunt it their testimonies against themselues are not to be accepted let him read what hereafter I write touching that matter in the last chapter of this booke Wherefore in the Confession of Saxony cap. 15. they professe in this sort God will haue the Ministery of the ghospell to be publike he will not haue the voice of the ghospell to be shut vp only in corners but will haue it beard of all mankind Therefore he will haue publike and seemely meetings and in them he will haue the voice of the ghospell to sound He will also haue these same meetings to be witnesses of the Confession and separation of the Church from the sects and opinions of other Nations God will haue his Church to be seene and heard in the world and will haue her deuided by many publik marks from other people And the same they repeat in the Consent of Polony cap. de Coena And the same Confession of Saxony cap. of the Church VVe speake not of the Church as of a Platonicall idaea but we shew a Church which may be seene and heard The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard in all mankind VVherefore we say that the Church is in this life a visible company c. SecoÌ„dly it is against their owne definitions of a militant Church ProtestaÌ„ts definitioÌ„s of the Church For the foresayd Confession of Saxony defineth the Church in this life to be a visible company The Magdeburgians in their 1. Century lib. 1. c. 4. col 170. do thus write The Church may be thus defined The Church in this life is a company of those The câ—urch in this life who imbrace the sincere doctrine of the Ghospell and rightly vse the Sacraments And the very same definition giueth Melancthon tom 4. in cap. 3.1 ad Tim. pag. 398. Hutterus in his Analysis of the confession of Auspurg pag. 444. saith This Church which is sayd to be and to be belieued The Church which we belieue is not a Platonicall idea but the visible company of those that are called Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 2 The militant Church is the company of the elect and truly saythfull Church militant professing the same sayth partaking the same Sacraments c. Hereof properly speake the scriptures when they call the Church the spouse of Christ the body of Christ redeemed with the bloud of Christ sounded vpon a rock Gerlachius tom 2. Disput 22 Defining the Church as it is on earth we say that it is a congregation of men Church on earth who called by the voice of the Ghospell heare the word of God and vse the Sacraments instituted of Christ. 3. Thirdly it is against the properties and markes of the true Church assigned by the Protestants themselues to be altogeather inuisible For thus their Confession of Auspurg cap. 7 The Church of Christ properly so called The proper Church hath her marks to wit pure doctrine c. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12 The true church is discerned from other nations by the voice of true doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacraments The true Church The French Confession art 27 VVe belieue that the true church ought to be discerned with great care VVherefore we affirme out of the word of God that the Church is the company of the faythfull who agree in following the word of God and imbracing true religion wherein also they daily profit growing and confirming themselues mutually in the feare of God The Confession of the Low Countries art 29 By these markes the true Church shall be discerned from the false if in her the pure preaching of the Ghospell be of force by these markes it is certaine that the true Church may be distinguished The Confession of Scotland art 18 It is necessary that the true Church be discerned from the false by euident marckes least being deceiued we imbrace the false for the true to our eternall damnation Againe VVe belieue the markes of the true Church to be true preaching of the word c. Melancthon in his answere to the Bauarian articles tom 3. fol. 362 It is euident that the true Church is a visible company And vpon the 16. to the Romans tom 1. pag. 486 She is the true Church who teacheth the Ghospell aright and rightly administreth the Sacraments Danaeus in his booke of Antichrist cap. 17 The proper definition of the Church This is the proper definition of the Church that the true Church is the company of the faythfull who serue God purely and keep the notes of adoption instituted by him such as are the heauenly word the Sacraments and discipline By these 3. marks the false Church is distinguished from the true Lubbert in his 4. booke of the Church cap. 2 VVe say that the Church doth shew her selfe to be the true Church by the sincere preaching of the word of
