Of the substance of the Protestants Church and Religion, and of their vncer­tainty therein. CHAP. I.

BECAVSE, as after Plato and A­ristotle, Tully sayth very truly: VVhosoeuer will according to the order of reason treat of any thing, Lib. 4. must first de­fine or explicate the nature thereof, that it may be knowne what it is whereof he speaketh; and Protestants agree, that the definition is the very ground of all disputation; before I do shew, Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 4. §. 1. Sadeel. in Refut. Thes. [...]os­nan. cap. 2. who was the first author of the Protestant Church and Religion (which I will do in the second booke) I will in this first define and determine what is a Protestant, and what is the Protestant Church and Religion. And because Protestants in this matter (as in all others) are variable and inconstant, sometymes requiring many things to the making and constitution of a Protestant, & sometymes being content with very [Page 2] few things, sometyms stretching the bounds of their Church most largly, otherwhiles drawing thē very strait, according as it serueth to their present pur­pose; I will first discouer this their vncertainty a­bout so weighty a matter, & afterward out of their owne principles and confessions of fayth, set downe what is indeed necessary to the very substance and being of a Protestant, and of their Church and Re­ligion. And in this Chapter I will shew, how few they sometymes do admit to be of the Church, and how many things they require to the making of a Protestant; and in some chapters following, how many they at other tymes do graunt to be of their Church, and how few things they account neces­sary for to be a member thereof. That done I will make manifest, what is indeed necessary thereto.

They ex­clude Pa­pists.2. First of all therefore they sometymes ex­clude Catholiques, (whome they terme Papists) out of the Church, as is manifest by all their wri­tings, in so much that the French Protestants in the 28. article of their confession say: VVe openly affirme that where the word of God is not receiued, nor there is any profession of obedience due thereto, nor any vse of Sacraments, there, properly speaking, we cannot iudge to be any Church. VVherfore we condemne the Popish Conuenticles. And D. Whitaker in his second booke against Dureus & 2. section, is so earnest that he sayth: I will not allow the ve­ry name of a lawfull Church vnto the Roman Church, because it hath nothing, which a true Church ought to haue And both he in his 2. Controuersy 6. question 3. Chapter, D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church 3. cap. and lib. 2. cap. 9. M. Perkins in his reformed Catholique to­wards the end, Caluin in his book against the Chaun­ter of Lions, Beza in his of the notes of the Church, [Page 3] the Confession of Saxony in the Chapter of the Church, and many others do reckon diuers articles, or euery one whereof they pronounce Papists to be [...]ut of the Church. And because their opinion here­ [...]n is well inough knowne, and hereafter also we [...]hall haue occasiō to shew how haynously they con­ [...]emne the Popedome or Papistry, I will heere re­ [...]earse no more of their sayings touching this point. The like sentence they sometymes pronounce of the [...]nabaptists Anabap­tists. and Atians. For thus speaketh the con­ [...]ession of Auspurg Cap. 9. They condemne the Anabap­ [...]sts, who disallow the baptisme of infants, and think them to [...]e faned without baptisme. And the Confession of Swit­ [...]erland cap. 20. VVe condemne the Anabaptists, who deny [...]at infants ought to be baptized. The same is manifest by [...]he English Confession c. 38. & by the Confession of [...]asse c. 24. & others. Of Arians Arrians. they giue this ver­ [...]ct in the forsayd Confession of Auspurg in the first [...]rticle: They condemne all heresies risen against this article of the Trinity) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunomians &c. [...]nd in like sort the French Confession art. 6. the [...]nglish art. 1. the consent of Poland, and others; in [...] much as in England the Protestants haue burnt me Arians.

3. Sometymes also they thrust out all here­ [...]ckes. Heretiks For thus writeth Luther in his explication of [...]e Creed. Neither Gentile, Iew, Heretike, Lutherās. or any sinner is [...]ued, vnlesse he make attonement with the Church, and in all [...]ings, thinke, do, and teach the same. And the Magde­ [...]rgians in the preface of their 6. Century: Neither [...]eretikes, nor deuisers or patrons of sanaticall opinions, are of [...]rist, but they are of Antichrist, and of the diuell, and apper­ [...]ne to Antichrist and the diuell: they are the impostume and [...]e plague of the people of God. The ministers of the Prince [Page 4] Elector of Saxony in the Conference held at Ald­burg, in the 3. writ, cast out of the Church all, VVho (say they) wittingly and willingly defend such corruptions of doctrine, as haue byn condemned by the lawfull iudgment and consent of the Catholike Church. And the Ministers of the Duke of Saxony in the 4. writ of the sayd Confe­rence, pronounce this sentence: VVhosoeuer they are, that do cloak and defend corruptions of the word of God, that is, of the articles of fayth, after they haue byn admonished; we iudge not to be true members of Christ, vnlesse they repent. And Vrbanus Regius, one of the first and cheifest scho­lers of Luther, in his Catechisme sayth: All Heretikes are out of the Church. The same teacheth Schusselburg, a principall superintendent amongst the Lutherans in his Catalogue of heresies, and many others. As for the Sacramentaries, Sacra­mētaries. thus professeth the French Con­fession in the 6. article: VVe detest all Sects and heresies which haue byn reiected by the holy Fathers as S. Hilary, S. A­thanasc, S. Ambrose, S. Cyrill. Whereupon Sadeel in his preface of his answere to the abiured articles, sayth: Our Confession of fayth condemneth all Heretikes. Likewise the Confession of Basle in 24. article writeth in thi [...] sort: VVe driue away all, whosoeuer dissenting from the so­ciety of the holy Church, do either bring in, or follow strange & wicked doctrines. And Peter Martyr in his Commo [...] places, in the title of heretiks: This in summe I will say heretikes are not otherwise to be dealt with all, then Infidells [...] Iewes. Caluin also in his 2. booke of Institution cap. 15. number. 1. Rightly Augustin denyeth Heretikes haue the same foundation with the godly albeit they preach t [...] name of Christ. And in his instruction against the Libertines: That we may speake properly, Heretikes are not o [...] ly like to wolues or theeues, but much worse. Beza in his boo [...] of punishing Heretiks: If one terme Heretikes saithle [...] [Page 5] apostatas, he shall giue them their due title. And againe: Heretikes affirme Christ in word, and deny him indeed. Da­naeus in his 5. Controuersy and 691. pag. An heretike, condemned by lawfull iudgement, and actually cast out of the Church, is not of the visible Church, nor of the inuisible neither, actually or apparently, so long as he remaineth in that state. Polanus in his 7. booke which he termeth Syntag­ma, cap. 5. Heretikes, whiles they remayne such are not mem­bers of the Catholique Church. And Vorstius in his An­ti-bellarmin pag. 79. The Ghospellers do esteem Antichrist in common to be euery heretike who opposeth himselfe eyther openly and plainly, or closely and indirectly to Christ and his do­ctrine. And in the 121. pag. There is no controuersy be­tweene vs and our aduersaries touching heretikes, Schismatikes and Apostatas properly and truly so called, that they are altogea­ther out of the Church of Christ. Thus forraine Prote­stants. In England, English Prote­stants. his Maiesty in his epistle to Car­dinal Peron written by Casaubon: The King dam­neth and detesteth those, who either haue departed from the sayth of the Catholike Church, and are become heretikes, or from the Communion, and are become Schismatikes. The Apolo­gy of the Church of England part. 3. diuis. 3. VVe con­demne all sortes of the old heretiks, as the Arians, the Eutichians &c. and shortly, all them that haue a wicked opinion either of God the Father, or of Christ, or of the holy Ghost, or of any other point of Christian Religion: for so much as they be confuted by the Ghospell of Christ we plainly pronounce them for damnable and detestable persons, and defy them euen to the diuell. D. Whi­taker in the preface of his Controuersies: If we be he­retikes, it is reason they should warne all theirs to fly from vs. And Controuer. 2. question. 1. cap. 4. That he proueth heretikes and Apostatas and Schismatikes not to be members of the true Church maketh nothing against vs. None of our men euer taught that. The like he hath question 5. cap. 1. [Page 6] and 18. D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church cap. 1. Heretikes are not of the Church. D. Morton in his Apology 1. part. 1. booke cap. 3 affirmeth, that Here­tikes are not to be accounted of the [...]hurch in truth but in name, not indeed but equiuocally. Finally D. White in his way to the Church pag 110. All hereticks teach the truth in some things, and yet we deny them to be the Church of God. And in the defence of the same way cap. 8. sect. 1. There is little or no difference betweene the Diuell and an Apostata, or Here­tike.

