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
Mans brayne doth often fabricate many Chimera's and aëry Imaginations which are depriued of all reality of true existence or entity to support them But this I maintaine which is sufficiēt to my designed end that whatsoeuer is true hath entity and is in this respect euer Affirmatiue whatsoeuer is false is but a denyall of a truth therfore as hauing no reall Being is euermore negatiue And though it is in mans power through a voluntary frame and contexture of wordes that falshood may be masked vnder affirmatiue tearmes and truth vnder negations yet if we looke into the reality of sense and true vnderstanding the truth is euer Affirmatiue and the falshood negatiue To exemplify this to say God is not cruell or Man is not blynd these Propositions though they be in tearmes negatiue yet they are in sense affirmatiue onely as denying the negation of Mercy in God and of blyndnes in man so on the contrary part to say in affirmatiue tearmes God is cruell man is blynd though these sayings be deliuered in shew of affirmatiue termes yet if we do vnueyle them they are found to be in sense and vnderstanding meerely negatiue since cruelty is exclusiue to Mercy and blyndnes to sight and it is as much as to say in negatiue wordes God is not mercyfull or man cannot see Thus far of these speculations Now I draw from al these former grounds this vnauoydable Conclusion to wit that Protestancy as it is Protestancy I meane as it consisteth meerely of negatiue Propositions and Tenets and to consist only of such it is aboue demonstrated hath no true reality or subsistency in it selfe but is a meere vaporous intentionall Imaginary Conceite and consequently in it selfe false For if things be only true as they haue a reall being and therin affirmatiue and false if they want such a being and therin negatiue as the former Axiomes of schoole diuinity doe most euidently teach how then can Protestancy which consists only in denyals and negations which haue no being be reall or true For what reality of being is there in a not-being of Purgatory or in not praying to Saints so of the rest and if there be no reality in these as infallibly there is not how then can Protestancy haue any Reality in selfe And if it haue no reality in it self how then can it be really in the soule of man For certaine it is that what wanteth a subsistency in it selfe must necessarily want an existency in any other thing Now I will conclude this Chapter in assuring the Reader that I rest halfe amazed to see mē presumed to be of Iudgement thus to suffer themselues to be befooled by others and this to the irreconciliable and interminable ouerthrow of their soules by entertaining certaine aëry empty Positions in lieu of fayth obtruded vpon them which in a finall and euen libration are found to be meerely a destruction and anihilation of all faith (m) Galat. cap. 3. O insensati Galatae quis vos fascinauit The Non-entity of Protestancy by by reason of its negations proued from the like supposed example of a Philosopher denying most principles of Philosophy CHAP. V. SVch is the nature of preiudice of iudgement as that it is better able to see its owne defects in a third point wherein by resemblance it may glasse it selfe then in that to which it is so much deuoted like as the weakenes of our eyes can better endure the sight of the sun-beames reflected by the water then in the body of the sun it selfe He that will not acknowledge the irreality and Non-entity of the fayth of the Protestant by his denying almost of all positiue Articles of Christian Religion defended at this day by the Church of Rome let that man if he be a scholler seriously peruse ouer this ensuing Chapter which treateth by supposall of a Philosopher who should deny most parts of Philosophy acknowledged and taught for true by the famous Philosophers of all times I haue made choyce purposely to insist in Naturall Philosophy since nature is the subordinate Instrumēt of God first created by himselfe or rather nature is Gods great hand wherwith he sternes gouernes this whole Frame and Vniuerse euery Cause in nature being as it were a finger of this Hand and euery Effect of the cause a print of the said Finger Now then let vs as they say ex hypothesi imagine a mā who would vsurpe to himselfe the title of a naturall Philosopher by only denying most of the positiue and Affirmatiue Axiomes and principles in naturall Philosophy some few of the chiefest excepted taught by Aristotle and all other learned Philosophers and then let vs conclude in the closure of all what a strange Philosopher would this man be and whether his Philosophy could truly deserue the name of Philosophy or rather that it wold proue to be a meere denyall and wast of all true Philosophy Let this mā then I say agree with Aristotle that naturall Philosophy intreateth of a corporeall substance animate or inanimate with all his naturall causes effects and accidences to wit as it is subiect to mutation and change Let him also grant that there are Foure chiefe parts of this naturall Philosophy of which the first part concerneth the generall and common Principles of natural things The second intreateth of the world of the Elements of their first and secondary qualities of the cōposition of the bodies through the mixture of the Elements and first qualities The third part discourseth chiefly of Meteors The fourth and last part disputeth de Anima of the soule and of its seuerall kinds or degrees and faculties Let vs suppose I say this man to agree with Aristotle and al other chiefe Philosophers in these and perhaps in some other few Affirmatiue head Theorems and principles of natural Philosophy as the Protestant doth agree with the Church of Rome in some maine Affirmatiue Articles of Christiā Fayth Yet withall let vs suppose this new Philosopher do deny most of other subordinate Positions which Aristotle holdeth affirmatiuely in all the sayd foure parts of naturall Philosophy as for example touching the first part of this Philosophy we will suppose that he maintaines that Materia forma Priuatio are not principia rerū naturalium that there is no Materia prima of the which a naturall body is first generated and into which it is lastly corrupted and that this Materia prima is onely a Philosophicall conceite and fiction That there is not any Motus in that sense as it is commonly defined by the Naturall Philosopher to wit to be Actus entis quod est in potentia quatenus est mobile An Act of a thing which is in potentia as it is moueable That admitting there were any such motus yet that the diuision of motus is not perfect to wit that there should be six kinds of motion viz. Generation Corruption Augmentation Diminution Alteration and Lation Let him also maintaine
extinguishment of al reall positiue Articles of ChristiaÌ„ faith and Religion That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denyall of most if not all of such points of Religion wherin the Protestant by his like denyall of them differeth from the Catholike CHAP. VI. IT will not be heer I hope impertinent to shew in this place how the Heathen Philosopher coÌ„parteth in the most points for I will not say in all with the ProtestaÌ„ts in which points the Protestants do differ by their negatiue Fayth from the Catholike fayth From which being once declared it will appeare that if he Heathen Philosopher hath no true and positiue Fayth of Christian Religion who penetrateth no further then into the Nature impressed in thinges which nature is the very Art or Organ of God then may it be deseruedly called in question whether the Protestant Fayth hath a-any reality or formed being in it selfe And thus may falshood be controwled by the patrons of falshood And to exemplify this assumed taske in most of the chiefest Articles of the Protestant Negatiue Fayth The Protestant acknowledgeth not any true real Sacrifice to be in these dayes the HeatheÌ„ Philospher agrees with him therein The Protestant acknowledgeth not Freewill in man the Heathen teacheth the same by maintaining of his Stoicall fatum or destiny The Protestant denyeth Lymbus Patrum Purgatory and Inuocation of Saints The Heathen being demaunded of these points would answere they are but meer dreames or fictions The ProtestaÌ„t denyeth all merit of workes or Iustification by workes much more Euangelicall Counsells The Heathen as not knowing what these things meane disclaymes from the same The Protestant taketh away Vniuersality of grace purchased by our Sauiours passion The Heathen doth the like since he is ignorant what Grace is and reiecteth our Sauiours passion The Protestant teacheth the Impossibility of keeping the Commaundements the Heathen not acknowledging the sayd Commandements but guided only by the streame of Nature without Grace must therefore of necessity deny the possibility of obseruing them The Protestant maintaineth that Christ from his Natiuity was as man not free from all ignorance and full of all knowledge the Heathen as not belieuing in Christ must needs iustify the same The Protestant denyeth all reuerence and bowing to the name of IESVS the Heathen doth the same The Protestant denyeth that the Sacraments do conferre Grace the Heathen acknowledgeth no Sacraments and therfore no grace to be deriued to man by his participating of them To conclude the Protestant denyeth all Monachisme Vowes the necessity of Baptisme and diuers other Affirmatiue Positions aboue recited and taught by the Catholike Church Will the Heathen Philosopher think you acknowledge as true any of the sayd Catholike points Thus we see that where the ratio formalis of Protestancy consisteth in absolutely denying the Affirmatiue positions of the Catholikes this vnbelieuing Naturalist or Heathen Philosopher by his like denyall of the said points entreth into a most straite league and intercourse of Friendship with the Protestant therein And from this great conformity of negatiue Fayth between the Heathen and the Protestant it ryseth that diuers Protestants do wholy gentilize heerein granting Saluation and eternall happines to Heathens dying Heathens Thus for example we find no lesse an obscure Protestant then Swinglius to write in this sort (a) Zwing in l epist Swingl Oecolamp lib. 1. pag. 39. Ethnicus si piam mentem domi fouerit Christianus est etiamsi Christum ignoret And thereupon Swinglius concludeth particulerly that (b) Swing tom 2. fol. 118. 559. Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides c. are now in heauen A poynt so confessed by Swinglius that Echarius a learned Protestant thus acknowledgeth of Swinglius quod (c) In his Fasâ—iculus CoÌ„trouers printed Lipsiae an 1009. cap. 19. p. 427. Socrates Aristides Numa Camillus Hercules Scipiones Catones alij Gentiles comparticipes sint vitae eternae scribit quidem Swinglius ad Regem Galliae quem defendunt Tigurim Bullingerus Gualterus Hardenburgius c. That these named Protestants I meane I (d) Gualterus in his Apolog. p o Swiâ—g fol. 27. praefix 1. tom oper Swingl Gualterus (e) Bulling in coÌ„fes Eccles Tigurin Bullin in his preface of allowaÌ„ce to Swingl his exposition fidei ad Regem fol. 559. Bullinger (f) Simlerus in vita Bullingeri Simlerus the Tigurine Deuines did defend with Swinglius the saluauation of the Heathens dying Heathens appeareth further besides from the testimony of the forsaid Echarius euen from the references heer set downe Now where the Protestant to vindicate his profession from reproach and contumely may reply in answere heerto that seeing most of the poynts aboue rehearsed do presuppose beliefe in Christ in which beliefe the ProtestaÌ„t doth differ from the HeatheÌ„ Philosopher the Heathen not belieuing in him it therefore must of necessity follow that the Heathen Philosopher as not belieuing in Christ must therefore not belieue the former Articles which depend of the belieuing in Christ I vrge this answere is impertinent for I doe not heer insist in the reason why the Heathen Philosopher houldeth the negatiue part in the former points but I insist onely in auerring that the Protestant doth agree with the Heathen Philosopher in the denyall of the sayd points affirmed by the Catholike Neither auaileth it any thing to say that thogh the Protestant houldeth the negatiue part in the former conclusions yet that he belieueth with the Catholike in Christ that he houldeth with him there is Grace that ther are SacrameÌ„ts that there is Scripture c. though in the maÌ„ner or some other circumstance accompanying them he differeth froÌ„ the Catholike This solueth not the doubt First because we obserue that Swinglius those other Protestants aboue cited do not exact any articulate beliefe in Christ at all as necessary to saluation since we see they are not afrayd to indenize HeatheÌ„s for good Christians SecoÌ„dly in that I restraine this my Assertion of coÌ„paring the Heathen Philosopher with the Protestant only in those poynts wherein the Protestant differeth from the Catholike But in the former poynts it is certayne that the Heathen agreeth with the Protestant and the Protestant as maintayning the Negatiue differeth from the Catholike defeÌ„ding in them the Affirmatiue Againe where the Protestant agreeth with the Catholike for example that Christ is the Sauior of the world that there is Scripture Grace Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist c. these Articles in general the Protestant houldeth not as he is a ProtestaÌ„t but only as he is a Christian as in the front of this Treatise is manifested For quatenus he is a Protestant that is quatenus he is a man differing from the Catholike he euer houldeth the Negatiue And euen where he houldeth the Affirmatiue foundation in some of the sayd points as that Christ is the Sauiour of the world that there is Diuine Scripture Grace Sacraments Baptisme Eucharist c.
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.
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
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
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
Innouations thus appeares First because euery one of them taught but one or two points for the most part of Protestancy belieuing al other points of fayth with the then Roman Catholik Church for if they had maintained any other Positions of Protestancy then those with which they are charged at this day then would S. Austin Epiphanius Ierome and other orthodoxall Fathers of those tymes all which Fathers (q) Luth. lib. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 1551 pag. 454. Luther and other (r) The Archbishop of Canterbury in his defence of the Answere to the admonition pag. 472. 473. D. Hunfrey invita Iewâ—lli printed at London pag. 212. D. Whitakers contra Duraum lib. 6. p. 413. most eminent Protestants hould for absolute and grosse Papists as they terme them haue as well registred their other supposed Articles of Protestancy for Heresies as well as they haue recorded these few of which all sides confesse they stand rightly charged But no such Relation of any other points of Protestancy in theÌ„ do we find in the Fathers writings or otherwise recorded in any Ecclesiasticall History of those tymes Secondly the same is euident euen from the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those dayes and sortably heerto it is that Sebastianus Francus an eminent Protestant thus writeth (s) In Ep. de abrogaÌ„dis in vniuersuÌ„ omnibus statutis Ecclesiast For certayne through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the fayth and sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure and that for these fourteene hundred yeares the Church hath not beene externall and visible To whose iudgement agreeth D. Fulke saying (t) In his answere to a couÌ„tefaite Catholik pag. 35. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles dayes Within which circuite of tyme of the Protestant Churches Inuisibility Aerius Manicheus Iouinian and the rest did liue Thus we see that not any one ProtestaÌ„t before the reuolt of Luther can be instaÌ„ced but that it may be shewed that the same man was primatiuely a Catholike eyther in himselfe or in his Predecessours But the case is farre otherwise with the Catholike Church for it is confessed by our learned Protestants that our Catholike Church neuer departed or came out of any other more auncient Church afore in Being A truth so vndenyable that D. Sutcliffe confesseth so much though sleighting the force therof in these wordes (u) In his answere to the supplication fol. 2 It is not materiall that the Romanists neuer went out of any knowne Christian Society But M. Bunny dealeth more ingenuously and plainely heerin who thus writeth touching the departing of the Protestant Church from out the Catholike (x) In his pacificacion pag. 119. p. 26. It was euill done of them who first vrged such a separation for that it is great probability for them meaning the Catholiks that so we make our selâ— answerable to find out a distinct seuerall Church from them which hatâ— continued from the Apostles age tâ— this present or els must acknowledge 〈◊〉 that our Church hath sprung vp oâ— late or since theirs so fully this Protestant granteth that the Roman Church did neuer depart or go out from a more ancient Church But now to wind vp the conteÌ„ts of this Chapter in few wordes thus I inferre If on the one syde it be proued that euery Protestanâ— did originally come out and depart by his venting of Protestanticall Positions from our Catholike Church afore enioying a Priority of Being and that on the other side it be confessed that our Roman Church neuer departed froÌ„ out any more ancient Church afore in Being both which points are in this Chapter aboue proued what other Inference then can be made but that Protestancy as being later in tyme and meerely contradictory to our Catholicke fayth wanteth all true Entity and Subsistence for seeing the Catholike fayth for many hundred of yeares confessedly had its being afore and seeing the Protestant Fayth is but a meere Contradiction of the Catholike fayth the Protestant fayth therefore hath no Reality of Being since Contradictories cannot subsist together or enioy seuerall Beings Thus farre of this poynt where besides that the Non-Entity of Protestancy is from hence necessarily euicted the Contents of this Chapter minister a must choaking demonstration for the proofe of the Catholike Religion in generall seeing God is more ancient then the Diuell and Truth then falshood That the Protestant denyes the Authorities of all those Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads from whence the Catholikes draw their proofes CHAP. XVII THough this Chapter doth not immediatly conduce to the prouing that Protestancy is a Non-Entity yet I hold it not altogether to be Parergon or impertinent since in it it is layd open how the Protestant still continewes the Protestant that is how he is wholy deuoted and as it were become thrall to Negations â—n diuers of the former passages it is shewed that the Protestant in reference to his fayth resteth onely vpon Negations Now heer it shall appeare that whereas the Catholike drawes out his proofes in defeÌ„ce of his Religion as so many great pieces of Artillery to batter downe the walles of Nouelisme from certaine Affirmatiue reall Positiue heads the Protestant in lieu of withstanding these forces by dispute is constrayned to retire himselfe to his accustomed sanctuary of Negations so fugitiue and fleeting he is in answers thus betrampling with a bare denying the weight strength of all those Affirmatiue Classes or kinds of proofes 1. For example if the Catholike insist in the Authority of Miracles and so to descend by degrees to other Proofes for defence of his Religion in the patratioÌ„ wherof God for his approbatioÌ„ of the sayd Religion euen disiointeth the setled frame of Nature The Protestants in answere heerto deny the force of miracles tearming theÌ„ but (a) So the Centurists call them Cent 4. col 1445. Cent. 5. Col. 1486. And Osiander Cent. 10. 11. 12. c. Antichristian wonders lying signes and further saying that they deny (b) So sayth D. Morton in his Apolog Cathol part 1 l. 2 c. 25. and D. Succliffe in his Examinat of the Suruey of D. Kellison that any miracles were wrought since the Apostles dayes 2. If the Catholike alledge diuers passages of Scripture as out of Toby the booke of wisedome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees c. The ProtestaÌ„ts with full voyce cry deny these bookes to be (c) This appeareth in that in the English Translations of their Bibles they vsually in the beginning of a leafe contayning the names of the bookes of Scripture do call these bookes and some other Apocrypha Canonicall Scripture stile them only Apocryphall 3. If healledge such parts of Scripture which are acknowledged for Scripture on all sydes the ProtestaÌ„t denyes the TraÌ„slation of the said Scripture to be true and sincere auerring that it is adulterated corrupted by false versions of it This