Brentius in his Apology for the confess of Wittemberg pag. 873. speaking of Protestants sayth VVe also once were all fooles seduced and seducing and seruing idolatry and Antichrist Serauia defens lib. de Grad Minist cap. 2. pag. 33. I marke that the Authours of all Reformations which were made in our age were Priests of the Roman Church To al which I adioyne that Luther in cap. 2. Oseae tom 4. fol. 279. sayth that these be the speeches of Papists VVere yee not Christned in the Popes Church VVhy therfore go yee from her And he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church is their Mother but sayth that they haue left her because she is a harlot and an adulteresse And Scrauia de diuers Minist grad cap. 6. pag. 30. hath these wordes Popish Church Mother of Protetestants The Roman Church is our Mother in which and by which God regenerated vs but because she is a harlot and an Adulteresse we iustly contest against her The like hath Iunius lib. singulari de Eccles cap. 17. and others commonly So that they acknowledge themselues to be the children of an harlot and consequently bastardes not begotten of God because God begetteth not children of harlots but only of his chast spouse the Church Let them therfore heare the Romā Church speaking to them in these words of S. Hierome Dial. cont Lucif If an Angel or Apostle haue rebaptised thee I breake not that which thou followest But if thou borne in my lappe nourished with the milke of my breasts doest draw thy sword against me restore what I gaue thee and be if thou canst a Christian by other meanes I am a harlot but yet thy mother I keep not chastity to one husband such I was when thou wert begotten Or els let them harken to S. Athanasius It remayneth that they find fault with the basenesse of their stock De Synod Arim. Seleuc. and say that they came not of pious but of heretikes neither feare they that which is written in the Prouerbs An ill brood curseth their father Or else let them giue care to S. Augustin thus speaking to the Manichees doe so slaues of Cham. L. 11. cont Faust c. 24 lib. 6. c. 5. Get you gon who despise the naked flesh wherof you sprung Againe Yea thou often maryed to elements or rather harlot prostitute to deuils and great with sacrilegious vanities darest thou reuile Catholike maryage of thy Lord with the crime of vnchastity But omitting this because Protestants regard not how farre they disgrace themselues so that they reuile the Church of Rome out of that which we haue rehearsed in this Chapter it appeareth how impudently D. Morton 1. part Apol. lib. 1. cap. 10 wrote that Melancthon Pellican and others were Protestants before Luther arose and much more impudently D. Feild sayd lib. 3. de Eccles cap. 8 that before Luthers time those who defended the Popish errors were but some faction like to those in the Church of Corinth who in S. Paules time denyed the Resurrection which vntruth is so apparant as to haue related it only is to haue confuted it But here by the Reader seeth how needfull it is for me to heap vp many testimōies of Protestants for to proue euen those things which are most manifest 11. My sixt demonstration therfore I frame in this manner If all Protestants who were first knowne whether people or perticuler persōs were Papists before Luther began to preach then were there no Protestants before him and he author of their Church But all the first knowne Protestants were such Ergo. The Maior is manifest by it selfe the Mimor by that which hath bin recited in this chapter That no Protestant ancienter then Luther did come forth and adioyne himselfe to his company when Luther safely preached CHAP. XII THE seauenth demonstratiō for to proue Luther to be the first Beginner of Protestancy shall be taken from thence that after that Luther securely preached Protestancy no Protestant ancienter thou he peeped out and adioyned himselfe vnto him This I proue first out of the reall Confession of all Protestants who neither then nor hitherto could name one such Protestant Whereupon it followeth necessarily that Luthers company was altogether new no one member thereof before him neither did he adioyne those whome de drew out of Popery vnto any company before extant neither did any company which had bin before adioyne it selfe vnto him Secondly this may be proued by the silence of D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 3. where being vrged with this argument he answeareth it with silence only and standeth mute as confessing the accusation to be true Thirdly I proue it by the sillinesse of the Answeares of other Iunius lib. 4. de Eccles cap. 5. sayth only that some ancienter Protestants came forth and adioyned themselues to Luther but nameth none nor proueth any thing therfore giueth words nought else He should as Tertullian said to old heretikes haue feignes the names of some Praescrip c. 32. For after blasphemy what may not they doe But I know not how it cometh to passe that wheras Protestants feigne many things and persons yet they dare not feigne names As D. Sutliue when in the Preface of his book of the Church he had sayd only that Bolsec who wrote Caluins life doth insinuate that he wrote for hire after growing more bould in his answeare to exceptions cap. 4. pag 120 deuiseth a synode D. Sutcliue feigneth a Synod in which as he sayth Bolsec publikely