saluation wholy ouerturned And lib. de Necess Reform fol. 47. that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon this doctrine no lesse then mans life dependeth of his soule Pareus in Prooem lib. de Iustificat On this alone the hinges of our comfort and saluation do hang. And lib. 2. cap. 2. affirmeth that it was the cheifest cause of the separation of the Protestant Church from Popery And lib. 4. cap. 2. sayth The only doctrine of obtayning iustice and saluation by only sayth and of loosing them by incredulity is the sincere and proper ghospell all other doctrine in the scripture belongeth to the law And those of Geneua Prefat Syntag. Confess auouch that this article is the groundworke forme and soule of Christian religion The soule the summe of Euangelicall doctrine of which men are called faythfull and true Christians without which the knowledge of other articles hath no holesome fruit For it is the substantiall inward and formall cause of saluation of which all Sacraments instituted by God are and were pledges and seales vnto which article all the other do tend as to their center and in which mans felicity consisteth 5. Neither do our English Protestants make lesse account of this their article of iustification by only fayth For D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 6. cap. 3. pag. 562. sayth It seemes to be the cheifest of all and most fundamentall The Prore Puppe as in which the Prore and puppe of our saluation consisteth and who faine any other meanes of Iustification do ouerthrow the foundation and most necessary heads of Christian religion and are fallen from saluation and euerlasting life And Respons ad Rat. r. Camp he writeth thus of their doctrine of Iustification by only fayth If Iames or a heauenly Angell disallow it he is impure wicked and to be detested to hell D. Humfrey in his oration de vitando fermen to calleth this article The cheifest point and hinges of fayth D. Fulke de Success pag. 4. The principall head of the ghospell M. Fox in his acts pag. 440 The foundation of all Christianity And pag. 770 The fouÌ„dation The only principall origen of our saluation And finally M. Powell lib. 2. de Antichristo cap. 5 The summe of the doctrine of sayth Neither is it to be merueiled that Protestants so highly esteeme this their article both because it is the cheifest bait wherwith they draw men vnto them as also because as Luther confessed it is their cheife defence without which they had long since perished and finally because Iustification being one principall end of religion if speciall fayth be the only meanes to attaine to iustification vndoubtedly it ought highly to be esteemed of that religion which belieueth it to be such a meanes ProtestaÌ„ts esteeme of only faith Thus we see that according to the common opinion of Protestants to belieue himselfe to be iustified by only fayth is the cheifest article the foundation the stay the head the fountaine the summe the last end the prore and puppe the hinges the proppe the castle the bulwarck the essentiall difference the definition the soule the forme the formall cause the only rocke the only safegard of Protestancy the only way to heauen which falling the church yea God himselfe falleth But none can be a Protestant without the foundation head soule forme summe definition c. of a Protestant Therefore none can he held for a Protestant vnlesse he professe to belieue to be iustified by only speciall fayth Whomesoeuer therefore Protestants cannot proue to haue held this article they cannot with any reason and coulour challenge for Protestants And because as it shall hereafter appeare they cannot proue that any one before Luther held this article nay on the contrary we will proue that Luther first deuised it they cannot with any appearance of truth auouch that there was any Protestant before him And in like sort whome we can proue not to haue belieued this article we may euidently conclude that they were no Protestants That it is necessary for a Protestant to belieue all the fundamentall articles of Protestancy CHAP. VII â— BESIDE the foresayd article of Iustification by only fayth it is also necessary to the making of a Protestant of a member of the Protestant Church Vâ—â—â—d l. 3. de Eccles c. 2. that he belieue at least all the fundamentall points of Protestancy either explicitly or implicitly so that he obstinatly deny no one of them This is manifest First because as I shewed before cap. 1. it is the common opinion of Protestants that all those are out of the Church whosoeuer deny one fundamentall