the soules of those old condemned men thus to consociate with certaine old branded anathematized Heretikes by borrowing their priuatiue and negatiue fayth and religion from them thereupon to dispart and diuide themselues from all communion in fayth with the Orthodoxall Fathers of those pure and primitiue tymes who euer in the former Articles set downe in this Chapter and in all others did hould the Affirmatiue part to the others Negatiue so foule a scarre herby resteth vpon the face of our Aduersaries reputation and honour Now that these former men were recorded for heretikes for their denyall of the aboue cyted Catholike Articles and their denyals taken for heresies and that the such recording of them was warranted with the full consent of the whole Church of God in those tymes appeareth from this one consideration to wit those Fathers writers which did record the former men for heretikes their negations for heresies were Epiphanius S. Ierome S. Austin Theodoret Eusebius and some such others diuers of which Fathers made certayne Bookes and styled them de Haeresibus And in these their books they registred the former men for Heretikes their Negatiue doctrines for Heresies Now all these Fathers and writers were learned godly men their learning then would assure them what opinions were Heresies in those tymes and what were not Their Piety and Holynes would not suffer them to wrong any man with the hateful brand of Heretike or his doctrine with the foule title of Heresy except both the men and their doctrines deserued such a seuere Censure And it cannot be answered in reply heerto that the Catholike Church of God in those Primitiue tymes did euer taxe or reprehend any of the former Fathers for ranging that man among Heretikes or his doctrines among Heresies which were not taken for such by the whole and vnanimous iudgement of the then Church of God Thus far to demonstrate that seeing Heresy in its owne nature is but a Priuation and euery Priuation is a Non Ens that therefore Protestancy as being ingendred of the ancient exploded Heresies is a Non-entity That there are diuers positions of Protestancy which besides that they are implicitely but negations of the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue doctrines are in their owne nature meerly voyde of all reality of Being CHAP. XI IN this place we will take into our consideration diuers Articles of the Protestants Fayth in the true examining of which we shall finde that not only as being but meer negatiues to our affirmatiue Catholike Articles they haue no reall Existency or being but also as they are to be considered in their owne particuler natures And first may occurre their Tenet of the Priuate reuealing or interpreting Spirit which though in termes it beareth the show of an Affirmatiue position yet truly it is nothing els then the denyall negaiion of the infallibility of the whole Church of God in matters of fayth This Spirit comprehendeth in the amplitude largenes of its owne Orbe most of the seueral passages of Protestancy Now to examine the Essence and nature of this Spirit exercised chiefly in interpreting of Scripture if such an imaginary conceit could haue an Essence or nature as indeed it cannot we find that this Spirit is a meer Phantasy of ech particuler mans giddy head-peece For if it were certayne and infallible and so it must be if it proceed from the holy Ghost how then commeth it to passe that seuerall priuate spirits of the Protestants do interprete one and the same Text of Scripture in different and sometymes meere contrary senses and constructions This point is demonstrated to pretermit infinite other passages of Scripture in the exposition of those few words vttered by our Sauiour Math. 26. Luc 22. Marc. 14. Hoc est corpus meum Hic est sanguis meus As also in that Article of our Creed Descendit ad inferos We find both these passages to haue receaued seuerall constructions by the Protestants and from such their different constructions are sprung vp different sects of Protestancy as the Lutherans the Caluinists the more moderate Protestant c. Agayne to omit diuers other choaking reasons to prooue this Spirit to be a meer phantasy of the brayne ingendred of Pride and Ignorance and to haue no reality or true Being in it selfe how can this priuate Spirit be infallible to which euery Heretike with equall interest thereto coueteth chiefly to repaire as to his strongest Sanctuary as we see by the experience of ancient and moderne tymes they do For did not the (a) teste Epiphan haeres 69. Ioan â—â— 18. Ioan. 6. Arians (b) Ioan. 1. Ioan 2. Eutichians the (c) Philip. 