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
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
wanton complacency in repeating the word I deny thus writeth * See Duraeus in cōfut respōs VVhitaker ad decem rationes Camp rat 10. I deny that God can make Christs body to be present in the Eucharist I deny seauen Sacnaments I deny grace to be giuen by Sacraments I deny freewill in man I deny good workes I deny praier for the dead I deny Christ to be borne of a Virgin I deny that he descended into hell I deny the Communion of Saints I deny the forgiuenesse of sins Thus Beza To whose denyalls I will make bold to add one more to wit I deny that Beza houlding these Negations can be saued And thus these former Men who as afore did Luther Zuinglius and Bucer much vaunt of their proficiēcy in this their negatiue controlling of the Romane Church for Caluin being expostulated by some how endles he and his sect were in going out from their former proceedings thus salueth the point (y) Caluin lib. de scādal extant in Tractat. Theolog. They do as if a man should accuse vs that at the first breaking of day we see not yet the Sunne shining at noone day But what Is not Protestancy come yet to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perfection of its negatiue Reformation by all the former Protestants No verily For the Protestants Reformatiō in regard it is neuer at an end is like herein to Eternity which is euer spending it selfe and yet neuer lessens For in this next place step in the Brownists and the Anti-trinitarians both of them challenging to themselues a new Reformation euen in the Negatiue part Thus do the Brownists for exāple deny the (z) Barrowes booke in his discourse agaynst Vniuersities Lords prayer and (a) See Halls Apology sect 30. agaynst the Brownists Baptisme of Infants which they say is the marke * In Hals descript to the Separat before the Epistle dedicatory of the Beast They also deny our (b) Hall vbi supra materiall Churches (c) Barrows vbi supra Vniuersities To conclude with the Anti-trinitarians they yet vrging a further Negatiue Reformation do heervpon deny the blessed Trinity and diuinity of Christ condemning the Catholike Article of the Trinity for the most notable relique or brand of all Romish corruption for thus M. Hooker writeth hereof (d) M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 4. pag. 18◠The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland thinke the very beliefe of the Trinity to be a part of Antichristian corruption c. Hitherto of the Protestants Reformations of the Catholike and Romane fayth and all this by meere Negatiues I meane Negatiues to the Affirmatiue cōtrary Articles taught by the Church of Rome from whence we may well inferre that the fayth of a Protestant in regard of such his Negatiue Religion is a meere wast deuastation of all true fayth and that his beliefe consisteth only in not belieuing Now that the Iudicious Reader may more fully and intensly obserue how many Articles of our Catholike Religion the Protestāt denyeth I will heere amasse the chiefest of them together though most of them haue beene aboue expressed that so the Reader may haue a full Synopsis or sight of them all at once The Protestant then denyeth the Reall presence the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse the visibility of the Church the Churches freedome from errour the succession of Pastors vniuersality of grace freewill praier to Saints Purgatory prayer for the dead Pilgrimages diuers parts of Canonicall Scripture Papall Iurisdiction of Bishops power of Priest-hood to remit sinnes Monasticall life vowed chastity single life of priests prescript fasting-dayes the Grace and Necessity of Baptisme fiue Sacraments Christs descending into Hell besides some others So wholly negatiue are the Protestants in all the Articles controuerted at this day between them and the Church of Rome Neither can our Aduersaries reply that they hould diuers Affirmatiue points ventilated at this day betweene vs and them we retayning the Negatiues as for exāple Parity of Ministers Mariage of Priests and other Votaries Reprobation Christs only Mediatorship by way of intercession Christs suffering in soule c. To this I answere that these poynts are Affirmatiue in words but meerly negatiue in sense like some drugs which are pleasant in the tast but dangerous in the operation since they are negatiues to the Monarchy of the Churches gouernment to vowed chastity to Vniuersality of Grace to the intercession of Saints and to the all-sufficiency of Christs corporall death all which our Catholike points are Affirmatiue Such is the subtility of Innouatiō in doctrine as to inuest their Negatiue Tenets in Affirmatiue Titles that thereby they may seeme more specious regardable And thus farre concerning the foresaid Prolegomena That the Protestants haue often corrected and reformed their Translations of the Bible and the Liturgy or Common-booke of prayer in fauour of their Negatiue Religion euery later excepting agaynst the former as corrupt and impure CHAP. III. I Will subnect to the former Prolegomena this passage