appeareth froÌ„ that which is aboue deliuered touching the Protestants reprehension both of the translations of Scripture made by forrayne Protestants as also of our English Translations But if the Protestants doe reiect their owne brethrens Translations theÌ„ much lesse will they staÌ„d vnappealably to our Catholike Translations of the Scripture 4. If the Catholike proceed further in insisting in the Originals of both the Testaments The Protestants deny that the originalls of them are the same in all passages as they were first penned by the Prophets the Euangelists and the Apostles Thus for example in the new Testament where in (d) Matth c. 10. S. Matthew it is sayd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Peter (e) Beza in his Annotat. vpon the new Testament set foorth anno 1556 Beza denyeth the Originall herin iustifiing though it be thus read in all Greeke copyes extant at this day that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus was added by some one enclining to the defence of the Popes Primacy In like sort (f) Beza vbi supra Beza denyeth that the Greeke Originall in Luke 22. is at this present the same as it was first penned by the Euangelist mantayning that it is corrupted in fauour of the Reall presence 5. If he insist in such passages of Scripture whose Originalls and Translations therin are on all parts accepted for true and tell his Aduersary that the whole Church of God in her Primitiue and purer tymes euer interpreted the said passages of Scripture in that sense in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged The ProtestaÌ„t absolutly (g) So doth D. Whitakers l de Eceles contra Bellarm. controuers 2. q. 4. p. 223. Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed p. 400. Iewell in his Apology of the Church of England part 4. cap. 4. and most other Protestants denyes that infallible authority of the Church of God in interpreting the holy Scripture but disclayming from it appeales to his owne Priuate spirit interpreting the same 6. If forbearing the written word of God he alledge in warranting of his fayth the vnwritten word of God I meane Apostolicall Traditions the Protestant denyes peremptorily the Authority of all such Traditions Thus for example where S. Chrysostome sayth (h) Chrysost in 2. Thessal hom 4. The Apostles did not deliuer all things by writinge but many thinges without and these be as worthy of credit as the other D. VVhitakers reiects this authority touching Traditions in these wordes (i) D. Whitak de sacra scriptura pag. 678. I answere That this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father And Cartwright in depressing the weight of Traditions maintayned by S. Augustine thus writeth (k) See Cartwright in whitgifts defence p. 103. To allow S. Austins saying is to bring in Popery agayne 7. If leauing the word of God he descend to humane authorities yet so humane as that they haue the peculiar promise of (l) Matt. 18. Christs assistance therein I meane to the graue authority of Generall Councells the Protestants deny all authority of them For D. VVhitakers openly professeth that Generall Councels (m) L. de Concil contra Bellar. q. 6. may and haue erred But Peter Martyr more fully dismasketh himselfe in denying the authority of Generall Councells for he thus plainely writeth (n) Pet. Martyr lib. de votis pag. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councells so long we shall continue in the Popish Errours 8. If he produce the Testimonies of particuler Fathers of the Primitiue Church Marke with what contempt and indignity the Protestant denyes them for Luther thus depresseth them (o) Luth. de seruo arbitrio printed 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnles they were amended before their deaths they were neyther Saints nor pertayning to the Church And another though no Lutherane yet of Luthers descent in this his scurrilous Pasquill thus traduceth the Fathers (p) D. Wâ—itak conâ—r contra Duraeum l. 6. pag. 413. Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae Religionis cento consequutus est The Popish Religion is a patched cloath of the Fathers Errours sowed togeather see how impudent and petulant Nouelisme in fayth is in expecting precedency and taking the wall of Reuerend hoary Antiquity 9. If in such poynts which coÌ„cerne matter of fact as touching the supposed change of fayth in the visibility of the Church the vocation and mission of Pastours the vninterrupted Administration of the word and Sacraments all which are to receaue their proofe or els not to be proued at all froÌ„ the Authority of auncient most authenticall Histories If I say the Catholike do in proofe heerof produce the auncient Histories of those Primitiue tymes D. VVhitakers thus by denyall aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories (q) D. D. Whitak contra Duraeum l. 7. pag. 478. Sufficit nobis c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture to discouer the disparity of faith between them and vs And as for Historiographers we giue them liberty to write what they will And accordingly touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her fayth he thus coÌ„cludeth (r) Whitak vbi supra pag. 277. It is not needfull to vs to search out in Histories the beginning of this change 10. To conclude if in the last place for most demonstratiue and Affirmatiue Notes markes of the true Church the Catholike do rest as in nube Testium to vse the Apostles phrase in vniuersality Visibility vninterrupted continuance vnity Succession of Pastours Holynes of doctrine Conuersion of Kings and Nations of the Gentils c. The Protestants besides that they will not admit any Historyes in proofe of them deny and discarde the testimonies of all these Positiue Heads of proofes by erecting the Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments for notes by this meanes they reduce to their owne iudgements which is the true Church seeing they will not acknowledge the word to be purely preached or the Sacramentâ— to be rightly administred but when and where their Priuate spirit out of its Pythagorean and controwling Chaire vouchsafes so to pronouÌ„ce By all this now we may see how wholy Negatiue the Protestant is indeed so Negatiue in al points as that it may be feared he in the end will deny his owne being for as heer aboue we haue shewed that his Religion consisteth in pure denyall of our Positiue and Affirmatiue Articles so in this Chapter we haue layd downe how he labours to othrow by his like denyalls the authority of all such Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads principles from whence the Catholikes for the fortifiyng of their owne faith and Religion do drawe their proofes In which kind of proceeding the Protestant deales no otherwise with the Catholike then if a man
the Fathers and the Protestants speake of this kind of proofe First then Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14. thus writeth heerof It is an vnanswerable proofe which bringeth attestation from the Aduersaries themselues With whome conspires S. Austin lib. contra Donatistas cap. 24. saying the truth is more forcible to wring out Confession then any racke or torment To both which Fathers D. VVhitaker contra Bellar. l. de Eccles controuers 2. q. 5. c. 14 subscribes in these wordes The ArgumeÌ„t must be strong and efficacious which is taken from the Confession of the Aduersaries And I doe freely acknowledge that the truth is able to extort testimonies euen froÌ„ its enemyes Thus D. VVhitaker Now that these Protestants maintaining our former Catholike Articles were persuaded that the sayd Catholike points receaued their warranted proofe from the sacred Scripture appeareth euideÌ„tly from this one Consideration to wit because all the former alledged Protestants some foure or fiue only excepted do wholy reiect the doctrine of Traditions confidently vnanimously teaching that nothing is to be belieued as an Article of Fayth but what hath its expresse warrant and authority from the written word of God 6. The last resultancy is that the many Negatiue Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in Iudaisme Turcisme and an vtter abnegation of Christian Religion The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my Assertion for diuers of them neuer stayed in the endles progresse of refyning their Religion by Negations till at the close of all they denyed all Articles of Christian Religion and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity therupon apostating from Christianity they became most blasphemous Iewes or Turkes so true it is that Turcisme and Iudaisme is the last colour dye or tincture that Protestancy taketh Some few Examples heereof among many I will in this place retaile And first Dauid George who was a markable Protestant and once Professour at (s) OsiÌ„ad Cont. 1â— part 2. p 641. saith of Dauid Geoâ—ge