2. Hebr. 7 Nestorians the rest euer labour by the help of their owne Spirits differerently interpreting the Scripture to maÌ„tayne their different blasphemyes and heresies And do not the Anti-Trinitarians the Brownists the Family of loue and diuers such others the like in these our tymes So little reason therefore had D. VVhitakers to beautify this erroneous Priuate Spirit with his gilded description in these words (d) In controuers 1. q. 5. cap. 3 11. An inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the secret closet of the belieuers heart and repugnant is this his delineation to the words of sacred Scripture (e) 2. Pet. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation And agayne (f) 1. Iohn cap. 4. early beloued belieue not euery spirit but try the spirits if they be of God The second may be the (g) Luth. in art 10.11 12. Melancth in locis tit de fide Caluin in Antitdot Concil Trident. sess 6. Protestants doctrine of Imputatiue Iustice in vs being but a negation and denyall of the Catholike doctrine of Inherent Iustice vpon which doctrine the Protestant more easily relyes since his owne soule euen dead-aliue as being organized with a liuing body but a dead will is loth to practise any good workes Now this Imputatiue Iustice is in it selfe a meer Ens rationis as hauing contrary to the Nature of all diuine Vertues and to all reall and true qualities no true Existency or Inherency in our Soule as the Protestants do confesse it being only a naked application of Christs Iustice to vs wherby our sins are palliated and couered Againe if a man be iust wheÌ„ he beginneth to belieue that he is iust then is he not iustifyed by that by the which he belieueth he is iust seeing his fayth is later then his Iustice And if he be vniust at what tyme he belieueth he is iust then is his fayth false consequently no supernaturall or diuine fayth but a meer fiction of this supposed iust man so vnreall imaginary a conceite we see is this Imputatiue Iustice and indeed to mantaine it is as absurd as to mantaine that the sonne can precede in priority of being his Father or the effect the cause for thogh in all other things the truth
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
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
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.
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
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 consisteth in the denyall of the Reall presence denyall of the Sacrifice of the Masse denyall of freewill denyall of Purgatory and so in the deniall of the many other Articles iointly denyed by the Protestants But here againe this definition is most defectiue for heer also the differentia constitutiua which should constitute Protestancy and withall distinguish it from other Religions is wanting first because Negations and such is the differentia heer supposed cannot coÌ„stitute any thing for only Entia and Entia bare negations are not giue a constitution and being to Entia Agayne the presumed differentia in this definition to wit the denyall of the Real presence denyall of freewil c. stretcheth it selfe by way of application to other Religions aswell as to Protestancy for the Turkes the Iewes and the Heathens deny these former points with as stroÌ„g a bent of contradiction as the Protestant doth and so accordingly conspire vnanimously with the Protestant in such denyals Thus then we see that this Imaginary differentia in this second definition is ouer generall and of too great a latitude and doth not distinguish the Protestant from Turkes Iewes and Heathens Well then to contract this point seeing euery thing that hath any reality of being can haue its nature and Essence truly dissected by definition or description And seeing Protestancy cannot be defined for how can that be called a formed and positiue fayth which in it selfe is meer priuatiue then followeth it that it cannot be knowne what Protestancy in it self truly is and if Protestancy cannot be knowne what it is then is it to be reputed a Non-entity Yet to close vp this Chapter and in some sort to be officious seruiceable to our Aduersaries my definition of Protestancy shall for the tyme be this to wit a Religion which incorporates in it selfe the Negatiue doctrines of the Ancient stigmaticall Heretikes as heerafter will be demoÌ„strated or if you will A Religion whose definition consisteth in that it cannot be defined And thus Protestancy only is in that it is not That Protestancy consisteth of doctrines meerely contradictory in themselues and that therefore