recanted the book which he had writtē of Caluins life Of which Synode none before him euer heard but since D. Morton and M. Beard write that they haue heard of it 1. part Apol lib. 2. cap. 33. Beard Motiue 12. perhaps by D. Sutliue but yet durst not feigne the names either of the men who held this synode or of the place where it was held nor yet specifie the yeare of our Lord when it was held This he left to others to feigne or to himselfe at more leasure 2. Fourthly it may be proued by the ridiculous nomination and prouing made by some D. Morton part Apol. lib. 1. cap. 16. writeth that Melancthon Pellican Lambert Capito Osiander Sturmius Bucer came forth which he proueth because Alphonse a Castro in the epistle dedicatory of his booke against heresies hath these words Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone but accompanyed with a great troupe as with a guard and nameth those before cited But first it is ridiculous to say that the foresayd persons were Protestants before Luther sith partly themselues partly Protestants deny it as we shewed in the former chapter Againe it is ridiculous to proue this by Castroes testimony who being a Spaniard and those all Germans except Lambert who was a French mā it is most likely that he neuer knew thē nor heard of their names before Luther had reuolted Moreouer ridiculous it is to imagin that in the forecited words
mutation ought rather to be termed a formation then reformation But whether it be called a formation or reformation it skilleth little it sufficeth as I sayd that it is a substantiall mutation of religion the Author whereof Luther was and such a mutation as cannot happen to the religion and Church of Christ Moreouer it is the shift of old and new heretiques to bring in new religions vnder the name of Reformation Of the Marcionists thus writeth Tertullian They say that Marcion did not so much innouate the rule of faith as reforme that which heretofore was corrupted L. 1. cont Mar. c. 20. And he himselfe after he was become a Montanist This is shewed of vs that the discipline of Monogamie is neither new nor strange yea both ancieÌ„t and proper to Christian L. 1. de Monogam c. 4. that you may thinck the Paraclete Montaâ—us to haue bin rather the Restorer then beginner therof And of Seruetus thus write those of Zurick in Caluin cont Sâ—ruet pag. 626. He goeth on to thrust vpon the Church a most corrupt doctrine vnder the shew of restitution of Christianity 7. Sixtly because the Protestants designe the place the occasion the yeare day and hower when Protestancie began The place we haue heard already out of Caluin and Fabritius was Wittemberg the same doth Luther insinuate in cap. 49. Isaiae tom 4. The place where ProtestaÌ„â—y began fol. 192 saying Now VVittenberg is blasphemed as the fountaine of all heresies but it will come to passe some yeares hence that it shall be praised of Posterity as Gods garden from whence the Gospell was propagated into Germanie and all parts of the world And Mathew Index in Edicto aeterni deâ— That clamour against Antichrist came out of the durty townes of barbarous and base Germany â—rotestanâ—y began â—n a durty owne of barbaâ—ous couÌ„â—y A sit place no doubt from whence so durty filthy and barbarous an heresy should spring For sooth Wittemberge is the Protestants Syon from whence their law should come S. Austin thought it ridiculous madnesse that the Donatists shold say that the Church was to be renewed out of Africa the third part of the world â—e vnit c. â— shall we think it wisedom to imagin that it should be renewout of a durty and barbarous corner of Duchland The occasion of it was Tezelius his preaching of Indulgences â—he occaâ—on of the â—ginning â—f proteâ—ancy for thus writteth Crusius l. 10. Anal. Sueu pag. 5.8 Tezelius boldnesse stirred vp Luthers mind to set vp conclusions against those indulgences on the gates of the temple of All Saints in VVittemberg the last day of October which was saturday The day of the weeke month Hence now came the occasion beginning sayth he of correcting the christian religion Schusselburg Praef. tom 8. Catal. haeret Old men remember it recorded in writing for remembrance for euer and publiquely extant that this was the cause that the Gospell flourished againe in our age that Iohn Tetzele carryed about pardons of sinnes to be sold in the Popes name And Kemnice 4. part Exam. tit de Indulgentijs pag. 78 It is knowne to all the world that the impudent and impious sale of pardons aboue 50. yeares ago gaue entrance to the holesome repurging of heauenly doctrine And Manlius in Calendario On All Saints eue first of all conclusions against Indulgences were fastned by Luther vpon the gate of the Church of VVittemberg castle in the yeare 1517. at twelue of the clocke The lame lay Melanccthon â—â—â—fat in tom 2. The year houre Lutheri Sâ—eâ—dan Carion and others We haue then the place where to wit Wittemberg the yeare 1517. the day of the month the last of October the day of the weeke