OF THE AVTHOR AND SVBSTANCE OF THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH AND RELIGION TWO BOOKES Written first in Latin by R. S. Doctour of Diuinity AND Now reuiewed by the Author and translated into English by VV. Bas Euery thing must be reduced to its beginning Tertull. Praescript cap. 20. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXI The Scope of this Worke. IF both Luther himselfe and the famousest Protestantâ— of all sorts haue many wayes most plainly and most freely confessed that Luther was the Author and Beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion as in this worke doth manifestly appeare then vndoubtedly he was so And if Luther were the Author and Beginner therof assuredly it is not the Church and Religion of Christ. Read therefore and iudge indifferently and thereby an end may be made of all Controuersies in Religion betwixt the Catholiks and Protestants THE PREFACE OF THE AVTHOR TO the Reader Wherein the manner and profit of this Worke is declared THERE are two kinds of questions gentle Reader which are in controuersy betwixt the Catholikes and Protestantes the one kind is of fact to wit Whether Luther was the Author and beginner of the Protestants Church and ReligioÌ„ whether before him it were visible and had Pastours whether he and the first Protestant Preachers were sent to preach Protestancy and the liâ—e The other kind of question is of Christs doctrine or law For example whether Christ taught good workes do iustify be necessary to saluation meritorious and such others Why a a question of Fact is handled rather theÌ„ of doctrin At this present I treate not of this second kind of question but only of the former and that for three causes First the questions of Doctrine are innumerable but the questions of Fact few And many haue handled them and that most exactly but these few haue touched and for ought that I know none of purpose hath hitherto written of the Authour of Protestancy and in that manner as I intend to write Secondly there are few questions of doctrine of that nature that all other controuersies of faith depend vpon them but the most questions of Fact are such as if they be well decided al other Controuersies of religion are at an end Such kind of question this especially is which now I handle VVhether Luther were Author and beginner of the Protestant church and Religion For if it be made manifest that he was the Author and Beginner of it euery one will straihgt see that it is not Christs Church Religion but Luthers deuise and inuention Thirdly in questions of doctrine or law Protestants want not some pretext of Scripture as neither any Heretikes wanted and therfore diuers tymes they are ready to debate these kind of Questions in which as Tertullian sayth they pretend Scriptures Prescrip c. 15. and with this their boldnes shake some and in the dispute weary the constant catch the weake send away the midalâ— sort with scruple and douâ—ts But in questions of Fact they are destitute not only of al pretence of Scripture vnles it be some most vaine but also of all testimony of men and help of reason and stand only vpon their owne sayinges are conuinced by the testimonies of the whol world and sometyme also by their owne confessions and therefore are brought to debate these kind of questions no more willingly then is a theefe to his tryall Neither do they in these disputs either weary the constant or catch the weake but shew their owne weaknes and wilfullnes vnto all kind of men And this is the cause why Ministers are so loath to dispute of the Church because the Church being a company of men includeth many questions of fact as of antiquity succession continuance visibility mission ordination of Pastours and such like in which points there is little colour or shew on their part 2. Fourthly Protestants exact more difficult poofes in questions of doctrine then they can demand in matters of Fact For in matters of Fact wherof the scripture speaketh nothing they must be content with testimonies of men against whome no iust exception can be made or they must refuse all triall of these kind of questions But in controuersies of doctrine they account those only to be lawfull proofes which are taken out of the scripture Neither doe these satisfie them vnlesse they be plaine (a) Melan. Brent in Hospin fol. 107. Colloq Ratisb sess 11. expresse and as they say word (b) Vorst respons ad Slad for word containe that which is in question or at least be so pregnant and strong that they (c) Luth. de seru arbitr fol. 440. Lib. 6. confess c. 4. stopp all mâ—ns mouths that they can gainsay nothing For it is the common fault of Protestants which S. Augustin saith himselfe was guilty of whiles he was an heretike that they will be as certaine of all things as that seauen and three make ten Nay they yield not alwayes to these kind of proofs For what can be sayd more expressy more plainly more literally then the scripture saith that man is iustified by workes and not only by faith that that which our Sauiour gaue with his hands to his