vtebatur publiâ—o verbi Ministerâ—o Basiliensi Basill did after many Negations wholy deny the Christian Faith became a diuellish (t) See Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp 1568. published by the Diuines of Basill Apostata Againe Andreas Volanus an eminent Caluinist not only became a Turke but corrupted diuers others with his pestileÌ„t writings (u) In Paâ—anesi agaynst the B. Trinity Ochinus also who with Peter Martyr first planted Protestancy by his denying of many Articles of our Catholike Religion heer in England in King Edward the sixt his dayes did finally become a Iew. This is witnessed by (x) In his booke de tribus Elohim Zanchius (y) In Theolog Caluinist lib. 1. fol. 9. Conradus Slusselburge two Protestants and (z) Beza in Poligaâ— pag. 4. Beza who tearmeth Ochinus impurus Apostata Laelius Socinus once brought vp in the schoole of Geneua forsook his Christianity and did write a booke against the B. Trinity of whome Beza thus speaketh (a) Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81. Mihi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse In like sort AlamaÌ„nus a Swinglian and once deare to (b) So witnesseth Conrad Slusselb in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art 2. Beza in the end denyed the Christian faith became a Iew of whome Beza thus coÌ„plaineth A lamannum affirmant ad IudaismuÌ„ defecisse Lastly Neuserus who was chiefe Pastour of Heidelberge in the Palatinate in the end abnegated all Christian Religion and becomming a Turke caused himselfe to be circumcised at Constantinople as (d) OsiaÌ„der Cent. 16. part 2. p. 818. Osiander the ProtestaÌ„t doth witnesse thus writing of him Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis c. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantinopoli circumcisus But I will close vp this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus who thus writeth of himselfe and of other Caluinists denying the Blessed Trinity (e) OsiaÌ„der relateth that Neuserus did write these words froÌ„ Constantinople being there circumcised to one Gerlachius a Protestat Preacher at Tubinga vid. Osiander in epitom Cent. 16. pag. 209. None is known in our times to be made an Arian but an Arian is not much inferiour to a Turke or Iew who was not a Caluinist as Seruetus BlaÌ„drata Paulus Alchiamus Gentilis Gebraldus Siluanus and others therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme let him take heed of Caluinisme Thus Neuserus And thus farre of these former Porismata and concerning this last we heere see how the many small riuers as I may terme theÌ„ of our Negatiue Reformations neuer cease running till in the end they all disgorge themselues into the mayne Ocean of Apostasy and Infidelity So certayne it is that a Caluinist being lastly sublimated and refyned by Negations becommeth an Arian Turke or Iew. That the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church are not one and the same Church though some Protestants teach the Contrary for the supporting of their owne Church CHAP. XX. SVch is the refractory coÌ„tumacy of Innouation of fayth that when it is driuen to the greatest straytes by way of dispute yet before it will acknowledge its owne Errours it will labour to take saÌ„ctuary though in the middest of its own enemies According heerto we finde that when the Protestants are irrepliably and most dangerously pressed with the Inuisibility or want of succession of Pastours in their Church that for such want their Church cannot be true Church of God They then as being depriued of all other euading meanes are content out of the immensenesse forsooth of their owne good will but indeed for the better supporting of their Church to acknowledg that the Protestant Church and the Catholikes are both but one and the same Church But do the Catholikes accept of this their kindnes No (a) Virg. Aenead Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Their Calumny heer resteth in that without such their Tenet their own Church euideÌ„tly appeareth to come to vtter ruine dissolution The truth of this poynt is so cleare as that M. Hooker thus writeth hereof (b) lib. 3. Eccles Pol. p. 130 VVe gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of Iesus-Christ And D. Couell (c) D. Couell in defence of Hooker I cannot but wonder that they of Rome will aske where our Church was before Luther As if any were of opinion that Luther did erect a new Church But M. Bunny no vulgar Protestant dismasketh himselfe more openly touching this point withall sheweth the reason why himselfe and his brethreÌ„ so greedily begge this so much desired reconciliation for thus he writeth (d) Bunny an his Treatise VVe are no seueral Church from them nor they from vs c. All the diffirence betweene vs is concerning the truer members And againe (e) Ibid. pag. 109. It was euill done of them who first vrged such a separation And then after he giueth his reason in these playne wordes (f)
and all by Negations and Priuations as by so many seuerall dispositions doth in the end euen of it selfe euaporate and vanish away into Nothing Which being so how then can any Christian dreame that the soule of man which enioyeth the noblest kynd of Being should arriue to its supreme felicity by professing of that which hath no Being No. For the fayth of a Protestant is as I may tearme it but an Imputatiue fayth as the Protestants speake of Imputatiue Iustice seeing it wanteth all true Inherency in the belieuer Now then all this being most true and vndenyable why will you whome God hath enriched with eleuated Wits and whose Iudgments are able to penetrate and pierce through the greatest difficultyes with a blynd and vnexamined assent thus enthrall yourselues to this Nothingnesse so to terme it of Protestancy Thinke of the worth and dignity of a soule which is the Antitypon of the Deity for it is written Gen. 1. faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram It is you know immortall It must then enioy according as in this world it belieues and acts for all eternity Heauen or Hell the thought wherof is able to appale and strike the strongest down through feare make him with good Tobias Tob. 2. manducare panem cum luctu tremore What then remaines but that euery one of you gather himselfe together the better to with-stand such forces as may vndermine the hope of his saluation Lut. 18. Porrò vnum est necessarium This is the busines why we were sent into this world and of this each of vs must render an account at the day of our death Let not then neither the predominancy of the tymes nor the streame and sway of Authority nor expectation of temporall preferments being but glorious and guilded miseries nor any humane illaqueations whatsoeuer winne ground so vpon your wills or iudgements as till your liues end to perseuere in a Religion which hath but the word Religion plead for it Man 1. Quid proderit homini si lucretur mundum totum detrimentum animae suae faciat Therefore now then beginne to espouse your labours to your owne soules saluation Implant your selues with an immoueable resolution in our Affirmatiue and Catholike Roman fayth and Religion which is not only warranted for truth by the Protestants themselues as appeareth from the precedent Chapters so deseruedly may heer take place those words Dea◠32. Our God is not as their Gods are our Enemies are euen witnesses But also it is that Religion which cōtrary to Protestancy therein being torne with intestine disagreemēts in regard of perfect Vnion in doctrine both among the members thereof and with reference to the Head is much honoured by Gods holy word his Church in this respect being Rom. 11. Cam. 6. One body one spouse and one sheepfould And therefore not without iust reason did S. Hierome that great light of Gods Church acknowlede his Vnion and submission to our Roman Catholike Church in these wordes Hier. in ep ad Damasum I do vnite my selfe in Communion with the Chayre of Peter I know the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke whosoener doth eate the Lambe out of this House is become prophane And with this Iudicious men I close vp this short Treatise committing you to his holy Protection who was content to erect this Church by the shedding of his owne most precious bloud and battering at your eares with my incessant praiers that you would cast of and abandone for your Soules eternal happines this imaginary fayth which you call Protestācy it being in it selfe besides that it is a compound made of the Ingredients of seuerall negatiue condemned heresies but an empty sound of a word an Irreality a Phantasme of the brayne an Annihilation and wast of all true Fayth a Platonicall Idaea an Ens Rations a Fabrike only of our Imagination an Intentionality a bare Notion of the vnderstanding finally a Non-Entity My penne lights short to delineate it in wordes for since wordes are inuented to expresse onely Things how can they expresse Protestancy it being Nothing FINIS
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
