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
to apply this to our present purpose the obiectum adaequatum to speake in the Philosophers idiome of Protestancy is only the denial of such affirmatiue Catholike points wherin ProtestaÌ„cy differeth at this day froÌ„ the Church of Rome not in its beliefe of those few affirmatiue Articles wherein the Protestants as yet agree with the sayd Church According heerto it did fall out that in the first infancy of the late appearing faith of Protestants the first stampers thereof at their publike meeting voluÌ„tarily for their better distinguishing of themselues from the Catholikes imposed to themselues the name of Protestants and to their fayth the title of Protestancy implying by that word that they protested themselues absolutely to deny such such affirmatiue points of fayth which the Church of Rome at that tyme euer afore maintaines and affirmes For if we respect those few doctrines wherin they did agree with the Church of Rome the Protestants had no reason to vse any such terme of distinguishment seeing both sides did belieue the same Articles Therefore of necessity the word Protestancy as seruing for a character or signature of its separation from our Catholike fayth is to be restrayned to such points wherin the Protestants by their denyall of them then dissented from the Church of Rome But by this we may see how loath is Nouellisme in doctrine to impath it selfe in the beaten tract of Reuerend Antiquity or to runne in the accustomed known channel wherin the stream of Christian ReligioÌ„ in former tymes had its course And thus far of this point the conclusion being that Protestancy as Protestancy only consisteth in denyall of such affirmatiue points which the Church of Rome affirmes to be true not in belieuing with the sayd Church certayne chiefe points of Christianity aboue expressed THE II. PROLEGOMENON In such points of fayth wherein Protestancy dissenteth from the Romane Church al the said points are meerly Negations to the contrary affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Church of Rome CHAP. II. MY second Prolegomenon is to demonstrate by gradation how the ProtestaÌ„ts as aboue is intimated haue reformed or if you will refined their Religion in seuerall points of Fayth and this only by pure Negatiues to the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue Assertions of them Thus did the Protestants reforme our supposed errors with their owne true and reall errors so the (a) Luc. 18. Pharisy reproued the Publicans sinne with farre greater sinne But to dissect the particulers Luther the Prodromus of these calamitous tymes was first an acknowledged Catholike Priest as himselfe (b) So witnesseth Sleydan in li 16. fol. 232. writeth This man first begun his Reformation with a mincing hesitation trepidatioÌ„ of iudgment busied himself only with the denial of Pardons but by litle little taking greater courage he next proceedeth to the denyall of (c) Luther in captiuit Babilon tom 2. fol. 63. Papall Iurisdiction and (d) Luth. de votis Monastiâ—is in tom 2. Wittemberg Monasticall state professioÌ„ And being once fleshed in his profession he daily more more sharpining his censuring rasour cut of at one blow (e) Luth. tom 2. fol. 63. foure Sacraments He finally concluded with the denyall of the (f) Luth. de abrogaÌ„da missa priuata in tom 2. fol. 244. Masse Priesthood of seueral parts of (g) Luth praefat in epist. Iacob vide Bulling vpon the Apocalips englished cap. 1. Canonicall Scripture (h) Luth. de seruo arbitrio in tom 2. fol. 424. of freewill of Iustification of workes Thus far proceeded Luther And that the denyall of these former points did not happen at one time but by degrees appeareth in that the further he proceeded in this his denyal of Catholicke Articles the more he reputed himselfe reformed and in his later writinges he intreateth pardon of his reader for his presumed defect in his former writings he thus excusing himselfe The (i) tom 1. WitteÌ„b in praefat tom 2. fol. 63. Reader may find how many and how great things I humbly granted to the Pope in my former writings which in my later these times I hold for greatest blasphemy and abomination therfore pious Reader thou must pardon me this errour O see how pride of iudgement the Hypostasis of heresy masketh it selfe vnder the borrowed veile of religious zeale From Luthers loines immediatly descended Zuinglius Bullinger Bucer and some others But these vngrateful and disobedient Impes did not rest satisfied with their Fathers reformation but retayning it for good as far as it went proceeded much further in their NegatioÌ„s of the Articles of the Roman Religion since they denyed the Reall (k) Zuinglius tom 2. fol. 375. 416. Presence denyed (l) Zuing. tom 2. fol. 378. Purgatory and praying for the dead denyed (m) Vide Luth. in ep ad GeorgiuÌ„ Spalatinum praying to Saints denyed (n) See Whitgifts defence in the examination of places fol. penul the vse of Images finally denyed (o) Lib. intituled agaynst Symbolis part 1. c. 2. Sect. 30 crossing of ones selfe Thus farre these men made their progresse in their Negatiue Religion who conspired with their Father through their desire euer of further reformation by excepting in their later writings against their former as not being (p) See Zuingl to 2. fol. 202. vide Bucer Script Anglicana pag. 680. Negatiue inough and yet we are taught by the abortiue Apostle 1. Cor 5. that modicum fermentum totam massaÌ„ corrupit Buâ— to proceed higher for as yet the Scene of a Negatiue Reformatio leaueth not the Stage FroÌ„ these former men did spring Caluin Beza the Puritans of England Scotland Geneua which men as being presumed to be wholy spiritualized and as it were obsest with the holy Ghost such is the pride of Nouelisme made a farre more refyned and sublimated Reformation and all by Negatiues then their Predecessours had done For almost all the other Affirmatiue Catholike Articles passed vnder the fyle of their dislike And therewith they wholy denied the said articles The chiefe articles denied by these Enthysiasts to omit diuers of them for breuity are these following (q) D. Willet in his speciall booke entituled Lymbomastix most Puritanes Christs descending into hell the Headship of the Church to reside in one alone (r) Denyed by Beza Caluin Knox in whole Treatises vniuersality of grace (Å¿) Vide the Suruey of the Booke of common Prayer the power of priest-hood to remit sinnes (t) denied by Caluin as appeareth by SchlusseÌ„b in Theolog Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 60. and by D Willet in Synopsis pag. 432. Baptisme by lay persons in tyme of necessity (u) Conâ—l in his examen pag 63. 64. Ceremonies and (x) Vide Whitgifts defence pag. 259. Church apparell c. But the denyall of Beza shall serue as a Chorus to the former particuler denyalls who taking as it should seeme a
