appeareth froÌ„ that which is aboue deliuered touching the Protestants reprehension both of the translations of Scripture made by forrayne Protestants as also of our English Translations But if the Protestants doe reiect their owne brethrens Translations theÌ„ much lesse will they staÌ„d vnappealably to our Catholike Translations of the Scripture 4. If the Catholike proceed further in insisting in the Originals of both the Testaments The Protestants deny that the originalls of them are the same in all passages as they were first penned by the Prophets the Euangelists and the Apostles Thus for example in the new Testament where in (d) Matth c. 10. S. Matthew it is sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter (e) Beza in his Annotat. vpon the new Testament set foorth anno 1556 Beza denyeth the Originall herin iustifiing though it be thus read in all Greeke copyes extant at this day that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus was added by some one enclining to the defence of the Popes Primacy In like sort (f) Beza vbi supra Beza denyeth that the Greeke Originall in Luke 22. is at this present the same as it was first penned by the Euangelist mantayning that it is corrupted in fauour of the Reall presence 5. If he insist in such passages of Scripture whose Originalls and Translations therin are on all parts accepted for true and tell his Aduersary that the whole Church of God in her Primitiue and purer tymes euer interpreted the said passages of Scripture in that sense in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged The ProtestaÌ„t absolutly (g) So doth D. Whitakers l de Eceles contra Bellarm. controuers 2. q. 4. p. 223. Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed p. 400. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England part 4. cap. 4. and most other Protestants denyes that infallible authority of the Church of God in interpreting the holy Scripture but disclayming from it appeales to his owne Priuate spirit interpreting the same 6. If forbearing the written word of God he alledge in warranting of his fayth the vnwritten word of God I meane Apostolicall Traditions the Protestant denyes peremptorily the Authority of all such Traditions Thus for example where S. Chrysostome sayth (h) Chrysost in 2. Thessal hom 4. The Apostles did not deliuer all things by writinge but many thinges without and these be as worthy of credit as the other D. VVhitakers reiects this authority touching Traditions in these wordes (i) D. Whitak de sacra scriptura pag. 678. I answere That this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father And Cartwright in depressing the weight of Traditions maintayned by S. Augustine thus writeth (k) See Cartwright in whitgifts defence p. 103. To allow S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery agayne 7. If leauing the word of God he descend to humane authorities yet so humane as that they haue the peculiar promise of (l) Matt. 18. Christs assistance therein I meane to the graue authority of Generall Councells the Protestants deny all authority of them For D. VVhitakers openly professeth that Generall Councels (m) L. de Concil contra Bellar. q. 6. may and haue erred But Peter Martyr more fully dismasketh himselfe in denying the authority of Generall Councells for he thus plainely writeth (n) Pet. Martyr lib. de votis pag. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Popish Errours 8. If he produce the Testimonies of particuler Fathers of the Primitiue Church Marke with what contempt and indignity the Protestant denyes them for Luther thus depresseth them (o) Luth. de seruo arbitrio printed 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnles they were amended before their deaths they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church And another though no Lutherane yet of Luthers descent in this his scurrilous Pasquill thus traduceth the Fathers (p) D. Wâ—itak conâ—r contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 413. Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae Religionis cento consequutus est The Popish Religion is a patched cloath of the Fathers Errours sowed togeather see how impudent and petulant Nouelisme in fayth is in expecting precedency and taking the wall of Reuerend hoary Antiquity 9. If in such poynts which coÌ„cerne matter of fact as touching the supposed change of fayth in the visibility of the Church the vocation and mission of Pastours the vninterrupted Administration of the word and Sacraments all which are to receaue their proofe or els not to be proued at all froÌ„ the Authority of auncient most authenticall Histories If I say the Catholike do in proofe heerof produce the auncient Histories of those Primitiue tymes D. VVhitakers thus by denyall aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories (q) D. D. Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 478. Sufficit nobis c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture to discouer the disparity of faith between them and vs And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to write what they will And accordingly touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her fayth he thus coÌ„cludeth (r) Whitak vbi supra pag. 277. It is not needfull to vs to search out in Histories the beginning of this change 10. To conclude if in the last place for most demonstratiue and Affirmatiue Notes markes of the true Church the Catholike do rest as in nube Testium to vse the Apostles phrase in vniuersality Visibility vninterrupted continuance vnity Succession of Pastours Holynes of doctrine Conuersion of Kings and Nations of the Gentils c. The Protestants besides that they will not admit any Historyes in proofe of them deny and discarde the testimonies of all these Positiue Heads of proofes by erecting the Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments for notes by this meanes they reduce to their owne iudgements which is the true Church seeing they will not acknowledge the word to be purely preached or the Sacramentâ— to be rightly administred but when and where their Priuate spirit out of its Pythagorean and controwling Chaire vouchsafes so to pronouÌ„ce By all this now we may see how wholy Negatiue the Protestant is indeed so Negatiue in al points as that it may be feared he in the end will deny his owne being for as heer aboue we haue shewed that his Religion consisteth in pure denyall of our Positiue and Affirmatiue Articles so in this Chapter we haue layd downe how he labours to othrow by his like denyalls the authority of all such Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads principles from whence the Catholikes for the fortifiyng of their owne faith and Religion do drawe their proofes In which kind of proceeding the Protestant deales no otherwise with the Catholike then if a man
