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
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 the nearest definition or rather description is to pencill it out in these wordes Protestancy is a Religion which
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
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
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
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
haue a true reference ad Idem From whence it then followeth that the one side at least if not both in these former contradictions hath no reality or truâ— subsistence of Being And heereupon then I conclude that since all these former alledged men are accepted by the Church of England as good Protestants and all their meere contrary doctrines in the former poynts are taught for good Protestancy that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines whose nature requires a Not-be ng of one poynt is no reall and truly subsisting fayth but a meere Chymera and Non-entity The points of Protestancy touching which the Professours of Protestancy and especially the Caluinists amongst themselues do so diametrically differ are amoÌ„g others these following VVhether God doth decree and will sinne or but only permit sinne VVhether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church whether as aboue is intimated the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of fayth or but Sacramentally only present whether in case of Adultery the innocent party may marry againe whether the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme and the vse of the Surplisse be lawfull whether Bishops be Antichristian or lawfull whether Christ suffered in soule the paines of Hell besides many others The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another yet all is good Protestancy as before is sayd and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants and Professours of the Gospell that euen by the law and nature of Contradictories the one syde must euer want a reall subsisting Being and thereupon it followeth that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine must be in it selfe a very nothing This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our aduersaries in Articles of Protestancy is made more manifest by recalling to mynd what is aboue set down touching the great violent dissentions of the ProtestaÌ„ts concerning their translatioÌ„s of Scripture their booke of Common praier But leauing that as aboue touched the same will likewise be made euident by remembring in what acerbity of style the Protestants haue writ one against another euer intimating thereby that the different doctrines differently maintained by them were truly Contradictories and therefore the Tenets of the one syde at least meere irreall as wanting all true Being But to contract this poynt I will particulerly insist as most conducing to the subiect in hand first in setting downe the expresse words in their owne dialect of the English Protestants and the English Puritanes and after I will put downe some few tytles of Protestants Bookes written one against another from which the Reader may euen depose that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different bookes against other Protestants defending the contrary must of necessity be in themselues contradictory and incompatible one with another But to begin with our English Protestants And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritanes (l) In his booke dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory They are headstrong and hardened in Errour they strike at the mayne points of fayth shaking the foundation it selfe and calling to question Heauen and Hel the diuinity and Humanity yea the very Soule and Saluation of our Sauiour himselfe And yet more in the same place The Puritanes haue pestilent Heresies c. They are Hereticall and sacrilegious M. Powell thus styleth the Puritanes (m) Powel in his coÌ„sideratioÌ„s They are notorious manifest Schismatikes cut of from the Church of God The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them (n) In the Suruey of pretended discipline cap. 5. 2. 4. The Puritanes do peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriture and Fathers to serue their owne turne Now the Puritanes on the other syde are ready to repay the ProtestaÌ„ts former curtesy in their owne laÌ„guage for thus they write (o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplicatioÌ„ to the high court of Parlament Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures Nay rather many of them meaning the Bishops their adherents do much swarue â—rom the same c. And agayne (p) This appeareth in the booke of Constitutions and Câ—nons Ecclesiassticall printed aÌ„no 1604 The worship in the Church of EnglaÌ„d corrupt superstitious vnlawfull â—epugnant to the Scriptures The Arâ—icles of the Bishops Religion are erroâ—eous their rites Antichristian By this we may discerne what mutuall recrimination and what â—reconciliable repugnancy there betweene the English moderate â—rotestant and the English Puâ—itan and this euen in great matâ—ers and of highest consequence â—nd therefore the former M. Parks â—onfesseth sincerely and ingenuâ—usly of this point thus saying (q) M. Parks