Protestancy is a Non-entity CHAP. IX PHilosophy instructeth vs that what truly implyeth in it self an absolute contradiction the same hath no Entity or being The reason whereof is this what implyeth a Contradiction supposeth a Being and a Not-being of a thing and all at one and the same tyme from whence then this absurdity would follow to wit that if such a thing could be then could a thing be whose being should consist in a Not-being and consequently should be an Irreality and nothing An vnwarrantable errour since God to whome it is more easy to doe then not to doe cannot effect or make any such thing for euery thing that is ought in some sort to beare a likenes to him from whome it proceedeth But that which hath no Being and in it selfe is nothing cannot beare any resemblance to him who giueth life Being to euery thing (a) Act. 17. In ipso viuimus mouemur sumus This Philosophicall Axiome extendeth it selfe not only to the existence or want of existence in things corporeall or material but also to the Being or not-being in things speculatiue immateriall I meane in doctrines and other suâ—h Theories of the vnderstaÌ„ding Since then it wil easily be proued that Protestancy in many poynts is compounded of seuerall contradictory and opposite doctrines Tenets such that though all may be false consequently haue no reall Being yet that of necessity the one part must want all reality of being for its owne supporting then vnauoydably it may be concluded that Protestancy as coÌ„sisting of such irreconciliable doctrines wanteth all reality is in it selfe and is but a Non-entity I will exemplify this in a poynt or two wherein the Protestants agree only in disagreeing The first shal be touching the Nature of the Sacraments All or most of the Protestants do conspiringly deny our Catholike doctrine therein in teaching that they coÌ„ferre grace but after their vnanimous denyall thereof then they presently by imbracing of contrary doctrines dissent amongst themselues like lines which once meeting in one common Center instantly breake of and runne seuerall wayes for â—winglius teacheth that the Sacraments in generall are bare and naked externall signes and is therefore condemned by (b) Lib. de Caena Do. lib. 4. Instit cap. 15. sect 1. Caluin but Caluin by ascribing more to the Sacraments then to externall signes is by way of retaliation condemned by (c) Epist. ad quandaÌ„ Germania ciuitatem fol. 196. Swinglius In like sort The Protestants do disauow all iustification by workes yet most of them hould that good workes ought necessarily to accompany a iustifying fayth But to crosse this Luther after he once became setled in the lees of sensuality thus writeth (d) So saith Luther vpon the Galat Englished in cap. 1. It is impiety to affirme that fayth except it be adorned with Charity iustifyeth not Yea further he sayth (e) Luther tom 1. pro. pos 3. fides nisi sit sine c. except fayth be without good workes it iustifyeth not c. O the calamity of these Caniculaâ— and vnlucky dayes in which eueâ— doctrinally and religiously as may say is exiled all practise oâ— Religion and good workes Againe touching the Real presence in the Eucharist all the Sacramentaries disclayme from our doctrine therein neuertheles diuers eminent Protestants as (f) lib. 5. Eccles Polic. sect 67. M. Hooker (g) Contra Duraeum pag. 168. D. VVhitakers and (h) Caluin lib. 4. Inctit cap. 17 sect 7. Caluin himselfe do teach the Manducation of Christs true and Reall body in the Eucharist by the mouth of fayth Yet is this doctrine who by disallowed by (i) In his Epistles annexed to his CommoÌ„ places englished epist. 25. Peter Martyr though Peter Martyr be therefore reciprocally controuled by Bucer in his Scrip. Anglic. pag. 548. as inclining to vse his owne wordes too much to Popery It is in like sort condemned for the most part by our (k) In their ChristiaÌ„ letter to M. Hooker English Puritanes Now to turne our Pen a litle backe vâ—on these three former points in â—he first we find these two contraâ—ictory positions The Sacraments â—re only bare externall signes And â—he Sacraments are more then externall signes In the second Good workes are necessary to accompany fayth And Good workes are not necessary to accompany faith In the third the true and reall body of Christ is taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of fayth And the true and reall body of Christ is not taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of fayth Now what more true Contradiction can there be in Positions Tenets of fayth then these are seeing as the Nature of Contradictions require they all