as being a Priuation is Non-Ens and consequently that Protestancy as consisting of the old condēned Heresies is a Non-Entity Chap. 11. That there are diuers Positions of Protestancy which besides that they ar◠implicitely but Negations to the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue Doctrines are in their owne Nature meerly voyd of all reality of Being Chap. 12. That the Protestant Church is a meer Non-Entity or Idaea proued from the confessed Inuisibility thereof Chap. 13. That the confessed want of Personall Succession and lawfull Calling in the Protestant Church proueth that Church to be no Reall thing and consequently that Protestancy is but an Intentionality or bare Notion of the mynd Chap. 14. The Non-Entity of Protestancy proued from that it worketh in the wills of the Professours Chap. 15. The Non-Entity of Protestancy proued from that it is not agreed vpon what doctrines be Protestancy or what Professours be members of the Protestant Church Chap. 16. The Non-Entity of Protestancy demonstrated from that euery Protestant eyther in himselfe or in his Predecessours originally departed and came out from the Roman Catholike Church Chap. 17. That the Protestant denyes the Authorities of all those Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads from whence the Catholikes draw their Proofes Chap. 18. That sundry learned Protestants as not houlding a Negatiue fayth to be any Reall Fayth at all agree with the Catholikes in belieuing the Affirmatiue Articles of the Catholike Fayth Chap. 19. Certaine Porismata rising out of the seuerall passages of this Treatise Chap. 20. That the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church are not one and the same Church though some Protestants teach the contrary for the supporting of their owne Church The Conclusion CERTAINE PROLEGOMENA Of which the first is That in all positiue and affirmatiue points of faith the Protestants doe agree with the Catholikes the Protestants borrowing the said affirmatiue points from the Church of Rome CHAP. I. LEarned Reader For the better facilitating of this my assumed taske and labour for the more easy playning the way to the ensuing discourse I am first heere to prefixe certayne Prolegomena as I may call them or Prefaces The first whereof is to shew that the Protestants in all affirmatiue articles of fayth houlden by them at this day doe agree with the Romane Catholike Church The second that in such points of fayth wherein the Protestants do dissent from the Romane Church all the said points so defended by the Protestants are meerely Negations of the contrary affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Catholikes In this Chapter I will intreate of the first part seposing the chapter following for the second And according to this my assertion we find that the Protestants do belieue affirmatiuely with vs that there is One God and three Persons that the second Person was incarnated and suffered death vpon the Crosse for the expiation of the sins of the world that there are two Sacraments to wit Baptisme and the Eucharist that there are certaine Canonicall diuine writinges commonly called the Holy Scriptures finally they belieue with vs Catholikes the Apostles Creed All which points so needy and begging is Nouelisme in faith for its own supporting the Protestants do freely acknowledge that they borrow receaue from our Catholike and Romane Church For thus doth D. VVhitaker confesse of this point (a) D. VVhitak de Eccles pag. 369. The Papists haue the Scripture and Baptisme c. and these came to vs from them With whome agreeth heerein D. Doue saying (b) Doue in his persuasiō to English Recusants pag. 23. VVee should the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Bible which we receaued from them But Luther with full consent herto more amply discourseth of this point thus acknowledging (c) Luth. l. contra Anabaptist VVe confesse that there is vnder the Papacy most of the Christian good yea rather all the Christian good and that from thence it came to vs. Verily we confesse there is in the Papacy true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keyes to the remission of sinnes the true office of preaching true Catechisme c. I say further there is in the Papacy true Christianity or rather the true kernell of Christianity Thus Luther Now from these liberall yet most true confessions of our aduersaries this ineuitable resultancy riseth to wit that the Protestants though they belieue these former affirmatiue Articles and perhaps some few others with the Catholikes yet for such their beliefe of thē they are not nor can be truly reputed Protestants but only Christians in generall or rather Catholikes this but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or at most but Analogically since they borrow their beliefe of the sayd affirmatiue Articles from our Catholicke Church as is aboue confessed and therfore Protestancy doth not rest in the beliefe of the sayd affirmatiue dogmaticall points From hence then we may conclude that the reduplicatiue formality or ratio formalis as I may say with the Shoolemen of Protestancy only consisteth in the denyall and reprouall of the particular affirmatiue Articles in which it differeth at this day from the Church of Rome as heereafter wil be proued and that a Protestāt quatenus a Protestant is not as he belieueth these former affirmatiue Articles but as he belieueth not other affirmatiue points belieued heertofore now by the Church of Rome And according heerto Philosophy teacheth that this particle quatenus or the reduplicatiue formality euer falleth vpon the differentia and not vpon the genus I will exemplify this point in other innouations of doctrine Iouinian taught as S. (d) Hierome lib. 1. 