4. The same censure they sometymes giue of Schismatikes, They ex­clude Schisma­tiks. as appeareth by the words of his Maiesty, D. Whitaker, and Vorstius already rehear­sed. Besides, Luther in his great Catechisme tom. 5. pag. 628. affirmeth the sense of that article, The Com­munion of Saints, to be this: I belieue that there is on earth a litle Congregation of Saints, agreeing in all things without sectes or Schismes. And Melancthon in his book against Swenfeild tom. 2. Lutherās. pag. 201. Neither is there more then one Church, the Spouse of Christ, neither doth this company consist of diuers Sectes. Salomon Gesnerus in his Common places the 24. place of the Church: Catholiks are oppo­site to Schismatikes & heretiks. The same teacheth Schus­selburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretikes, pag. 726. 727. Amongst the Sacramentaries, the Switzers in their Confession, Sacramē ­taries. article 17. do thus pro­fesse; VVe so much esteeme the Communion with the true Church of Christ, as that we teach, that those cannot liue before God, who communicate not with his true Church. And the French Protestants in theirs, article 26. VVe belieue, that none can lawfully withdraw themselues from the assem­blies. Bullinger in his Epitome or Compendium of fayth 6. booke, 11. cap: They be out of this Church, wh [...] vpon enuy or contention separate themselues from her, & withou [...] [Page 7] cause will haue some thing peculiar to themselues. Musculus also in his common places, in the title of the church: The vnity of Heretiks and Schismatikes is bastard and diuided. True, entier, and Catholike vnity is not among Schismatikes. And in the title of Schismatikes: A Schismatike putteth himselfe in daunger of losse of his saluation, in departing from the Communion of the flock of the Lord. For by that departure, he is not only separated and diuided from that Ecclesiasticall and externall society of the faythfull, but also from participation of the bloud and spirit of Christ. Caluin likewise 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 shall any way violate it. And in his fourth booke of Institutions chap. 1. numb. 2: Vnlesse vnder Christ our head, we be vnited to all the rest of his members, there is no hope for vs of the euerla­sting inheritance. For we cannot haue two or three (Churches) vnlesse Christ be torne in pieces. And num. 4. Out of the lap the Church there is no saluation: departure from thence is al­wayes pernicious. Againe num. 10: God maketh so great ac­count of the Communion with his Church as he holdeth him for a renagate and fugitiue, whosoeuer obstinatly separateth himselfe from any Christian society, which retaineth the true vse of the word and Sacraments. And he addeth, that the forsaking of the Church, Is the deniall of God and Christ. The like doctrine he deliuereth in his Catechisme, vpon the 1. Cor. cap. 1. and other where Polanus in his Theses part. 2. sayth: Schismaticall Churches are to be forsaken. And Bucanus in his places, loc. 41. of the Church, quest. 33. auoucheth Schismatiks to be out of the Church, and quest. 5. that they are not vniuocally a Church, that is, they haue not the true nature of a Church. The same sayth Danaeus in his treatise of Antichrist cap. 17. And in his 3. booke of the Church cap. 5. writeth [Page 8] thus: Schisma [...]ikes actually excommunicated and cast out of the Church by lawfull sentence, are no more of the visible Church. For (sayth he) the marke that you be of the visible Church, is this, that you outwardly professe the fayth, and communicate in Sacraments with the rest of the Church. And he addeth, that such are neither actually of the inuisible Church, but only in possibility, and that the holy Fathers liken suc [...] to Heathens. Pa­gans, and infidells. And in his Apology for the Switzers Churches he defineth Schisme to be a separation from the rest of the body of the Catholike Church. Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 7. reacheth, that Schismatikes are not in the Church. And su [...]us in his 3. booke of the Church c. 5. approueth the fame of such Schismatikes, as separate themselues from the whole Church. The strangers in England wri­ting to Beza in the 24 epistle haue these words in their 13. article: VVhosoeuer is lawfully excommunicated of a particuler Church, or cutteth himselfe of vpon vnlawfull cau­ses, and with scandall, in that doth loose all priuiledge of the Ca­tholike Church. And Beza answereth them in the name of the Church of Geneua in this manner: Your thirteenth article we wholy receiue at most orthodoxall. Casaubon in his 15. exercitation against Baronius num. 6. It is an vndoubted truth, that how often soeuer a pious flock is ioyned to a true Bishop, there is a Church of God; in so much that if any forsake that Church, it cannot be doubted, but that he is out of the Church. Finally, Chamier in his epi­stle to Armand, excludeth Schismatikes out of the Church, because (sayth he) they want the sincerity of the Sacraments. English Protestāts Amongst our English Protestants, his Maiesty in his foresayd epistle to Cardinall Peron. All those testimonies of Augustin, proue only this, that there is no hope of saluation for those, who leaue the Communion of the Ca­tholike Church; which the King willingly graunteth. D. Whi­taker [Page 9] in his 2. controuer. 5. quest. 6. cap. sayth: It is false, that hereticall and Schismaticall Churches be true Chur­ches. Againe: The Catholike Church consisteth not of diuided, but of vnited members. And cap. 2: The true and Catholike Church is that, which consisteth of Catholiks. D. Fulke in his booke of the succession of the Church: VVhat auailed it them to eternall saluation, to haue byn sound in Religion and do­ctrine, seing they were cut of from the Communion of the true Church, in which alone saluation is, and from her true head? VVhat skilleth it whether one, being drawne by heresy or Schisme, from the body of Christ, be subiect to euerlasting damnation? D. Humfrey in his answere to the 3. reason of F. Cam­pian: VVe confesse, that he is vndone, who is separated from the followship of the Church. And D. Feild in his first booke of the Church, cap. 7: The name of the Catholike Church is applyed to distinguish men holding the sayth in vnity, from Schismatiks. And in his 2. booke c. 2. he sayth, that Schismatikes are not Catholike Christians. Thus we see how Protestants sometymes do teach, that the true Church consisteth of Catholiks, & of mem­bers vnited not deuided, that it hath no Schismes or Sects: That Schismatiks are not Catholiks, that their vnity is not true, nor Catholike, that their Churches ought to be forsaken, that they are not vniuocally Churches, nor true Churches, that they are not members of the true Church, but out of the Church, altogeather out of the Church, and actually neither of the visible nor inuisible Church, and that this is an vndoubted truth: which cōfession of theirs must be well noted and kept in mind, for thereby is ouerthrowne (as we shall see in the 2. booke) their only argument wherwith they endeauour to proue, that their Church was before Luther, and also is de­faced their only essentiall mark of finding the true [Page 10] Church, by the truth of doctrine. For Schismatikes (as we shall heare them confesse in the 2. booke) hold true doctrine, and neuertheles (as here they acknow­ledge) are not of the true Church.

