common both to good and bad touching his ascending vp to heauen and his sitting at the right hand of his Father of all these points they contend and that with such exceeding heat of disputation as that old heresies not a few long since abolished and condemned begin againe to lift vp their head as if they were recalled from hell The like they haue ibidem in Prolegomenis Of the controuersy which is betweene the Lutherans Sacramentaries about the â—eall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist Martyr in locis tom 2. p. 156. giues this iudgement The contention and difference therein concernes the cheife heads of Religion Caluin epist 292. sayth that the opinion of the Lutherans doth By mischeiuous iuglings and legierdemains ouerturne the principles of fayth Beza in his 5. epist that it destroyeth the verity of Christs body And epist 81. that it recalleth from hell the folly and doting errours of Marcion and Eutiches Bucer cited by Hospin part 2. Hist fol. 84 It followeth thereupon that Christ is not true man Paraeus in cap. 3. Galat. lection 37 There is nothing more directly opposite to Christian Religion then to think that the body of Christ doth indeed lye hid really vnder the bread and that the same is truly eaten with the mouth Sadeel in tract de Coniunctione c. pag. 369. that it ouerthroweth the true nature of the true body and bloud of Christ VVhich thing sayth he we still lay to their charge And tract de Sacramentali manducatione pag. 26. that it is a word of euils pag. 267 That it traines after it idolatry And pag. 268 that it â—annot stand with the verity of Christs body Hospin part 2. citat fol. 2. that it is the foundation of Papistry And fol. 181 The base and pillar which sustaineth all the whole blended and disordered heape of abuses and all the bread-worship whicâ— hath vnder the Popedome byn deuised and brought in Lauaterus lib. de dissid Euchar. fol. 7. that it is the Foundation of the Popedome Cureus in Spongia that it is the foundation the strength the throne of the God Maozim and of the Popish state Caluin de Coena p. 8. in CoÌ„s pag. 754. Beza in fo 6. v. 23.62 ad 4. Demonstr Illyrici Zanâ—hius in Confess c. 16. sect 12. And Vrsinus in Catechism quest 78. cap. 3. sayth As long as the opinion of the corporall presence is maintained Popish adoration and oblation and the whole Popish masse is kept on foot And there is not one Sacramentary but thinks the verity of Christs body and his ascention sitting at the right hand of the Father cleane taken away if he should say he were substantially in the Eucharist Whereupon Zanchius tom 1. Miscell in iudicio de dissidio Coenae pag. 553. sayth There are two maine reasons why the one party to wit the Sacramentaries renounce the presence of the body The one that the article of Christs ascension into heauen may be kept entire the other that the nature and verity of his humane body be not destroyed Nay some of the Sacramentaries in their Confessions of faith condemne the opinion of the Lutherans as mad and blasphemous For Confess Crengerina cap. de coena Domini sayth VVe condemne their madnes who auouch and maintaine flesh-eating that is who hold that Christs naturall and very body raw and bloudy without any change or transubstantiation at all is receiued with the very mouth And the Scots in their Confess pag. 159. say they Detest that blasphemous opinion which auoucheth Christs reall presence in the bread wine and that he is receiued by the wicked or taken into the belly This and much more of the like is sometymes the Sacramentaries plea against the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist and yet at other tymes they professe that this controuersy is not of so great weight and moment as that it should dissolue Ecclesiasticall Communion and fellowship For so teacheth Martir apud Simlerum in vita eius the author of the orthodoxe Consent Prefat Apologet. Hospinian part 2. Histor fol. 78. Caluin de scandalis pag. 95. In Consens p. 764. Beza lib. de coena cont Westphalum pag. 258. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col 792. and others Nay as we sayd before these men besought the Lutherans who stedfastly maintaine the reall presence to hold them for brethren and members of their Church They can then find in their conscience to haue fellowship and Communion with those men whose doctrine they condemne As Frantike blasphemous whose doctrine they say destroyeth Christs ascension What kind of men Sacramentaries challenge for brethren and the verity of his humane nature subuerteth the principles of fayth and cheifest points of religion recalleth the doting follies of Marcion and Eutyches establisheth the Kingdome of Antichrist traines after it idolatry and a world of euills Fy on these meÌ„ beliefe who think the maintenance of an opinion which as themselues professe ouerthroweth the principall articles of Christian fayth drawes after it idolatry and most foule heresies layeth the foundâ—tion whereon Antichristianity is raised of so sleight consequence as it ought not to dissolue fraternity and Communion What regard of fayth or saluation may we think these men haue There is yet another point oâ— Luteranisme touching the vbiquity or presence of Christs body euery where reproued of the Sacramentaries and held in extreme dislike of which they likewise exclaime that it is (a) Beza respons ad acta montisb l. pag. 252. forged and composed of Eutychianisme and Nestorianisme that the heresies of (b) Caluin 4 Instit c. 17. p. 17. Marcion and Eutyches yea well nigh (c) Hosp pref par 2. all old heresies are by it raised againe from hell that it subuerteth the whole (d) Perkins expos Symb. coll 792. Creed that it takes away the (e) Sadeel de verit hum nat cheife heads of Christian Religion that there is scant any one article of Christian beliefe which it doth not vtterly abolish And yet these selfe same Sacramentaries stile them who defend this opinion (f) Sadeel sup Most flourishing Churches and made earnest sure to be held for (g) Beza in colloq moÌ„tisbel pag. 462. brethren of those very men who vpheld this doctrine against them and maintayned it to their face Nay the particuler Churches of Sacramentaries themselues consist of parts mainly disioyned in matters of beliefe SacrameÌ„taries say there is fundameÌ„tall differeÌ„ce amoÌ„g them Examples hereof we need not seeke a broad Our owne Protestants tell vs how the Puritans their brethren allow not of the booke of common prayer but hold it to be full of (a) Whitgift resp ad Admonit p. 145. 157. corruptions and all abominations and teach that Protestants (b) Ib. resp ad schedas wickedly mangle and wrest the Scriptures that they haue no (c) Resp cit pag. 6. Pastours that they haue not a true Church
mutation ought rather to be termed a formation then reformation But whether it be called a formation or reformation it skilleth little it sufficeth as I sayd that it is a substantiall mutation of religion the Author whereof Luther was and such a mutation as cannot happen to the religion and Church of Christ Moreouer it is the shift of old and new heretiques to bring in new religions vnder the name of Reformation Of the Marcionists thus writeth Tertullian They say that Marcion did not so much innouate the rule of faith as reforme that which heretofore was corrupted L. 1. cont Mar. c. 20. And he himselfe after he was become a Montanist This is shewed of vs that the discipline of Monogamie is neither new nor strange yea both ancieÌ„t and proper to Christian L. 1. de Monogam c. 4. that you may thinck the Paraclete Montaâ—us to haue bin rather the Restorer then beginner therof And of Seruetus thus write those of Zurick in Caluin cont Sâ—ruet pag. 626. He goeth on to thrust vpon the Church a most corrupt doctrine vnder the shew of restitution of Christianity 7. Sixtly because the Protestants designe the place the occasion the yeare day and hower when Protestancie began The place we haue heard already out of Caluin and Fabritius was Wittemberg the same doth Luther insinuate in cap. 49. Isaiae tom 4. The place where ProtestaÌ„â—y began fol. 192 saying Now VVittenberg is blasphemed as the fountaine of all heresies but it will come to passe some yeares hence that it shall be praised of Posterity as Gods garden from whence the Gospell was propagated into Germanie and all parts of the world And Mathew Index in Edicto aeterni deâ— That clamour against Antichrist came out of the durty townes of barbarous and base Germany â—rotestanâ—y began â—n a durty owne of barbaâ—ous couÌ„â—y A sit place no doubt from whence so durty filthy and barbarous an heresy should spring For sooth Wittemberge is the Protestants Syon from whence their law should come S. Austin thought it ridiculous madnesse that the Donatists shold say that the Church was to be renewed out of Africa the third part of the world â—e vnit c. â— shall we think it wisedom to imagin that it should be renewout of a durty and