of Christ was once established is the Authority of the Church and this is called Amussis regula or the Propounder This propoundeth to her children to be belieued all those things which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued Now let vs examine whether these two points so necessary to true fayth doe accord to the fayth of Protestancy or not And first touching Prima veritas reuelans which is God I heere say that no reuelation of God touching the beliefe of things meerely Negatiue as the points of Protestancy are as afore I intimated is necessary for who will say that we cannot belieue that there are not many worlds without the speciall reuelation thereof by God Seeing we perceaue that children Heathēs and Infidels who while they continue in that their state are not capable of Gods supernaturall reuelations do not belieue that there are many worlds By the same reason then I say that no reuelatiō of God is necessary to giue assent of iudgement that there is no Purgatory no place in Hell for Children vnbaptized no inherent Iustice no praying to Saints and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatiues Now as touching the second poynt which is the Authority of the Church propounding to her Children the things by God reuealed we know that in this our age Luther was the first who denyed many Articles of Catholike Religion heer now agayne I expostulate what Church did propound to Luther that these points were to be denyed and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denyall of them It cannot be sayd the Catholike Church propoūded them to him to be denyed because the Catholike Church did then and at all tymes belieue the Affirmatiues to them as true as that there is a Purgatory that we may pray to Saints c. And to say that the Protestant Church did propound to Luther the denyall of the sayd poynts is most absurd Seeing at Luthers first bursting out and his first denying of the sayd poynts there was no Protestant but himselfe and therefore no Protestant Church then was but in being The verity of which point besides that it is heerafter prooued frō the acknowledged inuisibility of the Protestāt Church in those dayes is euicted euen from the ingenuous Cōfessions of learned Protestants for thus doth Benedictus Morgensternensis a Protestant contest of this point saying (d) Tractat de Eccles p. 145. It is ridiculous to say that any before Luther hath the purity of the Gospell And vpon this ground it is that Bucer styleth Luther (e) In lib. Apolog. of the Church part 4. c. 4. the first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine Marke you not how our Aduersaries do subtily make the tytles of the Gospell of the Apostle of the reformed doctrine c. to serue as certayne veyles or curtains to hide their bad cause frō the eyes of the ignorant Thus far to demonstrate both from the definition of Fayth set downe by S. Paul and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true fayth that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernaturall fayth is but an absolute Nullit◠of fayth That Protestancy cannot be defined and that therefore it is a Non-entity CHAP. VIII EVery thing that hath a reall Existence or Being may haue its nature explicated by the definition of it so as euery true reall thing is capable of being defyned This definition consisteth of two parts to wit of Genus and Differentia as Logick teacheth the Genus doth comprehend the Essence of the thing defined the differentia or some other Proprieties in lieu thereof doth more particulerly constitute the thing defyned and distinguisheth it from all other things for example A man is defined to be Animal rationale A liuing Creature enioying Reason Heere the word Animal demonstrates the Essence of Man Rationale doth constitute man in definition and maketh him to differ from all other sublunary Creatures Now then if Protestancy or a Protestant cannot be defyned for want of Genus and differentia then wanteth it a true Essence and is but an Intentionall notion of the mynd To defyne a Protestant in these wordes thereby to set the best glasse vpon their Religion A Protestant is a Christian who belieueth the Articles of Fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture This indeed is a specious definition seruing only to lay some fayre colors vpon the rugged grayne of Protestancy and but to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant But withall this definition is most false for seueral reasons First because though a Protestant be a Christian yet quatenus he is a Protestant the word Christian is not genus to him as aboue is said for the word quatenus implying a reduplicatiue formality hath reference not to the Genus in a definition but only to the differentia as aboue is noted For the word Protestant as is formerly declared is a word only of distinction thereby to make him differ from the Catholike but in the word Christian they both accord and agree Agayne euery different Sect or Heresy will mantaine with as great venditation confidēcy as the Protestant doth that its Religion or Heresy is agreable to the true sense of the Scripture will vye with the Protestant text for text of Scripture by detortiō of it for the supporting of its heresy as we find by the exāple of the Ariās Eutichians Pelagians the rest who euer fraught their pestiferous writings with an aboūdāce of scripturall authorities And the like course doe our later Heretikes also take to wit the Brownists the Family of loue and the Anti-trinitarians so true is that sentence of old Vincensius Lyrinensis (a) Contra haeres Si quis interrogat quem piam Haereticorum vnde probas vnde doces hoc statim ille Scriptum est enim Thus we see that those wordes to wit who belieueth the Articles of fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture supplying the place of differentia in the former definition may be applyed to all sects indifferently if their owne Interpretation of Scripture may take place aswell as to the Protestant And therefore as being of too great an extent it doth not distinguish a Protestant from any other Sectary yet the nature of a true definition requireth that the definition and the thing defined should be of an equal expansion and largenes that is that the definition and the thing defined should conuertibly be affirmed the one of the other Lastly I say that this former definition of a Protestant or Protestancy is but a meer Paralogisme or Sophisme called Petitio Principij being but a poore and needy begging of the thing as proued which still remaynes in controuersy For I eternally deny that Protestancy is according to the true sense of Scripture And this denyall our learned Catholike deuines haue sufficiently iustifyed and made good in their writings against the Protestant Now then this former definition being deseruedly exploded
Ibid. p. â—60 It is great probability with them meaning with the Catholikes that so we make our selues answerable to fynd out a distinct and seuerall Church from the Apostles age till this present els needs we must acknowledge that our Church is sprung of late or since theirs Thus these Protestants for the vphoulding of their own Church are forced to teach that the Catholike Church the Protestant are but one and the same Church Now if any Protestant seeking to redeeme his Church from such dangers as are in this Treatise threatned to fall vpon it as besides Inuisibility and want of Succession of Pastours the blemish of being an Irreality and Non-entity c. should for his last despairing refuge answere with the former Authours that the Protestant Church and the Roman Church are but one that seeing the Roman Church hath euer beene in being and Visible that therefore the Protestant Church as being the same Church with the Roman is heerby freed from all those spots and blemishes of Inuisibility want of Succession Irreality want of true subsistence c. heer in this Treatise aboue inforced Therefore to preuent all such poore and needy tergiuersatioÌ„ for falshood would gladly shroud it selfe vnder the wings of truth I will heer discouer the absurdity of this their supposall by demoÌ„strating that the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church cannot be one and the same Church so certaine it is that there is no CoÌ„munion betweene Christ and Beliall And first If we take into our consideration what it is which maketh the true Church for speaking of the Church of God we must needs vnderstand thereby the true Church seeing God hath no false Church for that sentence of S. Cyprian Cyprian lib. de Vâ—ita â— Eccles is true adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est pudica To this is replyed that men professing the truth of Christian Religion make this Church Well then if so it can be proued that the Catholikes and the ProtestaÌ„ts do maintaine such contrary Articles of fayth as that of necessity the one part must be false consequeÌ„tly not to be belieued by the Members of Christs Church theÌ„ followeth it that these