following which is to shew that after our Protestants had newly moulded their Religion by their pure-impure negatiues then instantly their next labour was to make new Translations of the Holy Scripture and to reforme their publike Liturgy or booke of Common prayer according to their afore chosen negatiue Religion And as the Protestants at seuerall times more more reformed their Religion by increase of Negatiues so they also at the said seuerall tymes made new Translations of the Bible and set forth new bookes of Common-Prayer euer sortable to their last negatiue Reformation Thus we see how this censuring and reforming humour is the very eye comportment and carriage of Protestancy From which course of theirs the iudicious Reader may obserue the preposterous method taken by the Protestants heerein For whereas themselues do teach that fayth and Religion is to be extracted out of the true infallible sense of the Scripture consequently that their iudgements in the Scripture ought to be knowne to precede in tyme before faith yet with thē the faith was first established and then the Scripture was after by their Trāslations squared to their fayth Thus with them it fell out that the Scripture was true in such and such a poynt because it confirmed by their translation their new assumed negatiue fayth and not that their fayth was true because it was consonant to the Scripture before it was so translated by them so making their fayth the square of the Scripture and not the Scripture the square of their fayth But to come first to the seuerall Translations of Scripture the later euer condemning the former as not sufficiently translated in full defence of their negatiue Positions And first Luther trāslated the Scripture presently after his open reuolt and Apostasy This translation was as the first much admired so blazing starres at their first appearance are much gazed vpon yet because it warranted many affirmatiue
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
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
Eccles Pol. p. 128 Touching the maine poynts of Christian fayth wherein they constantly persist we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus-Christ D. VVhitgift (z) In his Answere to the Admonition p. 40 The Papists belieue the same Articles of fayth which we do For breuity D. VVhite shall conclude this poynt saying (a) In defence of the way cap. 38. In the substātiall Articles of fayth we agree with the Papists Now by these Testimonies and confessions we see most differently from their former writings that Papists are members of the true Church and consequently in our aduersaries censure of the Protestant Church and that the articles of Papistry are but the fayth and doctrine of Protestancy In the next place according to the Methode aboue come in the Anabaptists Anabaptists whom the Protestāts admit to be of their Church and their doctrine no way preiudiciall to their owne doctrine of Protestancy For first of this point Oecolampadius thus writeth (b) Lib. 2. Epist pag. 363. Baptisme is an externall thing which by the law of Charity may be dispenced withall And (c) Controu 4 9. cap. 2. p. 716. VVhitakers iudgment is that we may abstaine from Baptisme so there be no contempt or scandall following Finally D. Morton thus brotherly acknowledgeth the Anabaptists (d) In his Answere to the Protestāts Apology lib. 4. ca. 2. sect 10 VVe Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists not to be vtterly desperate Touching the Arians M. Hooker telleth vs in these wordes (e) Eccles Pol. lib. 4. pag. 181. The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland c. he heerby insinuating that those Protestant Churches in Poland did acknowledge the Arians Arians as mēbers of their Church though I fully presume that M. Hooker himselfe was of a far different opinion And M. Morton peremptorily maintaineth that his Protestant Church is one and the same with the Church of the Arians and giueth his reason thereof in these words (f) In his booke of the Kingdome of Israel the Church pag. 94. Because the Ariās hold the foundation of the Gospell They further proceede incorporate within the Protestant Church euen Idolaters Idolaters For M. Hooker thus affirmeth (g) Eccles Polic. l. 3. pag. 126. Christians by externall profession they are all whose marke of recognizance hath in it those thinges which we haue mentioned yea although they be impious Idolaters wicked Heretykes persons excommunicable And this poynt receaueth its further proofe from the Protestāts comportement toward the Catholikes For we well know that the Protestants at other tymes both by writing and in their Sermons with most tragicall Exclamations charge the Catholikes with Idolatry cōmitted in their adoring our Sauiour Christ in the most blessed Eucharist and in their worship exbited to Images and Relikes And yet aboue we see the Protestants teach that the Protestant and Catholike Church are but one the same Church Now if the Papists be members of the Protestant Church that they be Idolaters as the Protestāts do dreame thē are Idolaters members of the Protestant Church But the