They ex­clude those that deny any fundamē ­tal article.5. In like manner they do commonly de­barre from their Church, all such as deny any prin­cipall or fundamentall point of fayth; Melancthon in his booke of common places in the title of the Church: They are not members of the Church who pertina­ciously maintaine errours opposite to the foundation. And in his answere to the Bauarian articles: Saints may haue er­rours, but not such as ouerthrow the foundation. In his exa­men of those that are to take orders: Agreement in the foundation, Lutherās. is a thing necessary to the vnity of the Church. And vpon the 3. cap. of the 1. epistle to Timothy: The foundation is held in the Church, otherwise there should be no Church at all. And in his 79. proposition, tom. 4: It is most certaine, that those companies are not the Church of God, who either are altogeather ignorant of the Ghospell, or impugne some article of the foundation, that is, some article of fayth or doctrine of the decalogue, or maintaine open idols. Chemni­tius in his common places pa. 3. title of the Church: Neither can these be acknowledged for the true Church, who imbrace fundamentall errours. And the Lutherans in the conference at Ratisbon, Ses. 14. Hutter in his Ana­lysis of the Confession of Auspurg, Gesner in his 24. place, Adam Francis in his 11. place, and other Lu­therans commonly agree, that the Church cannot erre Fundamentally, or in the Foundation. And the Confession of Saxony giueth this note, to know who are in the Church: Sacramē ­taries. Those who hold the Foundation. As for Sacra­mentaries, Caluin in his 4. booke of Institutions cap. 2. num 1: So soone as a lye hath broken into the castle of Religion, the summe of necessary doctrine is inuerted, the vse of [Page 11] Sacraments is fallen, certainly the destruction of the Church en­sueth, euen as a mans life is lost, when his throat is cut, or his vi­tall parts deadly wounded. And soone after: It is certaine, that there is no Church, where lyes and errour haue gotten to the toppe. And cap. 19. num. 17: VVithout doubt the Church of the faythfull must agree in all the heads of our Religion. Sadeel in his answere to the Theses held at Posna cap. 12: I thinke the matter is thus to be defined by the word of God, that if any in what Church soeuer dissent in the foundation of sayth, and be obstinate in their errours: such appertaine not to the vnity of the Church. The like he hath in his answere to Arthure, cap. 12. Vesinu [...] in his Catechisme quest. 54. cap. 4: The whole Church erreth not, nor wholly, nor in the foundation. Polanus in his Thesis of the Church sayth: The Church erreth not in the foundation. The same teacheth Zanchius in his treatise of the Church c. 7. Lubbertus in his 2. booke of the Church c 3. Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 139. Buca­nus in his 41. place, and other Sacramentaries com­monly. And with them herein agree our English Protestants. English Protestāts For thus sayth his Maiesty in his epistle to Cardinall Peron: The Churches are vnited in vnity of sayth and doctrine, in those heads which are necessary to salua­tion. And D. Whitaker in the preface of his Contro­uersies: The foundations of sayth are of that nature, that one being shaken, nothing in all religion remaineth sound. And Contr. 2. quest. 4. cap. 1: We say, that the Church cannot erre in things simply necessary. Which he of­ten repeateth in the 2. cap. And quest. 5. cap. 17: If any fundamentall doctrine be taken away, the Church straight way falleth. And cap. 18: The fundamentall articles are those, on which our fayth relyeth, as the house vpon the founda­tion. Againe: If any fundamentall and essentiall principle of fayth be ouerturned or shaken, it cannot be truly called a Church. [Page 12] And quest. 6. cap. 3: That is no true Church which taketh away one only foundation. The same he teacheth in his 1. booke of the scripture cap. 7. sect. 8. and cap. 12. sect. 3. M. Perkins in his explication of the Creed: If any man or Church, retaine, or defend, obstinatly, or of willfull ignorance, a fundamentall errour, we must not account them anymore Christians or Churches. D. Sutliue in his first booke of the Church cap. 1: Those blemishes take away the name of the true Church, which are against the grounds of fayth. D. Feild in his 2. booke of the Church cap. 3: Purity free from fundamentall and essentiall errour, is necessarily required in the Church. D. Morton in the 1. part o [...] his Apology, booke 2. cap 38: Purity of doctrine in funda­mentall principles of fayth, is required to the being and constitu­tion of the Church. And in his answere to the Prote­stants Apology l. 4. c. 3. Sect. 5: The deniall of fundamen­tall doctrines, doth exclude men from saluation, and disannulleth the name of the Church in the gainsayers. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 110: VVe do not thinke euery company to be the true Church, that holdeth only some points of the true fayth: but it is requisite that the foundation be holden. And in his defence of the way cap. 17: A fundamentall point is that which belongs to the substance of fayth, and is so ne­cessary that there can be no saluation without the knowledge and explicite fayth thereof. And surely they all, and at all tymes, ought to affirme this, seeing they deliuer truth of doctrine, as an essentiall marke of the Church, which they must needs vnderstand (and so Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 148. expresseth it) of true doctrine in fundamentall points. And this their doctrine touching this matter, I earnestly commend to the memory of the Reader, because it is necessary to find out, what a Protestant is, and also is one of the grounds, whereby it may appeare, [Page 13] that there was no Protestant Church before Luther, because before him there was no company which held all the same fundamentall points of doctrine which Protestants do hold.

6. Finally; They ex­clude all that deny any arti­cle of fayth. they sometyms shut out of their Church all those, who deny any one point of fayth, be it fundamentall or other. For thus writeth the A­pology of the Confession of Auspurge: The Church of Christ is not among them, who defend naughty opinions, contrary to the Ghospell. And Luther in his epistle to Count Al­bert: It is not inough, if in other things he confesse Christ and his Ghospell. For who denieth Christ in one article or word, de­nieth him, who is denied in all, because there is but one Christ, Lutherās. the same in all his words. And vpon the 17. cap. of Deu­teronomy: Faith suffereth nothing, and the word tolerateth nothing, but the word must be perfectly pure, and the doctrine alwayes sound throughout. And vpon the 17. cap. of S. Matthew: Fayth must be round, that is, belieuing all articles, though small ones. For who belieueth not one article rightly, be­lieueth nothing righly, as Iames sayth, VVho offendeth in one, is guilty of all: and so who in one article doubteth or belieueth not (at least obstinatly) dissolueth the roundnes of the graine, and so can do no good. And vpon the 5. cap. to the Galathians: In diuinity a small errour ouerthroweth all the doctrine. Doctrine is like to a Mathematicall point, it cannot be deuided, that is, it cannot suffer either addition or detraction. And when Zuin­glius and his followers desired of the Lutherans to be esteemed as their brethren, Melancthon (as Hos­pinian reporteth in his Sacramentarian history fol. 81.) roughly sayd vnto them: VVe meruaile with what con­science they can account vs for brethren, whome they iudge to erre in doctrine. And againe fol. 82. Luther grauely spake vnto them, saying: he greatly merueiled how they could hold him for a brother, if they thought his doctrine to be vntrue. And the [Page 14] same Melancthon togeather with Brentius writeth thus to the Lantgraue: Perhaps Christians, who are en­tangled in some errour, which they do not obstinatly defend, may be tolerated as brethren, but they which not only bring false do­ctrine into the Church, but also maintaine it, are not to be ac­knowledged for brethren. And againe Melancthon in his examen of those who are to take orders, tom. 3. There are in that company (of the Church) many who are not Saints, but yet agreeing in doctrine. The Deuines of Wittemberg in their refutation of the orthodoxall consent pag. 73: Like as he who keepeth the whole law and offendeth in one (as Iames the Apostle witnesseth) is guilty of all: so who belieueth not one word of Christ, albeit he seeme to beliue the other arti­cles of the Creed, yet belieueth nothing, and is to be damned as incredulous. For euery heretike did not impugne euery article of fayth, but commonly each of them of purpose impugned some one or other, whome neuertheles the Church iustly condemned as he­retikes, if they pertinaciously stood in their errours. Schussel­burg also in his 3. tom. of the Catalogue of Heretiks, pag. 85. Christian fayth is one copulatiue, and who denieth one article of fayth, calleth in doubt the whole body of the heauenly doctrine. Which he repeateth againe in the next pag. And tome 8. pag. 361: The Lutherans do fly him, who de­praueth the doctrine of truth in any article whatsoeuer. And in his 2. booke of Caluinisticall diuinity, article 1: VVe are certaine by the testimony of Gods word, that an errour in one false doctrine, obstinatly defended, maketh an heretike. For S. Chrysostome vpon the epistle to the Galathians sayd most tru­ly, that he corrupteth the whole doctrine who ouerthroweth it in the least article. And Ambrose wrote rightly to the Virgin Deme­trias, That he is out of the number of the faythfull, and hath no part in the inheritance of Saints, who disagreeth in any thing from the Catholike truth. Sacramē ­taries. Thus the Lutherans. Peter Martyr in his epistle to the straungers in England [Page 15] tom. 2. loc. col. 136: VVe answere, all the words of God, as farre forth as they proceeded from him, are of equall waight and authority, and therefore none may receiue this, and reiect that as false. Iames sayth boldly, who sinneth in one, becommeth guilty of all. That, if it haue place in keeping of the commandements, is also true in points of fayth. Sadeel in his index of Turriās Repetitions pag. 806: I sayd, that it was no true Church, which teacheth doctrine repugnant to the written word of God. And his Maiesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 97. English Protestāt [...] in Latin: I call God to witnes, that I hold him not for a Christian who in this learned age belieueth that. (to wit, that Enoch and Elias are to come.) And D. Morton in his an­swere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. c. 2. sect. 3. after he had sayd, that in a Church, albeit corrupted with errour and superstition, yet if it do not ruinate the foundation, the erroneous & superstitious pro­fessors may be saued, adddeth: VVhich notwithstanding we must so vnderstand, as that the errour and superstition do not proceed from knowledge but from ignorance, which ignorance is not affected but simple. Thus we see that Protestants som­tymes confesse that true fayth is like a graine, or Ma­thematicall point, which cannot be parted; that the articles of fayth are one copulatiue, and cannot be deuided, that who so obstinatly denieth one article, belieueth, truly, none; that the obstinate deniall of any one poynt of fayth is sufficient to damne, or to make an heretik, and no brother of the faythfull, or member of the Church. And finally, that she is no true Church, who willfully maintaineth any one thing repugnant to the Ghospell or word of God. Which indeed is most true, and is the doctrine of the holy Fathers and Catholiks, and I would to God Protestants would constantly stand vnto it.