article Num. 3. Againe because themselues say that the name of a fundamentall article doth insinuate that it sustaineth the Church as the foundation sustaineth the house Besides all Protestants assigne truth or purity in doctrine for the mark of the Church As the Confession of Ausparg cap. 7. The English Confession cap. 19. The Suiâ—zers cap. de Eccles and other Protestants commonly and their meaning is Truth essentiall to the Church that it is the essentiall marck Wherupon D Whitaker Controuers 2. quest 5. cap. 17. pag. 541. sayth that it is absolutely necessary and the essentiall marck And at Rat. 3. Campiani that it is the substantiall note His Maiesty in his epistle to Cardinall Peron that in is the substantiall forme of the Church Caluin epist 190. The purity of doctrine is the soule of the Church And the same say Sadeel ad Sophism Turriani loc 1. Author de Eccles in Danaeo pag. 1029. Vorstius in Antibellarm pag. 145. D. Willet cont 2. quest 3. pag. 102. Yea D. Morton part 1. Apos lib. 1. cap. 6. affirmeth that Protestants account the truth of Euangelicall doctrin the cheifest and almost only essentiall inseparable and perpetuall marck of the Church And hence it proceedeth that they put the truth of purity of doctrine in their definition of the Church as an essentiall part thereof as the French Confession cap. 27. The Magdeburgians Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 col 140. Melancthon tom 1 in cap. 16. Matthaeâ— D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 20. pag. 552. Sadeel ad Sophism surriani loc 21. and others commonly But this purity of doctrine if it must be in any articles especially it must be in those which are fundamentall as is manifest and the Protestants do graunt For thus writeth D. Morton part 1. Purity in fundameÌ„tal points essential to the Church Apol. lib. 2. cap. 38. Purity in the fundamentall principles of fayth is necessary to the being and making of the Church And D. Feild lib. 2. de Eccles cap. 3 Purity from fundamentall errour is necessarily required to a Church And the like hath Vorstius lib. cit pag. 148. Nay the English Confession art 19. defineth the visible Church of Christ to be a congregation of faythfull men in which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments duely ministred according to Christs
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
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
followers not knowing the Pope did honour his Kingdome belieuing all things thereof to be good and iust and of God The Magdeburgians in their 12. Century col 1637. speake thus of him He worshipped the God of Maâ—zim they meane the masse till the last moment of his life And in the next columne He was a most eager defender of the seat of Antichrist Melancthon in his booke of the Church and vpon the 14. cap. to the Romanes He yelded to many errours as to the Abuses of the Masse to the Popes power to vowes to the worship of Saints Danaeus in his controuersies pag. 313. sayth He approued the Popery M. Iewell in his defence of the Apology 21. art diuis 8. pag. 450 Bernard was a monck and liuing in a tyme of such corruption and being caryed with the tempest and violence of the same must c. Bale in his 2. century of writers pag. 177 He increased the authority of the bishop of Rome as much as he could D. Feild vpon the 14. of S. Matthew Bernard was deceiued with the errour of Peters superiority And D. Whitaker in his answere to the 7. reason of Father Campian Bernard whome alone your church in many yeares hath brought forth a holy man And in his 4. controuersy quest 2. c. 17. he affirmeth that he endeauoureth to confirme the Popes superiority Seing therefore by the confession of Protestants he was both an earnest Papist vnto his dying day for all his life tyme he honoured masse beleiued the Popes superiority in which two points Protestants say the essence and soule of a Papist doth consist and briefly belieued all things belonging to the Pope to come from God and also was a very holy man in his life tyme and now a blessed Saint in heauen they must needs confesse that euen the most vehemeÌ„t Papist may be of the church because neither true sanctity nor saluatioÌ„ can be found out of the church Whereunto the Protestants in the late Conference at Ratisbon Sess 13. say If they were truly saints then their errour was not of that kind which ouerturneth the foundation For it implieth contradiction that one should be a true Saint and yet foster errour which ouerturneth the ground of saluation In like sort they graunt