different Professours of them I meane the Catholikes and the Protestants cannot make One and the same Church And to come to this point though such disparity of fayth hath beene proued to be eueÌ„ among the Protestants themselues aboue in this Treatise But if one Protestant thinke another Protestant to be for his supposed false fayth no member of Christs Church but an Heretike then with much more reason we may pronounce the same betweene the Catholike and the Protestant Now this poynt taketh its more euident demonstration of proofe from this one consideration to wit that the Catholike and the Protestant doe not belieue one the same Creed If then they both do not belieue one and the same Creed and yet the Creed is but an abstract or Compendium of the true fayth of christ can it be possibly coÌ„ceaued that the Catholicke and Protestant doe make one and the same Church But to descend to the Creed It is true that the Protestant Catholike doe in words recite one and the same Creed but seeing it is the intended sense of the holy Ghost in euery Article thereof and not the words which make the Creed it followeth that if the Catholike and Protestant doe belieue the sayd Articles of the Creed in a different or rather contrary sense that then they doe not belieue the Creed for to belieue the Creed in a false sense is not to belieue it all The Creed in this respect iustly challenging to it selfe that priuiledge which the holy Scripture doth of which S. Ierome thus writeth g S. Ierome in epist. ad Paulinâ—eâ—a Scripturae non in legendo sed in intelligendo consistunt That this they doe I wil exemplify in some Articles threof And to beginne with that first Article I belieue in God The Catholike belieues that his God no way formally cooperates with man to sin the Protestant belieues that his God (h) Beza in his display of Popish Preachers pag. â—02 Swingl tom 1 de prouident c. 6. fol. 365. Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 18. cooperateth forceth and impelleth a man to sinne as is aboue in this Treatise shewed The Catholike belieues that God wil not punish man for the not obseruing of such precepts which are not in mans power to obserue the Protestant belieues that it is not in our power to keepe the Ten Commandements and yet withall belieues that (i) D. Reynolds in his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference p. 697. God will punish man with euerlasting Torments for his not keeping of the sayd Ten Commandements Briefly the Catholike belieues that his God giues sufficient grace to all men that they may be saued The Protestants God decreeth diuers men without any respect or preuision of their workes to eternall damnation for thus Caluin writeth (k) Caluin Instit l. 3. c. â—2 See Willet Synops p. 554. affirming the same God doth ordayne by his Counsell that amoÌ„g men some be borne to eternall damnation from their nothers wombe Touching the Article of Iudging the quicke and the dead The Catholike belieues that Christ at his comming to IudgmeÌ„t will so iudge man as that his good workes receauing their force and vertue from Christs passion shal be rewarded The Protestant belieues that (l) Calu. in Antid Concil Trident. Kemnitius in Exam. Concil Trident. Christ will reward only a bare naked faith Touching that I belieue the Catholike Church The Catholike belieues this Church to be a society of men professing the present Romane fayth of which some are predestinated others reprobated The (m) Confess August art 7. Luth l. de Concil Eccles Calu. l 4. Instit Protestant belieues that his Church consisteth only of the Elect and faythfull and not of other sorts of men Touching the Article of the Communion of Saints The Catholike doth belieue such a Communion to be between the soules in heauen the soules in Purgatory and men liuing in this world as that the soules in Purgatory may be holpen by the praiers of the liuing the liuing may be holpen by the intercessioÌ„ of the Saints in heauen The Protestant denyeth (n) Brennus in Confess VVittenb c. de Purgat Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 5. sect 6. al such Communion betweene these seuerall parts of the Church Concerning the Article of forgiuenes of sinnes The Catholike belieues that actuall sinnes are forgiuen by the Sacrament of Pennance and that thereby the soule of man becommeth truly Iust in the sight of God obtayning by this meanes a true and Inherent Iustice The Protestant acknowledgeth not any Sacrament of Pennance neyther doth he acknowledge any reall and (o) Calu. l. 3. Instit c 12. Kemnit â—n Exam. Concil Trident. Inherent Iustice in man but only an imputatiue Iustice
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
the soules of those old condemned men thus to consociate with certaine old branded anathematized Heretikes by borrowing their priuatiue and negatiue fayth and religion from them thereupon to dispart and diuide themselues from all communion in fayth with the Orthodoxall Fathers of those pure and primitiue tymes who euer in the former Articles set downe in this Chapter and in all others did hould the Affirmatiue part to the others Negatiue so foule a scarre herby resteth vpon the face of our Aduersaries reputation and honour Now that these former men were recorded for heretikes for their denyall of the aboue cyted Catholike Articles and their denyals taken for heresies and that the such recording of them was warranted with the full consent of the whole Church of God in those tymes appeareth from this one consideration to wit those Fathers writers which did record the former men for heretikes their negations for heresies were Epiphanius S. Ierome S. Austin Theodoret Eusebius and some such others diuers of which Fathers made certayne Bookes and styled them de Haeresibus And in these their books they registred the former men for Heretikes their Negatiue doctrines for Heresies Now all these Fathers and writers were learned godly men their learning then would assure them what opinions were Heresies in those tymes and what were not Their Piety and Holynes would not suffer them to wrong any man with the hateful brand of Heretike or his doctrine with the foule title of Heresy except both the men and their doctrines deserued such a seuere Censure And it cannot be answered in reply heerto that the Catholike Church of God in those Primitiue tymes did euer taxe or reprehend any of the former Fathers for ranging that man among Heretikes or his doctrines among Heresies which were not taken for such by the whole and vnanimous iudgement of the then Church of God Thus far to demonstrate that seeing Heresy in its owne nature is but a Priuation and euery Priuation is a Non Ens that therefore Protestancy as being ingendred of the ancient exploded Heresies is a Non-entity That there are diuers positions of Protestancy which besides that they are implicitely but negations of the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue doctrines are in their owne nature meerly voyde of all reality of Being CHAP. XI IN this place we will take into our consideration diuers Articles of the Protestants Fayth in the true examining of which we shall finde that not only as being but meer negatiues to our affirmatiue Catholike Articles they haue no reall Existency or being but also as they are to be considered in their owne particuler natures And first may occurre their Tenet of the Priuate reuealing or interpreting Spirit which though in termes it beareth the show of an Affirmatiue position yet truly it is nothing els then the denyall negaiion of the infallibility of the whole Church of God in matters of fayth This Spirit comprehendeth in the amplitude largenes of its owne Orbe most of the seueral passages of Protestancy Now to examine the Essence and nature of this Spirit exercised chiefly in interpreting of Scripture if such an imaginary conceit could haue an Essence or nature as indeed it cannot we find that this Spirit is a