7. By all, which hath byn rehearsed in this [Page 16] chapter out of Protestants, it appeareth how many sortes of Christians, Protestants do sometymes ex­clude out of the Church, namely Papists, Anabap­tists, Arians, al Heretiks, all Schismatiks, all those, who deny any fundamentall point of fayth, and fi­nally al who obstinatly deny any point whatsoeuer of fayth, or of the word of God. And how many things they sometymes require to the making and being of a Protestant, to wit, that he belieue all and euery point of their fayth, and obstinatly dissent in none. To which their doctrine, if they would (as I haue sayd) alwayes constantly stand, it would easily appeare, first how small a company the Protestants Church is, and how little it is spread through the world, and much lesse Catholike or vniuersal, seeing there is no Prouince, nor scarse any citty, in which all Protestants agree amongst themselues in al points of their doctrine. Secondly it would easily appeare that the Protestant Church was neuer before Luther, seeing there is no apparence, that before him there was any company of Christians who in all points of doctrine agreed with Protestants. But Protestāts (as I sayd in the Preface) accommodate their do­ctrine and opinions to tymes and occasions. And the tymes, when they deny Papists to be of the Church, are when they exhort them to leaue the Roman Church, or excuse their owne reuolting from her, or when they dehort others from returning to her. For at all these tymes, it serueth to their purpose to deny that Papists are of the Church, or in the way of saluation; which at other tymes, as we shall see in the next chapter, they are content to graunt. And the tymes when they exclude Anabaptists, Arians, Heretiks, Schismatiks, and all that deny either fun­damentall [Page 17] or other articles of fayth, out of the Church, are, when either the euidence of truth en­forceth them thereto, or when they are ashamed to acknowledge such vgly monsters for brethren and members of their Church, or would exhort such as haue left their company to returne vnto them, and keep others from forsaking them: or finally would brag of the agreement and purity in doctrine of their company. For at those tymes it serueth their turne to renoūce all the foresayd kind of men, whom at other tymes, especially when we demaund of them, who were of their Church before Luther, they are most willing to receiue, as their kind bre­thren; diligently scraping & gathering such shreeds and clouts, when they perceiue their owne nakednes and beggary, which themselues, when they thought they were rich and had no need thereof, most dis­dainfully cast on the dunghills, as shall appeare in the chapters following.

CHAP. II. That Protestants sometymes account Papists for members of their Church.

IN the former chapter we haue seene how sparing Protestants sometyms be in admitting others into their Church, now we shall see how liberall they be at other tymes, in so much that they graunt, not only all those, whome in the former chapter they reiected, but also their professed enemies, idolaters, Infidells, Atheists, Antichrist himselfe, and all, whosoeuer vnder the name of Christians, impugne the deeds or [Page 18] doctrine of the Pope, to be their brethren, their fel­lowes, and members of their Church. This we will shew concerning the Papists in this chapter, and of the others afterward.