diuers others to be true saints and yet withall Papists but for breuities sake I will content my selfe with this example of S. Bernard But I will not omit to say that they confesse our Christian forefathers before Luthers tyme to haue byn Papists from the top to the toe from the first to the last as shall be shewed in the 2. booke cap. 3. and notwithstanding dare not say that they be damned yea confesse them to be saued Luther in his booke of priuate masse enquireth what is to be thought of our auncestors who haue founded innumerable Masses and answereth I cannot tell certainly But vpon the 41. cap. of Genesis he sayth Doubtlesse many haue byn saued vnder Popery And vpon the 5. of S. Matthew Our Popish forefathers saued Neither do we condemne the Christians who liued vnder the Pope Brentius in the preface of his Recognition VVe doubt not but that many haue obtayned true saluation in Popery Osiander in his Manual englished VVe do not condemne our godly ancestors who liued in tyme of Popery Zuinglius in his actes of disputation fol. 638 It is impious to pronounce our ancestors to be damned D. Morton in his Apology part 1. l. 1. c. 90 Be this impiety far from vs to adiudge our ancestours to damnation And D. White in his defence pag. 356 I neuer denyed the church of Rome to be the visible church of God wherein our ancestors possessed the true faith and were saued But how could our Popish ancestors be not damned how could they be saued vnles they were in the true church out of which euen Protestants themselues confesse that there is no saluation That they confesse true mission and Pastors in Popery but only damnation 4. Fourthly I prooue that Protestants cannot deny Papists to be of the true Church because they oftentymes both by word and deed acknowledge the vocation and Mission of Popish Pastors to be lawfull and sufficient to make a true Pastour of the Church Luther vpon the 5. cap. of S. Matthew VVe confesse that amongst Papists are pulpits Baptisme Sacraments and all other things belonging to Apostolicall vocation and function And in his booke or priuate masse There remaineth in Popery Vocation Ordination Ministery of the word and keyes to bind and loose Againe Christ hath conserued his Ministery vnder Popery And as is before cited There is all Christian good in Popery the keyes the charge of preaching c. Iohn Regius in considerat Censurae pag. 93 Although it be true that the Popish ministery was depraued with sundry traditions and deuises of men yet had it those things which were necessary to saluation Bucer in Rom. 8. pag. 427. telling vs by what authority and right he preached Protestantisme sayth I had by lawfull meanes already attayned the charge to preach Christ and to teach those things which he commanded Iunius lib. singulari de eccles cap. 17 God calleth the church wherein Popery raigneth by his spirit by his word by the publike instrument of that holy marriage by the ministery by sacred affaires actions On Gods part these things are apparantly in that church Plessy lib. de Eccles cap. 11. p. 361. The vocation of our men is the same that they the Papists boast of Pag. 362 Our aduersaries and our first ministers had the same Ecclesiasticall calling Boysseul in confutat Spondaei pag. 486 It is no reproach for our Pastors to haue issued out of yours or as you say to haue had their vocation from yours Moulins lib. 1. de vocat cap. 5. pag. 20. endeauouring to vphold the calling of their first Reformers sayth They haue that calling which is ordinary in the church of Rome Pa. 21 They had their calling of the Pope cap. 9. pag. 36 They haue the same ordinary calling which our aduersaries haue And lib. 2. tract 1. cap. 1. pag. 172 The calling they had in the church of Rome sufficed to bind them to preach And pag. 173 Their commission was no other then the ordinary charge Serauia in defen Grad minist cap. 2. pag. 31. VVe ought not to thinke that in the church of Rome ecclesiasticall ministery is decayed And pag. 33 I like not their frowardnes who acknowledge no ministery in the church of Rome but deeme all that is there diuelish Ibid Beza doth exagitate Popish orders ouer much wherein I feare least he preiudice a good cause D. Whitaker contr 4. quest 5. cap. 3. pag. 682 The Papists haue some sort of ministery and some preaching of the word which doubtles auaileth many to saluation And other where as is before cited Among the Papists there are the keyes the office of preaching c. M. Bell in his first booke of the Popes funerall cap.
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.
