error es Swinglianorum in doctrina de peccatis Baptismo ex proprijs ipsorum libris collecti refutati Magdeburg 1562. 9. Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini Petri Boquini Theodori Bezae Guillielmi Clebitij similium calumnias c. Erfordiae 1583 10. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas quae sub Zwingliani Caluiniani nominis inuidia vim iniuriam patiuntur Tiguri 1578. And thus farre heereof whereby we may see that Protestancy is deadly wounded by the Pen of Protestancy Heere now I close vp this chapter referring to the iudgement of the learned Reader that seeing Protestancy is compounded of seuerall Contradictory Doctrines wherof the one side must of necessity be depriued of al reall Being and seeing the nature of true faith exacteth that it should be coÌ„plete entire and perfect in it selfe like therein vnto an action morally vertuous which is accomplished by the accesse of all due conducing Circumstances but vitiated through the absence but of any one and finally seeing that all the former repugnaÌ„t doctrines of the Protestants besides many others of like nature by them mantained for breuity heer pretermitted are accounted Euangelical and true Protestancy whether it doth not indisputably and irrepliably follow that Protestancy in it selfe is no true fayth but in respect thereof an absolute Irreality and but an Intentionall Name or word That Heresy as being a Priuation is Non Ens and consequently that Protestancy as consisting of the old condemned Heresies is a Non-Entity CHAP. X. IN one of the precedent Chapters it hath beene made euideÌ„t that Protestancy euen from the title of Negation hath no reality of Being In this place now the same shal be euicted from the Title of PriuatioÌ„ where for the clearer apprehending of this point we are to call to mynd as aboue is touched that euery Priuation is but a defect of that which should be thus is blyndnes of sight deafenes of hearing and therefore as hauing no efficient cause but only a deficient proceedeth not from God who made all things and consequently it is Non Ens. But to passe on further Among those things which are Priuations we doe finde that euery Heresy is raÌ„ged or marshalled in that Classe and this deseruedly since Heresy is but a Priuation or denyall of the truth but all truth proceedeth from God (a) Iohn 14. Ego sum veritas and consequently Heresy is a meere Non Ens or Nullity This being presumed as true and vncontroulable if then I can proue that Protestancy is but a colluuies of the ancient Heresies coÌ„demned in the Primitiue Church it then followeth vnauoydably that Protestancy as compacted of those priuatiue and Negatiue Heresies is but a Non-entity But to effect this and therein consequently to discouer froÌ„ what vnworthy Fathers the Children of our new supposed Gospell are lineally proseminated and descended sucking from them tanquam ex traduce the venome of their Priuatiue and Negatiue fayth I will appeale herein to history of former ages by meanes whereof our times hould intelligence with Antiquity I will exemplify this in seuerall Negatiue points of Protestancy And first we find that the Protestants borrow their denyall of the Reall presence from certayne old Heretikes in (a) So affirmeth Theodoret dialog 3. Ignatius his tyme so early we see the Cockle grow vp with the good seed as Theodoret witnesseth yet the affirmatiue is houlden both by Ignatius and the whole Church of those daies 2. The said heretiks denied that any (b) Ierom. epist. ad HebidiuÌ„ Visible Sacrifice ought to be now in the dayes of Christianity 3. The denyall of (c) Lib de haeres c. 33. Prayer for the dead is first taken from the Heretikes Aerians who as S. Austins words are thought it vnlawfull orare vel offerre pro mortuis 4. The denyall of freewill taken from the Manichees of whome S. * Aug. vbi supra Austin thus writeth Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio 5. The denyall of fasting and of virginity was first introduced by Iouinian as (d) Ierom. lib 1 2. contra lonintanum S. Ierome and (e) Aug l. de haeres cap. 8â— S. Austin do witnesse 6. The denyall of the Churches visibility broached by the Donatists who taught with Caluin that the Church consisted only of the Iust and thereupon as not knowing who were the iust they made it Inuisible as (f) Aug. l. de vnit c. 12. Austin recordeth 7 The denyall of worshipping the Reliques of Saints first taught by Vigilantius the Heretike as (g) Ierom. contra Vigilant S. Ierome doth witnes 8. The denyall of the distinction of mortall and veniall sinne first mantayned by the Pelagians as (h) l. con Pelagium S. Ierome testifyeth 9. The denyall of al worship due to the Image of Christ and his Saints first iustified by Xenaias Persa as (i) lib. 16. cap. 27. Nicephorus recordeth 10. The denyall of the possibility of keeping the Commandements was first mantayned by certayne old Heretikes recorded by (k) In explicat Simbol ad Damasum Ierome and (l) De teÌ„pore serm 91. Austin 11. The