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)
Ibid. p. â—60 It is great probability with them meaning with the Catholikes that so we make our selues answerable to fynd out a distinct and seuerall Church from the Apostles age till this present els needs we must acknowledge that our Church is sprung of late or since theirs Thus these Protestants for the vphoulding of their own Church are forced to teach that the Catholike Church the Protestant are but one and the same Church Now if any Protestant seeking to redeeme his Church from such dangers as are in this Treatise threatned to fall vpon it as besides Inuisibility and want of Succession of Pastours the blemish of being an Irreality and Non-entity c. should for his last despairing refuge answere with the former Authours that the Protestant Church and the Roman Church are but one that seeing the Roman Church hath euer beene in being and Visible that therefore the Protestant Church as being the same Church with the Roman is heerby freed from all those spots and blemishes of Inuisibility want of Succession Irreality want of true subsistence c. heer in this Treatise aboue inforced Therefore to preuent all such poore and needy tergiuersatioÌ„ for falshood would gladly shroud it selfe vnder the wings of truth I will heer discouer the absurdity of this their supposall by demoÌ„strating that the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church cannot be one and the same Church so certaine it is that there is no CoÌ„munion betweene Christ and Beliall And first If we take into our consideration what it is which maketh the true Church for speaking of the Church of God we must needs vnderstand thereby the true Church seeing God hath no false Church for that sentence of S. Cyprian Cyprian lib. de Vâ—ita â— Eccles is true adulterari non potest sponsa Christi incorrupta est pudica To this is replyed that men professing the truth of Christian Religion make this Church Well then if so it can be proued that the Catholikes and the ProtestaÌ„ts do maintaine such contrary Articles of fayth as that of necessity the one part must be false consequeÌ„tly not to be belieued by the Members of Christs Church theÌ„ followeth it that these different Professours of them I meane the Catholikes and the Protestants cannot make One and the same Church And to come to this point though such disparity of fayth hath beene proued to be eueÌ„ among the Protestants themselues aboue in this Treatise But if one Protestant thinke another Protestant to be for his supposed false fayth no member of Christs Church but an Heretike then with much more reason we may pronounce the same betweene the Catholike and the Protestant Now this poynt taketh its more euident demonstration of proofe from this one consideration to wit that the Catholike and the Protestant doe not belieue one the same Creed If then they both do not belieue one and the same Creed and yet the Creed is but an abstract or Compendium of the true fayth of christ can it be possibly coÌ„ceaued that the Catholicke and Protestant doe make one and the same Church But to descend to the Creed It is true that the Protestant Catholike doe in words recite one and the same Creed but seeing it is the intended sense of the holy Ghost in euery Article thereof and not the words which make the Creed it followeth that if the Catholike and Protestant doe belieue the sayd Articles of the Creed in a different or rather contrary sense that then they doe not belieue the Creed for to belieue the Creed in a false sense is not to belieue it all The Creed in this respect iustly challenging to it selfe that priuiledge which the holy Scripture doth of which S. Ierome thus writeth g S. Ierome in epist. ad Paulinâ—eâ—a Scripturae non in legendo sed in intelligendo consistunt That this they doe I wil exemplify in some Articles threof And to beginne with that first Article I belieue in God The Catholike belieues that his God no way formally cooperates with man to sin the Protestant belieues that his God (h) Beza in his display of Popish Preachers pag. â—02 Swingl tom 1 de prouident c. 6. fol. 365. Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 18. cooperateth forceth and impelleth a man to sinne as is aboue in this Treatise shewed The Catholike belieues that God wil not punish man for the not obseruing of such precepts which are not in mans power to obserue the Protestant belieues that it is not in our power to keepe the Ten Commandements and yet withall belieues that (i) D. Reynolds in his second Conclusion annexed to his Conference p. 697. God will punish man with euerlasting Torments for his not keeping of the sayd Ten Commandements Briefly the Catholike belieues that his God giues sufficient grace to all men that they may be saued The Protestants God decreeth diuers men without any respect or preuision of their workes to eternall damnation for thus Caluin writeth (k) Caluin Instit l. 3. c. â—2 See Willet Synops p. 554. affirming the same God doth ordayne by his Counsell that amoÌ„g men some be borne to eternall damnation from their nothers wombe Touching the Article of Iudging the quicke and the dead The Catholike belieues that Christ at his comming to IudgmeÌ„t will so iudge man as that his good workes receauing their force and vertue from Christs passion shal be rewarded The Protestant belieues that (l) Calu. in Antid Concil Trident. Kemnitius in Exam. Concil Trident. Christ will reward only a bare naked faith Touching that I belieue the Catholike Church The Catholike belieues this Church to be a society of men professing the present Romane fayth of which some are predestinated others reprobated The (m) Confess August art 7. Luth l. de Concil Eccles Calu. l 4. Instit Protestant belieues that his Church consisteth only of the Elect and faythfull and not of other sorts of men Touching the Article of the Communion of Saints The Catholike doth belieue such a Communion to be between the soules in heauen the soules in Purgatory and men liuing in this world as that the soules in Purgatory may be holpen by the praiers of the liuing the liuing may be holpen by the intercessioÌ„ of the Saints in heauen The Protestant denyeth (n) Brennus in Confess VVittenb c. de Purgat Calu. l. 3. Instit c. 5. sect 6. al such Communion betweene these seuerall parts of the Church Concerning the Article of forgiuenes of sinnes The Catholike belieues that actuall sinnes are forgiuen by the Sacrament of Pennance and that thereby the soule of man becommeth truly Iust in the sight of God obtayning by this meanes a true and Inherent Iustice The Protestant acknowledgeth not any Sacrament of Pennance neyther doth he acknowledge any reall and (o) Calu. l. 3. Instit c 12. Kemnit â—n Exam. Concil Trident. Inherent Iustice in man but only an imputatiue Iustice
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
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