2. contra Iouin Hierome (e) de haeresib cap. 82. S. Augustine do witnesse That virginity was not to be preferred before wedlocke that fasting was not meritorious that a man once hauing true fayth could not sinne all good Protestancy at this day Iouinian in all other affirmatiue points agreed with the then Church of Rome but dissented from it onely in these Negatiues Now Iouinianisme truly resteth only in the defence of these its Negatiue Positions and not as it agreeth with the then Church of Rome in other affirmatiue points And his followers were called Iouiniani only by reason of their defence of the said Negations and not otherwise Againe Manichaeus did only deny freewill in man as (f) Lib. de hoeres cap. 46. S. Augustine recordeth and cōparted with the then known Church of Christ in all other affirmatiue points and accordingly his Sect was called Manichisme not in that it agreed with the then Catholike Church in other affirmatiue positions taught by the sayd Church but only by reason the authour thereof denyed the aforesayd Affirmatiue Article of freewill In like sort Brownisme resteth only in the denyall of such points wherein the Brownists dissent frō the Protestants and not in their conformity with the Protestants or Catholickes in any affirmatiue points Now
these he taketh not from himselfe but borroweth them from the Catholike Church This is euideÌ„t for at the tyme of Luthers first reuolt who was the first Protestant in these dayes as his owne (g) Conrad Slâ—es in Theol. Caluin l. 2. fol 17. saith It is imâ—udency to say thaâ— any learned men in Germany before Luther did hould the doctrine of the Gospel See Luther of this point in loc coÌ„m class 4. p. 51. brethren do teach from whence did Luther learne that Christ was the Sauiour of the world that there is diuine Scripture Grace SacrameÌ„ts or from whence receaued he his Ordination if not from the Catholike Church The confessed Inuisibility of the ProtestaÌ„t Church not only at the first rising of Luther but also for many ages before proued in this Treatise doth conuince the truth of this point And therefore D. Field had iust reason to say (h) D. Field in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3. c. pag. 72. In the known Church of the world wherin our Ancestors liued and dyed Luther and the rest were baptized receaued their Ordinance and power of Ministry If now any other should at last expostulate and say that the Protestant is wronged by comparing him to the Heathen Philosophers seeing many of those Philophers were Idolaters to this I reply and say that the comparison heer made is not with such wicked Philosophers but only with those most learned Philosophers who acknowledged a Deity and neuer taught nor formally practised Idolatry and such were Plato Xenophon Aristotle Seneca and many others Againe the coÌ„formity in faith heere made is not touching those points which the Philosophers affirmatiuely belieued or practised but only in such negatiue Positions which are also denyed by the Protestant And with this I will heere rest concluding nothing of my selfe but will referre it to the censure of the most iudicious Reader whether this great affinity and brotherly association between the learned Heathen Philosopher and the symbolizing Protestant in their both promiscuously denying such Articles as are affimed by the Catholiks do carry any blemish to the Protestants Gospell or no or whether if the Heathen haue no reall Fayth in the sayd negatiue points it followeth not that the Protestant as a Protestant can haue in like sort no reall fayth in his belieuing the same Negatiue points But by this we may discerne that the cloudes of partiality and contradiction being once gathered about the maÌ„s iudgment doth make him thinke others to seeme lesse and to erre when indeed they doe not That Protestancy is but a Nullity of fayth and consequently with reference to fayth a Non-entity proued from the definition of faith and other Conditions necessarily annexed to Fayth CHAP. VII EVery definition of a thing is the Touchstone wherewith we try what other things can truly come within the Orb or coÌ„passe of the thing defined what not I will exemplify this in the definition of fayth deliuered by the Apostle and so see if the Fayth of a Protestant can be called fayth or rather in respect of Faith a NoÌ„entity absence of fayth We finde that the Apostle defineth Fayth in these wordes (a) Heb. 11. Fides est sperandarum substantia rerum argumentum non apparentium That is fayth is the substance of thinges to be hoped for the argument of thinges not appearinge This definition sheweth by the iudgement of all learned men that Fayth is a supernaturall vertue and the obiectum thereof is that which throgh its owne abstrusnes and sublimity cannot be apprehended or conceaued by force of mans owne wit it transcending all naturall reason To exemplify this in the supreme Articles of the most blessed Trinity and the Incarnation the two Cardinall-mysteries of Christian fayth Fayth teacheth vs that in the Trinity there is one peculiar Nature in three different Persons Now mans naturall vnderstaÌ„ding cannot apprehend how this Indiuiduality of Nature can be in three Persons without distraction or multiplication of the nature the rather seeing euery one of these Persons is identifyed really formally with this Nature the strickest vnion that can be conceaued In like sort touching the Incarnation by