Apostles after his last supper was his very body and bloud and such like yet the Protestants yield not to these kind of testimonies but deuise figures and shiftes to delude them Catholiques proofes in controuersies of doctrine are certainly Theological demonstrations because they are clearly drawne from the proper principles of Diuinity to wit from cleare words of God confirmed by the tradition of the Church and vnanimous exposition of the Fathers which kind of proofe is as great and strong as either Diuinity or law or any Science whatsoeuer which is founded in words either doth affoard or the nature of any law or science which is grounded in words as Diuinity is can beare or affoard And as the Philosopher saith well it were starck madnes to exact any other kind of proofes of any Profession then the nature therof can affoard 1. Eth. 1. But because heretiques expound what words soeuer as they list and litle set by the authority of the Church or Fathers and the vnlearned hardly perceaue what kind of proofe is a Theologicall demonstration such as Diuinity can affoard no greater or which is the true sense of Gods word or how great the authority of the Churh and Fathers ought to be therefore with them Catholiks proofs in points of doctrin albeit in truth they be Theological demonstrations take litle effect Wheras on the other side Catholique proofes in matter of Fact are not only Theologicall but also that I may so speake Mathematicall demonstrations because they consist of one principle which is grounded not only vpon the foundations of Diuinity to wit the word of God together with the expositioÌ„ of the Church and Fathers but also is manifest by the light of reason which kind of principles these are That Gods Church hath alwayes him
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
Chapter of Isaias tom 4. fol. 220. thus writeth There is no religion in the world which receiueth this opinion of iustification by only fayth and we our selues in priuate do scant belieue it though we publikely defend it By which words he sheweth that neither Hussytes nor Waldenses nor any Christians besides Protestants and scarce they also do belieue the principall and most fundamentall article of Protestancy howsoeuer openly they professe it That the Church cannot be so inuisible as Protestant confesse theirs to haue byn before Luthers tyme. CHAP. VI. 1. BY the name of the Church we vnderstand not as I sayd before only the men but men sociated or the society of men in the fayth worship of God Wherfore that a church be sayd visible not only the men but their worship of God must be visible Neither by this word visible do I vnderstand here that only which can be seene but whatsoeuer is sensible according both to the vulgar phrase of speach wherewith we say See how it soundeth as S. Augustine noteth and also after the phrase of scripture Lib. 10. Confess c. 35. wherein as the same holy Doctour obserueth All sensible things are called visible And Protestants as is before shewed do confesse that before Luthers rising their Church was simply inuisible Lib. 1. de mor. Manich c. 20. and vnseene of any either of those within or without her And necessarily they must say so because they can name none at all who before Luther arose did see a company of men who professed to belieue iustification by only fayth and the rest of the fundamentall principles of Protestancy yea they affirmed that it was so inuisible Ca. 4. n. 11. as it implyed contradiction to haue byn seene of any That the Church cannot be inuisible 2. Now that the Church Militant or liuing on earth cannot be so inuisible I proue first because it is against an article of fayth of diuers Protestants And if perhaps any hereupon imagine that either Protestants neuer graunted the contrary or that if they did graunt it their testimonies against themselues are not to be accepted let him read what hereafter I write touching that matter in the last chapter of this booke Wherefore in the Confession of Saxony cap. 15. they professe in this sort God will haue the Ministery of the ghospell to be publike he will not haue the voice of the ghospell to be shut vp only in corners but will haue it beard of all mankind Therefore he will haue publike and seemely meetings and in them he will haue the voice of the ghospell to sound He will also haue these same meetings to be witnesses of the Confession and separation of the Church from the sects and opinions of other Nations God will haue his Church to be seene and heard in the world and will haue her deuided by many publik marks from other people And the same they repeat in the Consent of Polony cap. de Coena And the same Confession of Saxony cap. of the Church VVe speake not of the Church as of a Platonicall idaea but we shew a Church which may be seene and heard The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard in all mankind VVherefore we say that the Church is in this life a visible company c. SecoÌ„dly it is against their owne definitions of a militant Church ProtestaÌ„ts definitioÌ„s of the Church