denyall of all reuerence to the Crosse was first taught by Probianus the heretike as appeareth in the (m) lib. 2. cap. 19. Tripartite History 12. The denyall of Traditions was first taught by the Arians as appeareth out of the booke written by (n) lib. 1 cap. 2. S. Austin contra Maximum The same is also taught by Nestorius the Heretike as we read in (o) Act. 1. sexto Synodo 13. The denyall of power to reconcile men sinning after Baptisme by meanes of the Sacrament of ConfessioÌ„ was first taught by the Nouatians as (p) lib. 3. de haeret Theodoret and (q) lib. â— c. 33. Hist Eusebius relate 14. The denyall of voluntary Pouerty and other Euangelicall Counsels iustified by Vigilantius as (r) l. contra Vigilantium S. Ierome witnesseth 15. The denyall of Originall sinne especially in the Children of the faythfull first taught by the Pelagians as (s) lib. 6. contra Iulianum c. 2. 3. S. Austin witnesseth 16. The denyall of lawfulnes of vowes of perpetuall Chastity c. first introduced by certaine Heretikes styled Lampetiani as (t) lib. de centum haeres circa sinem S. Damascene affirmeth 17. To conclude that the Primacy of Gods Church belonged only to Ecclesiasticall Persons was denyed by Constantius and Valentinian Emperours as witnesseth (u) Athanâ—san epist ad solitatiam vitaÌ„ agentes Athanasius and (x) Ep. 32. Ambrose Thus farre of this poynt And now by the way I referre to the more retyred sober thoughts of the iudicious and learned Reader whether it be not an irreparable dishonour blemish to the Professours of the new Ghospell in whome now liuing the former dead Heretikes yet doe liue or rather whose bodies by a strange Metapsychosis seeme to be organized with
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
forced to subscribe to the Communion Booke In this last place let vs examine a litle the Liturgy of the Brownists This their forme of Prayer is so Negatiue as that reiecting all other matters it chiefly consisteth of an extemporall conceaued Prayer singing a Psalme and a Sermon And yet the singing of a Psalme was in doubt once to be taken away by some of the Brownists as being but a humane Inuention and thereupon some of them do style singing of Psalmes in the Church (r) In the bobke called the new age of old names cap. 2◠p. 122 howling of wolues croking of Rauens c. By all this we may see how variable and inconstant the Protestants haue discouered themselues to be in admitting of the Booke of common Prayer which point D. Doue an eminent Protestant as making a recapitulation of seuerall formes of their Communion booke thus writeth (s) Persuasions to English Recusants pag. 31. Concerning the Booke of Common Prayer when the Masse was first put downe King Henry had his English Liturgy and that was iudged absolute and without exception but whē King Edward came to the Crowne that was condemned and another in the place which Peter Martyr and Bucer did approoue as very consonant to Gods word VVhen Queene Elizabeth began her Raigne the former was iudged to be full of imperfections and a new deuised and allowed by consent of the Clergy But about the middle of her raigne we grew weary of that Booke and great meanes haue been made to abandone that and establish another VVhich although it was not obtayned yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince change our booke of Common Prayers we be so wanton that we know not what we would haue Thus plainely and fully D. Doue of this point And thus much to shew how the Protestants and their descendants haue made seuerall Translations of their Bible and composed diuers formes of Liturgy or Common-prayer euery later Translatiō of the Scripture and euery later forme o◠Common-prayer being more Negatiue then the former From all which we may most certainly conclude and so extract Truth out of falshood that as yet the Protestants haue neuer enioyed a sincere Translation of the Scriptures or an Orthodoxall Liturgy or forme of Common-prayer That Protestancy is a Non-Entity proued from the Principles of Schoole Diuinity and Philosophy CHAP. IIII. NOW after we haue manifested the former poynts which are but certaine graduall steps to the mayne question heer to be intreated of it followeth that by the applying the sayd points to certayne acknowledged and receaued Theorems and Principles of Schoole diuinity we are to euict the certainty of our assumed Thesis or Position to wit that Protestācy is a meer Non-entity Wherefore for the better illustration of this subiect we are to call to mynd that the Schoolemen do teach that (a) S. Thomas part 1. qu. 16. Omnis res est vera secundum quod habet propriam formam suae naturae And againe (b) S. Thomas vbi supra Vnumquodque sicut custodit suum esse ita custodit suam veritatem Euery thing as it keepeth its essence or being so it keepeth its truth And yet more (c) S. Thomas vbi supra vide Durād lib. 1. distinct 20. q. 6. and Viguerius de anima cap. 2. sect 2. Aristot in Metaphys 9. Verum non potest apprehendi nisi apprehēdatur sub