Saturday and finally the very houre to wit twelue of the clocke when first Protestancy began to arise And as Vincent Lyrin sayth Cap. 34. VVhat heresy euer was there which sprung not vp vnder some certaine name in a certaine place and tyme. 8. LutheraÌ„s say that the Sacraâ—â— doctrine is new Seauenthly I proue the nouelty of Protestancy by the mutual testimony of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries and of the SacrameÌ„taries against the Lutherans For of the Sacramentaries doctrine thus testifieth Luther in defens verboruÌ„ Coenae tom 7 fol. 381. Neither doth any thing set forth this heresie more then noueltie And tom 2. Zuâ—nglij fol. 383. Carolstadius first raised his errour Melancthon Epist ad Miconium calleth it new doctrine and addeth that Carolstadius first raised this tumult Heshusius lib. de reali praesentia fol. 2 Carolstadius the vnhappy author of this discord Kemnice in fundamentis Coenae pag. 116 Carolstadius was the first author of this strife And Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 68. writeth that Melancthon impugned the Sacramentaries doctrine as a thing altogether new and fol. 46. that Pomeran disallowed Zuinglius doctrine as a noueltie And in Narrat dissipatae Eccles Belg. pag. 179. The Lutherans say to the Caluinists your doctrine is new and pag. 213. your doctrine is of late And Confes. Mansâ—eld The Sacramentary doctrin is iustly suspected of vs. First for the nouelty therof because it arose in our tyme. Neither ought the Sacramentaries to accept against these testimoÌ„ies as if they were the testimonies of the aduersaries For such aduersaries they are as themselues account them their brethren in Christ and members of the same Church Besides though themselues be aduersaries both to Catholiks and Lutherans neuerthelesse they will haue their testimonies to be takeÌ„ against theÌ„ in matters of fact Moreouer because the Sacramentaries themselues doe sometime confesse the same For Zuinglius tom 2. Respons ad Struthionem fol. 303. calleth Carolstadius The first teather of the truth of the Eucharist And in Subsidio fol. 244. he calleth his opinion the exposition of the ancients brought back is it were after it was lost Lasco Epist ad Reg. Poloniae Abolished by iniury of times and restored as it were after it was lost Lauather de dissidio Euchar. fol. 2. writeth that the Senate of Zurich VVas troubled which the newnesse of the matter And fol. 5. that when Occolampade had set forth his booke the Senate of Basle moued with the nouelty of the matter forbid his book to be sold vntill it had bin examined by Censors And fol. 1. that Zuinglius opinioÌ„ was not heard of by the common people In like sort the Sacramentaries write of the proper opinions of the Lutherans For of their impanation or mixture of Christs body and bread in the Eacharist Caluin Defens 2. SacrameÌ„taryes say the Lutheran opinions are new cont Westphalum pag. 786. sayth It is a new doctrine and till now vnheard of that bread is substantially the body of Christ Oecolampadius responsione poster ad Perkeymer pag. 18. Those new Doctours graunt to bread that it is substantially the body of Christ And of the Lutherans vbiquity wherwith they make Christs body to
that Protestants as (u) Lib. 2. c. 9. Lactantius wrote of Cicero cannot be more sorely confuted then they are by Protestants themselues Faults escaped in the printing Page Line Fault Correction 8â— 11. himelf himselfe 82. 27. vnles he vnles he be 96. 6. numb 66. numb 96. 107. 19. The There 109. 23. light of dele of 120. 4. credible incredible 127. 7. the these 23â— 6. dele haue bin 237. 2. be be by 140. 6. fourth third 147. 33. waye waxe 154. 7. in is 168. 23. sonde sponge 169. 3. one our 170. 33. 1525. 1535. 181. 14. should only should only say 184. 27. predigious prodigious 205. 31. boasteth boasteth that â—19 vlt. Taye Faye 211. 33. of fayth faith of 222. 21. first fifth If any other faults haue escaped it is desired of the Gentle Reader to correct them of his courtesy the Author being far absent from the Print THE FIRST BOOKE Of the substance of the Protestants Church and Religion and of their vncertainty therein CHAP. I. BECAVSE as after Plato and Aristotle Tully sayth very truly VVhosoeuer will according to the order of reason treat of any thing Lib. 4. must first define or explicate the nature thereof that it may be knowne what it is whereof he speaketh and Protestants agree that the definition is the very ground of all disputation before I do shew Caluin 3. Institut cap. 4. §. 