vbi supra p. 3. The Protestants deceaue the world â—nd make men belieue there is agreeâ—ent in all substantiall points They â—ffirme there is no question among theÌ„ of the truth And this much touching our domesticall Protestants and Puritanes In the next place I will descend to forrayne Protestants and for greater breuity among many huÌ„dred of bookes written by Protestants against Protestants see heer the (r) Isa 19. Aegyptian set against the Aegyptian ech one fighting against his brother I will content my selfe with setting downe the titles only of ten of them From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude that the Controuersies being the subiect of those bookes are not of that adiaphorous and indifferent nature as that the Tenets of both sydes might be true but that the Patrones of both sides did hould cotradictory doctrines and such as that granted by supposall the truth and Being of the one part the other of necessity waÌ„teth all reality of Being And to begin 1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus IudaizaÌ„s Hoc est Iudaicae glossae corruptelae quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca testimonia de gloriosa Trinitate deitate Christi Spiritus sancti c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit Wittenberg anno 1593. 2. Alberti Graueri Bellum Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi braptae 1598. 3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei contra impios blaspemos errores Swinglianorum CaluiuistaruÌ„ Tubingae anno 1586. 4. Anti-paraeus Hoc est refuâ—atio venenati Scripti à Dauide Paâ—aeo editi in defensione stropharum â—orruptelarum quibus Ioannes Caluiâ—us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia de mysterio Trinitatis nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo detestandum in modum corrupit Francofurti 1â—98 5. Denominatio Imposturarum fraudum quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit Bremae 1592. 6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus quae inter Euangelicos in controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596. 7. Veritatis victoria ruina Papatus Saxonici Losannae 1563 8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graues perniciosi
this I say be true as is prooued to be in this Chapter what other inferēce can be made but that Protestancy and the Protestant Church for want of knowing and acknowledging what doctrines are Protestancy and what sorts of men are Protestants are in themselues but meer empty aëry conceyts and for want of all true and reall subsistence but a Non-Entity The Non-Entity of Protestancy demonstrated from that euery Protestant eyther in himselfe or in his Predecessours originally departed and came out from the Roman Catholike Church CHAP. XVI AN other Medium to proue that Protestancy is a meer Irreality or Non-Entity may be this Yf it can be proued that Protestancy is more late yong then the Catholike Religion is then followeth it that Protestancy cannot haue any true and reall Subsistence Fot if our Catholike Roman Religion had a being before Protestancy and that Protestancy did appeare long after and consisteth only in the denyall of most of the Articles of the Catholike Religion then followeth it vnauoydably that Protestancy is but an imaginary Conceyte or Fabricke of the imagination without any foundation of Being for seing the Catholike Fayth the Protestant Faith are directly contradictory oppositly repugnāt both of them cannot enioy a reall Being for if they could thē meer Contradictories this is denyed that it can be performed euen by Gods Power should enioy a true and Reall Being togeather Now that Protestancy is more late or of a newer date then the Roman Religion I thus proue There cannot any one Protestāt be alledged speaking of such Protestants as are out of Cōtrouersy and acknowledged for such both by Protestant and Catholike who was not eyther in himselfe or in his Forefathers first a Catholike who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions afore neuer generally taught did separate himselfe depart from the Cath. Church then afore in Being Of which sort of men these wordes in S. Iohn are vnderstood Exierūt ex nobis 1. Ioan. 2. The very stampe or signature of Innouatours in doctrine Let vs exemplify this in the first and chiefest Protestants I will begin with Ochinus so ascend higher This Ochinus who was a chiefe mā in disseminating of Protestancy in England in King Edwards dayes was first a (a) So saith Sleidan l. 9. at anno 1547. fol. 297. Monke and forsaking his Monastical life began to preach Protestancy (b) Osiander Cent. 16. l. 1. c. 33. Bucer was at the first also a Moke vpon his reading of Luthers booke of Vowes forsooke his Monastery married a womā Swinglius * So saith Hospiniā in hystor Sacram. fol. 22. was first a Catholike Priest publike Preacher at Tigure in Switzerlād Luther was a Priest an (c) In his Epist to his Father extat tom 2. Wittēberg printed 1568. fol. 269. Austin Friar vpō his first reuolt from the Papacy tooke to wife Caterine Bore as the whole world knoweth Now that there was no other Church in Being before Luthers Apostacy then the Roman Catholike Church appeareth from the liberal acknowledgmēt of the learned Protestāts For M. Perkins thus writes (d) In his Expositiō vpon the Creed p. 400. VVe say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an Vniuersall Apostasy so ouerspread the face of the Church that is was not then visible to the world And Doctour Iewell confesseth no lesse saying (e) In his Apolog. of the Church pant 4. c. 34. The truth was vnknowne at that tyme vnheard of when Martin Luther Hulderick Swinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell Yea Luther himself euen Thrasonically contesteth this poynt in these his words (f) Luther in epist ad Argentinens anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari so cleare it is that Luther was originally a Catholike and that at his first rising there was no Protestant Church in the world But to proceed further Husse was a Catholike Priest before his reuolt and wholy till that tyme imbraced the Catholike Fayth as (g) In Colloq de Antichristo Luther and (h) In Apocalip c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox do testify Ierome of Prague was first a Catholike and after became an Heretike who being at the Councell of Constance renounced openly his heresies but after apostating the second tyme he lost his lyfe VVicleff was first a Catholike Priest and Parson of Lutterworth in Licestershyre and first abandoned his Religion because he was depriued of a Benefice by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury as (i) In his Annals of England printed 1591. pa. 425. Stow recordeth VValdo was a rich man of Lyons in France and originally a Catholike of whome D. Humfrey thus writeth (k) In Iesuitism part 2. rat 3. pag. 270 he did forsake all things that being poore he might better follow Christ and the Euangelicall perfections The VValdensis who were deriued of VValdo and thereupon so called were an Order of begging Fryars and did professe as the said D. Hunfrey writeth (l) vbi supra a kind of Monasticall lyfe And of the VValdenses doctrine in particular Caluin thus writeth (m) Epist 244. The forme of the Confession of the VValdenses doth inuolue all those in eternall damnation who do not confesse that the bread is truly become the body of Christ They also euer taught seauen Sacraments Vowes single lyfe and Purgatory (n) In tractat de Eccles pag. 124. as u Morgensternensis a Lutheran writeth The Albigenses were the same men with the Waldenses and therfore were originally Catholikes for thus D. Abbots writeth thereof (o) In his second part of the defence printed 1607. pog 55. Thus Lyonists or poore men of Lyons and Waldenses or Albigenses were the same men but diuersly and vpon diuers occasions tearmed by the Romish Synagogue Berengarius was Archdeacon of Angiers in France and therefore it followeth that he was Catholicke till his denyall of the doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet after he abandoning his Heresy dyed (p) As witnesseth Fox in Act. Mon. pag. 13. Catholyke Now to rise to higher tymes The like may be sayd of the auncient Nouelists broaching some poynts of Protestancy As Aerius denying prayer for the dead Manicheus freewill Iouinian teaching Virginity to be no better thē mariage Donatus denying the Visibility of the Church and all others of those tymes without exception From which men are descended the Aerians Manicheans Iouinians c. taking their denomination from the former men according to that Chrpsost Homil. 3. in act Apolog Prout Haeresiarchae Nomen ita Secta vocatur All which men were originally Catholikes and most of them Priests and vpō their broaching of these their particular opinions of Protestancy did depart from their knowne common Mother then in Being That these men and all such others of those tymes were originally Catholykes and departed frō a more auncient Church by forging these their
not being content to seeke to depriue another of his state and liuing should no lesse labour with all sedulity and care to preclude and forstaule the true owner of all meanes for his regayning and recouering his sayd state That Sundry of the most learned Protestants as not houlding a Negatiue fayth to be any reall fayth at all agree with the Catholikes in belieuing the Affirmatiue Articles of the Catholike fayth CHAP. XVIII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1) Id est Secundae cogitationes prudentiores sayth the greek senteÌ„ce to which may well seeme to allude in sense though not in wordes that other saying (2) Praestat retrosum currere quam male currere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of which two sentences diuers of our learned Aduersaries haue thought good to incorporate in their owne writings Who vpon their later more retired thoughts and houlding it a greater honour rather to returne well backe in their iudgements then to proceed badly forward haue wholy disclaimed from this their Negatiue fayth For many of theÌ„ there are who well weighing the emptines of their owne Religion as consisting onely of Positions which is as is aboue made cleare but an annihilation of all Positiue and true Fayth counting it altogether vnworthy that such a nakednes of ReligioÌ„ should for euer haue a working influence ouer their iudgments haue therfore at the length vpon their laâ—er more mature deliberation â—n diuers weighty points wholy reâ—ected this Negatiue Religion and â—n place