meanes whereof the Creatour of all flesh suffered in flesh mans reason cannot lay any true leuell to conceaue how one Hypostasis or person caÌ„ be in two natures or how this Hypostasis or person is identifyed made the same really with the diuine nature and yet is vnited most inwardly with the humane nature Thus in regard of the difficulty of belieuing Articles of fayth the conclusion among all the Schoole Deuines resulting out of the former definitioÌ„ of fayth is that (b) S. Thomas part 2 2. q. 1. quae fidei sunt non possunt esse scita so certayne it is that betweene mans Capacity and the Nature of supernaturall Fayth the proportion lyes onely in disproportion and that in matters of fayth euen reason dictates to vs to belieue against Reason Now to apply this if Protestancy be a supernaturall fayth or els it is no true-sauing fayth then the Obiect of this Protestanticall fayth is of that difficult nature as Man through the force of natural reason caÌ„not giue any assent therto without the special concurrency of Gods Grace But heer now I demaund that seeing the Obiect of Protestancy as Protestancy is meere negations and denials of things to be as aboue is proued what supernaturality as I may terme it or force of Gods speciall concurrency is required that man should giue his assent to belieue that such or such a thing is not as for example that there is no Purgatory no place but Heauen for children dying vnbaptized no praying to Saints no inherent Iustice and so of the rest denyed by them I heer say that mans naturall reason euen of it selfe without any other externall help is propense inclining to giue assent to these all other negations except the affirmatiues to these negations can be conuinced for true eyther by diuine or humane proofes and authorityes so litle is any supernaturall assistance needfull heerto If then the obiect of Protestancy by reason of its Negations be most easy to be belieued and that the beliefe of it doth not surmouÌ„t the force of mans naturall reason but rather most sorting and agreable thereto then if the Apostles definition of Fayth be true as I trust no Protestant is of that supercilious and froward disposition as to deny it followeth that Protestancy is not the Obiect of Supernaturall Fayth but in respect of true infused sayth is a Non-entity and bare Intentionality But to proceed further The Schoole-men (c) S. Tho. part 2 q. 5 teach that true and Supernaturall Fayth hath a necessary reference to two things the first is called prima veritas reuelans which is God who reuealeth all truths points of fayth This first is styled by the diuines Obiectum formale fidei The second thing required to Fayth especially after the Church
haue a true reference ad Idem From whence it then followeth that the one side at least if not both in these former contradictions hath no reality or truâ— subsistence of Being And heereupon then I conclude that since all these former alledged men are accepted by the Church of England as good Protestants and all their meere contrary doctrines in the former poynts are taught for good Protestancy that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines whose nature requires a Not-be ng of one poynt is no reall and truly subsisting fayth but a meere Chymera and Non-entity The points of Protestancy touching which the Professours of Protestancy and especially the Caluinists amongst themselues do so diametrically differ are amoÌ„g others these following VVhether God doth decree and will sinne or but only permit sinne VVhether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church whether as aboue is intimated the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of fayth or but Sacramentally only present whether in case of Adultery the innocent party may marry againe whether the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme and the vse of the Surplisse be lawfull whether Bishops be Antichristian or lawfull whether Christ suffered in soule the paines of Hell besides many others The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another yet all is good Protestancy as before is sayd and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants and Professours of the Gospell that euen by the law and nature of Contradictories the one syde must euer want a reall subsisting Being and thereupon it followeth that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine must be in it selfe a very nothing This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our aduersaries in Articles of Protestancy is made more manifest by recalling to mynd what is aboue set down touching the great violent dissentions of the ProtestaÌ„ts concerning their translatioÌ„s of Scripture their booke of Common praier But leauing that as aboue touched the same will likewise be made euident by remembring in what acerbity of style the Protestants haue writ one against another euer intimating thereby that the different doctrines differently maintained by them were truly Contradictories and therefore the Tenets of the one syde at least meere irreall as wanting all true Being But to contract this poynt I will particulerly insist as most conducing to the subiect in hand first in setting downe the expresse words in their owne dialect of the English Protestants and the English Puritanes and after I will put downe some few tytles of Protestants Bookes written one against another from which the Reader may euen depose that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different bookes against other Protestants defending the contrary must of necessity be in themselues contradictory and incompatible one with another But to begin with our English Protestants And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritanes (l) In his booke dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory They are headstrong and hardened in Errour they strike at the mayne points of fayth shaking the foundation it selfe and calling to question Heauen and Hel the diuinity and Humanity yea the very Soule and Saluation of our Sauiour himselfe And yet more in the same place The Puritanes haue pestilent Heresies c. They are Hereticall and sacrilegious M. Powell thus styleth the Puritanes (m) Powel in his coÌ„sideratioÌ„s They are notorious manifest Schismatikes cut of from the Church of God The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them (n) In the Suruey of pretended discipline cap. 5. 