1. Sadeel in Refut Thes â—osnan cap. 2. who was the first author of the Protestant Church and Religion which I will do in the second booke I will in this first define and determine what is a Protestant and what is the Protestant Church and Religion And because Protestants in this matter as in all others are variable and inconstant sometymes requiring many things to the making and constitution of a Protestant sometymes being content with very few things sometyms stretching the bounds of their Church most largly otherwhiles drawing theÌ„ very strait according as it serueth to their present purpose I will first discouer this their vncertainty about so weighty a matter afterward out of their owne principles and confessions of fayth set downe what is indeed necessary to the very substance and being of a Protestant and of their Church and Religion And in this Chapter I will shew how few they sometymes do admit to be of the Church and how many things they require to the making of a Protestant and in some chapters following how many they at other tymes do graunt to be of their Church and how few things they account necessary for to be a member thereof That done I will make manifest what is indeed necessary thereto They exclude Papists 2. First of all therefore they sometymes exclude Catholiques whome they terme Papists out of the Church as is manifest by all their writings in so much that the French Protestants in the 28. article of their confession say VVe openly affirme that where the word of God is not receiued nor there is any profession of obedience due thereto nor any vse of Sacraments there properly speaking we cannot iudge to be any Church VVherfore we condemne the Popish Conuenticles And D. Whitaker in his second booke against Dureus 2. section is so earnest that he sayth I will not allow the very name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to haue And both he in his 2. Controuersy 6. question 3. Chapter D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church 3. cap. and lib. 2. cap. 9. M. Perkins in his reformed Catholique towards the end Caluin in his book against the Chaunter of Lions Beza in his of the notes of the Church the Confession of Saxony in the Chapter of the Church and many others do reckon diuers articles or euery one whereof they pronounce Papists to be â—ut of the Church And because their opinion hereâ—n is well inough knowne and hereafter also we â—hall haue occasioÌ„ to shew how haynously they conâ—emne the Popedome or Papistry I will heere reâ—earse no more of their sayings touching this point The like sentence they sometymes pronounce of the â—nabaptists Anabaptists and Atians For thus speaketh the conâ—ession of Auspurg Cap. 9. They condemne the Anabapâ—â—sts who disallow the baptisme of infants and think them to â—â—e faned without baptisme And the Confession of Switâ—erland cap. 20. VVe condemne the Anabaptists who deny â—at infants ought to be baptized The same is manifest by â—he English Confession c. 38. by the Confession of â—asse c. 24. others Of Arians Arrians they giue this verâ—ct in the forsayd Confession of Auspurg in the first â—rticle They condemne all heresies risen against this article of the Trinity as the Manichees Arians Eunomians c. â—nd in like sort the French Confession art 6. the â—nglish art 1. the consent of Poland and others in 〈◊〉 much as in England the Protestants haue burnt me Arians 3. Sometymes also they thrust out all hereâ—ckes Heretiks For thus writeth Luther in his explication of â—e Creed Neither Gentile Iew Heretike LutheraÌ„s or any sinner is â—ued vnlesse he make attonement with the Church and in all â—ings thinke do and teach the same And the Magdeâ—â—rgians in the preface of their 6. Century Neither â—eretikes nor deuisers or patrons of sanaticall opinions are of â—â—rist but they are of Antichrist and of the diuell and apperâ—â—ne to Antichrist and the diuell they are the impostume and â—â—e plague of the people of God The ministers of the Prince Elector of Saxony in the Conference held at Aldburg in the 3. writ cast out of the Church all VVho say they wittingly and willingly defend such corruptions of doctrine as haue byn condemned by the lawfull iudgment and consent of the Catholike Church And the Ministers of the Duke of Saxony in the 4. writ of the sayd Conference pronounce this sentence VVhosoeuer they are that do cloak and defend corruptions of the word of God that is of the articles of fayth after they haue byn admonished we iudge not to be true members of Christ vnlesse they repent And Vrbanus Regius one of the first and cheifest scholers of Luther in his Catechisme sayth All Heretikes are out of the Church The same teacheth Schusselburg a principall superintendent amongst the Lutherans in his Catalogue of heresies and many others As for the Sacramentaries SacrameÌ„taries thus professeth the French Confession in the 6. article VVe detest all Sects and heresies which haue byn reiected by the holy Fathers as S. Hilary S. Athanasc S. Ambrose S. Cyrill Whereupon Sadeel in his preface of his answere to the abiured articles sayth Our Confession of fayth condemneth all Heretikes Likewise the Confession of Basle in 24. article writeth in thiâ— sort VVe driue away all whosoeuer dissenting from the society of the holy Church do either bring in or follow strange wicked doctrines And Peter Martyr in his Commoâ— places in the title
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