the Pope is that Antichrist wherof S. Paul speaketh 5. The third argument they wring out of the 12. Apocal. where it is sayd that the dragon shall cause the woman that is the Church to fly into the wildernesse This also is a fallacy not vnlike to the former First because it is more vnknowne that the Protestant church is the woman or the true church or the Pope that Dragon or the Popery the desert heÌ„ that Protestants were heretofor amongst Papists Againe there is no speach at all that the Church shold be so long tyme and so secret as Protestants say their church was in Popery Yea the tyme which this woman was to abide in the wildernesse is set downe to be 1260 dayes or as it is sayd cap. 20. a small tyme. And as Luther vpon Daniel tom 4. fol 265. and Bullinger conc 46. in Apocal. write Almost all Doctours attribute but 3. yeares and halfe to the persecution of Antichrist Wherefore these kind of testimonies by which Protestants make shew to proue that their Church was heretofore in Popery are but as S. Augustin speaketh of the like testimonies vsed by Donatists De vnit c. 19.23 Slender snares of delayes wherewith you vnderprop an euill cause by delaying But we demaund some manifest testimony Therefore bring out some manifest produce some thing that needeth no interpreter or if you cannot performe that which so iustly we demaund of you belieue truth hold your peace sleep a nap and after waken to saluation 6. Their 4. Sophisme they draw out of reason in this sort As soone as Protestancy was publikly preached many came out of Popery and followed it Therefore there were who in Popery did belieue it This fallacy is nothing better then the former For if it be reduced to a Syllogisme it will be found to rely vpon this principle If any in a company do follow the preaching of a new doctrine there were some therin that before tym belieued it which principle is manifestly false For neuer any heretiks preached whome some vnsetled Christians did not follow and yet who will say that there was neuer any heresy preached which before had not byn belieued of some Christians Epist Monitor pag. 107. Whitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 6. Pless de Eccles c. 11. Sadeel Refutat Posnan c. 10. Besides Protestants account it for a wonderfull miracle that at the beginning so many Papists came out of Popery vnto them but it had byn no shadow of miracle if before they had byn ProtestaÌ„ts Morouer the number of Papists forsaking Popery argueth not that before tymes they had byn Protestants but that they were vnsetled Papists who as the Scripture speaketh were carryed about with euery wind of doctrine Ephes 4. and that protestancy is a voluptuous and licentius doctrine because as Caluin sayth deceitfull doctrines do soone bewray themselues whiles they are admitted of all men with gentle cares Praef. Inst and are heard of the world applauding thereto 7. Of all which hath byn sayd in this and the former chapter I frame my fift demonstration in this manner If the Protestant Church and Religion were no where before Luther arose it was not all But before him it was no wher Therfore not at all And by him it got to be some where Therefore by him it got to be The minor is manifest by all that hath byn sayd in the former chapter The case of the protestant Church before Luther And the maior is euident by it selfe For no company of men much lesse a Catholike or vniuersall Church can be and be no where And these 5. demonstrations which hitherto we haue made haue byn taken out of the state wherein the Protestants confesse their Church to haue byn before Luther arose For by them hath beene shewed that before him according to the most free most frequent and most euident confessions of the famousest Protestants it had no (a) Cap. 8. Pastours to gouerne no (b) Cap. 3. sheep to be gouerned no (c) Cap. 5. appearance to be seene no (d) Cap. 9. place to abide no (e) Cap. 1. being to be What then could it be but a fiction of lying men or an imagination of phrantike men vainely deuised vntruly auouched and foundly belieued That all the Protestants first heard of had beene in former tymes Papists CHAP. XI THE 6. demoÌ„stratioÌ„ for to proue Luther to haue bin the Author of ProtestaÌ„cie shall be grounded vpon that all ProtestaÌ„ts who were first heard of had bin al Papists before Luther began to teach Luther before a Papist Of himselfe thus writeth Luther Prefat in tom 1. Before all things I request the godly reader that he read all with iudgement and consider that I was once a monck and a most madde Papist when I began this cause so druncken and drowned in Papistry that I was most ready to kill all if I had bin able c. And in psalm 45 tom 3. fol. 441 I was baptised in the Popes house I was catechised c And in psalm 51. fol 476 I wholy liued so in trust of my iustices as if any had then â—aught that which I now teach I thinck I should haue torne him with my teeth And in cap. 1 Galat. tom 5. fol. 291 If any at anytime surely I before the light of the gospell