Protestant doth not limit his Church with in these former Cancells or bounds for he also comparteth and interleageth euen with the Infidels Infidels admitting them to be members of his owne Church teaching that they be capable of saluation For (h) Act. Mon. pag. 495. M. Fox relateth of a Protestāt Martyr by him for learning and vertue much magnified who thus taught A Turke Saracene or any Mahometan whatsoeuer may be saued if he trust in one God and keep his law And (i) Bale Cent. 6. p. 404. Bale warnes vs to be wary that we condemne not rashly any Turke But this poynt is further most amply taught by Swinglius and other Protestāt deuines as aboue in the sixt chapter of this Treatise is manifested to which passage for greater expedition I referre the studious Reader But what hath Protestācy yet receaued its due circumscription as I may say and confinement No for the Protestants charity is so great and immense Antichrist as that they are content to admit and indenize euen him whome they mantaine by their own writings to be the true Antichrist for a member of the Protestant Church O most strange Church cōsisting of such Heterogeneous members That this is so I thus prooue The Protestants I meane the greatest part of them confidently teach that the Pope is the true Antichrist deciphered in the holy Scripture Now marke what Protestants neuertheles confesse in this poynt D. Whitakers thus writeth (k) D. Whit. in his Answere to the first demonstration of D. Sāders I will not say that from the tyme that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all dāned And yet the sayd D. Whitakers elswhere (l) D. Whit. in his answere to the last demonstration of D. Sāders auerreth most cōfidently the Pope to be Antichrist I will adioyne heerto the like charitable censure of M. Powell who taught the Pope to be Antichrist and yet thus writeth (m) M. Powel de Antichristo cap. 33. p. 338. I will in no wise say that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was first reuealed to be Antichristianity are damned Thus far of what persons are truly acknowledged by the iudgement of the Protestants for members of their owne Church But Musculus the Protestant is more lauish herein and proceedeth yet one step further by enlarging the Protestant Church his wordes are these (n) Musculus in loco com de coena p. 552. I imbrace all for brethren in the Lord howsoeuer they disagree frō me or amongst themselues as long as they mantayne not the Popish Impiety O most Serpentine and diuelish rancour and malice Thus far of this Subiect in generall But now to reflect vpon the premises and to draw from thence an vnauoydable deduction If so then on the one syde euery Fayth Religion and Church are to haue knowne explayned as their chiefe and first Theoreme what doctrines concurre to the making vp of the same fayth and Religion and what kind of men are the mēbers of the said Church and if this be not first known that then it followeth that such a faith or Church is but meerely Intentionall and Irreall And if on the other part Protestancy and the Protestant Church be so irresolute deuided and distracted in iudgment a necessary Attendant of Errour and falshood that at one tyme they will wholy exterminate from their fayth and Church the Papists the Anabaptists the Arians Heretikes in generall and Schismatikes and at another tyme or perhaps at the same time by the same Protestants wil incorporate and admit into the fellowship of their Religion and Church not only the sayd Papists Anabaptists Arians Heretikes Schismatikes but also supposed Idolaters Infidels Antichrist and euery one who in any sort impugne the Church of Rome if all
not being content to seeke to depriue another of his state and liuing should no lesse labour with all sedulity and care to preclude and forstaule the true owner of all meanes for his regayning and recouering his sayd state That Sundry of the most learned Protestants as not houlding a Negatiue fayth to be any reall fayth at all agree with the Catholikes in belieuing the Affirmatiue Articles of the Catholike fayth CHAP. XVIII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1) Id est Secundae cogitationes prudentiores sayth the greek senteÌ„ce to which may well seeme to allude in sense though not in wordes that other saying (2) Praestat retrosum currere quam male currere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of which two sentences diuers of our learned Aduersaries haue thought good to incorporate in their owne writings Who vpon their later more retired thoughts and houlding it a greater honour rather to returne well backe in their iudgements then to proceed badly forward haue wholy disclaimed from this their Negatiue fayth For many of theÌ„ there are who well weighing the emptines of their owne Religion as consisting onely of Positions which is as is aboue made cleare but an annihilation of all Positiue and true Fayth counting it altogether vnworthy that such a nakednes of ReligioÌ„ should for euer haue a working influence ouer their iudgments haue therfore at the length vpon their laâ—er more mature deliberation â—n diuers weighty points