THE NON-ENTITY OF PROTESTANCY OR A Discourse wherein is demonstrated that Protestancy is not any Reall thing but in it selfe a Platonicall Idaea a wast of all Positiue Fayth and a meere NOTHING VVritten by a Catholike Priest of the Society of IESVS Dormierunt somnium suum NIHIL inuenerunt Psalm 73. Vae Prophetis insipientibus qui sequuntur Spiritum suum NIHIL vident Ezech 13. Permissu Superiorum 1633. TO THE IVDICIOVS AND LEARNED PROTESTANT LEARNED MEN This Treatise vvas for you chiefly first vndertaken The Ground-vvorke vvhereupon the Systema or Frame thereof is built is a mixture of Philosophy and Schoole-diuinity Points vvith reference to the more ignorant Protestant being as the Schoole Dialect is extra sphaeram Actiuitatis that is beyond the limited apprehēsion of their shallovv narrovv conceits It is but small you see in Quantity but I hope it vvill hould out in vveight The subiect of it is vnusuall and to my knovvledge heertofore ex professo not much vvalked in or tracted It is also no doubt nauseous and displeasing to you seeing it attempteth to prooue that your Religion is in it selfe a meere Non-Entity It s Being consisting in a Not-being and Essence in vvant of Essence That Religiō of yours I meane vvhich at this day hath inuaded seuerall parts in Europe vvhose high flight is mantained only vvith the vvings of certayne Princes Commonvvealths povver and greatnes vvhich violently carries vvhere it reignes all things before it vvith the impetuous streame of its ovvne torrent briefly to vvhich for our not yielding obedience in our ovvne Coūtry so great heauy mulcts and pressures are imposed vpō Recusants though euen in al Iustice the paying of Nothing is a sufficient penalty for the not professing of vvhat is Nothing I confesse it is painfull to discourse vvell of Nothing as it is difficult to run a diuision of knovvledge vpon the ground of ignorance Neuertheles since your ovvne learning vvill force you to giue assent to those Theorems of Diuinity and Philosophy vpō the Arch vvherof the vveight of the vvhole Treatise resteth I am not vvholy in despayre but that at the closure of all your morning more retired thoughts as being voyded of preiudice may perhaps entertaine it vvith a more indifferent and impartiall Censure If you heere demand hovv can this great Attempt of mine be performed for great in your Iudgements it must yet needs be thought in shevving that Protestancy is in its ovvne Nature a Non-Entity that its All is Nothing as not hauing any reality of Being to support it to this I ansvvere omitting other reasons heerafter insisted vpon that since Protestancy consisteth only in the denyalls and Priuations of Affirmatiue points of our Christian and Romane Fayth vvhich denyalls and Priuations in their ovvne nature are Irreall as heerafter vvill be euicted that therefore it is vvholy disuested of all true Subsistence or Being For vvho obserueth not that Protestancy is a Religion resting more in denyalls of Truths then in defence of Positiue and formall Errours The veyle vnder vvhich Protestācy masked it selfe vvhen it first entred vpon the stage vvas the outvvard apparence of a gratefull Reformation vvhich vvord of Reformation is by them vsed as in opposition to a precedent Corruption from vvhich the Protestants professe to rescue and deliuer the Church of God Which Corruption they say vvas first brought in by the Bishop of Rome (a) Symon de Voron in his discourse vpon the Catalogue of Doctours Epist to the Reader VVho ouervvhelmed the vvhole vvorld in the dreggs of Antichristian filthynes abominable Superstitions Traditions c. Thus did the first Protestants thinke good to cloath their naked Religion in the fayre attire of a presumed Reformation vvhich Reformation consisteth onely in an vtter subuerting and destroying of most of our Affirmatiue Catholike Articles of fayth and in lieu of them in introducing the Negatiues so as by this proceeding the Protestants may be said to speake allusiuely to trench ouer neere vpon Gods Omnipotēcy in attempting to exercise the tvvo Acts of Creation Annihilation peculiar to his diuine Maiesty for their ovvne Protestant faith as grounded only vpon Negatiues and Priuations they haue dravvne out of an Abysse and Informity of Nothing and our Positiue and Affirmatiue Catholike fayth they labour vvhat they can by such their molitions to reduce to Nothing And although the Protestants doe endeauour to enamell guilde ouer their Negatiue fayth vvith many detorted misapplyed Texts of Sacred Writ by the help of the Priuate reuealing Spirit their Oedipus that so it may appeare glorious in an erring eye neuertheles certaine it is that after such testimonies are truly ballanced and vveighed by the Authority of the vvhole Church of God all such fading splendour of Protestancy doth but resemble the light of a Glovv-vvorme vvhich the neerer one comes to it the lesser it appeares til in the end it vvholy vanisheth avvay But seeing a short Preface best sorteth to a short discourse I vvill heer stay my Penn remitting the learned Reader to the diligent impartiall perusall of these ensuing Leaues assuring him that it impugneth the light of Reason since God and Nothing are incompatible that he vvhome the Philosophers for his greater