2. 4. The Puritanes do peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriture and Fathers to serue their owne turne Now the Puritanes on the other syde are ready to repay the ProtestaÌ„ts former curtesy in their owne laÌ„guage for thus they write (o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplicatioÌ„ to the high court of Parlament Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops their adherents do much swarue â—rom the same c. And agayne (p) This appeareth in the booke of Constitutions and Câ—nons Ecclesiassticall printed aÌ„no 1604 The worship in the Church of EnglaÌ„d corrupt superstitious vnlawfull â—epugnant to the Scriptures The Arâ—icles of the Bishops Religion are erroâ—eous their rites Antichristian By this we may discerne what mutuall recrimination and what â—reconciliable repugnancy there betweene the English moderate â—rotestant and the English Puâ—itan and this euen in great matâ—ers and of highest consequence â—nd therefore the former M. Parks â—onfesseth sincerely and ingenuâ—usly of this point thus saying (q) M. Parks vbi supra p. 3. The Protestants deceaue the world â—nd make men belieue there is agreeâ—ent in all substantiall points They â—ffirme there is no question among theÌ„ of the truth And this much touching our domesticall Protestants and Puritanes In the next place I will descend to forrayne Protestants and for greater breuity among many huÌ„dred of bookes written by Protestants against Protestants see heer the (r) Isa 19. Aegyptian set against the Aegyptian ech one fighting against his brother I will content my selfe with setting downe the titles only of ten of them From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude that the Controuersies being the subiect of those bookes are not of that adiaphorous and indifferent nature as that the Tenets of both sydes might be true but that the Patrones of both sides did hould cotradictory doctrines and such as that granted by supposall the truth and Being of the one part the other of necessity waÌ„teth all reality of Being And to begin 1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus IudaizaÌ„s Hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate deitate Christi Spiritus sancti c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittenberg anno 1593. 2. Alberti Graueri Bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi braptae 1598. 3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blaspemos errores Swinglianorum CaluiuistaruÌ„ Tubingae anno 1586. 4. Anti-paraeus Hoc est refuâ—atio venenati Scripti à Dauide Paâ—aeo editi in defensione stropharum â—orruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluiâ—us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1â—98 5. Denominatio Imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. 6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. 7. Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563 8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graues perniciosi
inhering in the vnderstanding of the Professour but if since the Apostles daies there haue beene no Professours of ProtestaÌ„cy by reason of the Inuisibility of that Church for so many ages doth it not then follow that a least during all those ages Protestancy as wanting its proper Subiect to inhere in hath had no real Being but hath beene all those many series or Centuries of yeareâ— a meere Nothing That the confessed want of Personalâ— Succession and lawfull calling in the Protestant Church proueth their Church to be no reall thing but a meer fiction and consequently that Protestancy is but an Intentionality or bare Notion of the mynd CHAP. XIII PHilosophy teacheth vs that euery thing doth consist of somewhat which is essentiall to it and of other things which are but Accidentall and necessary The Accidents serue only ad bent esse and by meanes of Inherency to giue as it were their attendance for greater state and honour of the thing the which they do inuest and therefore may actually at least in thought be separated and disioyned from such their subiect without any destruction of it But it is otherwise with that which is essentiall to any thing for that necessarily conduceth ad simpliciter esse of the thing the which Essentiall poynt being by supposall taken away the thing wherof it was Essentiall instantly looseth its Being is become therby a nothing Now to apply this to the Protestant Church And to pretermit what Accidentally accompanyeth the Church we will insist onely in that which is by our aduersaries acknowledgemeÌ„t Essentiall to the Church to wit the Administration of the VVord and Sacraments Now if it can be proued that the ProtestaÌ„t Church wanteth this Administration of the word and Sacraments then may we infallibly conclude that the Protestant Church is no Church nor Protestancy any Reall thing in it selfe But seeing this Administration of the word and Sacraments cannot be performed but by the help of the true Pastors we wil first shew the necessity of Pastours secoÌ„dly that the administratioÌ„ of the word Sacraments are Essentiall to the Being of a Church And lastly we will proue that the Protestant Church like a mastlesse ship hath neuer enioyed any true Pastours consequently neuer enioyed the Administration of the word and Sacraments the very Essence or being of a true Church And first the holy Scriptures doe often inculcate that in the Church of God there euer must be Personall Succession and lawfull calling coÌ„sequently that that society of Christians which want these two poynts is no Church at all Touching the necessity of Personal