wholy reâ—ected this Negatiue Religion and â—n place thereof haue fully imbraâ—ed and entertayned the contrary Affirmatiue Articles of fayth euer maÌ„tained by the Church of Rome â— will insist in twenty principall Articles of our Catholike ReligioÌ„ and consequently almost in the whole body of the Catholik faith â—o which the more graue imparâ—iall and dispassionate Protestants doe giue their full assent belieuing them be most true and comâ—onant to Gods sacred word To â—et downe the Protestants owne wordes in proofe heerof it would be needlesse and ouer-laboursome in regard both of the multiplicity of the Protestant Authours affirming so much as also of the great variety of the Affirmatiue Catholikâ— Articles mantayned by theÌ„ Therfore to take a shorter cut I will seâ— downe only by way of Reference the places in the Protestants bookes in which the sayd Catholike doctrines are by them fully taught and defended 1. And to beginne The doctrine of the Reall presence in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to the bodily mouth is affirmed not only by Luther but by all the Lutheranes without exception they taking their name of Lutheranes from him in regard of such their defence and beliefe of the sayd doctrine therefore it is booteles eyther to set downe the particular names of them or to make reference to such places of their writings wherein they teach and iustify the sayd doctrine they chiefly differing from the Catholike in the manner of the Presence 2. The Reall Presence not only of the efficacy vertue of Christs body but also of the body it selfe after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of fayth is iustifyed by (a) Inâ—tit lib. 4 d 18. sect 7. 32. Caluin by (b) In his Eccesiast policy l. 5. sect 67 pag. 174. 177. M. Hooker by (c) Contra Duraeum pag. 169. D. VVhitakers by (d) In Script Anglican pag. 548. 549. Bucer by (e) In his â—riedly caueat in the third leaf M. Ryder and finally by the (f) In the English Harmony pag. 431. ConfessioÌ„ of Belgia but contradicted for Popish doctrine by Swinglius and almost all other Sacramentaries and particulerly by Ludouicus Alemannus who thus writeth Neque etiam per fidem seu incomprehensibili modo vt vocant quia hoc totum imaginarium repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo 3. That Sacraments doe not only signify but conferre Grace where a true disposition is in the Receauers is mantayned by (g) In epi-tom Colloq Montis-Beigar p. 5â— pag. 42. Iacobus Andreas (h) Contaa Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. D. VVhitakers (i) In his true difference part 4. p. 539. D. Bilson by (k) In Enchirid CoÌ„trouers quas Aug. Confesâ—huâ—eâ— cum Caluinianis p. 272. Osiander (l) In his Ecclesiast policy l. 5 sect 57. p. 127. 128. M. Hooker and finally by (m) In ca. 4. epist ad Romanos Melancthon who thus writeth of this poynt Repudiandaest Swinglij opinio qui tantùm ciuili modo iudicat de signis scilicet Sacramenta tantùm notas esse professionis c. 4. That Christ after his passion descended in soule into Hell is affirmed by (n) In his speciall Treatise of that title printed 1592. D. Hill by (o) Alledged by D. Hill vbi supra Aretius Melancthon and M. Nowell they being alledged by D. Hill to the same purpose Add heerto that Lymbus Patrum whereunto we Catholikes belieue that Christ did descend in soule after his death is affirmed by (p) In Lib. Epist Swingl Oecolamp l. 1. p. 19. Oecolampadius (q) In lib. ep Swingl Oecolamp l. 3. p. 590. 561. Swinglius (r) In his com places in Engl. part 2. cap. 18. pag. 221. Peter Martyr and (s) In his Decads fol. Bullinger 5. Purgatory is taught by (t) Tom. 1. VVittenb in resolut de Indulg Conclus 15. fol. 112. Luther in disputat Lypsicacum Eckio and by (u) M. Fox Acts Mon. p. 1313. Latimer That temporall punishment is reserued by God to satisfy his Iustice for sinne already coÌ„mitted which is the ground of Purgatory is taught by diuers Protestants to wit by the Publike (x) pag. 229. Confessios in the Harmony by (y) In Symbolum p 8. Iaspar Oleuianus by (z) In his Answere against the Aduersaries of Gods praedestination pa. 215. 216. 217. Iohn Knox. 6. The visibility of the Church at al tymes is affirmed by (a) In lâ—c â—â—m â—dit 1561 C. â—el â—eâ—â—s Melancthon by (b) In Iesuit sin part 2 â—a 3 p. 240. D. Humfrey (c) 〈◊〉 of the Church c. 10 pag. 5. D. Field (d) 〈◊〉 his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Englâ— p 15â— Peter Martyr (e) In his soâ—eraigne Remedy against Schiâ—me p. â—â— Enoch Clapham and diuers other learned Protestants for breuity heer omitted though contradicted for Popish by (f) In the tower dâ—â—putat with Edmund CaÌ„pian the secoÌ„d dayes Conscience D. Fulke (g) In his Synops p. 4â— D. VVillet and many others 7. Inuocation of Saints maintayned by (h) Luth. n purgat quorundam Art Luther who thus writeth hereof De intercessione Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia sentio iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque inuocandos vy certayne Protestants (i) Of this see Hafferenferus in locis Theolog l. 3. stat 4. loc 5. p 463. in Polonia by (k) Vide Fox Act. Mon. 462. Thomas Bilney by (l) Act. Mon. pa.