meer Phantasy of ech particuler mans giddy head-peece For if it were certayne and infallible and so it must be if it proceed from the holy Ghost how then commeth it to passe that seuerall priuate spirits of the Protestants do interprete one and the same Text of Scripture in different and sometymes meere contrary senses and constructions This point is demonstrated to pretermit infinite other passages of Scripture in the exposition of those few words vttered by our Sauiour Math. 26. Luc 22. Marc. 14. Hoc est corpus meum Hic est sanguis meus As also in that Article of our Creed Descendit ad inferos We find both these passages to haue receaued seuerall constructions by the Protestants and from such their different constructions are sprung vp different sects of Protestancy as the Lutherans the Caluinists the more moderate Protestant c. Agayne to omit diuers other choaking reasons to prooue this Spirit to be a meer phantasy of the brayne ingendred of Pride and Ignorance and to haue no reality or true Being in it selfe how can this priuate Spirit be infallible to which euery Heretike with equall interest thereto coueteth chiefly to repaire as to his strongest Sanctuary as we see by the experience of ancient and moderne tymes they do For did not the (a) teste Epiphan haeres 69. Ioan â—â— 18. Ioan. 6. Arians (b) Ioan. 1. Ioan 2. Eutichians the (c) Philip. 2. Hebr. 7 Nestorians the rest euer labour by the help of their owne Spirits differerently interpreting the Scripture to maÌ„tayne their different blasphemyes and heresies And do not the Anti-Trinitarians the Brownists the Family of loue and diuers such others the like in these our tymes So little reason therefore had D. VVhitakers to beautify this erroneous Priuate Spirit with his gilded description in these words (d) In controuers 1. q. 5. cap. 3 11. An inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the secret closet of the belieuers heart and repugnant is this his delineation to the words of sacred Scripture (e) 2. Pet. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation And agayne (f) 1. Iohn cap. 4. early beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits if they be of God The second may be the (g) Luth. in art 10.11 12. Melancth in locis tit de fide Caluin in Antitdot Concil Trident. sess 6. Protestants doctrine of Imputatiue Iustice in vs being but a negation and denyall of the Catholike doctrine of Inherent Iustice vpon which doctrine the Protestant more easily relyes since his owne soule euen dead-aliue as being organized with a liuing body but a dead will is loth to practise any good workes Now this Imputatiue Iustice is in it selfe a meer Ens rationis as hauing contrary to the Nature of all diuine Vertues and to all reall and true qualities no true Existency or Inherency in our Soule as the Protestants do confesse it being only a naked application of Christs Iustice to vs wherby our sins are palliated and couered Againe if a man be iust wheÌ„ he beginneth to belieue that he is iust then is he not iustifyed by that by the which he belieueth he is iust seeing his fayth is later then his Iustice And if he be vniust at what tyme he belieueth he is iust then is his fayth false consequently no supernaturall or diuine fayth but a meer fiction of this supposed iust man so vnreall imaginary a conceite we see is this Imputatiue Iustice and indeed to mantaine it is as absurd as to mantaine that the sonne can precede in priority of being his Father or the effect the cause for thogh in all other things the truth
Eccles Pol. p. 128 Touching the maine poynts of Christian fayth wherein they constantly persist we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus-Christ D. VVhitgift (z) In his Answere to the Admonition p. 40 The Papists belieue the same Articles of fayth which we do For breuity D. VVhite shall conclude this poynt saying (a) In defence of the way cap. 38. In the substātiall Articles of fayth we agree with the Papists Now by these Testimonies and confessions we see most differently from their former writings that Papists are members of the true Church and consequently in our aduersaries censure of the Protestant Church and that the articles of Papistry are but the fayth and doctrine of Protestancy In the next place according to the Methode aboue come in the Anabaptists Anabaptists whom the Protestāts admit to be of their Church and their doctrine no way preiudiciall to their owne doctrine of Protestancy For first of this point Oecolampadius thus writeth (b) Lib. 2. Epist pag. 363. Baptisme is an externall thing which by the law of Charity may be dispenced withall And (c) Controu 4 9. cap. 2. p. 716. VVhitakers iudgment is that we may abstaine from Baptisme so there be no contempt or scandall following Finally D. Morton thus brotherly acknowledgeth the Anabaptists (d) In his Answere to the Protestāts Apology lib. 4. ca. 2. sect 10 VVe Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists not to be vtterly desperate Touching the Arians M. Hooker telleth vs in these wordes (e) Eccles Pol. lib. 4. pag. 181. The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland c. he heerby insinuating that those Protestant Churches in Poland did acknowledge the Arians Arians as mēbers of their Church though I fully presume that M. Hooker himselfe was of a far different opinion And M. Morton peremptorily maintaineth that his Protestant Church is one and the same with the Church of the Arians and giueth his reason thereof in these words (f) In his booke of the Kingdome of Israel the Church pag. 94. Because the Ariās hold the foundation of the Gospell They further proceede incorporate within the Protestant Church euen Idolaters Idolaters For M. Hooker thus affirmeth (g) Eccles Polic. l. 3. pag. 126. Christians by externall profession they are all whose marke of recognizance hath in it those thinges which we haue mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Heretykes persons excommunicable And this poynt receaueth its further proofe from the Protestāts comportement toward the Catholikes For we well know that the Protestants at other tymes both by writing and in their Sermons with most tragicall Exclamations charge the Catholikes with Idolatry cōmitted in their adoring our Sauiour Christ in the most blessed Eucharist and in their worship exbited to Images and Relikes And yet aboue we see the Protestants teach that the Protestant and Catholike Church are but one the same Church Now if the Papists be members of the Protestant Church that they be Idolaters as the Protestāts do dreame thē are Idolaters members of the Protestant Church But the Protestant doth not limit his Church with in these former Cancells or bounds for he also comparteth and interleageth euen with the Infidels Infidels admitting them to be members of his owne Church teaching that they be capable of saluation For (h) Act. Mon. pag. 495. M. Fox relateth of a Protestāt Martyr by him for learning and vertue much magnified who thus taught A Turke Saracene or any Mahometan whatsoeuer may be saued if he trust in one God and keep his law And (i) Bale Cent. 6. p. 404. Bale warnes vs to be wary that we condemne not rashly any Turke But this poynt is further most amply taught by Swinglius and other Protestāt deuines as aboue in the sixt chapter of this Treatise is manifested to which passage for greater expedition I referre the studious Reader But what hath Protestācy yet receaued its due circumscription as I may say and confinement No for the Protestants charity is so great and immense Antichrist as that they are content to admit and indenize euen him whome they mantaine by their own writings to be the true Antichrist for a member of the Protestant Church O most strange Church cōsisting of such Heterogeneous members That this is so I thus prooue The Protestants I meane the greatest part of them confidently teach that the Pope is the true Antichrist deciphered in the holy