1. That Protestants sometymes do acknow­ledge Papists to be in the Church is manifest. First by their open confession thereof. Lutherās. For in the preface of their Confession of Auspurg, speaking of them­selues and Papists, Papists serue vn­der christ. they say: VVe are all soldiers vnder one Christ. And Luther in his epistle against the Anabap­tists (as Caluin in his booke against the Chaunter of Lions, and D. Whitaker in the place hereafter cited do confesse) writeth: The ker­nel of Christia­nity in Popery. That in Popery is true Christianity, yea the kernell of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints. Againe: If Christianity be vnder the Pope, then it must be the body and member of Christ. And vpon the 28. chapter of Genesis: VVe confesse, that there is a Church among the Pa­pists, because they haue Baptisme, absolution, the text of the Ghospell, and many godly men are among them. Caluin in his 140. epistle to Sozi [...]: I think I haue sufficiently proued, that in Popery there remayneth some Church, albeit halfe destroyed, and if you will, broken and deformed. And vpon the 2. c [...]ap. of the 2 epistle to the Thessalonians: The Body of Christ I confesse it is the temple of God, in which the Pope ruleth, and he calleth it the very sanctuary of God And, de vera reform. pag. 332. Sacramē ­taries. [...]ayth, that S Paul affirmeth that Antichrist (whom he will haue to be the Pope) shall sit in the temple of God. And lib. de scandalis pag. 103: In the midest of Gods tem­ple. And lib. cont. Precentorem pag. 372: In the very sanctuary of God. And Respons. ad Sadolet: In the midest of Gods sanctuary. Surely this is to graunt, that the Ro­mane Church, in which the Pope sitteth, is the very temple and very sanctuary of God. And in his an­sweare to Sadolet: VVe deny not those to be Churches of [Page 19] Christ, which you gouerne. In his 4. booke of Institu­tions, chap. 2. num. 11. he sayth, that among Papists Gods couenant remayned inuiolable. Not yet killed. And num. 12 VVe deny not, that there are Churches among them. Neither deny we, but there remaine Churches vnder his (the Pope he meaneth) tyranny, but which he hath almost killed. Iunius in his book of the Church, cap. 17. writeth that the Popish Church, as farre as it hath that which belongeth to the defini­tion of a Church, is a Church; that it hath not giuen vp the ghost, that it hath all diuine things, Not yet dead and of Gods part is yet the Church. Zanchius in the preface of his booke of the nature of God: Satan euen in the very Roman Church could not bring all things to that passe, that it should no more haue t [...]e forme of a Christian Church. And soone after: VVhere­fore the Roman Church is yet the Church of Christ. Yet the Church of Christ. P [...]essy in his booke of the Church 2. chap. auoucheth, that the Roman Church is the Spouse of Christ, Spouse of Christ. is not yet forsaken of him, that as a Mother, she beareth children to God (which he repeateth againe in the 10. chap.) that she retaineth life, and that the name of the Church ought no more to be denied to her, then the name of a man vnto a liuing man. Bucan in his 41. place of the Church, quest. 5: The assemblies of Papists are Churches, as a man infected with leprosy or besides his wittes, doth not leaue to be a man. Polanus in his first part and Thesis of the Church: The Roman Church truly is a Church; because Antichrist sitteth in the Church. And in his Syntagme of diuinity lib. 7. c. 8: The present Roman Church is yet the Church of Christ. Serauia in his defence of the degrees of ministers, pag. 30: The Roman Church, is a Church, and mark what I say more, she is our mother, in whome and by whom, God did regenerate vs. And pag. 31: The couenant of God remayneth this day in the Latin Church. Boysseul in his confutation of Spondé pag. 6: I ex­clude [Page 20] not the Roman Church out of the vniuersall Church. I acknowledge her to be yet in the couenant of God; which he repeateth oftentymes. And pag. 12: The Roman Church, is the Church of God. Pag. 19: It is a member of the vniuersall Church. p. 283: It is yet the Church, Spouse and temple of God. Yet the Church Spouse & temple of God. And pag. 822: VVe deny not, that the Roman Church is the Church of Iesus Christ, redeemed by him. Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin p. 188: The vulgar Roman church hath not yet lost all spirituall life, is not yet openly deuorced from Christ. And Peter Martyr in his epistle to Bullinger, wri­teth, Yet aliue. that he gaue counsaile, that the Papists & they should not call one the other Heretiks, but account themselues for brethren. As for English Protestants, Engli h Protestāts his Maiesty in his speach to the Parlament, anno 1605. 9. of Nouember, and put forth in print, spea­keth thus: VVe do iustly confesse, that many Papists, especially our forefathers laying their only trust vpon Christ and his me­rits, may be, and oftentymes are saued; detesting in that point, and thinking the cruelty of Puritans worthy of fire, Papists may be saued. that will ad­mit no saluation to any Papist. And in his epistle to Cardi­nall Peron: The Roman, the Greek &c. Churches, are mem­bers of the Catholike Church. Members of the Catholike Church. And D. Andrews in his Tortura Torti towards the end, speaketh thus to the Papists: VVe are content to call you members of the Catholike Church, though not sound members. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 128: VVe gladly acknow­ledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ. Of the family of Christ. And lib. 5. pag. 188: They should acknowledge so much neuertheles still due to the same Church (of Rome) as to be held and reputed a part of the house of God, a limme of the visible Church of Christ. D. Couel in his defence of Hooker pag. 68. May be saued. Note. sayth: VVe affirme them of the Church of Rome, to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that liue and dye in that Church, may notwithstanding be saued. D. Barlow in his 3. sermon ad [Page 21] Clerum: The learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. M. Bunny in his treatise of Pacification, sect. 18: Neither of vs (Papists & Pro­testants) may iustly account the other to be none of the Church of God. VVe are no seuerall Church from them, nor they from vs. D. Some against Penry in diuers places auouceth, That Papists are not altogeather aliens from Gods couenant. That in the iudgement of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church, a Ministery, a true Christ: If you think that all the Popish sect which dyed in the Popish Church, are damned, you think absurdly, and dissent from the iudgement of the learned Protestants. D. Whitaker in his fourth controuersy quest. 5. cap. 3. calleth the Papists Church, the temple of God, more then halfe dead, and almost decayed. And that temple, wherein the Apostle sayth, that Antichrist shall sit, and which he affirmeth to be the Roman Church, he termeth the very Church of God, the true Church of God, the society of the faythfull, the liuely temple composed of liuely stones; such as are the faythfull & the elect. And he addeth: There is among them (Papists) some Ministery and some preaching of the word, which doubt­lesse affordeth saluation vnto some. And as the giftes of God are without repentance; so the couenant which God made with Christian people, is not quite broken. And cont. 2. quest. 5. Gods co­uenant with Pa­pists. cap. 15. after he had confessed, that Luther had sayd, that in Popery are all the goods belonging to Chri­stians, the keyes, the office of preaching, true Chri­stianity, and the very kernell of Christianity; he ad­deth: These things are indeed among them. M. Powell in his 2. booke of Antichrist, cap. 2. graunteth the Ro­man Church to be the true Church, albeit with a new kind of distinction he deny the Popish church. And D. Rainolds in his 5. Thesis, albeit he say that the Roman Church be more then sickly and weak, [Page 22] yet he dares not say that she is quite dead. And D. White in his way, p. 352. sayth, That Popery in as much as it differeth from vs, is not to be imagined by vs to be another Church distinct in place and countries from the true Church of Christ: but we affirme it to be a contagion, raging in the midst of the Church of Christ it selfe. And in his defence c. 37. pag. 355: I neuer denied the Church of Rome to be the visible Church of God, wherein our auncestors professed the truth, and were saued. And cap. 41. pag. 408: Professing the Church of Rome it selfe in all ages, to haue byn the visible Church of God. Lastly D. Hall in his Rome Irreconciliable sect. 1. sayth, that the Roman Church is a true visible Church, but not sound, and that it differeth from the Protestant Church, At the sick from the whole. Heereto I adde, that oftentymes they call the Roman Church their Mo­ther, which hath borne them to Christ, as we shall rehearse hereafter, & that before Luthers tyme they seeke their Church in Popery, and amongst the Pa­pists.

2. Secondly I prooue this same out of that which diuers tymes they graunt, that the Roman Church holdeth all the fundamentall articles of fayth, That Pa­pists hold the foun­dation of fayth. which themselues commonly teach (as here­after shall be shewed) to suffice to make a Church. Their Confession of Auspurg in the 21. chapter hath these wodrs: This is almost the summe of doctrine among vs, in which as it may seeme, there is nothing which differeth from scripture, or from the Catholike Church, or from the Roman Church, Lutherās so farre as it appeareth by writers. All the dissention is about some few abuses, which haue crept into Churches without certaine authority. Whereby we see that the first and auncientest Protestants, The sūme of faith in Pope [...]y. publik­ly professed, that they differed not from the Ro­man Church in the summe of doctrine; but that all [Page 23] their disagreement was about some few abuses. And albeit the wordes be somewhat altered in the prin­ted copies; yet that they were in the originall copie which was presented to Charles 5. Emperour, is manifest by Fabritius, who repeateth them so out of that copie; by Pappus, in his 3, defence against Sturmius, who so also reporteth them; by Zanchius in his dispute between two Deuines, where he re­peateth these wordes out of the said Confession: There is nothing in our doctrine which differeth from the church of Rome, as far as it is knowne by writers: and finally by Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his cen­sure vpon the said Confession, it being sent vnto him by the Protestants, where he thus writeth to them: Yee say, yee agree in all things with the Latins, Cocleus anno 1 [...]28 Vsēberg. causa 17. and that the difference betwixt you and them, is only touching some abuses: likwise Luther in his foresaid epist. cont. Ana­bap: VVe confesse that in Popery is much good belonging to Christians, yea all Christian good, All Chri­stiā good. to wit, that in Popery is the true Scripture, true baptisme, the true Sacrament of the altar, the true keyes for remission of sinnes, the true office of preaching, the true Catechisme, as the Lords prayer, the ten commaundements, and the articles of faith. Whereupon Schusselburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretikes pag. 439. saith: VVe deny not but that Luther sayd that all Christian goods are in Popery, What was need­full to sal­uation. and came from thence vnto vs Iohn Regius in his consideration of the censure &c: Albeit the Ministery of Papists be corrupted with many traditions and inuentions of men, yet it had that which was necessary to saluation, to wit the Canonicall scripture, the Creed &c. Leonard Cren [...]zen: The bishop of Rome holdeth the same foundation of the Catholike faith 1. Cor. 3. The foū ­dation of Fayth. which I and the Catholik Apostolik Church do acknowledge, although there be some difference of opinions in certaine circumstances [Page 24] Thus the Lutherans. Of the Sacramentaries, Sacramē ­taries. Iunius in his 5. controuersy lib. 3. cap. 19. writeth thus of Papists, Lutherans, and Caluinists: VVe agree in the essentiall foundation. Essentiall foundati­on. Zanchius in his foresayd preface: In despite of the Diuell that Church (of Rome) hath kept the principall grounds of fayth. Principall grounds of fayth. Boysseul also in his forenamed confutation pag. 79: VVe acknowledge that it is pure in the cheife articles of Christian Religion. And Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 188. It is manifest that there are ma­ny in that company (of Papists) who rightly hold the funda­mentall points The fun­damentall points. of our Religion. And of the English Prote­stants, his Maiesty in his monitory epistle pag. 148. plainly intimateth that Papists do stick vnto the auncient foundations of the old true Catholike and Apostolike fayth M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 128. sayth: Touching those maine points of Christian truth, wherein they constantly still persist, English Protestāts we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus Christ. D. Whitaker in his 2. cont. quest. 5. cap. 14: Papists haue the Scripture, Baptisme, Catechisme, the articles of fayth, the ten commandments, the Lords prayer; The main points. and those things came to vs from them. D. Whit­gift in his answere to the admonition pag. 40: Papistry confesseth the same articles of fayth that we do, although not sin­cerely. And pag. 62: Papists belieue the same articles of fayth that we do. M. Perkins in the preface of his reformed Catholike: By a reformed Catholike I vnderstand any one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion, with the Roman Church, The ne­cessary heads. yet so as he pares of, and reiects all errours in doctrine, whereby the sayd religion is corrupted. D. Morton in his an­swere to the Protestants Apology lib. 3. cap. 18. sect. 1: VVe may graunt, that God may cooperate with them to the conuersion of Infidels, The ghos­pell of saluation. so far as the Ghospell of Christ, which is the power of God to saluation, is preached by them. D. White in defence of his way cap. 38: In the substantiall articles [Page 25] of fayth, we agree with them. Lastly D. Hall in his fore­sayd booke sayth, The sub­stantiall articles. that the Romane Church is one touching the common principles of fayth. Those things which she holdeth together with vs, make a Church. As farre as she holdeth the foundation, she is a church.