ratione entis Truth cannot be apprehended but as it is apprehended as a thing hauing a reall being And hence it is that they conclude Res quaelibet vera est absolutè Euery thing in that it is a thing is true And agayne in more expresse tearmes Fundamentum veritatis est entitas rerum The foundation of truth is the Entity or being of things With whome assenteth S. Austin thus teaching (d) Aug. in Soliloq l. 2. cap. 8. verum est id quod est From all which their last inference is that Ens Verum conuertuntur Euery thing that is is true and euery truth hath a reall Entity Now the maine source frō whence all these scholasticall sentences receaue their spring is because euery Entity or being is frō God (e) Genes 1. who wholy made all things and that all Truth proceeded likewise from God who is (f) Iohn 14. truth it selfe But now touching that which is not but only is a priuation or denyall of that which is the Schoolmen further teach (g) S. Thomas part 1. q. 17. Intellectus decipitur nō circa quid est sed circa quid non est The vnderstāding is deceaued not about that which really is but about that which is not And further (h) S. Thomas vbi supra falsum est id quod non est apprehendere vt esse quod est non esse That is false which is not to be apprehended as it is a thing but as it is not And from hence they conclude that of such defects and priuations as lying falshood c. there is no efficient but a deficient cause and that all such proceede only from the Diuell (i) Iohn 8. the father thereof And according heereto your owne Peter Martyr thus truly discourseth (k) Peter Martyr in Commō places in English part 1. c. 17. pag. 184. An euill thing hath no efficient but a deficient cause if any will search out this efficient cause it is euen like as if he would see darknes with his eyes or comprehend silence with his eares which being Priuations it is no need they should haue efficient causes Thus farre Peter Martyr which saying is sortable to the iudgment of (l) Austin de ciuit Dei lib. 12. cap 7. S. Austin himselfe so vndenyable a truth it is that what is in it selfe Nothing cannot proceed from God who is but One yet All things most simple yet contayneth in himselfe eminenter the perfection of All things And thus it is certaine that he cannot make nothing who yet of nothing made all things since to make that which is not is not so much to make as rather a not-making to the performance whereof Impotency not Power is required Now from these former doctrinal speculations in Schoole diuinity acknowledged for true euen by al learned Men eyther Catholike or Protestant it is vnauoydably euicted that all truth which is as is aboue demonstrated euer apprehended subratione entis is positiue therefore in reality of sense euermore affirmatiue as on the cōtrary side that errour or falshood which is no other thing then a denyall of some truth is vpon the same ground and by force and law of Contrarieties alwayes Negatiue But to preuent the willfull or ignorant mistaking of our A duersaries for some men are of that liuor and harsh morosity as that they euen meditate how to contradict my meaning heere is not that euery verball Affirmatiue Proposition doth containe in it selfe a truth of reall Entity for it is willingly acknowledged that
Mans brayne doth often fabricate many Chimera's and aëry Imaginations which are depriued of all reality of true existence or entity to support them But this I maintaine which is sufficiēt to my designed end that whatsoeuer is true hath entity and is in this respect euer Affirmatiue whatsoeuer is false is but a denyall of a truth therfore as hauing no reall Being is euermore negatiue And though it is in mans power through a voluntary frame and contexture of wordes that falshood may be masked vnder affirmatiue tearmes and truth vnder negations yet if we looke into the reality of sense and true vnderstanding the truth is euer Affirmatiue and the falshood negatiue To exemplify this to say God is not cruell or Man is not blynd these Propositions though they be in tearmes negatiue yet they are in sense affirmatiue onely as denying the negation of Mercy in God and of blyndnes in man so on the contrary part to say in affirmatiue tearmes God is cruell man is blynd though these sayings be deliuered in shew of affirmatiue termes yet if we do vnueyle them they are found to be in sense and vnderstanding meerely negatiue since cruelty is exclusiue to Mercy and blyndnes to sight and it is as much as to say in negatiue wordes God is not mercyfull or man cannot see Thus far of these speculations Now I draw from al these former grounds this vnauoydable Conclusion to wit that Protestancy as it is Protestancy I meane as it consisteth meerely of negatiue Propositions and Tenets and to consist only of such it is aboue demonstrated hath no true reality or subsistency in it selfe but is a meere vaporous intentionall Imaginary Conceite and consequently in it selfe false For if things be only true as they haue a reall being and