Perfection of Essence style Ens Entium should be truly honoured vvith a Religion vvhich is a Non-Ens Your in Christ Iesus W. B. THE CONTENTS OF the seuerall Chapters Certaine Prolegomena of which the first is CHap. 1. That in all positiue Affirmatiue points of Faith the Protestants do agree with the Catholikes The Protestants borrowing the sayd Affirmatiue points frō the Church of Rome Chap. 2. The second Prolegomenon viz. In such points of fayth wherin Protestancy differeth from the Romane Church all the sayd points are meerely Negations to the contrary Affirmatiue Articles belieued by the Church of Rome Chap. 3. That the Protestants haue often corrected and reformed their Translations of the Bible and the Lyturgy or common Booke of Prayer in fauour of their Negatiue Religion euery later excepting against the former as corrupt and impure Chap. 4. That Protestancy is a Non-Entity proued frō the Principles of Schoole Diuinity Philosophy Chap. 5. The Non-Entity of Protestancy by reason of its Negations proued from the like supposed Example of a Philosopher denying most Principles of Philosophy Chap. 6. That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denyall of most if not all of such points of Religion wherein the Protestant by his lyke denyall of them differeth from the Catholike Chap. 7. That Protestancy is but a Nullity of Fayth and consequently with reference to fayth a Non-Entity proued from the definition of Fayth and other conditions necessarily annexed thereto Chap. 8. That Protestancy cannot be defined And that therefore it is a Non-Entity Chap. 9. That Protestancy consisteth of Doctrines meerly Contradictory in themselues and that therefore Protestancy is a Non Entity Chap. 10. That Heresy
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 the opinion relyeth vpon the truth of the matter yet here the truth of the matter relyeth vpon the truth of the opinion The third poynt is the actuall fayth which (h) Luth. in l. de captin Babil Kem. in 2. part Exam. Concil Trident ad Can. 3. Centurist Cent. 1. c. 4. Cet 5. col 5.7 Luther and the Lutheranes ascribe to infants at that very instant that they are baptized Now coÌ„mon sense and the force of reason assureth vs that there is not nor can be any such faith in childreÌ„ but that this is in it self a meer Chymera PhaÌ„tasy for first doth not the poore InfaÌ„ts strugling what they can in time of their bodies immersion into the water manifestly impugne this aëry conceite Since if at that instant they did belieue they should offend God by such their resistance and so by this meanes they should commit sinne rather then haue their Originall sinne remitted Agayne how can Infants belieue except they heare (i) Rom. 10 Fides ex auditu Thus I leaue to euery one to iudge of what truth of Being or reall Existency this doctrine hath in it selfe And thus farre of these former aëry speculations of doctrine broached by the Protestants though but briefly touched by me for how can one wel extend himselfe in discoursing of such points which in theÌ„selues do want al extension In the vnfoulding wherof I labour not so much to display the falshood absurdity of theÌ„ which neuertheles incidently is by this meanes partly discouered as to make euident according to my methode vndertaken that not any of the sayd Protestants Positions or Tenets haue any Reality or Being but that they are meerely forged in the imagination without ground or foundation of any true and Positiue subsistence The last of the Protestant Positions omitting diuers others for greater breuity in which I will insist shall be touching the Protestant Church shewing that it â—s Nothing in it selfe but only a Church framed in the ayre and accordingly the Protestants are forced couertly to discourse of it â—n a mist of darke wordes so painters veyle that which they cannot delineate by Art But since this wil require a more large discourse branching it selfe into two parts I haue therefore purposely reserued the two next Chapters for the fuller dissecting of the same That the Protestant Church is a meerâ— Non-Entity or Idea proued from the confessed Inuisibility thereof CHAP. XII IN our entreating of the Protestant Church first we are to recall to mynd the definition giuen thereof by the Protestants secoÌ„dly the confessed Inuisibility of the sayd Church for many hundred yeares from both which poynts the resultaÌ„cy will be that the Protestant Church and consequently Protestancy as mantained by the sayd Church is but an vnreall thinge And to beginne with the definition (a) Lib. Institut 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. in minori Instit c. 8. Sect 4. Caluin defineth the true Church and therefore in his owne iudgement the Protestant Church to consist only of the number of the faythfull Elect and only to be knowe to God Now what other thing is this Church then a bare Intention as â—he Philosophers speake or phanâ—asme wrought in the shop of his owne brayne for first seeing no man can know who be those other men who are of the Elect who truly belieue how can it be knowne who are the members who make this Church or where it is Againe this definition rather destroyeth and taketh away the Church then describes or constitutes it For if all the workes euen of the iustified be mortall sinnes as (b) Luth. in Assert art 32. Luther and (c) Art 6. 