THE 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
of Christ was once established is the Authority of the Church and this is called Amussis regula or the Propounder This propoundeth to her children to be belieued all those things which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued Now let vs examine whether these two points so necessary to true fayth doe accord to the fayth of Protestancy or not And first touching Prima veritas reuelans which is God I heere say that no reuelation of God touching the beliefe of things meerely Negatiue as the points of Protestancy are as afore I intimated is necessary for who will say that we cannot belieue that there are not many worlds without the speciall reuelation thereof by God Seeing we perceaue that children Heathēs and Infidels who while they continue in that their state are not capable of Gods supernaturall reuelations do not belieue that there are many worlds By the same reason then I say that no reuelatiō of God is necessary to giue assent of iudgement that there is no Purgatory no place in Hell for Children vnbaptized no inherent Iustice no praying to Saints and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatiues Now as touching the second poynt which is the Authority of the Church propounding to her Children the things by God reuealed we know that in this our age Luther was the first who denyed many Articles of Catholike Religion heer now agayne I expostulate what Church did propound to Luther that these points were to be denyed and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denyall of them It cannot be sayd the Catholike Church propoūded them to him to be denyed because the Catholike Church did then and at all tymes belieue the Affirmatiues to them as true as that there is a Purgatory that we may pray to Saints c. And to say that the Protestant Church did propound to Luther the denyall of the sayd poynts is most absurd Seeing at Luthers first bursting out and his first denying of the sayd poynts there was no Protestant but himselfe and therefore no Protestant Church then was but in being The verity of which point besides that it is heerafter prooued frō the acknowledged inuisibility of the Protestāt Church in those dayes is euicted euen from the ingenuous Cōfessions of learned Protestants for thus doth Benedictus Morgensternensis a Protestant contest of this point saying (d) Tractat de Eccles p. 145. It is ridiculous to say that any before Luther hath the purity of the Gospell And vpon this ground it is that Bucer styleth Luther (e) In lib. Apolog. of the Church part 4. c. 4. the first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine Marke you not how our Aduersaries do subtily make the tytles of the Gospell of the Apostle of the reformed doctrine c. to serue as certayne veyles or curtains to hide their bad cause frō the eyes of the ignorant Thus far to demonstrate both from the definition of Fayth set downe by S. Paul and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true fayth that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernaturall fayth is but an absolute Nullit◠of fayth That Protestancy cannot be defined and that therefore it is a Non-entity CHAP. VIII EVery thing that hath a reall Existence or Being may haue its nature explicated by the definition of it so as euery true reall thing is capable of being defyned This definition consisteth of two parts to wit of Genus and Differentia as Logick teacheth the Genus doth comprehend the Essence of the thing defined the differentia or some other Proprieties in lieu thereof doth more particulerly constitute the thing defyned and distinguisheth it from all other things for example A man is defined to be Animal rationale A liuing Creature enioying Reason Heere the word Animal demonstrates the Essence of Man Rationale doth constitute man in definition and maketh him to differ from all other sublunary Creatures Now then if Protestancy or a Protestant cannot be defyned for want of Genus and differentia then wanteth it a true Essence and is but an Intentionall notion of the mynd To defyne a Protestant in these wordes thereby to set the best glasse vpon their Religion A Protestant is a Christian who belieueth the Articles of Fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture This indeed is a specious definition seruing only to lay some fayre colors vpon the rugged grayne of Protestancy and but to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant But withall this definition is most false for seueral reasons First because though a Protestant be a Christian yet quatenus he is a Protestant the word Christian is not genus to him as aboue is said for the word quatenus implying a reduplicatiue formality hath reference not to the Genus in a definition but only to the differentia as aboue is noted For the word Protestant as is formerly declared is a word only of distinction thereby to make him differ from the Catholike but in the word Christian they both accord and agree Agayne euery different Sect or Heresy will mantaine with as great venditation