Articles of our Catholike fayth neuer denyed by Luther therefore Zwinglius doth in great acerbity of words traduce him for such his Translation thus inueighing against him (a) Zwingl tom 2. ad Luther lib. de Sacram pag. 412. 413. Thou Luther dost corrupt the word of God thou art seene to be a manifest corrupter and peruerter of the holy Scriptures Now by reason of Luthers presumed false Translation a new Translation was after set forth by the Deuines of Basill which traÌ„slation was neuertheles wholly coÌ„demned by Caluin Beza as not fauouring inough their negatiue Fayth for thus Beza writeth therof (b) Beza in resp ad defens respons Castal The Basill Translation is in many places wicked and altogeather different from the mynd of the Holy Ghost Heerupon a third translation of the Scripture was made by Caluin and Beza wholy presumed to be according to the holy Ghost yet it is found so defectiue impure that Molinaeus a learned Protant putteth vpon it this Theta or marke of coÌ„demnation (c) Molin in sua TraÌ„slat Noui Testam Part. 12. fol 110. Caluin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe he vseth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides he addeth to the text The same Protestant thus also auerreth of Beza (d) Ibid. part 20. 30. 40. c. Beza actually changeth the Text. And thereupon instaÌ„ceth in diuers of Beza his corruptions But Castalio the remarkeable Protestant is not afrayd to reprehend Beza his Translation in this full manner (e) In defens TraÌ„slat pag. 170. To note the errours of that â—ranslation would require a great volume Finally Castalio himself composed a translatioÌ„ yet so defectiue and impure that Beza by way of recrimination condemneth it to vse Beza his owne words (f) Beza in Testam in praefat in Annot. in Math 3. in 1. Cor. 1. c. as Sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall And thus much for some tast and delibation of our forayne Protestants Translations of the Scripture ech later translation accusing the former for imperfect and impure as not being Negatiue inough in behalf of their Negatiue Religion so certayne it is that the very pulse life and energy of Protestancy are meere Negations But before we end this poynt we will cast our eye vpon our English Translations of the Bible and see what entertaynement they find at the hands of other more reformed and Negatiue Protestants for though diuers English translatioÌ„s haue beene made of the Bible the later euer condeÌ„ning the former for not being reformed or negatiue inough yet the Puritans whose grace chiefly resteth in disgracing their Predecessours and who are most deuoted to this negatiue faith condemne all the sayd translations as false and impure For Carleile the Puritan thus censureth them (g) Carleile that Christ desceÌ„ded not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. sequent The English Translations haue depraued the sense obscured the Truth and deceaued the ignorant in many places they do detort the Scripture from it right sense And other English Puritanes do vomit out their iudgement of the English translation in these wordes (h) Abrid gâ—ment of the booke giuen to his Maiesty by the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the text and that sometymes to the changing and obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost And heerupon they sollicited the late King for a new tranon which was granted to them and after published by authority But how can we rest assured that they wil vnchangeably satisfy theÌ„selues with this last translation will not in tyme be as earnest for another Now let vs descend to their often alteration of their publike Prayer-booke made by the aduice of Crammer Peter Martyr and Bucer and as the Statute sayth (i) In the statuts of 2. 3 Edward 6. cap. 1. made by the ayde of the holy Ghost This prayer-booke retayned diuers Affirmatiue points of the Romane and Catholike Religion for it (k) All these with diuers other Catholike points are expresly set downe in the booke of coÌ„mon-prayer printed in folio by Edward Whit-Church cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum anno 1549. admitted Baptisme by lay Persons in tyme of necessity as also grace giuen in that Sacrament in like sort it retayned absolution of the sicke penitent giuen by the Priest in these wordes By authority committed to me I absolue thee of all thy sinnes accordingly it retayned speciall coÌ„fession of the sicke penitent It further allowed the anointing of the sicke Penitent It maintained the consecration of the water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse It also retayned the vsage of Chrisme and of the childs annointing and of Exorcisme Briefly to omit many other dogmaticall and Affirmatiue points of the Romane fayth and Religion it maintayned prayer for the dead and intercession and offering of prayers by the Angells But this Liturgy or Booke of common Prayer was houlden during the reigne of Queene Elizabeth ouer Papisticall as ech man knowes And therupon the sayd Praier-booke was reformed in her tyme and made more Negatiue by culling out of it the former Affirmatiue Catholike points yet this was not done in so full a manner as it gaue contentment for Maister Parker thus complayneth thereof (l) against Symbolizing part 2. cap. 5. sect 2. pag. 4. The day-starre was noâ— risen so high in their dayes when yeâ— Queene Elizabeth reformed the defects of King Edwards Communion bookâ— c. (m) Ibid. sect 17. pag. 39. yet so altered as when it was proposed to be confirmed to the Parlament it was refused To whose iudgement Cartwright the Puritan thus subscribeth (n) Cartwright in his 2. Reply part 1. pag. 41. the Church of England changed the Booke of common Prayer twice or thrice after it had receaued the knowledge of the Gospell And yet the last change made is so imperfect in the iudgement of the Puritanes as that they wishing a new Common prayer booke to be composed thus censure of the former (o) In Whitgifts defence pag. 474. The forme of the communion booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist as the reading of the Epistles and Ghospells c. the most of the prayers the manner of ministring Sacraments c. of Confirmation c. Neyther are our Puritanes lesse forbearing to charge the CoÌ„munion booke as being in their iudgement ouer Affirmatiue for thus some of them do write (p) In the booke intituled The petitioÌ„ of twenty two Preachers in London Many things in the Communion booke are repugnaÌ„t to the word of God And agayne In the Communion booke there be things of which there is no sense there is contradiction in it euen of necessary and essentiall points of Religion And vpon this their dislike the Puritans at the (q) Pag. 58 Conference at Hampton Court motioned that they might not be
that Locus Physicus is not the vltima superficies concaua corporis continentis immobilis primò but that it ought to haue some other definition giuen to it Finally to omit infinite other Affirmatiue Propositions in the first part of Naturall Philosophy that Tempus Physicum is not Numerus mensurans motum rerum mutabilium secunduÌ„ prius posterius that is that tyme is not a space which is measured by the motion of the Heauens the Sunne but that this definition is most false and to be exploded Now in like manner to come to the second part aboue specified of naturall Philosophy Let vs further imagine that this all-denying Philosopher maintaynes that the motion of the heauens is not precisely Circular and Vniforme That the particular motion of the spheres proceed neither ab intelligentijs nor ab interna forma of the heauens That nihil est extra vltimum Caelum That it cannot be proued that a starre is densior para sui Orbis the more thick or gross part of its Orbe That there are not any Excentrikes or Epicycles in the Orbs of the Planets That one and the same starre cannot haue two different motions at the same tyme though these seuerall Motions be supposed to be made vpon different Poles That the sphere of the fixed Stars or the Sunne doe not moue at all but in lieu hereof the Earth moueth according to Copernicus and that not the Earth but the Sun according also to his opinion is the Center of the world That the starres do not borrow their light and splendour originally from the Sun by meanes of their opacity thicknes of their substance receauing into it the beames of the Sunne That the foure Elements are not the Principles or secondary matter of all naturall bodyes That the forme of all the Elements is not spherical That there is no such Symbolisme in the qualities of the Elements as Aristotle teacheth to be That the Elements do not consist onely ex partibus Homogeneis but also ex partibus Heterogeneis That the elemeÌ„t of fyre is not placed aboue the highest region of the Aire That there are not three Regions of the Aire or if there be that the midle region is not cold per antiperistasiâ— That there is no transmutatioÌ„ oâ— the elements of one into another To come to the third parâ— of naturall Philosophy As first let him maintayne that there are not fiue distinct species of conpounded or mixt bodies to wit Meteors Mineralls Plants Liuing Creatures and Man but that there are eyther more oâ— fewer Thaâ— a Vapour is not the matter of watry Meteors and an Exhalation oâ— fiery Meteors That Snow is noâ— euer ingendred in the lowest regioÌ„ of the Aire and Hayle in the midle Region only That the cause of Thunder and raine following it is not an exhalation set on fire being encompassed within a watery clowd That the Moone by casting its beames vpon the Sea and with its heat dilating and spreading the exhalations mixt with the Sea-water is not the cause of the flowâ—ng and ebbing of the Sea To descend to the last part of naturall Philosophy which chiefly treateth of the Soule And first let him iustify among other things that the Soule heere we â—peak aswel de anima vegetatiua senâ—tiua as de anima rationali is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Act Essence â—r forme by force wherof its naturall â—ody is moued and performeth its opeâ—ations That man hath not one â—nly soule but three different souâ—es to wit the Vegetatiue the Senâ—tiue and the Rationall soule That â—pecies ser sibilis is not euer required â—hat by the help thereof the exâ—ernall and internall sense should â—erforme their operations That â—he Eye of whose artificiall naturall fabrick or compacture I will speake nothing seeth not either extramittendo or intromittendo but by some other vnknowne way ordayned by God That in mans body the Diaphrama or septum transuersum serues not as a partition-wall to diuide the Concupiscible faculty from the Irascible That that Principle in Anatomy is to be denyed which teacheth that the veines proceed from the liuer and giue nourishment the Arteries from the hart and giue life the Synews from the brayne and giue motion and sense That in the Soule of