20. Confessio Augustana do teach and that if only the â—ust do make this Church then followeth that no man is of the Church and consequently that the Protestant Church thus defined is but a meer Platonicall Idaea the reason heereof being because there are no iust men in the world since the workes of men are sins Next we will descend to the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church confessed by the learned Protestants for many ages or ratheâ— since the dayes of the Apostles In handling of which point I will first set down the ackowledgmeÌ„ts of the learned Protestants of their Churches Inuisibility and then after I will draw from thence the necessary deduction of sequence for prouing the Irreality for aëry Intentionality of the Protestants fayth and Religion And first it is ouer euident that D. Perkins thus confesseth of the inuisibility of the Protestants Church (d) In his expositioÌ„ of the Creed For many hundred yeares our Church was not visible to the world An vniuersall Apostasy ouerspeading the whole face of the earth And yet more particuâ—erly he thus acknowledgeth (e) Perkins vbi supra during the space of nine hundred yeares the Popish heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole earth But Sebastianus Francus a learned and very markeable Protestant confesseth more largely of this point thus writing (f) In ep de aebrogâ—ndis in vniuersun omnibus statutis Ecclesiast For certayne through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church togeather with the fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure that for these fourteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene externall and visible To whose iudgement D. Fulke to omit for breuity the like Confessions of diuers other Protestants subscribeth in these wordes (g) D Fulâ— in his answere to a Counterfeyte Catholike pag. 35. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. Now to inferre and deduce Conclusions first then if the Protestant Church hath had no Being since the death of the Apostles as we see by the acknowledgmeÌ„ts of the learned Protestants themselues it hath not had but hath laine hid so many yeares in a vast Chaos of nothing then followeth it that the Protestant Church is only an Imaginary thing hauing no substantiality as I may terme it or existence in it selfe Secondly I thus inferre If the Protestant Church hath no reall Being or existence in it selfe but is a poore fabrick of the imagination then followeth it vnauoidably that the Protestant fayth must necessarily partake of the nature of the Protestant Church I meane not to be any reall or subsisting thing For how can that faith be positiue or reall of which there haue beene for so many ages confessed and indeed for all ages without exception no meÌ„bers of the Church to make profession of the sayd fayth This I auerre is â—bsurd to mantaine since we see a shadow caÌ„not produce a shadow Agayne I adde heere to that by reason of inherency there is a necessary reference in euery Acâ—ident to its Subiect if the subiect be wanting then followeth it that the Accident as loosing its Inherency is also wanting and becommeth Nothing now then Protestancy or the fayth of a ProtestaÌ„t suppose it be any thing must be a quality and consequently an Accident
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
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
which is the Iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs. Thus farre to shew that the Catholike and Protestant doe not belieue one and the same Creed and consequently that one the same Church cannot consist of Catholikes and Protestants Secondly the authority of Generall Councells condemning seuerall particuler doctrines for Heresies and the like authority of particuler Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church touching their like cōdemnation of many Protestanticall Tenets for Heresies do sufficiently euict that the Protestant Church and the Catholicke Church cannot be one and the same Church for if they could then would it follow that the former old Heresies aboue displayed in the tenth Chapter and now houlden by the Protestāts should be no heresies for if the Professours of the Roman fayth the maintainers of the sayd strange doctrines could be members of one Church then great wrong was offered by the Fathers and Councells to brand such men in those former tymes for Heretiks and their doctrines for Heresies We may add heerto that if the ancient learned Fathers did teach that a man by holding onely one errour or heresy did cease therby to be a mēber of Christs Church as for example Iouinian for teaching that Virginity and Matrimony were equall the Manichees for taking away Freewill c. what would the said Fathers conceaue if they had liued in our dayes should obserue the Protestants to incorporate and ingrosse in their fayth and religion almost twenty distinct heresies condemned in those ancient times as is aboue shewed would these Fathers thinke you be persuaded that the Romane Church and these men could make one and the same Church From this then it followeth that eyther Generall Councels and particuler Ancient Fathers did erre commit great ouersight in condēning of strange opinions for heresies which were not heresies or that the Protestāts the Catholikes cannot be mēbers of one the same Church since certayne it is that the true Church of Christ cannot professe any one Heresy Now that heretikes are not Mēbers of Christs Church therfore that the doctrines and innouations mantayned by such men cannot be taught belieued by the Mēbers of Christs Church shall appeare from the great dislike and auersion which both Christs Apostles and the ancient Orthodoxall Fathers did euer beare agaynst such men And first may occurre that diuine sentence (p) ad Titum c. 