3. Thirdly, the same point is proued, The arti­cles which make a Church. by that they graunt some to be saints, whom they acknow­ledge also to haue liued and died Papists. For of S. Bernards holines thus writeth Luther vpon the 4. cap. to the Galathians: Bernard a man so holy, pious, chast, &c. The Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the chapter of answere to the Argumēts: Antony, Bernard, That they say some Papists be saints. Francis, Dominicke, and other holy Fathers. Brentius in his Apology for the Confession of Wirtenberg pag. 297: I iudge Bernard to haue byn a man indued with great piety, and to liue now happily with Christ. Caluin in his 4. booke of institutions c. 7. num. 22: Gregory and Bernard holy men. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 181: VVe graunt Ber­nard indeed to haue byn pious. Lubbert in his 6. booke of the church c. 7: VVe think Bernard to haue byn truly holy. D. Whitaker cont. 3. quest. 5. c. 14: I take Bernard to haue byn holy indeed. And D. Morton in his Apology part. 2. lib. 2. c. 23: I confesse Bernard was a Saint. And as plainly do they confesse that he was a Papist. For thus Lu­ther in the place now cited: Let vs imagine that Religion and discipline of the ancient Popery to flourish now, and to be ob­serued with that rigour, with which the Eremits, Hierome, Augustin, Bernard, Francis, and many others obserued it. And in his booke of abrogating Masse: Bernard, Bonauenture, Francis, Dominicke, with their followers, not knowing the Pope, did honour his Kingdome; belieuing all things thereof to be good and iust, and of God. The Magdeburgians in their 12. Century col. 1637. speake thus of him: He worshipped the God of Ma [...]zim (they meane the masse) till the last mo­ment [Page 26] of his life. And in the next columne: He was a most eager defender of the seat of Antichrist. Melancthon in his booke of the Church, and vpon the 14. cap. to the Romanes: He yelded to many errours, as to the Abuses of the Masse, to the Popes power, to vowes, to the worship of Saints. Danaeus in his controuersies, pag. 313. sayth: He ap­proued the Popery. M. Iewell in his defence of the Apo­logy 21. art. diuis. 8. pag. 450: Bernard was a monck, and liuing in a tyme of such corruption, and being caryed with the tempest and violence of the same, must &c. Bale in his 2. cen­tury of writers pag. 177: He increased the authority of the bishop of Rome, as much as he could. D. Feild vpon the 14. of S. Matthew: Bernard was deceiued with the errour of Pe­ters superiority. And D. Whitaker in his answere to the 7. reason of Father Campian: Bernard, whome alone your church in many yeares hath brought forth a holy man. And in his 4. controuersy quest. 2. c. 17. he affirmeth that he endeauoureth to confirme the Popes superiority. Seing therefore by the confession of Protestants, he was both an earnest Papist vnto his dying day, for all his life tyme he honoured masse, beleiued the Popes superiority (in which two points Protestants say the essence and soule of a Papist doth consist) and briefly belieued all things belonging to the Pope to come from God: and also was a very holy man, in his life tyme, and now a blessed Saint in heauen; they must needs confesse, that euen the most vehemēt Papist may be of the church; because neither true sanctity, nor saluatiō can be found out of the church. Whereunto the Protestants in the late Conference at Ratisbon Sess. 13. say: If they were truly saints, then their errour was not of that kind which ouerturneth the foun­dation. For it implieth contradiction, that one should be a true Saint, and yet foster errour which ouerturneth the ground of sal­uation. [Page 27] In like sort they graunt diuers others to be true saints, and yet withall Papists, but for breuities sake I will content my selfe with this example of S. Bernard. But I will not omit to say, that they con­fesse our Christian forefathers before Luthers tyme to haue byn Papists, from the top to the toe, from the first to the last, as shall be shewed in the 2. booke cap. 3. and notwithstanding dare not say, that they be damned, yea confesse them to be saued. Luther in his booke of priuate masse enquireth, what is to be thought of our auncestors who haue founded innu­merable Masses; and answereth: I cannot tell certainly. But vpon the 41. cap. of Genesis, he sayth: Doubtlesse many haue byn saued vnder Popery. And vpon the 5. of S. Matthew: Our Po­pish fore­fathers saued. Neither do we condemne the Christians who liued vnder the Pope. Brentius in the preface of his Recogni­tion: VVe doubt not, but that many haue obtayned true salua­tion in Popery. Osiander in his Manual englished: VVe do not condemne our godly ancestors who liued in tyme of Popery. Zuinglius in his actes of disputation fol. 638: It is im­pious to pronounce our ancestors to be damned. D. Morton in his Apology part. 1. l. 1. c. 90: Be this impiety far from vs, to adiudge our ancestours, to damnation. And D. White in his defence pag. 356: I neuer denyed the church of Rome to be the visible church of God, wherein our ancestors possessed the true faith and were saued. But how could our Popish ancestors be not damned, how could they be saued, vnles they were in the true church, out of which euen Prote­stants themselues confesse, that there is no saluation, That they confesse true mis­sion and Pastors in Popery. but only damnation.