barbarous corner of Duchland The occasion of it was Tezelius his preaching of Indulgences â—he occaâ—on of the â—ginning â—f proteâ—ancy for thus writteth Crusius l. 10. Anal. Sueu pag. 5.8 Tezelius boldnesse stirred vp Luthers mind to set vp conclusions against those indulgences on the gates of the temple of All Saints in VVittemberg the last day of October which was saturday The day of the weeke month Hence now came the occasion beginning sayth he of correcting the christian religion Schusselburg Praef. tom 8. Catal. haeret Old men remember it recorded in writing for remembrance for euer and publiquely extant that this was the cause that the Gospell flourished againe in our age that Iohn Tetzele carryed about pardons of sinnes to be sold in the Popes name And Kemnice 4. part Exam. tit de Indulgentijs pag. 78 It is knowne to all the world that the impudent and impious sale of pardons aboue 50. yeares ago gaue entrance to the holesome repurging of heauenly doctrine And Manlius in Calendario On All Saints eue first of all conclusions against Indulgences were fastned by Luther vpon the gate of the Church of VVittemberg castle in the yeare 1517. at twelue of the clocke The lame lay Melanccthon â—â—â—fat in tom 2. The year houre Lutheri Sâ—eâ—dan Carion and others We haue then the place where to wit Wittemberg the yeare 1517. the day of the month the last of October the day of the weeke Saturday and finally the very houre to wit twelue of the clocke when first Protestancy began to arise And as Vincent Lyrin sayth Cap. 34. VVhat heresy euer was there which sprung not vp vnder some certaine name in a certaine place and tyme. 8. LutheraÌ„s say that the Sacraâ—â— doctrine is new Seauenthly I proue the nouelty of Protestancy by the mutual testimony of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries and of the SacrameÌ„taries against the Lutherans For of the Sacramentaries doctrine thus testifieth Luther in defens verboruÌ„ Coenae tom 7 fol. 381. Neither doth any thing set forth this heresie more then noueltie And tom 2. Zuâ—nglij fol. 383. Carolstadius first raised his errour Melancthon Epist ad Miconium calleth it new doctrine and addeth that Carolstadius first raised this tumult Heshusius lib. de reali praesentia fol. 2 Carolstadius the vnhappy author of this discord Kemnice in fundamentis Coenae pag. 116 Carolstadius was the first author of this strife And Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 68. writeth that Melancthon impugned the Sacramentaries doctrine as a thing altogether new and fol. 46. that Pomeran disallowed Zuinglius doctrine as a noueltie And in Narrat dissipatae Eccles Belg. pag. 179. The Lutherans say to the Caluinists your doctrine is new and pag. 213. your doctrine is of late And Confes. Mansâ—eld The Sacramentary doctrin is iustly suspected of vs. First for the nouelty therof because it arose in our tyme. Neither ought the Sacramentaries to accept against these testimoÌ„ies as if they were the testimonies of the aduersaries For such aduersaries they are as themselues account them their brethren in Christ and members of the same Church Besides though themselues be aduersaries both to Catholiks and Lutherans neuerthelesse they will haue their testimonies to be takeÌ„ against theÌ„ in matters of fact Moreouer because the Sacramentaries themselues doe sometime confesse the same For Zuinglius tom 2. Respons ad Struthionem fol. 303. calleth Carolstadius The first teather of the truth of the Eucharist And in Subsidio fol. 244. he calleth his opinion the exposition of the ancients brought back is it were after it was lost Lasco Epist ad Reg. Poloniae Abolished by iniury of times and restored as it were after it was lost Lauather de dissidio Euchar. fol. 2. writeth that the Senate of Zurich VVas troubled which the newnesse of the matter And fol. 5. that when Occolampade had set forth his booke the Senate of Basle moued with the nouelty of the matter forbid his book to be sold vntill it had bin examined by Censors And fol. 1. that Zuinglius opinioÌ„ was not heard of by the common people In like sort the Sacramentaries write of the proper opinions of the Lutherans For of their impanation or mixture of Christs body and bread in the Eacharist Caluin Defens 2. SacrameÌ„taryes say the Lutheran opinions are new cont Westphalum pag. 786. sayth It is a new doctrine and till now vnheard of that bread is substantially the body of Christ Oecolampadius responsione poster ad Perkeymer pag. 18. Those new Doctours graunt to bread that it is substantially the body of Christ And of the Lutherans vbiquity wherwith they make Christs body to