For the foresayd Confession of Saxony defineth the Church in this life to be a visible company The Magdeburgians in their 1. Century lib. 1. c. 4. col 170. do thus write The Church may be thus defined The Church in this life is a company of those The câ—urch in this life who imbrace the sincere doctrine of the Ghospell and rightly vse the Sacraments And the very same definition giueth Melancthon tom 4. in cap. 3.1 ad Tim. pag. 398. Hutterus in his Analysis of the confession of Auspurg pag. 444. saith This Church which is sayd to be and to be belieued The Church which we belieue is not a Platonicall idea but the visible company of those that are called Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 2 The militant Church is the company of the elect and truly saythfull Church militant professing the same sayth partaking the same Sacraments c. Hereof properly speake the scriptures when they call the Church the spouse of Christ the body of Christ redeemed with the bloud of Christ sounded vpon a rock Gerlachius tom 2. Disput 22 Defining the Church as it is on earth we say that it is a congregation of men Church on earth who called by the voice of the Ghospell heare the word of God and vse the Sacraments instituted of Christ. 3. Thirdly it is against the properties and markes of the true Church assigned by the Protestants themselues to be altogeather inuisible For thus their Confession of Auspurg cap. 7 The Church of Christ properly so called The proper Church hath her marks to wit pure doctrine c. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12 The true church is discerned from other nations by the voice of true doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacraments The true Church The French Confession art 27 VVe belieue that the true church ought to be discerned with great care VVherefore we affirme out of the word of God that the Church is the company of the faythfull who agree in following the word of God and imbracing true religion wherein also they daily profit growing and confirming themselues mutually in the feare of God The Confession of the Low Countries art 29 By these markes the true Church shall be discerned from the false if in her the pure preaching of the Ghospell be of force by these markes it is certaine that the true Church may be distinguished The Confession of Scotland art 18 It is necessary that the true Church be discerned from the false by euident marckes least being deceiued we imbrace the false for the true to our eternall damnation Againe VVe belieue the markes of the true Church to be true preaching of the word c. Melancthon in his answere to the Bauarian articles tom 3. fol. 362 It is euident that the true Church is a visible company And vpon the 16. to the Romans tom 1. pag. 486 She is the true Church who teacheth the Ghospell aright and rightly administreth the Sacraments Danaeus in his booke of Antichrist cap. 17 The proper definition of the Church This is the proper definition of the Church that the true Church is the company of the faythfull who serue God purely and keep the notes of adoption instituted by him such as are the heauenly word the Sacraments and discipline By these 3. marks the false Church is distinguished from the true Lubbert in his 4. booke of the Church cap. 2 VVe say that the Church doth shew her selfe to be the true Church by the sincere preaching of the word of
a true Church and vnderstand their foresayd Maior vniuersally it is false for not euery true Church in that sense is Apostolicall or hath euer beene For a schismaticall Church is true in doctrine and yet is neither Apostolicall nor hath euer beene And if they vnderstand their Maior particulerly the conclusion followeth not because it is deduced out of pure particuler propositions And thus much of the Maior 7. Secondly the foresayd argument is a sophism because of the Minor by which one vnknown thing is proued by another one false thing by another not only false Protestāts proofe out of a thing more vnknowne but also impossible For it is more vncercertaine that the Protestant Church holdeth the doctrin of Christ then that she was before Luther For albeit she were not before notwithstanding it was not impossible that she should haue beene but that she holdeth the doctrine of Christ is both false and impossible also And as Luther sayth in defens verb. Coenae tom 7. fol. 385. It is a mad mans part to proue vncertaine things by others as vncertaine And D. Whitaker cont 2. quest 3. cap. 3. All proofe is by thinges that are more knowne Which also he hath cont 2. quest 5. cap. 18. Sadcel praefat lib. cont Traditiones Daneus l. 4. de Eccles cap. 2. D. Morton part 2. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 37. Pareus lib. 3. de Iustificat cap. 1. Wherupon Luther tom 2. Praefat. assert Antic fol. 95. writeth Aristotle and all sense of nature sheweth that vnknowne thinges must be proued by thinges more knowne and obscure thinges by manifest If therefore as Pareus sayth lib. 1. de Iustificat c. 20. when the Aduersarie is brought to that that eitheir he gainesayth himselfe or beggs that which he is to proue assuming that in his proofe which is in debate or trifleth by repeating now and then the same thing he is vanquished surely then Protestants are vanquished whom in this smal work we haue shewed oftentymes to gaine say themselues now including these within the Church now excluding them now affirming the Church to be inuisible now denying it now to haue alwayes Pastours now denying it and the like And in this argumment with which alone they proue the existēce of their Church before Luther they assume in the Minor that which most of all is in debate Caluin 4. Insticut c. 1. § 12. Narrat de Eccles Belg. p. 196. And the Maior they can proue no otherwise then by trifling by repeating it and saying that it is out of all doubt I add also that the sacramentaryes say that the Lutheran Church erreth euen in the fundamentall points and the like say the Lutherans of the Sacramentaries and scarce there is any Protestant who doth not thinke that the Church whereof he is doth erre in some points What reason then haue they out of the truenesse of the doctrin of their Churches to inferre their perpetuall existence 8. Thirdly I adde that the manner wherwith Protestants doe proue the Minor of their foresayd syllogisme is sophisticall and not such as they exact of vs for proofe of our doctrine For commonly they exact of vs to shew that our doctrine is contained in expresse words in Scripture or as Luther sayth lib. de seru arbit tom 2. fol. 440 inso manifest testimonies as are able so to stop all mēs mouths as they are not able to say any thing against it But manifest it is that such be not the proofes wher with Protestants proue their doctrine For to omit other points where is in expresse words in scripture that fundamentall point of their doctrin that we are iustified by only faith Say the contrary is so expresly in S. Iames epistle Tom. 6. in c. 12. Gen. as therfore Luther blasphemously sayth S. Iames doted And the Lutherans for that very cause deny his epistle to be canonicall Besides VVhitak cont 1. q. 4. cap. 3. Protestants doe now confesse that the scripture is not of it selfe sufficient to end all questions of faith and that Schismatikes cannot be conuinced by scripture How then can they sufficiently proue al the points of their doctrine by scripture VVhitak loc cit p. 490. Plessy l. de Eccles c. 9. Againe themselues acknowledge that they need certaine meanes to attaine to the right sense of the Scripture and that their meanes are humane and not infallible as knowledge of tongues conference of places and such like and with all that such as the meanes be such is the exposition of Scripture If therfore their meanes be not infallible how can their vnderstanding of the scripture be infallible Moreouer they scarce euer proue any thing by both principles out of scripture but almost euermore adioyne one human principles as easily will appeare if their proofs be brought to a syllogisticall forme as well obserue the most learned Bishop of Luçon in his defence of the Principall articles of faith cap. 3. 5. And how can they be infallibly certaine of the conclusion which they cannot know but by one human principle whereof they can haue no such certainty Furthermore because many of their proofes doe not only consist of one humane principle Protestats conclude against sense which is not at al in the scripture but also they inferre a conclusiō directly contradictory to that which the scripture in most expresse words teacheth of that matter As for example when they proue that the Eucharist is of not the very body and bloud of Christ alwayes one of their principles is humane and besides their conclusiō is flat contrary to expresse words of scripture which affirmeth that it is Christs very body and bloud And who is he in his wittes that will perswade himselfe either that the scripture meaneth that the Eucharist is not the body bloud of Christ which directly it neuer sayth rather then that it is his body and bloud which it as expresly sayth as euer it sayth any thing or that that proofe is not sophisticall which out of one humane principle at least inferreth the contrary of that which the scripture most expresly teacheth Lastly they neuer proued any one point of their doctrine any otherwise then euer Heretiks do that is in their own iudgmēt neuer before any iudge or general Councell which Luther himselfe confesseth in c. 27. Gen. tom 6. fol. 368. in the words In the affaire of the Gospell we haue decided the matter against al the impiety of the Pope without form of law VVe accused not the Pope neither could we for there was no iudge Yea their doctrin hath bin cōdemned according to all forme of law in the Generall Councel of Trent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to whō they appealed and of al other kinds of Christians 9. Fourthly I say that the foresayd argument is a sophisme in that in a sēsible matter as the Church is it concludeth against the sense of all men For nether did any see the Protestant Church before Luther