4. Fourthly I prooue that Protestants can­not deny Papists to be of the true Church, because they oftentymes both by word and deed acknow­ledge the vocation and Mission of Popish Pastors, to [Page 28] be lawfull and sufficient to make a true Pastour of the Church. Luther vpon the 5. cap. of S. Matthew: VVe confesse that amongst Papists are pulpits, Baptisme, Sacra­ments, and all other things belonging to Apostolicall vocation and function. And in his booke or priuate masse: There re­maineth in Popery, Vocation, Ordination, Ministery of the word, and keyes to bind and loose. Againe: Christ hath conserued his Ministery vnder Popery. And as is before cited: There is all Christian good in Popery, the keyes, the charge of preaching &c. Iohn Regius in considerat. Censurae pag. 93: Although it be true that the Popish ministery was depraued with sundry traditions and deuises of men, yet had it those things which were necessary to saluation. Bucer in Rom. 8. pag. 427. telling vs by what authority and right he preached Prote­stantisme, sayth: I had by lawfull meanes already attayned the charge to preach Christ, and to teach those things which he commanded. Iunius lib. singulari de eccles. cap. 17: God calleth the church wherein Popery raigneth, by his spirit, by his word, by the publike instrument of that holy marriage by the ministery, by sacred affaires & actions. On Gods part these things are apparantly in that church. Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 11. p. 361. The vocation (of our men) is the same that they (the Papists) boast of. Pag. 362: Our aduersaries and our first mi­nisters had the same Ecclesiasticall calling. Boysseul in con­futat. Spondaei pag. 486: It is no reproach for our Pastors to haue issued out of yours; or, as you say, to haue had their voca­tion from yours. Moulins lib. 1. de vocat. cap. 5. pag. 20. endeauouring to vphold the calling of their first Re­formers, sayth: They haue that calling which is ordinary in the church of Rome Pa. 21: They had their calling of the Pope. cap. 9. pag. 36: They haue the same ordinary calling which our aduersaries haue. And lib. 2. tract. 1. cap. 1. pag. 172: The calling they had in the church of Rome, sufficed to bind them to preach. And pag. 173: Their commission was no other then the [Page 29] ordinary charge. Serauia in defen. Grad. minist. cap. 2. pag. 31. VVe ought not to thinke, that in the church of Rome ecclesiasticall ministery is decayed. And pag. 33: I like not their frowardnes, who acknowledge no ministery in the church of Rome, but deeme all that is there, diuelish. Ibid: Beza doth ex­agitate Popish orders ouer much, wherein I feare least he pre­iudice a good cause. D. Whitaker contr. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682: The Papists haue some sort of ministery, and some preaching of the word, which doubtles auaileth many to salua­tion. And other where (as is before cited) Among the Pa­pists there are the keyes, the office of preaching, &c. M. Bell in his first booke of the Popes funerall cap. 5. affirmeth that he had reiected only the accidents of his Popish orders, but retayned the substance still. M. Mason in his 5. booke of the ordination of ministers, cap. 12. sayth, that Popish ordination consistes of two parts, to wit, of power to offer sacrifice, & of power to administer the word and Sacraments, and albeit he reiecteth the former, yet the later he approues, as that wherein true ministery consisteth. Sadeel respon. ad artic. abiurat. 61. And Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 177. teach the same; and so must all others do, who hold the mission of Luther and their first mini­sters to haue byn ordinary, and receiued from the Papists: which opinion most Protestants do now follow, retracting, vpon better aduise their former assertion, & confessing that the mission of their new Reformers, was not in substance extraordinary. And their deeds and actions do no lesse declare their ap­probation and esteeme of the mission and Pastorall charge which is in the church of Rome. For as Turrian reporteth lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3. and Luther intimateth tom. 2. epist. ad Bohemos, when the Ca­tholike Bishops giue orders, the Hussites of Bohemia [Page 30] steale in priuily among the rest. The Lutherans also made sute to the estats of the Empire, that their mi­nisters might receiue orders from the bishops of Mis­nia and Numburg. And in artic. 10. Smalcald, they professe thus: If the bishops (of the church of Rome) would truly execute their office, and looke carefully to the church and word of God, it might be permitted them to giue orders vnto vs and our preachers. You may adde hereunto, that nei­ther Luther nor any Reformer else euer sought other ordination, then what they had receiued of Papists; and that in the beginning of Queene Elizabeths raigne, the supposed Prelates earnestly be sought a Catholike Bishop to consecrate them. And euen to this day, if any renegate Priest ioyne himselfe to the Protestants, they order him not anew, but deeme him fit for their ministeriall function, by vertue of the orders he receiued of Papists. Now if Papists haue true Mission, true pastorall charge, and true Pastors, True mis­sion and Pastors insepara­ble frō the Church. surely they haue also the true church; it be­ing impossible, that the church should be seuered frō the true Pastours; or that the keyes of heauen which are in the true Pastours hands, should be out of the church, or that the power to remit sinnes, the pre­rogatiue of true Pastours, shold be where the church is not. Nay, the Protestants themselues confesse as much. Luther tom. 4. in cap. 4. Oseae fol. 295: True it is, that the Ministery is only in the Church. Melancthon tom. 1. Lutheri disput de Eccles. Polit. fol. 483: The ordination of Ministers is one of the peculiar giftes of the Church. Caluin lib. de neces. reform. Eccles. pag. 57: This one reason is as good as thousands, that who so hath shewed himselfe an enemy to true doctrine, hath lost all authority in the Church. D. Whitaker ad demonstrat 18. Sanderi: Out of the Church there is no other seate but the seat of errour, of pestilence, [Page 31] and euerlasting destruction. The same teacheth Sadeel ad Sophism. Turrian loc. 10. D. Feild in his 1. booke of the church cap. 14. and others.

5. Fiftly it is euident by the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, who hold that the children of Pa­pists are in the couenant of God, and estate of salua­tion, through the fayth of their parents; Papist [...] children saued by the fayth of their parents. and may therefore be baptised: much more then must they teach, that the parents themselues are for their owne fayth in the couenant of God and estate of saluation; which could not be, were they not in the Church. The antecedent is manifest by the saying of many Protestants. For thus writeth Luther lib. de capt. Babylon. tom. 2. fol. 77: Here I say that which all say, that infants are holpen by the fayth of them which offer them. Caluin in his Catech [...]sme cap. de lege: God extendeth his bounty so farre vnto the faythfull, that for their sake he is good to their children not only blessing their affaires in this world, but also sanctifying their soules, that they may be accounted of his flock. Contr. Seruetum. pag. 601: VVe think, that there will be no vse of Baptisme vntill this promise, I will be thy God and of thy seed be apprehended by fayth; but euery one apprehendeth it not only to himselfe, but also to his issue. Beza part. 2. Respon. ad acta Montisbel. pag. 118: Parents through Gods grace do ap [...]rehend grace by true fayth, according to the forme of the Co­uenant, as well to their posterity as to themselues. Which he oftentymes repeateth. And likewise in Confes. cap. 4. sect. 48. and cap. 5. sect. 9. and pag. 126 M. Perkins de Sacramento Baptismi tom. 1. col. 846: Others say, that the fayth of the Parents is also the fayth of their children, all the tyme of their infancy or childhood, and that because parents do by their fayth apprehend the promise both for themselues and for their children: VVhich opinion seemeeh to me the fittest of all. The like he sayth in cap. 3. Galat. The sequele like­wise [Page 32] is vndoubted. For if the fayth of Popish parents be of force to establish their very children in the Co­uenant of God and estate of saluation, though it re­side not in them, nor be their act; much more doth it establish the parents themselues, who haue that fayth in them, and whose act it is. Nor do the in­stances D. Morton brings against it in his answere to the Protestants Apology, lib. 4. cap. 6. make any thing to the purpose; as that in case of necessity an hereticall Priest or Schismatike may absolue from sinnes; and an Infidell administer Baptisme. Againe: That if such as were free of a citty and are araigned of treason, should haue issue after their condemna­tion, their children neuertheles shall enioy the title and right of cittizens, whereof their parents were destitute. These examples (I say) are not to the pur­pose; because he, who is eyther baptized by an Infi­dell, or absolued by an hereticall Priest, enters not into the couenant of God and estate of saluation for ought that is in the person which baptizeth or ab­solueth him, but for the Sacrament of Baptisme or Pennance, which he receiueth indeed by the others administration, but hath it in himselfe. And the sonne of a traytor is not made a Cittizen, in regard of any thing that is in the father alone, but for his owne birth which appertaines to himselfe, though his Father be author thereof. But the Sacramentaries teach, that the child of a Papist is in the couenant of God and estate of saluation, not for his owne fayth (for they say he hath none) but for the beliefe of his father; which is no way possible, if the same fayth be not of force to worke the like effect in the father himselfe; seeing it belongs farre more to him, then to his child, and therefore must sooner giue him in­terest [Page 33] in the couenant, then the child that is descen­ded of him. For how can the fathers beliefe lay hold on the promises and couenant of God for his chil­dren, and cannot do it for himselfe?

6. These allegations demonstrate, The sūm [...] of Prote­stants Confessiō touching Papists. that by the Confession of the Protestants, the starkest Papists (such as are of beliefe that the masse, the Popes pri­macy, and all things else of his are good, vpright and of God) are soldiers vnder Christ, may attaine to saluation, may be Saints; yea that there are among them both many and great Saints. That there is in the Church of Rome what so is ne­cessary to saluation, the summe of fayth, the ground-works the essentiall ground-works, the principall grounds of fayth, the cheife articles, the fundamentall heads, the necessary heads, the cheife parts, the Ghospell of saluation, the kernell of Christia­nity, and all Christian good. Lastly that the Church of Rome, Is a limme and member of the vniuersall Church, of the Catholike Church, a member of the true Church, and is of the family of Iesus Christ; that it is mother to the children of God, that it is the Church of God, the temple of God, the body of Christ, the Spouse of Christ, that it abides yet in the couenant, is not yet cast of, or put away, is not yet killed, but is yet aliue. Which words plainly import that the Roman or Popish Church is a true Church in the sight of God.