man there are not two principall faculties to wit the vnderstanding and the will but that the operation of both these are performed by one only faculty that the Anima spirits are not first elaborated and wrought in that connexion of the sinewes towards the Cerebellum which is called Rete mirabile That the diuision of Intellectus agens patiens is not to be admitted for good That anima separata cannot exercise its operations but during the time it is organized with the body Finally to omit infinite other Affirmatiue points maintayned by Aristole and all other learned Philosophers that there are not those seuerall Naturall habits in the soule of man which all Philosophers ascribe to it to wit Sinderesis dictamen Rationis Conscientia so as Synderesis should in euery Sillogismo practico as it is called ponere maiorem dictamen rationis minorem and Conscientia out of the two former elicere ConclusioneÌ„ Now to draw towards an end of this passage if we suppose a man as afore we intreated to retaine some few points or Principles in Philosophy with Aristotle and other great Philosophers but in most of the branches descending from these Principles wholy to dissent froÌ„ them by maintaining euer the Negatiue part in those Conclusions as heere this Philosopher doth what should we conceaue of such a Philosopher and how poore barren and naked a Philosophy would this be or can we truly iustify that this Philosophy as wholy resting in the denyals Negations of almost all affirmatiue points taught by Aristotle and others hath any reality of Being in it selfe No for though this Philosophy intreateth Negatiuely of things which are in rerum natura yet it selfe for want of a real being is not in rerum natura And yet such is the state of the Protestants herein both being cast in one mould Therefore to parallell them both togeather I heer say that the Philosopher heer supposed reiects most of the affirmatiue points of Philosophy The Protestant denyes most of the Affirmatiue Articles of Christian Fayth The Philosopher by this his denyall contemnes the authority of all chiefe Philosophers liuing within the compasse of these last two thousand yeares The Protestant by his like denyalls betramples the authority of al Orthodoxall Fathers for these last sixteen hundred yeares The Philosopher needeth not any pregnancy of iudgement as long as his Philosophy resteth only in denyalls The Protestant neither needeth any supernaturall light which is required to true Faith to insist in his negations To conclude the Philosopher by these his Negatiues introduceth a wast and destruction of all true and solide Philosophy The Protestant begetteth by his Negations a deuastation ruine vtter
the nearest definition or rather description is to pencill it out in these wordes Protestancy is a Religion which consisteth in the denyall of the Reall presence denyall of the Sacrifice of the Masse denyall of freewill denyall of Purgatory and so in the deniall of the many other Articles iointly denyed by the Protestants But here againe this definition is most defectiue for heer also the differentia constitutiua which should constitute Protestancy and withall distinguish it from other Religions is wanting first because Negations and such is the differentia heer supposed cannot coÌ„stitute any thing for only Entia and Entia bare negations are not giue a constitution and being to Entia Agayne the presumed differentia in this definition to wit the denyall of the Real presence denyall of freewil c. stretcheth it selfe by way of application to other Religions aswell as to Protestancy for the Turkes the Iewes and the Heathens deny these former points with as stroÌ„g a bent of contradiction as the Protestant doth and so accordingly conspire vnanimously with the Protestant in such denyals Thus then we see that this Imaginary differentia in this second definition is ouer generall and of too great a latitude and doth not distinguish the Protestant from Turkes Iewes and Heathens Well then to contract this point seeing euery thing that hath any reality of being can haue its nature and Essence truly dissected by definition or description And seeing Protestancy cannot be defined for how can that be called a formed and positiue fayth which in it selfe is meer priuatiue then followeth it that it cannot be knowne what Protestancy in it self truly is and if Protestancy cannot be knowne what it is then is it to be reputed a Non-entity Yet to close vp this Chapter and in some sort to be officious seruiceable to our Aduersaries my definition of Protestancy shall for the tyme be this to wit a Religion which incorporates in it selfe the Negatiue doctrines of the Ancient stigmaticall Heretikes as heerafter will be demoÌ„strated or if you will A Religion whose definition consisteth in that it cannot be defined And thus Protestancy only is in that it is not That Protestancy consisteth of doctrines meerely contradictory in themselues and that therefore Protestancy is a Non-entity CHAP. IX PHilosophy instructeth vs that what truly implyeth in it self an absolute contradiction the same hath no Entity or being The reason whereof is this what implyeth a Contradiction supposeth a Being and a Not-being of a thing and all at one and the same tyme from whence then this absurdity would follow to wit that if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose being should consist in a Not-being and consequently should be an Irreality and nothing An vnwarrantable errour since God to whome it is more easy to doe then not to doe cannot effect or make any such thing for euery thing that is ought in some sort to beare a likenes to him from whome it proceedeth But that which hath no Being and in it selfe is nothing cannot beare any resemblance to him who giueth life Being to euery thing (a) Act. 17. In ipso viuimus mouemur sumus This Philosophicall Axiome extendeth it selfe not only to the existence or want of existence in things corporeall or material but also to the Being or not-being in things speculatiue immateriall I meane in doctrines and other suâ—h Theories of the vnderstaÌ„ding Since then it wil easily be proued that Protestancy in many poynts is compounded of seuerall contradictory and opposite doctrines Tenets such that though all may be false consequently haue no reall Being yet that of necessity the one part must want all reality of being for its owne supporting then vnauoydably it may be concluded that Protestancy as coÌ„sisting of such irreconciliable doctrines wanteth all reality is in it selfe and is but a Non-entity I will exemplify this in a poynt or two wherein the Protestants agree only in disagreeing The first shal be touching the Nature of the Sacraments All or most of the Protestants do conspiringly deny our Catholike doctrine therein in teaching that they coÌ„ferre grace but after their vnanimous denyall thereof then they presently by imbracing of contrary doctrines dissent amongst themselues like lines which once meeting in one common Center instantly breake of and runne seuerall wayes for â—winglius teacheth that the Sacraments in generall are bare and naked externall signes and is therefore condemned by (b) Lib. de Caena Do. lib. 4. Instit cap. 15. sect 1. Caluin but Caluin by ascribing more to the Sacraments then to externall signes is by way of retaliation condemned by (c) Epist. ad quandaÌ„ Germania ciuitatem fol. 196. Swinglius In like sort The Protestants do disauow all iustification by workes yet most of them hould that good workes ought necessarily to accompany a iustifying fayth But to crosse this Luther after he once became setled in the lees of sensuality thus writeth (d) So saith Luther vpon the Galat Englished in cap. 1. It is impiety to affirme that fayth except it be adorned with Charity iustifyeth not Yea further he sayth (e) Luther tom 1. pro. pos 3. fides nisi sit sine c. except fayth be without good workes it iustifyeth not c. O the calamity of these Caniculaâ— and vnlucky dayes in which eueâ— doctrinally and religiously as may say is exiled all practise oâ— Religion and good workes Againe touching the Real presence in the Eucharist all the Sacramentaries disclayme from our doctrine therein neuertheles diuers eminent Protestants as (f) lib. 5. Eccles Polic. sect 67. M. Hooker (g) Contra Duraeum pag. 168. D. VVhitakers and (h) Caluin lib. 4. Inctit cap. 17 sect 7. Caluin himselfe do teach the Manducation of Christs true and Reall body in the Eucharist by the mouth of fayth Yet is this doctrine who by disallowed by (i) In his Epistles annexed to his CommoÌ„ places englished epist. 25. Peter Martyr though Peter Martyr be therefore reciprocally controuled by Bucer in his Scrip. Anglic. pag. 548. as inclining to vse his owne wordes too much to Popery It is in like sort condemned for the most part by our (k) In their ChristiaÌ„ letter to M. Hooker English Puritanes Now to turne our Pen a litle backe vâ—on these three former points in â—he first we find these two contraâ—ictory positions The Sacraments â—re only bare externall signes And â—he Sacraments are more then externall signes In the second Good workes are necessary to accompany fayth And Good workes are not necessary to accompany faith In the third the true and reall body of Christ is taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of fayth And the true and reall body of Christ is not taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of fayth Now what more true Contradiction can there be in Positions Tenets of fayth then these are seeing as the Nature of Contradictions require they all
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