God And Beza wrote a booke of this title Of the true and visible marks of the Catholike Church D. Whitaker in answere of the 3. reason of F. Campian That we iudge to be proper to the true Church that it increase and conserue Christs word that it vse the Sacraments entiâ—rly and purely These we defend to be the most true and essentiall properties of the Church Take these away and you will leaue nothing but the carcasse of the church Againe They containe the true nature of the church which if they be present they make the church and take it away if they be taken away And D. Feild in his 1. book of the church cap. 11 VVe say that that society wherein that outward profession of the truth of God is preserued is that true church of God c. Finally to omit the words of others the same teach Wigand in his method of doctrine cap. 19. Gesner in his 24. place of the Church The Magdeburgians in the Preface of their 6. CeÌ„tury Heshusius in cap. 1.1 ad Cor. Soterius in his method title of the church Pelargus in his Compend of diuinity loc 7. Sohnius in his Thesis of the Church Bullinger in his Catechisme fol. 44. Aretius in his places part 3. fol. 50. Theses of Geneua disput 74. SummeoiÌ„ Protest former CoÌ„sessioÌ„s Thus thou seest good reader that according to the manifold iudgement of Protestants a part of the definition of the essence the marke of the Church in this life of the Church militant of the Church which is belieued of the proper Church of the Church whereof the Scripture properly speaketh when it calleth her the spouse of Christ the body of Christ of the true Church of the Church properly so termed and finally of the Catholike Church that I say it is of the definition and essence a marke of this church to be a visible company professing the faith partaking the Sacraments mutually confirming themselues and that otherwise it is as they say but a carcasse of the Church Wherefore it implieth manifest contradiction that there should at any tyme haue byn a true Church and not a visible company because nothing can be without all its essentiall parts The Protestant Church therefore which as we head was before Luthers tyme altogeather inuisible was no true and proper Church but to vse their termes a Platonicall idaea or a carkasse of a Church If any reply that when Protestants affirme the foresayd definitions properties and marks of the true Church they meane not by the name of the true Church that which is simply and absolutely the true Church but that which is the true visible Church I aske why then do they simply call it the true Church if they do not so meane why are not their words conformable to their meaning Besides the Church wherof they giue the foresayd definitioÌ„s and marks they call not only the true Church but also the Church properly so termed the spouse and body of Christ the Catholike church and such like which cannot agree to any which is but a Church in appearance only and in the sight of men but only to that which is the Church in very deed and in the sight of God Further more according to the opinion of Protestants these two termes True and Visible in the nature of the Church do one destroy the other as these two True and Painted exclude each other in the nature of a man For they imagine that the true Church is a society in something that is inuisible to wit in iustification and predestination Wherupon they deny any ill or reprobate Christians to be of the true Church Wherefore as he should speake fondly who should say A true painted man so according to their owne opinion they speake as fondly when they say The true visible Church But as we can only say the true picture of a man attributing the word True to the picture not to the man so they should only The true appearance or shew of the Church gâ—uing the word True to the shew not to the Church it selfe But they are ashamed to speak so least when they inquire the marks of the true visible Church Why ProtestaÌ„ts somtyme call the visible visible Church the true Church it should appeare that they seeke not the marks of the true Church indeed but only of the shew shadow or shape of the Church And yet in very truth they seeke but the marks of the shadow of the church For the inuisible Church consisting only of the iust and elect which alone they will haue to be the true Church hath