Scripture Now marke what Protestants neuertheles confesse in this poynt D. Whitakers thus writeth (k) D. Whit. in his Answere to the first demonstration of D. Sāders I will not say that from the tyme that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all dāned And yet the sayd D. Whitakers elswhere (l) D. Whit. in his answere to the last demonstration of D. Sāders auerreth most cōfidently the Pope to be Antichrist I will adioyne heerto the like charitable censure of M. Powell who taught the Pope to be Antichrist and yet thus writeth (m) M. Powel de Antichristo cap. 33. p. 338. I will in no wise say that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was first reuealed to be Antichristianity are damned Thus far of what persons are truly acknowledged by the iudgement of the Protestants for members of their owne Church But Musculus the Protestant is more lauish herein and proceedeth yet one step further by enlarging the Protestant Church his wordes are these (n) Musculus in loco com de coena p. 552. I imbrace all for brethren in the Lord howsoeuer they disagree frō me or amongst themselues as long as they mantayne not the Popish Impiety O most Serpentine and diuelish rancour and malice Thus far of this Subiect in generall But now to reflect vpon the premises and to draw from thence an vnauoydable deduction If so then on the one syde euery Fayth Religion and Church are to haue knowne explayned as their chiefe and first Theoreme what doctrines concurre to the making vp of the same fayth and Religion and what kind of men are the mēbers of the said Church and if this be not first known that then it followeth that such a faith or Church is but meerely Intentionall and Irreall And if on the other part Protestancy and the Protestant Church be so irresolute deuided and distracted in iudgment a necessary Attendant of Errour and falshood that at one tyme they will wholy exterminate from their fayth and Church the Papists the Anabaptists the Arians Heretikes in generall and Schismatikes and at another tyme or perhaps at the same time by the same Protestants wil incorporate and admit into the fellowship of their Religion and Church not only the sayd Papists Anabaptists Arians Heretikes Schismatikes but also supposed Idolaters Infidels Antichrist and euery one who in any sort impugne the Church of Rome if all
Innouations thus appeares First because euery one of them taught but one or two points for the most part of Protestancy belieuing al other points of fayth with the then Roman Catholik Church for if they had maintained any other Positions of Protestancy then those with which they are charged at this day then would S. Austin Epiphanius Ierome and other orthodoxall Fathers of those tymes all which Fathers (q) Luth. lib. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 1551 pag. 454. Luther and other (r) The Archbishop of Canterbury in his defence of the Answere to the admonition pag. 472. 473. D. Hunfrey invita Iewâ—lli printed at London pag. 212. D. Whitakers contra Duraum lib. 6. p. 413. most eminent Protestants hould for absolute and grosse Papists as they terme them haue as well registred their other supposed Articles of Protestancy for Heresies as well as they haue recorded these few of which all sides confesse they stand rightly charged But no such Relation of any other points of Protestancy in theÌ„ do we find in the Fathers writings or otherwise recorded in any Ecclesiasticall History of those tymes Secondly the same is euident euen from the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those dayes and sortably heerto it is that Sebastianus Francus an eminent Protestant thus writeth (s) In Ep. de abrogaÌ„dis in vniuersuÌ„ omnibus statutis Ecclesiast For certayne through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the fayth and sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure and that for these fourteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene externall and visible To whose iudgement agreeth D. Fulke saying (t) In his answere to a couÌ„tefaite Catholik pag. 35. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles dayes Within which circuite of tyme of the Protestant Churches Inuisibility Aerius Manicheus Iouinian and the rest did liue Thus we see that not any one ProtestaÌ„t before the reuolt of Luther can be instaÌ„ced but that it may be shewed that the same man was primatiuely a Catholike eyther in himselfe or in his Predecessours But the case is farre otherwise with the Catholike Church for it is confessed by our learned Protestants that our Catholike Church neuer departed or came out of any other more auncient Church afore in Being A truth so vndenyable that D. Sutcliffe confesseth so much though sleighting the force therof in these wordes (u) In his answere to the supplication fol. 2 It is not materiall that the Romanists neuer went out of any knowne Christian Society But M. Bunny dealeth more ingenuously and plainely heerin who thus writeth touching the departing of the Protestant Church from out the Catholike (x) In his pacificacion pag. 119. p. 26. It was euill done of them who first vrged such a separation for that it is great probability for them meaning the Catholiks that so we make our selâ— answerable to find out a distinct seuerall Church from them which hatâ— continued from the Apostles age tâ— this present or els must acknowledge 〈◊〉 that our Church hath sprung vp oâ— late or since theirs so fully this Protestant granteth that the Roman Church did neuer depart or go out from a more ancient Church But now to wind vp the conteÌ„ts of this Chapter in few wordes thus I inferre If on the one syde it be proued that euery Protestanâ— did originally come out and depart by his venting of Protestanticall Positions from our Catholike Church afore enioying a Priority of Being and that on the other side it be confessed that our Roman Church neuer departed froÌ„ out any more ancient Church afore in Being both which points are in this Chapter aboue proued what other Inference then can be made but that Protestancy as being later in tyme and meerely contradictory to our Catholicke fayth wanteth all true Entity and Subsistence for seeing the Catholike fayth for many hundred of yeares confessedly had its being afore and seeing the Protestant Fayth is but a meere Contradiction of the Catholike fayth the Protestant fayth therefore hath no Reality of Being since Contradictories cannot subsist together or enioy seuerall Beings Thus farre of this poynt where besides that the Non-Entity of Protestancy is from hence necessarily euicted the Contents of this Chapter minister a must choaking demonstration for the proofe of the Catholike Religion in generall seeing God is more ancient then the Diuell and Truth then falshood That the Protestant denyes the Authorities of all those Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads from whence the Catholikes draw their proofes CHAP. XVII THough this Chapter doth not immediatly conduce to the prouing that Protestancy is a Non-Entity yet I hold it not altogether to be Parergon or impertinent since in it it is layd open how the Protestant still continewes the Protestant that is how he is wholy deuoted and as it were become thrall to Negations â—n diuers of the former passages it is shewed that the Protestant in reference to his fayth resteth onely vpon Negations Now heer it shall appeare that whereas the Catholike drawes out his proofes in defeÌ„ce of his Religion as so many great pieces of Artillery to batter downe the walles of Nouelisme from certaine Affirmatiue reall Positiue heads the Protestant in lieu of withstanding these forces by dispute is constrayned to retire himselfe to his accustomed sanctuary of Negations so fugitiue and fleeting he is in answers thus betrampling with a bare denying the weight strength of all those Affirmatiue Classes or kinds of proofes 1. For example if the Catholike insist in the Authority of Miracles and so to descend by degrees to other Proofes for defence of his Religion in the patratioÌ„ wherof God for his approbatioÌ„ of the sayd Religion euen disiointeth the setled frame of Nature The Protestants in answere heerto deny the force of miracles tearming theÌ„ but (a) So the Centurists call them Cent 4. col 1445. Cent. 5. Col. 1486. And Osiander Cent. 10. 