expostulate others of their Calling and might not one by retortion expostulate Luther in his owne words (m) Luth. tom 5. Ien. Germ. fol. 67. Vnde venis quis te misit Vbi sunt miracula quae te à Deo missum esse testantur And yet it is most certayne that God hath neuer honoured any one ProtestaÌ„t so much since the first appearing of Protestancy as to exhibite any one true and stupendious Miracle for confirmation of Protestancy A point so vndenyable that D. Fulk thus acknowledgeth (n) Against the Rhemish Testam in Apocalip 13. It is known that Caluin and the rest whome Papists call Arch-Heretikes worke no miracles Thus farre of this poynt Now to encircle the contents of all this Chapter within a narrow coÌ„passe I thus dispute If the Protestant Church hath had no true Personall Succession and Ordinary vocation â—f Ministers then hath it not had any true Pastours the euer watching Centinels of Gods Church as (o) Isa 162. Isay stileth them if it hath not had true Pastours then hath it not enioyed the true Administration of the word and SacrameÌ„ts if it hath not enioyed the true Administration of the word and Sacraments then hath it lost its Essence and is therby become a Nullity as D. VVillet and other Protestants in expresse words aboue cyted doe auer but if the Protestant Church hath by this meanes waÌ„ted its owne Essence and became a Nullity then euen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and demonstratiuely it followeth that Protestancy which is the supposed faith prea-by the Protestant Church belieued by her children hath in it selfe no Essence or being but is a meere Nullity or Non Ens. The Non-Entity of Protestancy proued from that which it worketh in the VVills of its Professours CHAP. XIV ABoue we haue discouered that Protestancy is depriued of all reality of being both in regard that its whole Systema or frame consisteth of meere Negations which are nothing els but an ouerthrowe of Positiue Articles of faith as also besides from seueral other heads in that diuers particuler Negatiue Tenets of their profession are if they be truely vnfoulded fouÌ„d to be only vaporous imaginations without al subsisteÌ„ce or being Now we will demonstrate the like Irreality of Protestancy by taking into our consideration what that Religion produceth in the belieuers thereof in regard of the Will of Morality in conuersation maÌ„ners Where first we are to note that Sinne I meane the deformity which is in euery sinnefull act is in its owne nature Non ens and therfore cannot proceed from God VVho (a) Gen. 1 Iohn 1. made only thinges and all thinges The reason heerof is in that Sinne being a deuiation erring from the rule of reason and a priuatioÌ„ of goodnes hath as (b) De ciuit Dei l. 12. c. 7. S. Austin all learned men teach no efficient but a deficient cause consequently is Non-ens And therefore Peter Martyr as aboue is sayd for authorities pertinent may well be iterated very fully discourseth of the nature of Sinne in these wordes An (c) In CoÌ„mon places in English part 1. cap. 17. euill thing such is Sinne hath no efficient but a deficient cause If any will search out this efficient cause it is euen like as he would see the Darknes with his eyes or comprehend Silence with his eares which being priuations it is no need that they should haue efficient causes Now to apply this to our matter in hand Heere I auouch that diuers Negatiue Articles of protestancy doe of their owne nature incline mans Will to sinne and al turpitude in manners and therefore as those protestantical Theses or Tenets in the vnderstaÌ„ding being but Negations or Priuations of the contrary positiue Articles of the Catholikes are depriued of al Entity of Being so also is that which they produce and beget in the Wil I meane Sinne wickednes in the belieuers of them depriued of al Entity or Being thogh otherwise most displeasing hatefull in the sight of God And so that Axiome of Philosophy may heere by allusion take place Ex nihilo nihil fit That Sinne is the fruit and effect of Protestancy I will exemplify it in those few Articles ensuing maintayned by the Protestants And first the Protestants Denyall of Free-will we Catholikes houlding the Affirmatiue heereto impelleth man most forcibly to the satisfying of his vnlawfull and voluptuous desires in all kindes of Sinne. For who is persuaded truly that he hath not Free-will in his actions but that he is forced to doe that he doth why should he labour to scale the craggy tower of vertue or auoyd the pleasing bayte of Sinne seeing it is not in his power through want of Free-will to performe eyther And vpon this ground it is that the Protestants teach that (d) Luther serm de Moyse the ten CoÌ„mandements appertayne not vnto Christians (e) D. VVillet Synops Papism pag. 504. And that the law remaineth stil impossible to be kept through the weakenes of our flesh neither doth God giue vs ability to keepe it c. Now doth not this doctrine open the passage to the breach of all the ten Commandements and this without controwle or condeÌ„ning the party so offending since it is not in his power to doe otherwyse In like sort the Protestants doctrine of Reprobation which is but the Negatiue to the Catholike doctrine of Vniuersality of Grace much discourageth men froÌ„ vertue and inuiteth them to vice since that man who is a reprobate let him labour neuer so much to please God with walking in a most vertuous and paynefull lyfe yet by this doctrine certaine it is that he shall be damned Againe the Protestants denyal of Purgatory as it freeth a man froÌ„ making any restitution or satisfaction for wrongs done to a third person so it much emboldeneth him to sinne assuring himselfe by this doctrine that notwithstaÌ„ding any enormous sinnes whatsoeuer committed by him he once dying â—n a true fayth there are no temporall punishments reserued for him after this lyfe I heere but briefly touch how â—he Protestants by their defence of â—heir Iustifying fayth excluding workes both from iustification merit do speake and write most â—asely and vnworthily of good workes For doth not (f) In praefat ad Rom. Illiricus â—hus traduce all good workes To hould that good workes are in respect but of presence necessary to saluation as some Protestants do hould is a papisticall errour Yea he further most impiously enlargeth himselfe saying (g) Vide Art colloq Aldeburg pag. 120. sest 11. Good workes are not only not necessary to saluation but hurtfull to it And D. Whitakers speaking particulerly of Virginity doth thus disualew it (h) Contra Camp rat 8. Virginity is not simply good but after a certayne manner And of fasting D. Willet thus teacheth (i) Synops pag. 241. Neyther is God better worshipped by eating or not eating Thus farre to shew that
the Protestant Church and then after I will set downe such is the fluctuating and wauering iudgmeÌ„t of our aduerries herein how they are content at other tymes to extend and enlarge those bounds by affording Protestancy and the members therof a greater space or compasse as I may say to expatiate and walke in And to begin We first fynd that the poore Papist Papists reiected is wholy exterminated from this holy Society of Protestants in proofe whereof to be luxuriant in authorityes were but lost labour it being a thing so well knowne and generally confessed therefore the testimony only of D. VVhitakers shall serue who thus writeth (a) D. Whitak lib. contra Duraeum â— sect 2. I will not allow the very name of a lawful Church vnto the Romane Church because it hath nothing which a true Church ought to haue To proceed The Protestants â—xile the Anabaptists Anabaptists out of their Church as being no members â—hereof nor their doctrine Proâ—estancy This is euident out of â—he Confession of Ausburg thus â—eaching (b) Cap. 9. VVe condemne the Aâ—abaptists who disallow the baptisâ—e of Infants and thinke them to be â—aued without Baptisme To which Confession the Confession of Switzerland in these like wordes â—ubscribeth (c) Cap. 20 VVe condemne Aâ—abaptists who deny Infants to be â—aptized In like manner they exâ—lude from their fayth and Religion the doctrine of the Arians Arians â—ccording to the Confession of Ausburg in this poynt saying (d) Act. 1. VVe condemne all Heresies rising agaynst this Article meaning the Article of the Trinity as the Manichees Arians Eunonians c. To come to Heretikes Heretiks in generall they also by reason of their particuler Heresyes houlden seuerally by them are exempted out of the members of the Protestants Church and this euen by the iudgement of the Sacramentaries and the Lutheranes And first touching the iudgement of the Sacramentaries passed on this poynt We find the Confession of Basill thus to teach (e) Art 24 VVe dryue away all whosoeuer dissenting from the society of the Holy Church do eyther bring in or follow strange and wicked doctrines And Caluin in lyke manner sayth (f) Instit. l. 2. cap. 15. num 1. Rightly Austin denyeth Heretikes to haue the same foundation with the godly albeit they preach the name of Christ. D. Sucliffe (g) In his first booke of the Church cap. 1. Heretykes are not of the Church Finally D. VVhite (h) In his way to the Church pag. 10. All Heretikes teach the truth in somethinges yet we deny them to be of the Church of God The same doctrine is fully maintayned by the Lutherans For thus teach the Centurists (i) Cent. 6. in the praeface Neyther Heretykes nor deuysers of fanaticall opinions are of Christ but they are of Antichrist and of the Diuell c. VVhich point is also fully taught by Luther himselfe in these wordes (k) Lurh in his exexplication of the Creede Neither Gentill Iew Heretyke or any sinner is saued vnles he make atonement with the Church and in all things thinke do and teach the same But the Protestants rest not heerewith Schismatikes but also doe banish Schismatikes froÌ„ the Church And to begin with the Lutherans Melancthon his iudgement heerein is this (l) In his booke agaynst Suenkfeld tom 2. p. 301. Neither is there more then one Church the spouse of Christ neyther doth this compamy consist of diuers sects Which doctrine he borrowed from Luther thus writing (m) Luth. in his great Catechism tom 5. p. 628. I belieue that there is on earth a litle CoÌ„gregation of Saintes agreeing in all things without sects or