therin affirmatiue and false if they want such a being and therin negatiue as the former Axiomes of schoole diuinity doe most euidently teach how then can Protestancy which consists only in denyals and negations which haue no being be reall or true For what reality of being is there in a not-being of Purgatory or in not praying to Saints so of the rest and if there be no reality in these as infallibly there is not how then can Protestancy haue any Reality in selfe And if it haue no reality in it self how then can it be really in the soule of man For certaine it is that what wanteth a subsistency in it selfe must necessarily want an existency in any other thing Now I will conclude this Chapter in assuring the Reader that I rest halfe amazed to see mē presumed to be of Iudgement thus to suffer themselues to be befooled by others and this to the irreconciliable and interminable ouerthrow of their soules by entertaining certaine aëry empty Positions in lieu of fayth obtruded vpon them which in a finall and euen libration are found to be meerely a destruction and anihilation of all faith (m) Galat. cap. 3. O insensati Galatae quis vos fascinauit The Non-entity of Protestancy by by reason of its negations proued from the like supposed example of a Philosopher denying most principles of Philosophy CHAP. V. SVch is the nature of preiudice of iudgement as that it is better able to see its owne defects in a third point wherein by resemblance it may glasse it selfe then in that to which it is so much deuoted like as the weakenes of our eyes can better endure the sight of the sun-beames reflected by the water then in the body of the sun it selfe He that will not acknowledge the irreality and Non-entity of the fayth of the Protestant by his denying almost of all positiue Articles of Christian Religion defended at this day by the Church of Rome let that man if he be a scholler seriously peruse ouer this ensuing Chapter which treateth by supposall of a Philosopher who should deny most parts of Philosophy acknowledged and taught for true by the famous Philosophers of all times I haue made choyce purposely to insist in Naturall Philosophy since nature is the subordinate Instrumēt of God first created by himselfe or rather nature is Gods great hand wherwith he sternes gouernes this whole Frame and Vniuerse euery Cause in nature being as it were a finger of this Hand and euery Effect of the cause a print of the said Finger Now then let vs as they say ex hypothesi imagine a mā who would vsurpe to himselfe the title of a naturall Philosopher by only denying most of the positiue and Affirmatiue Axiomes and principles in naturall Philosophy some few of the chiefest excepted taught by Aristotle and all other learned Philosophers and then let vs conclude in the closure of all what a strange Philosopher would this man be and whether his Philosophy could truly deserue the name of Philosophy or rather that it wold proue to be a meere denyall and wast of all true Philosophy Let this mā then I say agree with Aristotle that naturall Philosophy intreateth of a corporeall substance animate or inanimate with all his naturall causes effects and accidences to wit as it is subiect to mutation and change Let him also grant that there are Foure chiefe parts of this naturall Philosophy of which the first part concerneth the generall and common Principles of natural things The second intreateth of the world of the Elements of their first and secondary qualities of the cōposition of the bodies through the mixture of the Elements and first qualities The third part discourseth chiefly of Meteors The fourth and last part disputeth de Anima of the soule and of its seuerall kinds or degrees and faculties Let vs suppose I say this man to agree with Aristotle and al other chiefe Philosophers in these and perhaps in some other few Affirmatiue head Theorems and principles of natural Philosophy as the Protestant doth agree with the Church of Rome in some maine Affirmatiue Articles of Christiā Fayth Yet withall let vs suppose this new Philosopher do deny most of other subordinate Positions which Aristotle holdeth affirmatiuely in all the sayd foure parts of naturall Philosophy as for example touching the first part of this Philosophy we will suppose that he maintaines that Materia forma Priuatio are not principia rerū naturalium that there is no Materia prima of the which a naturall body is first generated and into which it is lastly corrupted and that this Materia prima is onely a Philosophicall conceite and fiction That there is not any Motus in that sense as it is commonly defined by the Naturall Philosopher to wit to be Actus entis quod est in potentia quatenus est mobile An Act of a thing which is in potentia as it is moueable That admitting there were any such motus yet that the diuision of motus is not perfect to wit that there should be six kinds of motion viz. Generation Corruption Augmentation Diminution Alteration and Lation Let him also maintaine