did thinck piously and was zealous for Popish lawes and traditions of Fathers and did in great earnestnes vrge and defend them as holy and the obseruation of them as necessary to saluation I purely adored the Pope and what soeuer I did I did of a simple heart a good zeale and to the glory of God The authority of the Pope was so great with me that I iudged it a crime worthy of eternall damnation to dissent from him and would haue subministred with fire and sword for the defence of the Popes authority 2. Melancthon who as Caluin writeth was a principall Minister of God in doing great matters and was indeed Luthers chiefest instrument in his dispute of Matrimony tom 2. Luther fol. vlt. giueth God thaÌ„ckes Melancthon first a Papist that he was deliuered out of the kingdome of Antichrist and Poposh errors and sayth as reporteth Scusselburg tom 13. Catal. Haer. pag. 625. of himselfe I moued not these controuersies but fell into them after they were moued which being many and not explicated I began to consider them with a desire of truth And the Saxonicall Ministers in the CoÌ„ference of Alburg Scrip. 7. pag. 349. write that Melancthon of his owne accord acknowledged himselfe a scholler of Luther yea the whole Vniuersity of Witterberg The Vniuersity of Witterberg first Papist out of which almost al Luthers first champions came was in former times Popish as appeareth by their epistle ad Milititium tom 1. Lutheri fol. 205. where thus they write VVe are so affected both to all the Christian Religion and the sea Apostolike and holy Church of Rome that if we
participation of Sacraments communication of publike prayer and such like other Ecclesiasticall exercises to wit when one thought he agree with the rest of the Church of Christ in the principall heades of Christian fayth yet I know not for what light causes withdraweth himselfe from the rest of the Church and communicateth not with her in the sacraments Such sayth he are properly called schismatikes M. Perkins in cap. 5. Galat. vers 21. Heresy is in doctrin Schisme in manners order and gouernement D. Fulke de Success pag. 165 There may be schisme in the Church where the same doctrine is held on both partyes the one wanteth lawfull succession D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 7 Some professe the whole sauing fayth but not in vnity as schismatiks Dancus in August de haeres cap. 3. He is a schismatike who retayning the same doctrine of fayth and that entire yet without probable and better reason followeth not the decent rites of the Church The same he hath Apol. pro Heluet. Eccles pag. 1485. Bullinger tom 1. Decad. 5. serm 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm pag. 190. D. Whitaker cont 2. quest 5. cap. 10. D. Rainolds Praelect 1. col 2. Heshusius in 1. Cor. 1. and others 5. Now that proper Schismatikes to wit such as willfully separate themselues from the Communion of the Church be not members or parts of the Church is cleare by the testimony of the Fathers That Schismatikes are out of the Church the confessions of Protestants and manifest reason S. Augustin lib. de fide symbolo cap. 10. sayth Neither doth an heretike belong to the Catholike Church nor a schismatike Tract 3. in 1. Ioan. All heretikes all schismatikes are gone out of the Church Lib. 3. de Baptism cap. 19. All heretikes and schismatikes are false Christians And lib 2. cont Crescon cap. 29 I thinke not that any so doteth to belieue him to belong to the vnity of the Church who hath not charity The like he hath in many places S. Ambrose lib. 7. in Luc. cap. 11. Vnderstand that all heretikes and schismatikes are separated from the kingdome of God and from the Church S. Optatus lib. 2. The Church cannot be with any heretikes or schismatikes S. Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 38 Belieue most stedfastly and doubt nothing that not only all Pagans but also all Iewes Heretiks schismatiks which end this life out of the church are to go into euerlasting fire The same teach S. Hierome S. Chrysostome loc cit S. Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnens S. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 62. S. Cyprian lib. de vnit epist 42.51.55 S. Prosper de vocat Gentium cap. 4. and the rest The protestants confessions of this matter we related heeretofore amongst whome say Lib. 1. c. â— num â— that this is an vndoubted truth Reason also conuinceth the same for as Caluin confesseth 4. Institut loc cit The coÌ„munion of the Church is held with two bandes to wit consent of doctrine and fraternall charity But Schismatikes breake the band of fraternall charity therefore they are not within the Church Againe Danaeus lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 5. sayth This is the marke that thou art of the visible Church that outwardly thou professe the fayth communicate with the rest of the Church in the same SacrameÌ„ts but schismatikes doe not communicate in Sacramentes with the rest of the Church And D. Feild lib. 2. of the Church cap. 2. sayth