thereof haue fully imbraâ—ed and entertayned the contrary Affirmatiue Articles of fayth euer maÌ„tained by the Church of Rome â— will insist in twenty principall Articles of our Catholike ReligioÌ„ and consequently almost in the whole body of the Catholik faith â—o which the more graue imparâ—iall and dispassionate Protestants doe giue their full assent belieuing them be most true and comâ—onant to Gods sacred word To â—et downe the Protestants owne wordes in proofe heerof it would be needlesse and ouer-laboursome in regard both of the multiplicity of the Protestant Authours affirming so much as also of the great variety of the Affirmatiue Catholikâ— Articles mantayned by theÌ„ Therfore to take a shorter cut I will seâ— downe only by way of Reference the places in the Protestants bookes in which the sayd Catholike doctrines are by them fully taught and defended 1. And to beginne The doctrine of the Reall presence in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to the bodily mouth is affirmed not only by Luther but by all the Lutheranes without exception they taking their name of Lutheranes from him in regard of such their defence and beliefe of the sayd doctrine therefore it is booteles eyther to set downe the particular names of them or to make reference to such places of their writings wherein they teach and iustify the sayd doctrine they chiefly differing from the Catholike in the manner of the Presence 2. The Reall Presence not only of the efficacy vertue of Christs body but also of the body it selfe after a wonderfull and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of fayth is iustifyed by (a) Inâ—tit lib. 4 d 18. sect 7. 32. Caluin by (b) In his Eccesiast policy l. 5. sect 67 pag. 174. 177. M. Hooker by (c) Contra Duraeum pag. 169. D. VVhitakers by (d) In Script Anglican pag. 548. 549. Bucer by (e) In his â—riedly caueat in the third leaf M. Ryder and finally by the (f) In the English Harmony pag. 431. ConfessioÌ„ of Belgia but contradicted for Popish doctrine by Swinglius and almost all other Sacramentaries and particulerly by Ludouicus Alemannus who thus writeth Neque etiam per fidem seu incomprehensibili modo vt vocant quia hoc totum imaginarium repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo 3. That Sacraments doe not only signify but conferre Grace where a true disposition is in the Receauers is mantayned by (g) In epi-tom Colloq Montis-Beigar p. 5â— pag. 42. Iacobus Andreas (h) Contaa Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. D. VVhitakers (i) In his true difference part 4. p. 539. D. Bilson by (k) In Enchirid CoÌ„trouers quas Aug. Confesâ—huâ—eâ— cum Caluinianis p. 272. Osiander (l) In his Ecclesiast policy l. 5 sect 57. p. 127. 128. M. Hooker and finally by (m) In ca. 4. epist ad Romanos Melancthon who thus writeth of this poynt Repudiandaest Swinglij opinio qui tantùm ciuili modo iudicat de signis scilicet Sacramenta tantùm notas esse professionis c. 4. That Christ after his passion descended in soule into Hell is affirmed by (n) In his speciall Treatise of that title printed 1592. D. Hill by (o) Alledged by D. Hill vbi supra Aretius Melancthon and M. Nowell they being alledged by D. Hill to the same purpose Add heerto that Lymbus Patrum whereunto we Catholikes belieue that Christ did descend in soule after his death is affirmed by (p) In Lib. Epist Swingl Oecolamp l. 1. p. 19. Oecolampadius (q) In lib. ep Swingl Oecolamp l. 3. p. 590. 561. Swinglius (r) In his com places in Engl. part 2. cap. 18. pag. 221. Peter Martyr and (s) In his Decads fol. Bullinger 5. Purgatory is taught by (t) Tom. 1. VVittenb in resolut de Indulg Conclus 15. fol. 112. Luther in disputat Lypsicacum Eckio and by (u) M. Fox Acts Mon. p. 1313. Latimer That temporall punishment is reserued by God to satisfy his Iustice for sinne already coÌ„mitted which is the ground of Purgatory is taught by diuers Protestants to wit by the Publike (x) pag. 229. Confessios in the Harmony by (y) In Symbolum p 8. Iaspar Oleuianus by (z) In his Answere against the Aduersaries of Gods praedestination pa. 215. 216. 217. Iohn Knox. 6. The visibility of the Church at al tymes is affirmed by (a) In lâ—c â—â—m â—dit 1561 C. â—el â—eâ—â—s Melancthon by (b) In Iesuit sin part 2 â—a 3 p. 240. D. Humfrey (c) 〈◊〉 of the Church c. 10 pag. 5. D. Field (d) 〈◊〉 his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Englâ— p 15â— Peter Martyr (e) In his soâ—eraigne Remedy against Schiâ—me p. â—â— Enoch Clapham and diuers other learned Protestants for breuity heer omitted though contradicted for Popish by (f) In the tower dâ—â—putat with Edmund CaÌ„pian the secoÌ„d dayes Conscience D. Fulke (g) In his Synops p. 4â— D. VVillet and many others 7. Inuocation of Saints maintayned by (h) Luth. n purgat quorundam Art Luther who thus writeth hereof De intercessione Sanctorum cum tota Ecclesia sentio iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque inuocandos vy certayne Protestants (i) Of this see Hafferenferus in locis Theolog l. 3. stat 4. loc 5. p 463. in Polonia by (k) Vide Fox Act. Mon. 462. Thomas Bilney by (l) Act. Mon. pa.
the 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)
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
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