no certaine marks else we should know certainly who were the iust and elect And this themselues confesse for thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest 5. cap. 8 ProtestaÌ„ts giue no marks of the true Catholike Church The question is not of the marks of the inuisible Church Againe VVe say the marks of the Catholike Church simply so called are knowne to God alone And D. Humfrey to 3. reason of F. Campian pa. 281. sayth that the marks do not reach vnto the nature of the true Church And the reason is manifest because as I sayd otherwise we should know who were the iust and elect 4. If any againe reply that when Protestants say The true visible Church they meane the visible Church true in doctrine in which speach there is no contradiction according to their owne opinion because they admit that the visible Church that is the society in true doctrine and right vse of Sacraments into which Church or society the wicked or reprobate may enter may be true in doctrine though they graunt not that such a Church or society be the true Church in nature or essence Which perhaps Vorstius meant in his Antibellarm pa. 180. when he sayd The outward Church is not without cause called the true church of Christ by reason of the prosession of true doctrine I answere if they so meant why did they not speak so were they ignorant that it is one thing to be true in doctrine or in speach and another to be true in nature as a lyer is a true man in nature of man but not true in his speach Or if they did know this why did they abuse the words and their hearers Moreouer though in this sense their words did not destroy themselues as they did in the former yet fondly should they as they vse to do assigne the truth of doctrine for the marke of the true Church in doctrine For this were to assigne a thing for a mark of it self as if to know a true man of his word one should giue this marke that it is such as speaketh truth Besides this were rather to define what is a true man then to giue the marke to know who is a true man And yet marks are giuen to know which is the true Church not what is the nature of the true Church 5. If yet any reply that the visible Church or
be euery wher Caluin pronounceth Admonit vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 829. that it was not borne long since And Alcsius apud Hospiâ— part 2. fol. 201. sayth I know both the tyme when this opinion was first broached to the Church and who was Author thereof Authores Admonit de lib. concord cap. 3. pag 95. No man taught this their opinion before Luther Do they not bring forth new deuises and not heard of before in the Church Beza also lib. de Omnipraesentia carnis Christi pag. 509. calleth it a doctrine vnheard of in the Church Finally Clenuitius apud Heshus lib. cit calleth the very Confession of Auspurg A new and fifth Ghospell Thus Protestants testify the newnesse of each other doctrine 9. Eightly I proue the newnesse of Protestancy by the new and before vnheard of nams The names of Protestats are new which Protestants giue to themselues and to their Church and religion For they call themselues Protestants or Ghospellers and their Church and Religion Euangelicall and reformed D. Andrewes respons ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 1. Protestants is our name D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis VVe refuse not the name of Protestants This name agreeth fitly to our profession Praefat. consensus Poloniae VVe are termed Ghospellers Iezler lib. de bello Euchar. fol. 31. VVe will be called Gospellers and woe be to them who call vs otherwise His maiesty in his declaration against Vorstius pag. 49 The men of our Religion doe estsoones take to them the name of Gospellers D. Morton part 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 7 If ye aske where is the Euangelicall and reformed Church all will straight point their finger to the ProtestaÌ„ts assembly But surely all these names are new and neuer heard of before Luther neither can there be any name designed which before Luthers time was proper to the Protestant company But it is incredible that there should haue bin such a company and yet that it neuer had any proper or peculiar name giuen either by those of that company or of any others 10. Lastly I proue the nouelty of the Protestant Church by that that Protestants knowing well the newnesse therof deny that the greatest antiquity among Christian Churches is a marck of the true Church of