Succession thus we read (a) Isa 59 My Spirit which is vpon thee and the words which I haue put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seede nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from hence foorth for euer To which accord those wordes of the Apostle spoken of our Sauiour (b) Ephes 4. He hath placed Pastours to the consummation of Saints till we all meete in vnity of fayth That is as the Protestants do comment (c) So sayth Do-For Fulk agaynst the Rhemish Testament for euer and (d) D Fulk agaynst Heskins Sanders c. pag. 539. to the end of the world Now the reason why Pastours must be euer in the Church or els it is no Church but only a false vsurpation of the word Church is because in the Church there euer must be the Administration of the word and Sacraments but there can be no Administration of the word and Sacraments without Pastours euen according to the Apostles iudgmeÌ„t who sayth Rom. 10. How shall they belieue whome they haue not heard and how shall they heare without a Preacher which things to wit the Administration of the word and Sacrament as (e) D. VVhitaker contra Duâ—â—cum lib. 3. p. 249. D. VVhitakers teacheth being present do constitute a Church being absent do subuert it And D. VVillet in Sinops pag. 69. further in direct words affirmeth That the absence of the Administration of the word and Sacraments doth make a Nullity of the Church And sortably heerto other Protestants do write thus (f) Proposition and Principles disputed of in the Church of Geneua pag. 845. The ministery is an Essentiall marke of the true Church FroÌ„ which true acknowledgment of the learned Protestants we see that a Church without the due Administration of the word and Sacraments wanteth its Essence and is but a Nullity or Non Ens. Now as Personall Succession for the administration of the word and SacrameÌ„ts is deduced from the Scripture so also is the necessity of Lawfull vocation according to those wordes (g) Rom. 10. How shall they preach except they be sent And that (h) Heb. 5. No man taketh the honour of Priest-hood but he that is called of God as Aaron was which calling in the Apostles times was euer conferred by Imposition of hands But heer let vs see if the Protestants can make good the Personall Succession and ordinary calling of their Ministers for the preaching of the word and Administration of the SacrameÌ„ts But this is first denyed euen by the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church for if the Protestant Church hath beene wholly inuisible or rather vtterly extinct for the space of thirteene or fourteene hundred yeares at the least as themselues haue aboue confessed theÌ„ during that long space of tyme the Protestant Church as not being then in Being wanted her Pastours the stalke which supports the vine and eonsequently wanted the Administration of the word and Sacraments and through such its want it wanted its owne Essâ—nce and was but a Nullity or Nothing during all that long Circuite of so many ages Furthermore whereas the Protestants seeing themselues thus plunged do flie for reliefe to Extraordinary calling for thus writeth Caluin (i) Lasciuius a Protestant in his booke ac RussoruÌ„ relig c. 23 alledgeth Caluin thus saying and see Caluin lib. Instit 4. c. 3. sest 4. Quia Papae Tyrannide c. Because through the Tyranny of the Pope the true Ordidinary Succession of Ordination was broken of therefore we stood in need of a new helpe and this was the extraordinary guift And D. Fulk thus writeth hereof (k) Fulke agaynst StapletoÌ„ and Martiall pag. 2. The Protestants that first preached in these last dayes had Extraordinary Caliing Therefore I will show that this poore refuge is impugned euen by the Protestants themselues so daÌ„gerous an incision their own pens haue made in the wounds of their owne Church for first D. Bilson thus teacheth (l) D. Bilson in his perpetual gouermeÌ„t of the Church c. 9. pag. 111. They can haue no part of Apostolicall Commission who haue no shew of Apostolicall succession Agayne Extraordinary Calling is euer warranted with working of Miracles as it was in the Apostles tymes euen by the doctrine of the Protestants for thus doth Luther
by reasō that this greeke word maketh vp the number to wit b Apocal. 13. 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shal at his comming both in their denyalls and workes labour mightily to euert Christian Religion And if S. Iohn sayth truly that euery one who in any sort denieth Iesus to be Christ may figuratiuely be tearmed Antichrist (i) Ioan. 1. Quis est mendax nisi qui negat Iesum esse Christum hic est Antichristus c. how fully simply and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his comming deny Iesus to be Christ And consequently shall deny all the particular mysteries of Christianity 3. My third Resultancy respecteth the Protestants seuerall different Translations of the Scripture and their seuerall different settings forth of their Comon Booke of Prayer as is aboue shewed and yet euen at this day they are neither content with the last Trāslation of the Bible or last publishing of the Booke of Common Prayer though all corrected and reformed by way of Negatiues but charging thē with many vntruths corruptions and blasphemyes most earnestly thirsting after a new Translation and a new composition of the Communion Booke if so they could obtayne it From whence we conclude from their owne pens that hitherto the Protestāts neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture and a forme or cōmon Booke of Praier free from Errours Now this being granted by thē how mightily are the Protestants foyled thereby For first whereas their owne doctrine is that the (k) Luth. so teacheth praefat Assertionis suae Caluin lib. 4. Instit c. 9. Kemnit in Examen Concil Trident. sess 4. Melancthon locis de Ecclesia Scripture is the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Religion they are heerby by their owne implicite confessions euen as yet depriued of this Iudge seeing themselues do grant that the pure and vncorrupted Scripture and not as it is abastarded with deprauations ought to be this Iudge Agayne to be depriued of the true Scripture as themselues by acknowledging all former Translations to be impure false must consequētly grant they are is to be depriued of one of Gods chiefest pledges of mans saluation the Scripture of God and the necessary deductions out of it being the spirituall meates wherwith with reference to his saluation the vnderstanding of mans soule is chiefly fed nourished * Ioan 6. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt And as touching the want of a true Communion Booke of Praier the which the Protestāts by their former excepting against al Communiō Books hitherto published do acknowledg to want the Protestants do heerin potentially grant that hitherto they haue not known how and in what manner they ought to pray which how great a spiritual detrimēt it is who seeth not since by Praier we ouercome him who is inuincible praier indeed being the mother daughter of teares by which teares seconded with the help of the Sacraments the blemishes and spots of our soules are washed out (l) Psal 50. Lauabis me super niuem dealbabor 4. The fourth It is in the former passages proued euen from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene Inuisible or rather during those tymes vtterly extinct Now this confessed disparition vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men doth necessarily inuolue in it selfe that the Protestant Church is not nor can be the true Church of God since the true Church of God must at all tymes enioy a continual vneclipsed splendour of its owne visibility I will enleauen this my Assertiō both with the authority of holy Scripture the volūtary acknowledgmēts of our learned aduersaries And not to ouercharge the Reader with a needles surplusage of many testimonies some few and those pertinent shall serue And first we thus read to be prophecyed of the Church of God (m) Isa 60 The Iles shall waite for thee their Kings shall minister vnto thee and thy gates shall be continually open neyther day nor night shall they be shut that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils And in the new Testament it is sayd of our Sauiour (n) Ephes 4. He gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of Saints c. till we all meete in the vnity of faith that is as is els where in this Treatise shewed euen by the Protestants scholia (o) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testamēt in Ephes 4 for euer Now these former diuine Oracles prouing an vninterupted visibility of the Church of God are attēded on with the like acknowledgments euen of the Protestants for Melancthon after he had alledged certaine places of Scripture in proofe of the Churches euer visibility doth thus write (p) Melancthon in lotis com edit anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia Hi similes loci c. These and such lyke places of Scripture non de Idaea Platonica sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur And D. Field accordeth therto thus saying (q) D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 10. It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vaine in prouing that there is alwayes hath beene a visible Church c. for all this we most willingly yield vnto Finally D. Humfrey thus sealeth vp the truth hereof (r) D. Humfrey in Iesuitis part 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam Conclusio est clarissima It is a manifest Conclusion that the Church is to be conspicuous or visible Now heer aboue is deliuered first that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Inuisible Secondly as proued both from the Scriptures and from our Aduersaries doctrine that the true Church of God must at all tymes be visible and conspicuous If thē you will mingle these two Ingredients togeather you shall finde that the Compound made of them will be this That the Protestants Church for want of a continuall visibility at all tymes is not the true Church of God The same deductiō of prouing the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God may be made from the confessed want of administring the word Sacraments in the sayd Church For seeing the Administration of the word Sacramēts are the essentiall Notes of the true Church in the Protestants iudgments seeing withall by their owne Confessions aboue expressed their Church hath wanted for more thē a thousand yeares togeather this so necessary Administration of the word and Sacraments it then ineuitably followeth that the Protestant Church for want of these Essētial notes of the true Church is not the true Church of God euen by their owne doctrine 5. The fifth is to obserue the aboue confessed Truth of our Catholike Religion in all the chiefest Articles euē from the Aduersaries pens This is the greatest most conuincing proofe that can be desired for heere marke what both
extinguishment of al reall positiue Articles of ChristiaÌ„ faith and Religion That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denyall of most if not all of such points of Religion wherin the Protestant by his like denyall of them differeth from the Catholike CHAP. VI. IT will not be heer I hope impertinent to shew in this place how the Heathen Philosopher coÌ„parteth in the most points for I will not say in all with the ProtestaÌ„ts in which points the Protestants do differ by their negatiue Fayth from the Catholike fayth From which being once declared it will appeare that if he Heathen Philosopher hath no true and positiue Fayth of Christian Religion who penetrateth no further then into the Nature impressed in thinges which nature is the very Art or Organ of God then may it be deseruedly called in question whether the Protestant Fayth hath a-any reality or formed being in it selfe And thus may falshood be controwled by the patrons of falshood And to exemplify this assumed taske in most of the chiefest Articles of the Protestant Negatiue Fayth The Protestant acknowledgeth