11. 12. c. Antichristian wonders lying signes and further saying that they deny (b) So sayth D. Morton in his Apolog Cathol part 1 l. 2 c. 25. and D. Succliffe in his Examinat of the Suruey of D. Kellison that any miracles were wrought since the Apostles dayes 2. If the Catholike alledge diuers passages of Scripture as out of Toby the booke of wisedome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees c. The ProtestaÌ„ts with full voyce cry deny these bookes to be (c) This appeareth in that in the English Translations of their Bibles they vsually in the beginning of a leafe contayning the names of the bookes of Scripture do call these bookes and some other Apocrypha Canonicall Scripture stile them only Apocryphall 3. If healledge such parts of Scripture which are acknowledged for Scripture on all sydes the ProtestaÌ„t denyes the TraÌ„slation of the said Scripture to be true and sincere auerring that it is adulterated corrupted by false versions of it This
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
not being content to seeke to depriue another of his state and liuing should no lesse labour with all sedulity and care to preclude and forstaule the true owner of all meanes for his regayning and recouering his sayd state That Sundry of the most 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. XVIII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1) Id est Secundae cogitationes prudentiores sayth the greek senteÌ„ce to which may well seeme to allude in sense though not in wordes that other saying (2) Praestat retrosum currere quam male currere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of which two sentences diuers of our learned Aduersaries haue thought good to incorporate in their owne writings Who vpon their later more retired thoughts and houlding it a greater honour rather to returne well backe in their iudgements then to proceed badly forward haue wholy disclaimed from this their Negatiue fayth For many of theÌ„ there are who well weighing the emptines of their owne Religion as consisting onely of Positions which is as is aboue made cleare but an annihilation of all Positiue and true Fayth counting it altogether vnworthy that such a nakednes of ReligioÌ„ should for euer haue a working influence ouer their iudgments haue therfore at the length vpon their laâ—er more mature deliberation â—n diuers weighty points wholy reâ—ected this Negatiue Religion and â—n place thereof haue fully imbraâ—ed and entertayned the contrary Affirmatiue Articles of fayth euer maÌ„tained by the Church of Rome â— will insist in twenty principall Articles of our Catholike ReligioÌ„ and consequently almost in the whole body of the Catholik faith â—o which the more graue imparâ—iall and dispassionate Protestants doe giue their full assent belieuing them be most true and comâ—onant to Gods sacred word To â—et downe the Protestants owne wordes in proofe heerof it would be needlesse and ouer-laboursome in regard both of the multiplicity of the Protestant Authours affirming so much as also of the great variety of the Affirmatiue Catholikâ— Articles mantayned by theÌ„ Therfore to take a shorter cut I will seâ— downe only by way of Reference the places in the Protestants bookes in which the sayd Catholike doctrines are by them fully taught and defended 1. And to beginne The doctrine of the Reall presence in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to the bodily mouth is affirmed not only by Luther but by all the Lutheranes without exception they taking their name of Lutheranes from him in regard of such their defence and beliefe of the sayd doctrine therefore it is booteles eyther to set downe the particular names of them or to make reference to such places of their writings wherein they teach and iustify the sayd doctrine they chiefly differing from the Catholike in the manner of the Presence 2. The Reall Presence not only of the efficacy vertue of Christs body but also of the body it selfe after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of fayth is iustifyed by (a) Inâ—tit lib. 4 d 18. sect 7. 32. Caluin by (b) In his Eccesiast policy l. 5. sect 67 pag. 174. 177. M. Hooker by (c) Contra Duraeum pag. 169. D. VVhitakers by (d) In Script Anglican pag. 548. 549. Bucer by (e) In his â—riedly caueat in the third leaf M. Ryder and finally by the (f) In the English Harmony pag. 431. ConfessioÌ„ of Belgia but contradicted for Popish doctrine by Swinglius and almost all other Sacramentaries and particulerly by Ludouicus Alemannus who thus writeth Neque etiam per fidem seu incomprehensibili modo vt vocant quia hoc totum imaginarium repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo 3. That Sacraments doe not only signify but conferre Grace where a true disposition is in the Receauers is mantayned by (g) In epi-tom Colloq Montis-Beigar p. 5â— pag. 42. Iacobus Andreas (h) Contaa Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. D. VVhitakers (i) In his true difference part 4. p. 539. D. Bilson by (k) In Enchirid CoÌ„trouers quas Aug. Confesâ—huâ—eâ— cum Caluinianis p. 272. Osiander (l) In his Ecclesiast policy l. 5 sect 57. p. 127. 128. M. Hooker and finally by (m) In ca. 4. epist ad Romanos Melancthon who thus writeth of this poynt Repudiandaest Swinglij opinio qui tantùm ciuili modo iudicat de signis scilicet Sacramenta tantùm notas esse professionis c. 4. That Christ after his passion descended in soule into Hell is affirmed by (n) In his speciall Treatise of that title printed 1592. D. Hill by (o) Alledged by D. Hill vbi supra Aretius Melancthon and M. Nowell they being alledged by D. Hill to the same purpose Add heerto that Lymbus Patrum whereunto we Catholikes belieue that Christ did descend in soule after his death is affirmed by (p) In Lib. Epist Swingl Oecolamp l. 1. p. 19. Oecolampadius (q) In lib. ep Swingl Oecolamp l. 3. p. 590. 561. Swinglius (r) In his com places in Engl. part 2. cap. 18. pag. 221. Peter Martyr and (s) In his Decads fol. Bullinger 5. Purgatory is taught by (t) Tom. 1. VVittenb in resolut de Indulg Conclus 15. fol. 112. Luther in disputat Lypsicacum Eckio and by (u) M. Fox Acts Mon. p. 1313. Latimer That temporall punishment is reserued by God to satisfy his Iustice for sinne already coÌ„mitted which is the ground of Purgatory is taught by diuers Protestants to wit by the Publike (x) pag. 229. Confessios in the Harmony by (y) In Symbolum p 8. Iaspar Oleuianus by (z) In his Answere against the Aduersaries of Gods praedestination pa. 215. 216. 217. Iohn Knox. 6. The visibility of the Church at al tymes is affirmed by (a) In lâ—c â—â—m â—dit 1561 C. â—el â—eâ—â—s Melancthon by (b) In Iesuit sin part 2 â—a 3 p. 240. D. Humfrey (c) 〈◊〉 of the Church c. 10 pag. 5. D. Field (d) 〈◊〉 his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Englâ— p 15â— Peter Martyr (e) In his soâ—eraigne Remedy against Schiâ—me p. â—â— Enoch Clapham and diuers other learned Protestants for breuity heer omitted though contradicted for Popish by (f) In the tower dâ—â—putat with Edmund CaÌ„pian the secoÌ„d dayes Conscience D. Fulke (g) In his Synops p. 4â— D. VVillet and many others 7. Inuocation of Saints maintayned by (h) Luth. n purgat quorundam Art Luther who thus writeth hereof De intercessione Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia sentio iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque inuocandos vy certayne Protestants (i) Of this see Hafferenferus in locis Theolog l. 3. stat 4. loc 5. p 463. in Polonia by (k) Vide Fox Act. Mon. 462. Thomas Bilney by (l) Act. Mon. pa.