Christ as doth Iunius lib. de Eccles cap. 16. yea some of them are so offended at this marck of Antiquity as they bid vs (a) Luth. tom 2 fol. 367. shut our eyes at it and say that it is a (b) Raino Confer c. 5. diuiss 2. bastardly marke and rather a mark of the (c) Ples l. de Eccles c. 3. Synagogue of Antichrist theÌ„ of the church of Christ Neuertheles seeing it ought to be vndoubted amongst Christians that since Christs Church was founded by him it neuer failed or perished and that it is manifest that he founded his true Church before any false Christian in imitation of him began a false Christian Church it ought also to be certain that she which amongst all Christian Churches is the most ancient is the very true Church of Christ Neither would euer Protestants deny this if they did not too wel know that their Church is far yonger then the Roman as being according to their saying her daughter 11. Out of all which hath beene recited in this chapter I make my eight demonstration in this sort If the Protestant Church and Religion were in Luthers tyme new or builded or begun a new he was the Authour and beginner thereof But so it was as hath beene made manifest by the aforesayd confessions of Protestants Therefore Luther was the Author thereof That Protestants do plainly confesse that Luther was the Author and Beginner of their Church and Religion CHAP. XIIII THE ninth demonstration that Luther was the Author of the Protestant Church and religion shall be taken out of Protestants open confessions thereof First therefore they say that he was the first who openly preached Protestancy Luther Praefat. in tom 1 The Duch men did looke what would be the euent of so great a matter which before none either Bishop or Deuine durst touch Ibi. fol. 159. It is said Luther first of all in our age did taxe the Popes abominations and illustrate the ancient and pure doctrine of the Church And Praefat. disput fol. 370. Luther the first that preached his Ghospell I first allowed the marriage of Bishops In cap. 3. Galat. tom 5. fol. 333 Many gaue God thankes that by the Ghospell which by Gods grace we then first of all preached c. In cap. 4. fol. 387. God in this later tyme hath againe reuealed the truth of the Ghospell by vs vnto the vngratefull world Epist ad Argentinenses tom 7. VVe dare boast First published Christ that Christ was first published by vs. Melancthon Praefat. in tom 3 VVith what ioy did men receaue the first sparckle of light discouered by Luther praef in tom 2. Lutheri God by him restored the Ghospell to vs. Againe He recalled the minds of men to the Sonne of God First spark of Protestancy and as the Baptist shewed the lambe that taketh away the sinnes of the world And praefat in tom 3 VVhen there was great darcknes in the Charch and the light of the Ghospell was oppressed Luther layd open the iustice of fayth The vniuersity of VVittemberg in Hospin part 2. histor fol. 250 Out of this Church and schoole did shine the first light of pure doctrine touching God and Crist The first light which our new aduersaryes are forced to graunt though they burst with enuy Amsdorfe Alber and others write that Luther was the first vnder heauen who impugned externall sacrifice Priesthood in the new testament Schusselburg lib. 2. Theol. Caluin fol. 130. sayth that Vtenhonius a Caluinist was impudent when he wrote that he heard Conrad Pellican say that many learned men in Germany held the doctrine of the â—hospell before Luther appeared and that Pellican himselfe had reiected Purgatory before Luthers name was heard of This lye sayth Schusselburg the later Caluinists haue refuted And fol. 228. he affirmeth that Luther began the refining of the doctrine of the Ghospell This praise sayth he we truly and with good right giue to Luther though the Caluinists take it in very ill part Morgerstern tract 145. sayth It is ridiculous to thinke that before Luther any held the pure doctrine and that Luther receaued it of them and not rather they of him Milius in explicat confess August art 17. If Luther had had orthodoxall forerunners in his office Had no predecessours there had beene no need of a Lutheran reformation The Author of the booke entituled Prognostica or Finis mundi pag. 12. Luther as is confessed first brought in the ghospell at the end of the world The first that brought in the Ghospell Brentius lib. de Coena in fine God raised vp Luther to carry before vs the torch of the knowledg of Christ. And Smedensted apud Hospin