not any true real Sacrifice to be in these dayes the HeatheÌ„ Philospher agrees with him therein The Protestant acknowledgeth not Freewill in man the Heathen teacheth the same by maintaining of his Stoicall fatum or destiny The Protestant denyeth Lymbus Patrum Purgatory and Inuocation of Saints The Heathen being demaunded of these points would answere they are but meer dreames or fictions The ProtestaÌ„t denyeth all merit of workes or Iustification by workes much more Euangelicall Counsells The Heathen as not knowing what these things meane disclaymes from the same The Protestant taketh away Vniuersality of grace purchased by our Sauiours passion The Heathen doth the like since he is ignorant what Grace is and reiecteth our Sauiours passion The Protestant teacheth the Impossibility of keeping the Commaundements the Heathen not acknowledging the sayd Commandements but guided only by the streame of Nature without Grace must therefore of necessity deny the possibility of obseruing them The Protestant maintaineth that Christ from his Natiuity was as man not free from all ignorance and full of all knowledge the Heathen as not belieuing in Christ must needs iustify the same The Protestant denyeth all reuerence and bowing to the name of IESVS the Heathen doth the same The Protestant denyeth that the Sacraments do conferre Grace the Heathen acknowledgeth no Sacraments and therfore no grace to be deriued to man by his participating of them To conclude the Protestant denyeth all Monachisme Vowes the necessity of Baptisme and diuers other Affirmatiue Positions aboue recited and taught by the Catholike Church Will the Heathen Philosopher think you acknowledge as true any of the sayd Catholike points Thus we see that where the ratio formalis of Protestancy consisteth in absolutely denying the Affirmatiue positions of the Catholikes this vnbelieuing Naturalist or Heathen Philosopher by his like denyall of the said points entreth into a most straite league and intercourse of Friendship with the Protestant therein And from this great conformity of negatiue Fayth between the Heathen and the Protestant it ryseth that diuers Protestants do wholy gentilize heerein granting Saluation and eternall happines to Heathens dying Heathens Thus for example we find no lesse an obscure Protestant then Swinglius to write in this sort (a) Zwing in l epist Swingl Oecolamp lib. 1. pag. 39. Ethnicus si piam mentem domi fouerit Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret And thereupon Swinglius concludeth particulerly that (b) Swing tom 2. fol. 118. 559. Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides c. are now in heauen A poynt so confessed by Swinglius that Echarius a learned Protestant thus acknowledgeth of Swinglius quod (c) In his Fasâ—iculus CoÌ„trouers printed Lipsiae an 1009. cap. 19. p. 427. Socrates Aristides Numa Camillus Hercules Scipiones Catones alij Gentiles comparticipes sint vitae eternae scribit quidem Swinglius ad Regem Galliae quem defendunt Tigurim Bullingerus Gualterus Hardenburgius c. That these named Protestants I meane I (d) Gualterus in his Apolog. p o Swiâ—g fol. 27. praefix 1. tom oper Swingl Gualterus (e) Bulling in coÌ„fes Eccles Tigurin Bullin in his preface of allowaÌ„ce to Swingl his exposition fidei ad Regem fol. 559. Bullinger (f) Simlerus in vita Bullingeri Simlerus the Tigurine Deuines did defend with Swinglius the saluauation of the Heathens dying Heathens appeareth further besides from the testimony of the forsaid Echarius euen from the references heer set downe Now where the Protestant to vindicate his profession from reproach and contumely may reply in answere heerto that seeing most of the poynts aboue rehearsed do presuppose beliefe in Christ in which beliefe the ProtestaÌ„t doth differ from the HeatheÌ„ Philosopher the Heathen not belieuing in him it therefore must of necessity follow that the Heathen Philosopher as not belieuing in Christ must therefore not belieue the former Articles which depend of the belieuing in Christ I vrge this answere is impertinent for I doe not heer insist in the reason why the Heathen Philosopher houldeth the negatiue part in the former points but I insist onely in auerring that the Protestant doth agree with the Heathen Philosopher in the denyall of the sayd points affirmed by the Catholike Neither auaileth it any thing to say that thogh the Protestant houldeth the negatiue part in the former conclusions yet that he belieueth with the Catholike in Christ that he houldeth with him there is Grace that ther are SacrameÌ„ts that there is Scripture c. though in the maÌ„ner or some other circumstance accompanying them he differeth froÌ„ the Catholike This solueth not the doubt First because we obserue that Swinglius those other Protestants aboue cited do not exact any articulate beliefe in Christ at all as necessary to saluation since we see they are not afrayd to indenize HeatheÌ„s for good Christians SecoÌ„dly in that I restraine this my Assertion of coÌ„paring the Heathen Philosopher with the Protestant only in those poynts wherein the Protestant differeth from the Catholike But in the former poynts it is certayne that the Heathen agreeth with the Protestant and the Protestant as maintayning the Negatiue differeth from the Catholike defeÌ„ding in them the Affirmatiue Againe where the Protestant agreeth with the Catholike for example that Christ is the Sauior of the world that there is Scripture Grace Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist c. these Articles in general the Protestant houldeth not as he is a ProtestaÌ„t but only as he is a Christian as in the front of this Treatise is manifested For quatenus he is a Protestant that is quatenus he is a man differing from the Catholike he euer houldeth the Negatiue And euen where he houldeth the Affirmatiue foundation in some of the sayd points as that Christ is the Sauiour of the world that there is Diuine Scripture Grace Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist c.