Communion in Sacramentes vnder lawful Pastours is an essential note of the true Catholike Church but Shismatiks want this communion And Casaubon epist ad Card. Peron pag. 9. The true Churches of Christ are vnited in the vnity of fayth and doctrine and coniunction of minds and in true charity and offices of charity especially of mutuall prayer But Schismatikes are not vnited in charity and offices of mutuall prayer Finally only Catholikes are members of the Catholike Church as is euident and (a) VVhi. conc 2. q. 5. cap. 3. Protestants confesse But Schismatikes are not Catholiks as the very name doth declare the Fathers doc teach and (b) Gesner loc 24. Field l. de Eccles c. 7. Protestants acknowledge 6. By this it appeareth that the foresayd Maior which is the foundation of Protestants in this matter is not only false but also so manifestly false as out of this question it is commonly denyed of Protestants themselues Besides it is not only false but also so improbable that neither it is proued of Protestants nor can be any other wayes then by proofe of fooles or willfull men that is by their owne saying For D. Whitaker as we haue seene proueth it no other wayes then by saying it is out of controuersy D. Fulke that it is manifest But Luther more boastingly sayth l. de Missa priu tom 7. f. 247. This is our solid foundation and most stedfast rocke VVhersoeuer true doctrine of Christ or the Ghospell is preached there is necessarily the true holy Church of God And who doubteth of this sayth he may in like manner doubt whether the Ghospel be the word of God A notable proofe surely and fit for Pythagoras schoole and a sound foundation on which to fayned a Church should rely and a fit rock for them to build vpon who haue left the rocke vpon which Christ built his Church Wherefore that I may imitate S. Augustine in the like matter Lib. 1. cont Gaudent cap. 33. I aske whether God or man hath told them that wheresoeuer true doctrine is there is the true Church If God let them read it out of the Scripture where indeed we read that where the true Church is there true doctrine is but contrarywise that where true doctrine is there the true Church is there we neuer read If men haue told you this Behold a fiction of man behold what you belieue behold what ye serue behold for what ye rebell ye run mad ye burne Againe what kind of men were they surely no other then your selues And what is your authority I say not with vs but euen with your selues Is as one of your part sayd the iudgement of Lutherans or Sacramentaryes the square of truth Moreouer Pareus l 3. ce â—â—stifie cap. 13. seeing that three things are essential or substantial to the true church to wit true doctrine lawfull Pastours and people following their Pastours nor any thing can be vnles all the essentiall parts be it is sophistry and madnesse to inferre that that company is the true Church wherin one only of these parts is to be found If they say that by the true Church they meane not her which is true in nature or essence of the Church but only her which is true in doctrine of whose essence is only truth of doctrin First they deceaue the Reader For we speak only of the Church true in essence not of that which is only true in doctrinâ— as a schismaticall Church may be Besides if they meane such
a true Church and vnderstand their foresayd Maior vniuersally it is false for not euery true Church in that sense is Apostolicall or hath euer beene For a schismaticall Church is true in doctrine and yet is neither Apostolicall nor hath euer beene And if they vnderstand their Maior particulerly the conclusion followeth not because it is deduced out of pure particuler propositions And thus much of the Maior 7. Secondly the foresayd argument is a sophism because of the Minor by which one vnknown thing is proued by another one false thing by another not only false Protestāts proofe out of a thing more vnknowne but also impossible For it is more vncercertaine that the Protestant Church holdeth the doctrin of Christ then that she was before Luther For albeit she were not before notwithstanding it was not impossible that she should haue beene but that she holdeth the doctrine of Christ is both false and impossible also And as Luther sayth in defens verb. Coenae tom 7. fol. 385. It is a mad mans part to proue vncertaine things by others as vncertaine And D. Whitaker cont 2. quest 3. cap. 3. All proofe is by thinges that are more knowne Which also he hath cont 2. quest 5. cap. 18. Sadcel praefat lib. cont Traditiones Daneus l. 4. de Eccles cap. 2. D. Morton part 2. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 37. Pareus lib. 3. de Iustificat cap. 1. Wherupon Luther tom 2. Praefat. assert Antic fol. 95. writeth Aristotle and all sense of nature sheweth that vnknowne thinges must be proued by thinges more knowne and obscure thinges by manifest If therefore as Pareus sayth lib. 1. de Iustificat c. 20. when the Aduersarie is brought to that that eitheir he gainesayth himselfe or beggs that which he is to proue assuming that in his proofe which is in debate or trifleth by repeating now and then the same thing he is vanquished surely then Protestants are vanquished whom in this smal work we haue shewed oftentymes to gaine say themselues now including these within the Church now excluding them now affirming the Church to be inuisible now denying it now to haue alwayes Pastours now denying it and the like And in this argumment with which alone they proue the existēce of their Church before Luther they assume in the Minor that which most of all is in debate Caluin 4. Insticut c. 1. § 12. Narrat de Eccles Belg. p. 196. And the Maior they can proue no otherwise then by trifling by repeating it and saying that it is out of all doubt I add also that the sacramentaryes say that the Lutheran Church erreth euen in the fundamentall points and the like say the Lutherans of the Sacramentaries and scarce there is any Protestant who doth not thinke that the Church whereof he is doth erre in some points What reason then haue they out of the truenesse of the doctrin of their Churches to inferre their perpetuall existence 8. Thirdly I adde that the manner wherwith Protestants doe proue the Minor of their foresayd syllogisme is sophisticall and not such as they exact of vs for proofe of our doctrine For commonly they exact of vs to shew that our doctrine is contained in expresse words in Scripture or as Luther sayth lib. de seru arbit tom 2. fol. 440 inso manifest testimonies as are able so to stop all mēs mouths as they are not able to say any thing against it But manifest it is that such be not the proofes wher with Protestants proue their doctrine For to omit other points where is in expresse words in scripture that fundamentall point of their doctrin that we are iustified by only faith Say the contrary is so expresly in S. Iames epistle Tom. 6. in c. 12. Gen. as therfore Luther blasphemously sayth S. Iames doted And the Lutherans for that very cause deny his epistle to be canonicall Besides VVhitak cont 1. q. 4. cap. 3. Protestants doe now confesse that the scripture is not of it selfe sufficient to end all questions of faith and that Schismatikes cannot be conuinced by scripture How then can they sufficiently proue al the points of their doctrine by scripture VVhitak loc cit p. 490. Plessy l. de Eccles c. 9. Againe themselues acknowledge that they need certaine meanes to attaine to the right sense of the Scripture and that their meanes are humane and not infallible as knowledge of tongues conference of places and such like and with all that such as the meanes be such is the exposition of Scripture If therfore their meanes be not infallible how can their vnderstanding of the scripture be infallible Moreouer they scarce euer proue any thing by both principles out of scripture but almost euermore adioyne one human principles as easily will appeare if their proofs be brought to a syllogisticall forme as well obserue the most learned Bishop of Luçon in his defence of the Principall articles of faith cap. 3. 5. And how can they be infallibly certaine of the conclusion which they cannot know but by one human principle whereof they can haue no such certainty Furthermore because many of their proofes doe not only consist of one humane principle Protestats conclude against sense which is not at al in the scripture but also they inferre a conclusiō directly contradictory to that which the scripture in most expresse words teacheth of that matter As for example when they proue that the Eucharist is of not the very body and bloud of Christ alwayes one of their principles is humane and besides their conclusiō is flat contrary to expresse words of scripture which affirmeth that it is Christs very body and bloud And who is he in his wittes that will perswade himselfe either that the scripture meaneth that the Eucharist is not the body bloud of Christ which directly it neuer sayth rather then that it is his body and bloud which it as expresly sayth as euer it sayth any thing or that that proofe is not sophisticall which out of one humane principle at least inferreth the contrary of that which the scripture most expresly teacheth Lastly they neuer proued any one point of their doctrine any otherwise then euer Heretiks do that is in their own iudgmēt neuer before any iudge or general Councell which Luther himselfe confesseth in c. 27. Gen. tom 6. fol. 368. in the words In the affaire of the Gospell we haue decided the matter against al the impiety of the Pope without form of law VVe accused not the Pope neither could we for there was no iudge Yea their doctrin hath bin cōdemned according to all forme of law in the Generall Councel of Trent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to whō they appealed and of al other kinds of Christians 9. Fourthly I say that the foresayd argument is a sophisme in that in a sēsible matter as the Church is it concludeth against the sense of all men For nether did any see the Protestant Church before Luther