confidēcy as the Protestant doth that its Religion or Heresy is agreable to the true sense of the Scripture will vye with the Protestant text for text of Scripture by detortiō of it for the supporting of its heresy as we find by the exāple of the Ariās Eutichians Pelagians the rest who euer fraught their pestiferous writings with an aboūdāce of scripturall authorities And the like course doe our later Heretikes also take to wit the Brownists the Family of loue and the Anti-trinitarians so true is that sentence of old Vincensius Lyrinensis (a) Contra haeres Si quis interrogat quem piam Haereticorum vnde probas vnde doces hoc statim ille Scriptum est enim Thus we see that those wordes to wit who belieueth the Articles of fayth according to the true sense of the Scripture supplying the place of differentia in the former definition may be applyed to all sects indifferently if their owne Interpretation of Scripture may take place aswell as to the Protestant And therefore as being of too great an extent it doth not distinguish a Protestant from any other Sectary yet the nature of a true definition requireth that the definition and the thing defined should be of an equal expansion and largenes that is that the definition and the thing defined should conuertibly be affirmed the one of the other Lastly I say that this former definition of a Protestant or Protestancy is but a meer Paralogisme or Sophisme called Petitio Principij being but a poore and needy begging of the thing as proued which still remaynes in controuersy For I eternally deny that Protestancy is according to the true sense of Scripture And this denyall our learned Catholike deuines haue sufficiently iustifyed and made good in their writings against the Protestant Now then this former definition being deseruedly exploded
haue a true reference ad Idem From whence it then followeth that the one side at least if not both in these former contradictions hath no reality or truâ— subsistence of Being And heereupon then I conclude that since all these former alledged men are accepted by the Church of England as good Protestants and all their meere contrary doctrines in the former poynts are taught for good Protestancy that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines whose nature requires a Not-be ng of one poynt is no reall and truly subsisting fayth but a meere Chymera and Non-entity The points of Protestancy touching which the Professours of Protestancy and especially the Caluinists amongst themselues do so diametrically differ are amoÌ„g others these following VVhether God doth decree and will sinne or but only permit sinne VVhether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church whether as aboue is intimated the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of fayth or but Sacramentally only present whether in case of Adultery the innocent party may marry againe whether the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme and the vse of the Surplisse be lawfull whether Bishops be Antichristian or lawfull whether Christ suffered in soule the paines of Hell besides many others The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another yet all is good Protestancy as before is sayd and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants and Professours of the Gospell that euen by the law and nature of Contradictories the one syde must euer want a reall subsisting Being and thereupon it followeth that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine must be in it selfe a very nothing This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our aduersaries in Articles of Protestancy is made more manifest by recalling to mynd what is aboue set down touching the great violent dissentions of the ProtestaÌ„ts concerning their translatioÌ„s of Scripture their booke of Common praier But leauing that as aboue touched the same will likewise be made euident by remembring in what acerbity of style the Protestants haue writ one against another euer intimating thereby that the different doctrines differently maintained by them were truly Contradictories and therefore the Tenets of the one syde at least meere irreall as wanting all true Being But to contract this poynt I will particulerly insist as most conducing to the subiect in hand first in setting downe the expresse words in their owne dialect of the English Protestants and the English Puritanes and after I will put downe some few tytles of Protestants Bookes written one against another from which the Reader may euen depose that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different bookes against other Protestants defending the contrary must of necessity be in themselues contradictory and incompatible one with another But to begin with our English Protestants And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritanes (l) In his booke dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory They are headstrong and hardened in Errour they strike at the mayne points of fayth shaking the foundation it selfe and calling to question Heauen and Hel the diuinity and Humanity yea the very Soule and Saluation of our Sauiour himselfe And yet more in the same place The Puritanes haue pestilent Heresies c. They are Hereticall and sacrilegious M. Powell thus styleth the Puritanes (m) Powel in his coÌ„sideratioÌ„s They are notorious manifest Schismatikes cut of from the Church of God The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them (n) In the Suruey of pretended discipline cap. 5. 