the Fathers and the Protestants speake of this kind of proofe First then Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. thus writeth heerof It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues With whome conspires S. Austin lib. contra Donatistas cap. 24. saying the truth is more forcible to wring out Confession then any racke or torment To both which Fathers D. VVhitaker contra Bellar. l. de Eccles controuers 2. q. 5. c. 14 subscribes in these wordes The ArgumeÌ„t must be strong and efficacious which is taken from the Confession of the Aduersaries And I doe freely acknowledge that the truth is able to extort testimonies euen froÌ„ its enemyes Thus D. VVhitaker Now that these Protestants maintaining our former Catholike Articles were persuaded that the sayd Catholike points receaued their warranted proofe from the sacred Scripture appeareth euideÌ„tly from this one Consideration to wit because all the former alledged Protestants some foure or fiue only excepted do wholy reiect the doctrine of Traditions confidently vnanimously teaching that nothing is to be belieued as an Article of Fayth but what hath its expresse warrant and authority from the written word of God 6. The last resultancy is that the many Negatiue Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in Iudaisme Turcisme and an vtter abnegation of Christian Religion The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my Assertion for diuers of them neuer stayed in the endles progresse of refyning their Religion by Negations till at the close of all they denyed all Articles of Christian Religion and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity therupon apostating from Christianity they became most blasphemous Iewes or Turkes so true it is that Turcisme and Iudaisme is the last colour dye or tincture that Protestancy taketh Some few Examples heereof among many I will in this place retaile And first Dauid George who was a markable Protestant and once Professour at (s) OsiÌ„ad Cont. 1â— part 2. p 641. saith of Dauid Geoâ—ge vtebatur publiâ—o verbi Ministerâ—o Basiliensi Basill did after many Negations wholy deny the Christian Faith became a diuellish (t) See Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp 1568. published by the Diuines of Basill Apostata Againe Andreas Volanus an eminent Caluinist not only became a Turke but corrupted diuers others with his pestileÌ„t writings (u) In Paâ—anesi agaynst the B. Trinity Ochinus also who with Peter Martyr first planted Protestancy by his denying of many Articles of our Catholike Religion heer in England in King Edward the sixt his dayes did finally become a Iew. This is witnessed by (x) In his booke de tribus Elohim Zanchius (y) In Theolog Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 9. Conradus Slusselburge two Protestants and (z) Beza in Poligaâ— pag. 4. Beza who tearmeth Ochinus impurus Apostata Laelius Socinus once brought vp in the schoole of Geneua forsook his Christianity and did write a booke against the B. Trinity of whome Beza thus speaketh (a) Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81. Mihi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse In like sort AlamaÌ„nus a Swinglian and once deare to (b) So witnesseth Conrad Slusselb in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art 2. Beza in the end denyed the Christian faith became a Iew of whome Beza thus coÌ„plaineth A lamannum affirmant ad IudaismuÌ„ defecisse Lastly Neuserus who was chiefe Pastour of Heidelberge in the Palatinate in the end abnegated all Christian Religion and becomming a Turke caused himselfe to be circumcised at Constantinople as (d) OsiaÌ„der Cent. 16. part 2. p. 818. Osiander the ProtestaÌ„t doth witnesse thus writing of him Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis c. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantinopoli circumcisus But I will close vp this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus who thus writeth of himselfe and of other Caluinists denying the Blessed Trinity (e) OsiaÌ„der relateth that Neuserus did write these words froÌ„ Constantinople being there circumcised to one Gerlachius a Protestat Preacher at Tubinga vid. Osiander in epitom Cent. 16. pag. 209. None is known in our times to be made an Arian but an Arian is not much inferiour to a Turke or Iew who was not a Caluinist as Seruetus BlaÌ„drata Paulus Alchiamus Gentilis Gebraldus Siluanus and others therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme Thus Neuserus And thus farre of these former Porismata and concerning this last we heere see how the many small riuers as I may terme theÌ„ of our Negatiue Reformations neuer cease running till in the end they all disgorge themselues into the mayne Ocean of Apostasy and Infidelity So certayne it is that a Caluinist being lastly sublimated and refyned by Negations becommeth an Arian Turke or Iew. 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 CHAP. XX. SVch is the refractory coÌ„tumacy of Innouation of fayth that when it is driuen to the greatest straytes by way of dispute yet before it will acknowledge its owne Errours it will labour to take saÌ„ctuary though in the middest of its own enemies According heerto we finde that when the Protestants are irrepliably and most dangerously pressed with the Inuisibility or want of succession of Pastours in their Church that for such want their Church cannot be true Church of God They then as being depriued of all other euading meanes are content out of the immensenesse forsooth of their owne good will but indeed for the better supporting of their Church to acknowledg that the Protestant Church and the Catholikes are both but one and the same Church But do the Catholikes accept of this their kindnes No (a) Virg. Aenead Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Their Calumny heer resteth in that without such their Tenet their own Church euideÌ„tly appeareth to come to vtter ruine dissolution The truth of this poynt is so cleare as that M. Hooker thus writeth hereof (b) lib. 3. Eccles Pol. p. 130 VVe gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of Iesus-Christ And D. Couell (c) D. Couell in defence of Hooker I cannot but wonder that they of Rome will aske where our Church was before Luther As if any were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church But M. Bunny no vulgar Protestant dismasketh himselfe more openly touching this point withall sheweth the reason why himselfe and his brethreÌ„ so greedily begge this so much desired reconciliation for thus he writeth (d) Bunny an his Treatise VVe are no seueral Church from them nor they from vs c. All the diffirence betweene vs is concerning the truer members And againe (e) Ibid. pag. 109. It was euill done of them who first vrged such a separation And then after he giueth his reason in these playne wordes (f)