Schismes To come to the Sacramentaries herein Caluins wordes are these (n) Caluin in his Treatise of the necessity of reforming the Church VVe do professe the vnity of the Church such as is described by S. Paul to be most deare vnto vs and we accurse all them that shal any way violate it D. Field (o) Of the Church 1. cap. 7. The name of the Catholike Church he meaning his owne Protestant Church is applyed to distinguish men houlding the fayth in vnity from Schismatikes D. VVhitaker (p) Controuers 2. q. â— cap. 9. It is false that Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches Finally to omit infinit others for breuity D. Fulk thus discourseth (q) D. Fulke of the Succession of the Church VVhat skilleth it whether one being drawne by Heresy or Schisme froÌ„ the body of Christ be subiect to eternall damnation Thus farre to shew how our Aduersaries do coarct and straiten and in some sense rightly the true fayth and Church of God consequently in their iudgments their owne Protestant fayth and Church seeing they admit not in these former testimonies any other fayth and Church to be true but onely Protestancy and their Protestant Church Now in this next place shall appeare the wonderfull Protean-like mutability of the Protestants who are only constant in Inconstancy in crossing their former Iudgements by affording a farre greater Circumference to the Professours of Protestancy to their Church then in the former passage they haue done so true it is that Innouatours are caryed spiritu vertiginis now affirming one thing presently after and al with one breath recalling and contradicting the poynt afore affirmed or maintayned For now you shall finde that the Protestants most courteously grant that almost all the former kinds of men and some others more bad are members of the Protestant Church and consequently their doctrines true Protestancy since a man is stiled a member of a Church in regard that his faith and doctrine is consonant and sorting to the fayth doctrine of the sayd Church and not in any other respect And to begin The Protestants out of their bounty include the Papists as meÌ„bers of their Church Papists admitted for thus doth Luther say (r) Luther in epist. cont Anabaptist In the Popery there is true Christianity yea the kernell of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And the Confession of Ausburg confesse thus of themselues the Papists (s) In praefat VVe are all Souldiers vnder one Christ. To descend to others confessing no lesse His Maiesty deceased thus speaketh of this poynt (t) In his speach to the ParlameÌ„t An. 1605 Nouem 9. being put forth in print VVe doe iustly confesse that Papists especially our forefathers laying their only trust vpon Christ and his merits may be and are somtymes saued And M. Hooker thus acknowledgeth the Papists for his brethren (u) Lib. Eccles pol. 3. c. 128. we gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of IESVS Christ. M. Bunny (x) In his Treatise of Pacific sect 18. VVe are no seuerall Church from them meaning the Papists nor they from vs. And the foresayd M. Hooker particulerly touching the fayth of the Papists thus further pronounceth (y)
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
of knowledge free from Ignorance taught by (z) Alledged by Beza in respons ad Act colloq Monâ—isbelgar part 1. p. 147. 148. Iacobus Andreas (a) In Enchirid CoÌ„trouers printed Tubiâ—ge 1630. p. 146. 147 by Osiander and finally by most Lutheran Protestants whose names and References were ouer-laboursome to set downe Yet is this doctrine contradicted by (b) In resp ad Act. colloq Montisb part 1. p. 147. Beza by (c) In his reuiew of D Kelli-Suruey printed 1606 p. 55 D. Succliffe and by (d) In his Synops. p. 599. 600. As also gainsaid by most of the Puritanes D. VVillet 19. That Christ is God of God and hath his Substance of his Father as the whole Catholicke Church holdeth maintained by (e) In Apoc. p. 474. M. Fox by (f) In disp â—0 Theol. p. 49 Lobechius by (g) In his Confut of Atheisme p. 37. D. Doue by (h) In loc com an 1561. p. 24. Melancthon by (i) Eccl. pol l. 5 p. 113 M. Hooker by (k) In his defence of M. Hooker p. 16. 17. D Couell and finally by the (l) pag 34. Confession of Belgia in the Harmony But contradicted by m In his explicat persidiae Valent. Gentilis extant in his tract Theol p. 771 Caluin (n) Contra Heshutiâ— Beza (o) Contra Campâ—raâ— â— D. VVhitakers and many others 20. Lastly that Antichrist is yet to come and consequently that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist which position of the Protestants is but a Negation of the Bishop of Rome being Christ his Vicar vpon earth is taught by (p) In epi. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss Thessalon pag. 216. Zanchius (q) See the booke entituled Anâ—ichristus siue Prognostica sinis mundi pag 74. 75 79. See also Fran. LaÌ„bertus vpoÌ„ this point in his CoÌ„ment vpon the Reuelat. Franciscus Lambertus and according to (r) D. Doue in his sermon of the secoÌ„d comming of Christ thus sayth Some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist he yet reuealed or no. D. Doue his iudgement by diuers other Protestants yet contradicted by most Protestants Puritanes of these dayes Hitherto of these twenty Affirmatiue Cath. points taught by learned ProtestaÌ„ts in teaching belieuing of which it followeth that of necessity the sayd Protestants must disauow and reiect the contrary Negatiue Tenets mantained by other Protestants Certayne Porismata or Resultancies rising out of the seuerall passages of this Treatise CHAP. XIX IN the precedent Chapters and passages of this Treatise my vndertaken taske in prouing Protestancy to be an Irreality Non-entity is I hope fully accomplished I will in this place extract from the same passages certayne Resultancies by inferentiall deductions 1. The first of these shal be that since Protestancy is in it selfe but a priuation or denyall of fayth and a meere Nothing that therefore God who is not the Authour of Priuations and defects did neuer make or institute Protestancy nor will be worshipped with such an empty and imaginary Religion For how can it enter into any braine but to weene that he froÌ„ whome streame the different welsprings and sources of all things for he is (a Psal 55 fons vitae (b) Eccl. 1. fons sapipientiae (c) Hier. 2 fons aquae viuae he who being immutable altereth all things euer worketh yet euer quiet often changeth his actions yet neuer changeth his determinations (d) Malac. Ego sum Dominus non mutor he who is more ancient then all Eternity more large and diffuse then any magnitude more strong then all Power He that is aboue all yet lower then all so becomming to the whole vniuerse both the Circumference and Center He who is the origen of al things being the Efficient cause of All the Forme of All and the End of All He who as a Sunne placed in the middest of the whole world casteth forth on ech side innumerable beams of his vneclypsed radiancy and power by the which beames he createth produceth conserueth all things To conclude he whome truly to describe all tongues are but dumbe (e) Tertul. de Trinit A deloquendam Dei Maiestatem omnis eloquentia muta est Now heer I first demaund can it enter into I say any braine to imagine that this most poteÌ„t most wise God should institute a fayth and Religion by the which only he will be truly honoured and by meanes whereof the soule of Man shall arriue to its eternall beatitude the Terminus ad quem for which it was created which Religion is as aboue is proued but a Chimera Irreality Secondly I demand whether this wise potent and Iust God who in infinite places of his sacred (f) As in Psal 9. 10. God shall rayne snares vpoÌ„ sinners fire and brinstone and blasts of stormes the portioâ— of their Cup. And agayne Ecclesiasticus 40. death bloud contention edge of sword oppression hunger contrition c. all al these are created for sinners And yet more Psal 91. All they that worke iniquity shall be coÌ„founded Besids innumerable othâ—â— places Word hath thundred out his most dreadfull Comminations threats agaynst Sinne and the commiters thereof will take delight in that Religion and fayth whose many Articles Principles or Tenets do euen exhale breath forth as an ordure or stench out of a filthy and pudled ChaÌ„nell into the belieuers will improbity sensuality Iniustice and all dissolution whatsoeuer in conuersation maÌ„ners But such are the Protestants Articles of denying Free-will denying the possibility of keeping the Comandements denying of Purgatory denying IustificatioÌ„ by works depressing of Virginity Pouerty and Obedience such other Protestanticall Tenets aboue discoursed of so true it is that Fayth is of a specular nature euer in its operation reflecting backe vpon the vnderstanding and will 2. The second Porisma issuing out of this discourse may be this We all know that the Protestants doe in their pulpits and els where with great clamour and noyse vociferate and cry out that the Pope is Antichrist Now heer I aske whether in a solide and not preoccupated iudgment it is not more probable that the Protestants are the Precursours forerunners of Antichrist as playning and cauening the way against his comming then that the Pope is Antichrist My reason is this In this Treatise it is abundantly proued that the Protestant denyeth most points of our Christian and Catholike Religion so as Protestancy essentially resteth in such Negations This being so how fitly doth this kind of denyalls and Negations sort to Antichrist who at his comming shall by his denying of Christian Religion and all the Articles therof seeke what in him lyeth to annihilate ouerthrow the sayd Christian Religion and for such his proceeding some (g) so writeth Hyppolytus Martyr in orat de consummaâ—ione munde Fathers doe coniecture that his name shal be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Nego and this both
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