2. 4. The Puritanes do peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriture and Fathers to serue their owne turne Now the Puritanes on the other syde are ready to repay the ProtestaÌ„ts former curtesy in their owne laÌ„guage for thus they write (o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplicatioÌ„ to the high court of Parlament Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops their adherents do much swarue â—rom the same c. And agayne (p) This appeareth in the booke of Constitutions and Câ—nons Ecclesiassticall printed aÌ„no 1604 The worship in the Church of EnglaÌ„d corrupt superstitious vnlawfull â—epugnant to the Scriptures The Arâ—icles of the Bishops Religion are erroâ—eous their rites Antichristian By this we may discerne what mutuall recrimination and what â—reconciliable repugnancy there betweene the English moderate â—rotestant and the English Puâ—itan and this euen in great matâ—ers and of highest consequence â—nd therefore the former M. Parks â—onfesseth sincerely and ingenuâ—usly of this point thus saying (q) M. Parks vbi supra p. 3. The Protestants deceaue the world â—nd make men belieue there is agreeâ—ent in all substantiall points They â—ffirme there is no question among theÌ„ of the truth And this much touching our domesticall Protestants and Puritanes In the next place I will descend to forrayne Protestants and for greater breuity among many huÌ„dred of bookes written by Protestants against Protestants see heer the (r) Isa 19. Aegyptian set against the Aegyptian ech one fighting against his brother I will content my selfe with setting downe the titles only of ten of them From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude that the Controuersies being the subiect of those bookes are not of that adiaphorous and indifferent nature as that the Tenets of both sydes might be true but that the Patrones of both sides did hould cotradictory doctrines and such as that granted by supposall the truth and Being of the one part the other of necessity waÌ„teth all reality of Being And to begin 1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus IudaizaÌ„s Hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate deitate Christi Spiritus sancti c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittenberg anno 1593. 2. Alberti Graueri Bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi braptae 1598. 3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blaspemos errores Swinglianorum CaluiuistaruÌ„ Tubingae anno 1586. 4. Anti-paraeus Hoc est refuâ—atio venenati Scripti à Dauide Paâ—aeo editi in defensione stropharum â—orruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluiâ—us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1â—98 5. Denominatio Imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. 6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. 7. Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563 8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graues perniciosi
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
by reasō that this greeke word maketh vp the number to wit b Apocal. 13. 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shal at his comming both in their denyalls and workes labour mightily to euert Christian Religion And if S. Iohn sayth truly that euery one who in any sort denieth Iesus to be Christ may figuratiuely be tearmed Antichrist (i) Ioan. 1. Quis est mendax nisi qui negat Iesum esse Christum hic est Antichristus c. how fully simply and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his comming deny Iesus to be Christ And consequently shall deny all the particular mysteries of Christianity 3. My third Resultancy respecteth the Protestants seuerall different Translations of the Scripture and their seuerall different settings forth of their Comon Booke of Prayer as is aboue shewed and yet euen at this day they are neither content with the last Trāslation of the Bible or last publishing of the Booke of Common Prayer though all corrected and reformed by way of Negatiues but charging thē with many vntruths corruptions and blasphemyes most earnestly thirsting after a new Translation and a new composition of the Communion Booke if so they could obtayne it From whence we conclude from their owne pens that hitherto the Protestāts neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture and a forme or cōmon Booke of Praier free from Errours Now this being granted by thē how mightily are the Protestants foyled thereby For first whereas their owne doctrine is that the (k) Luth. so teacheth praefat Assertionis suae Caluin lib. 4. Instit c. 9. Kemnit in Examen Concil Trident. sess 4. Melancthon locis de Ecclesia Scripture is the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Religion they are heerby by their owne implicite confessions euen as yet depriued of this Iudge seeing themselues do grant that the pure and vncorrupted Scripture and not as it is abastarded with deprauations ought to be this Iudge Agayne to be depriued of the true Scripture as themselues by acknowledging all former Translations to be impure false must consequētly grant they are is to be depriued of one of Gods chiefest pledges of mans saluation the Scripture of God and the necessary deductions out of it being the spirituall meates wherwith with reference to his saluation the vnderstanding of mans soule is chiefly fed nourished * Ioan 6. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis Spiritus vita sunt And as touching the want of a true Communion Booke of Praier the which the Protestāts by their former excepting against al Communiō Books hitherto published do acknowledg to want the Protestants do heerin potentially grant that hitherto they haue not known how and in what manner they ought to pray which how great a spiritual detrimēt it is who seeth not since by Praier we ouercome him who is inuincible praier indeed being the mother daughter of teares by which teares seconded with the help of the Sacraments the blemishes and spots of our soules are washed out (l) Psal 50. Lauabis me super niuem dealbabor 4. The fourth It is in the former passages proued euen from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene Inuisible or rather during those tymes vtterly extinct Now this confessed disparition vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men doth necessarily inuolue in it selfe that the Protestant Church is not nor can be the true Church of God since the true Church of God must at all tymes enioy a continual vneclipsed splendour of its owne visibility I will enleauen this my Assertiō both with the authority of holy Scripture the volūtary acknowledgmēts of our learned aduersaries And not to ouercharge the Reader with a needles surplusage of many testimonies some few and those pertinent shall serue And first we thus read to be prophecyed of the Church of God (m) Isa 60 The Iles shall waite for thee their Kings shall minister vnto thee and thy gates shall be continually open neyther day nor night shall they be shut that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils And in the new Testament it is sayd of our Sauiour (n) Ephes 4. He gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of Saints c. till we all meete in the vnity of faith that is as is els where in this Treatise shewed euen by the Protestants scholia (o) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testamēt in Ephes 4 for euer Now these former diuine Oracles prouing an vninterupted visibility of the Church of God are attēded on with the like acknowledgments euen of the Protestants for Melancthon after he had alledged certaine places of Scripture in proofe of the Churches euer visibility doth thus write (p) Melancthon in lotis com edit anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia Hi similes loci c. These and such lyke places of Scripture non de Idaea Platonica sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur And D. Field accordeth therto thus saying (q) D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 10. It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vaine in prouing that there is alwayes hath beene a visible Church c. for all this we most willingly yield vnto Finally D. Humfrey thus sealeth vp the truth hereof (r) D. Humfrey in Iesuitis part 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam Conclusio est clarissima It is a manifest Conclusion that the Church is to be conspicuous or visible Now heer aboue is deliuered first that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Inuisible Secondly as proued both from the Scriptures and from our Aduersaries doctrine that the true Church of God must at all tymes be visible and conspicuous If thē you will mingle these two Ingredients togeather you shall finde that the Compound made of them will be this That the Protestants Church for want of a continuall visibility at all tymes is not the true Church of God The same deductiō of prouing the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God may be made from the confessed want of administring the word Sacraments in the sayd Church For seeing the Administration of the word Sacramēts are the essentiall Notes of the true Church in the Protestants iudgments seeing withall by their owne Confessions aboue expressed their Church hath wanted for more thē a thousand yeares togeather this so necessary Administration of the word and Sacraments it then ineuitably followeth that the Protestant Church for want of these Essētial notes of the true Church is not the true Church of God euen by their owne doctrine 5. The fifth is to obserue the aboue confessed Truth of our Catholike Religion in all the chiefest Articles euē from the Aduersaries pens This is the greatest most conuincing proofe that can be desired for heere marke what both
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