this I say be true as is prooued to be in this Chapter what other inferēce can be made but that Protestancy and the Protestant Church for want of knowing and acknowledging what doctrines are Protestancy and what sorts of men are Protestants are in themselues but meer empty aëry conceyts and for want of all true and reall subsistence but a Non-Entity 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. XVI AN other Medium to proue that Protestancy is a meer Irreality or Non-Entity may be this Yf it can be proued that Protestancy is more late yong then the Catholike Religion is then followeth it that Protestancy cannot haue any true and reall Subsistence Fot if our Catholike Roman Religion had a being before Protestancy and that Protestancy did appeare long after and consisteth only in the denyall of most of the Articles of the Catholike Religion then followeth it vnauoydably that Protestancy is but an imaginary Conceyte or Fabricke of the imagination without any foundation of Being for seing the Catholike Fayth the Protestant Faith are directly contradictory oppositly repugnāt both of them cannot enioy a reall Being for if they could thē meer Contradictories this is denyed that it can be performed euen by Gods Power should enioy a true and Reall Being togeather Now that Protestancy is more late or of a newer date then the Roman Religion I thus proue There cannot any one Protestāt be alledged speaking of such Protestants as are out of Cōtrouersy and acknowledged for such both by Protestant and Catholike who was not eyther in himselfe or in his Forefathers first a Catholike who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions afore neuer generally taught did separate himselfe depart from the Cath. Church then afore in Being Of which sort of men these wordes in S. Iohn are vnderstood Exierūt ex nobis 1. Ioan. 2. The very stampe or signature of Innouatours in doctrine Let vs exemplify this in the first and chiefest Protestants I will begin with Ochinus so ascend higher This Ochinus who was a chiefe mā in disseminating of Protestancy in England in King Edwards dayes was first a (a) So saith Sleidan l. 9. at anno 1547. fol. 297. Monke and forsaking his Monastical life began to preach Protestancy (b) Osiander Cent. 16. l. 1. c. 33. Bucer was at the first also a Moke vpon his reading of Luthers booke of Vowes forsooke his Monastery married a womā Swinglius * So saith Hospiniā in hystor Sacram. fol. 22. was first a Catholike Priest publike Preacher at Tigure in Switzerlād Luther was a Priest an (c) In his Epist to his Father extat tom 2. Wittēberg printed 1568. fol. 269. Austin Friar vpō his first reuolt from the Papacy tooke to wife Caterine Bore as the whole world knoweth Now that there was no other Church in Being before Luthers Apostacy then the Roman Catholike Church appeareth from the liberal acknowledgmēt of the learned Protestāts For M. Perkins thus writes (d) In his Expositiō vpon the Creed p. 400. VVe say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an Vniuersall Apostasy so ouerspread the face of the Church that is was not then visible to the world And Doctour Iewell confesseth no lesse saying (e) In his Apolog. of the Church pant 4. c. 34. The truth was vnknowne at that tyme vnheard of when Martin Luther Hulderick Swinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell Yea Luther himself euen Thrasonically contesteth this poynt in these his words (f) Luther in epist ad Argentinens anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari so cleare it is that Luther was originally a Catholike and that at his first rising there was no Protestant Church in the world But to proceed further Husse was a Catholike Priest before his reuolt and wholy till that tyme imbraced the Catholike Fayth as (g) In Colloq de Antichristo Luther and (h) In Apocalip c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox do testify Ierome of Prague was first a Catholike and after became an Heretike who being at the Councell of Constance renounced openly his heresies but after apostating the second tyme he lost his lyfe VVicleff was first a Catholike Priest and Parson of Lutterworth in Licestershyre and first abandoned his Religion because he was depriued of a Benefice by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury as (i) In his Annals of England printed 1591. pa. 425. Stow recordeth VValdo was a rich man of Lyons in France and originally a Catholike of whome D. Humfrey thus writeth (k) In Iesuitism part 2. rat 3. pag. 270 he did forsake all things that being poore he might better follow Christ and the Euangelicall perfections The VValdensis who were deriued of VValdo and thereupon so called were an Order of begging Fryars and did professe as the said D. Hunfrey writeth (l) vbi supra a kind of Monasticall lyfe And of the VValdenses doctrine in particular Caluin thus writeth (m) Epist 244. The forme of the Confession of the VValdenses doth inuolue all those in eternall damnation who do not confesse that the bread is truly become the body of Christ They also euer taught seauen Sacraments Vowes single lyfe and Purgatory (n) In tractat de Eccles pag. 124. as u Morgensternensis a Lutheran writeth The Albigenses were the same men with the Waldenses and therfore were originally Catholikes for thus D. Abbots writeth thereof (o) In his second part of the defence printed 1607. pog 55. Thus Lyonists or poore men of Lyons and Waldenses or Albigenses were the same men but diuersly and vpon diuers occasions tearmed by the Romish Synagogue Berengarius was Archdeacon of Angiers in France and therefore it followeth that he was Catholicke till his denyall of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet after he abandoning his Heresy dyed (p) As witnesseth Fox in Act. Mon. pag. 13. Catholyke Now to rise to higher tymes The like may be sayd of the auncient Nouelists broaching some poynts of Protestancy As Aerius denying prayer for the dead Manicheus freewill Iouinian teaching Virginity to be no better thē mariage Donatus denying the Visibility of the Church and all others of those tymes without exception From which men are descended the Aerians Manicheans Iouinians c. taking their denomination from the former men according to that Chrpsost Homil. 3. in act Apolog Prout Haeresiarchae Nomen ita Secta vocatur All which men were originally Catholikes and most of them Priests and vpō their broaching of these their particular opinions of Protestancy did depart from their knowne common Mother then in Being That these men and all such others of those tymes were originally Catholykes and departed frō a more auncient Church by forging these their