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first or second admonition auoyde knowing that he who is such is subuerted and sinneth being condemned by his owne iudgment And agayne the same Apostle (q) epist ad Galat. c. 5. The workes of the flesh be manifest which are fornication vncleanes impurity dissention (r) So it is translated in the English Bible of the yeare 1576. Heresies c. They which do these things shall not obtayne the Kingdom of God To come to the Fathers S. Austin sayth (s) Aust. in ◠11. in Marchaun He is an Heretike who belieueth falsly touching any part of Christian doctrine Which Father in another place thus fearefully censureth of an Heretike (t) Aust l. 4. contr Donatist c. 8. If a man be an Heretike certainely no mā doubteth but for this alone that he is an Heretike he shall not possesse the Kingdome of God Cyprian Dominus noster c. (u) Cypr. l. 1. ad Mag. when our Lord Iesus-Christ did testify in the ghospell that those were his Enemies who were not with him he noted not any one Heresy but he manifestly sheweth that all Heretikes whosoeuer are his Enemies c. I will conclude with Ambrose thus saying (x) Ambrose l 6. in Luc. c. 〈◊〉 Heretikes seeme to challenge Christ to them for no man will deny the name of Christ neuertheles he indeed denyeth Christ who doth not cōfesse all points of fayth instituted by Christ. Now from these testimonies I conclude that both the Catholikes and Protestants cannot make one and the same Church of God seeing their disagreements in matters of Religion are so great irreconciliable as that the one part as houlding meer contrary doctrines in fayth to the other must needs therefore be taken for Heretikes in the iudgement of the other party consequently not taken as the Members of Christ his Church My last argument which heer I vse shal be ad hominem as the Logitian calls it The Protestants we know do call in the foam of their impure language the Pope Antichrist and Catholikes the Members of Antichrist Now if Protestants and Catholikes be in one and the same Church then followeth it if for the tyme we admit the former dreame for true that Antichrist and the Members of Antichrist do make the head the members of Christs Church How absurd this is incompatible with common reason I referre to any iudicious man to censure and the rather considering the Protestants themselues doe thus teach (y) Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneua p. 245. In Babylon meaning therby the Church of Rome there is no holy Order or Ministery indeed but a meere vsurpation Thus farre to demonstrate that for the freeing and clearing of Protestancy from the former scars of being Inuisible an Irreality a Non-Entity c. it cannot be iustly replyed if any such reply should be suggested that seeing the Protestant Church the Catholike Church are both but one Church and seeing the Catholike Church cannot be charged with the spots Inuisibility or being a Non-Entity c. that therfore neyther can the Protestant Church be so charged Thus our Aduersaries we see labour to make the splendour of the truth of Christian fayth to cast its beames indifferently vpon Protestancy and the Catholike Roman fayth notwithstanding the great dissentions touching fayth betweene these two Religions which is as difficult to iustify as to mantayne that the sunne can at one and the same tyme shine vpon vs and our Antipodes THE CONCLVSION LEarned Protestants for whose sake this my labour was first attempted Heer now my pen as performing I trust what it did assume stayes it selfe yet before it giueth its last stop it is to make bold by turning it selfe towards you to expatiate a litle in discourse You haue seene by perusing of the former Treatise Protestancy to be fully and punctually dissected and for the Catastrophe and closure of all it is found to be empty of all Reality and but an Intentional Name or VVord And since it is a Non-Ens it consequently then may be inferred that Protestaancy and its Religion is false for if Philosophy teacheth vs that Ens Verum conuertuntur as you well know then by force of reason law of contrarieties it followeth that Non Ens Falsum conuertuntur You are instructed also as being learned by Philosophy that Quae habent vltimam dispositionem ad Introitum Non Esse desinunt per se Esse And so by Analogy we may heere say of Protestancy that Protestancy by seuerall reformations
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.
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
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
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.