7. But is it credible, Note. that such as make profes­sion of Christian religion, should mount to that height of impiety, as dare to reiect & diuorce them­selues, from that Church which they confesse re­maynes yet in the couenant of God, & which Christ hath not yet reiected? Is it credible, that they feare not to impugne, to make bitter inuectiues, to dis­gorge curses and execrations against her, whom they acknowledge to be their Mother, which bore them to Christ, to be the Church of God, to be the body [Page 34] and Espouse of Christ? What can be more lewd and impious, then to rage and raile against their owne mother, against the Church of God, against the very body and Espouse of Christ? What strang and mon­strous blindnes is it, not to perceiue, that whiles they confesse the church of Rome to be the church of God & Espouse of Christ, they acknowledge their owne to be the Synagogue of Antichrist and strum­pet of the Diuell? For Christ cannot haue two E­spouses, repugnant each to other. Now the Prote­stant church and church of Rome are parts so op­posite, as can neuer make one. For they iarre and dis­agree mainely in diuers weighty points, as namely touching the canon and exposition of the Scripture, touching sacrifice and the Sacraments, touching the worship of God, & his Saints; touching the meanes to obtaine remission of sinnes, and many the like. Whereupon Beza in Confes. cap. 7. pag. 56: VVe dissent (sayth he) from the Papist, about they very summe of saluatiō. And others say no lesse, as shall be shewed hereafter in the 2. booke and 6. cap: If ours be true Religion (sayth S. Augustin to the Donatists which yet came nearer to Catholiks then Protestants do) yours is superstition. Lib. 2. cōt. Gaud. c. 11. Againe: If our communion be the Church of Christ, yours is not Christs Church; Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 11. for that is but one, which so euer it be. And in another place: VVhen they approue that Church, which (as is manifest) we communicate with all, and they do not; by that their testimony they acknowledge thems [...]lues conuinced, Lib. ad Do­nat. post. codat. and giue you plaine notice (if you be wise) what you ought to forgoe, and what it behoues you to cleaue to and retaine. And S. Cy­prian epistle 76: If the Church were on Nouatus side, it was not with Cornelius.

Num. 4.8. The Protestants now and then perceiue as much, when they acertaine vs (as hath byn shewed [Page 35] in the first chapter) that who so seuereth himselfe from any particuler congregation, which is a true Church, excludes himselfe wholy from the church. Caluin saw it, when 4. Insti. c. 2. §. 10. he wrote thus: VVe cannot graunt them (Papists) that they are the church, but the necessity of subiectiō & obediēce will befall vs. If they be churches, the power of the keyes is in their possession. If they be churches, that promise of Christ: VVhatsoeuer ye bind on earth shall be boūd in heauen, takes effect in them. M. Perkins perceiued it to, when in his explicatiō of the Creed col. 794. he sayd: Zanchiu [...] lib. 1. de E [...]cl. c. 7. As long as any church forsakes not Christ, we may not withdraw our selues from it. The reason is apparant, because in so doing we should depart from Christ, or Christ shold be parted, euen as we are rent and disioynted from the church wherein he is. And in his Reformed Ca­tholike tract. 22. col. 470. Wh [...]re he sayth: VVe ought not to deuide our selues from any nation or people, which hath not before cut it selfe of from Christ. D. Feild likewise saw it in his 3. booke of the Church c. 47. Where he makes this acknowledgement: Surely if he can proue that we con­fesse it (the Church of Rome) to be the true Church, he nee­deth not vse any other argument. But we haue clearely prooued it by sundry plaine confessions of many fa­mous Protestants. And hitherto we haue discouered how they sometyme harbour and receiue Papists in­to their church: now we will shew that they vse the like curtesy towards the rest.

CHAP. III.
That Protestants acknowledge for members of their Church, sometyme those that deny as well funda­mentall as other articles of their fayth; some­tymes Heretiks, Schismatiks, yea their profest and sworne enemies.

THAT they esteeme all such to be members of their Church, as swarue from the Christian fayth only in points not fundamentall, themselues in the preface of the Switzers Confession declare in these words: Mutuall consent and agreement in the principall points of doctrine, in orthodoxe sense, and brotherly charity, was of religious antiquity thought abundantly sufficient. And D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 1. c. 2. pag. 527: God forbid that they should be no longer of the number of the faythfull, who are in some points of a contrary opinion, so they assent in the cheife and principall and necessary matters. And for as much as the Protestants opinion herein is well knowne (for wh [...] ̄ it is obiected vnto them, that their churches disagree in points of fayth, this serues them for excuse) I think it needlesse to alleage any more of their sayings. He that will may looke the Confession of Saxony cap. de Eccles. Luther tom. 7. lib. de not. Eccles. fol. 149. Melancthon tom. 4. in ca. 3. 1. Cor. Kemnitius 1. part. Examinis tit. de bonis operibus pag. 332. Zuinglius tom. 1. in Prefat. lib, de Prouident. Caluin. 4. Institut. cap. 1. §. 12. and cap. 2. §. 1. Beza epist. 2. Zanchius in prefat. lib. de natura Dei. Hospin, part. 1. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 2. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin. pag. 116. and others moe. And as their iudgements are different [Page 37] touching the fundamentall articles of fayth, so in determining, who are to be accounted members of their Church their opinions are vnlike. Some of thē say, that the summe, the cheife and principall heads of fayth, and all things necessary to be belieued are comprized in the Apostles Creed. The A­postles Creed. The principall heads of fayth (sayth Caluin 2. Institut. c. 16. §. 8) are set downe in the Creed. And it is (as D. Whitaker sayth lib. 3. de Scriptura cap. 3. sect. 1.) a list of the cheife heads of fayth. It containes (sayth M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholik col. 476.) all points of Religion which we are necessarily to be­lieue. Hemingius in Syntagmate pag. 196: It containes the ground-work of the whole frame of Religion. Vrsinus in Cathechesi: The summe of those things which the Ghospell proposeth vnto vs to belieue, that we may be partakers of Gods co­uenant, is comprehended in the Apostles Creed. Pareus lib. 1. de Iustificat. cap. 9. hath these words: In the Creed is layd open the summe of that doctrine, which we must belieue to saluation. The same teacheth Luther tom. 7. in 3. sym­bol. fol. 138. Confessio Pasatina in initio, prefat. Syn­tagmat. Confes. the French Catechisme, Brentius in Prolegomenis, pag. 244. The Catechisme of Heidle­berg part. 2. Bullinger in compendio fidei lib. 6. cap. 2. and tom. 1. decad. 5. serm. 2. Polanus in Analysi. Catechismi Basse. Boysseul in confutat. Spondei p. 10. Raynolds in Apol. Thes. pag. 241. Carleton in Consensu tract. de Eccles. c. 9. The same is intimated by Zanchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 219. and by Musculus in locis tit. de Eccles. pag. 309. These men then, if the se­quele of their doctrine be correspondent to the pre­mises, must needs acknowledge, that the profession of the Apostles Creed, though ioyned with the de­nyall of whatsoeuer other articles of fayth, sufficeth to make a Protestant, and a limme of their Church. [Page 38] And some of them there be who confesse it. For Bul­linger lib. cit. cap. 11. fol. 83. sayth: All that we comprise in the 12. Beliefe of the Apostles C [...]e [...]d suf­ficient to saluation. articles, is the true and Christian fayth, vnto which whosoeuer cleauech, he beliueth right, is approued of God, is iustified, and made partner of euerlasting life. Caluin cont. Gentil. pag. 659: The confession of fayth contayned in the A­postles Creed, ought to be inough for all modest Christians. And Musculus in the place last quoted. They are wonderfull vnreasonable and vnaduised, who not content with this beliefe, exact of the faythfull, that they belieue yet other things which are neither mentioned in the Apostles Creed, nor in baptisme. Are­tius in locis part 3. fol. 67: The articles necessary to salua­tion are those, which the Creed hath set vs downe. As for the rest, since the matter cannot be decided, variety of iudgements must be borne with all. Polanus also in the place before cited: These articles (of the Creed,) if they be vnfaynedly belieued suffice to purchase saluation; nor is it required we should belieue ought besides. And Hall in [...]ua Roma irreconcil. sect. 1: VVe are all one and the same Church, as many as in any part of the earth worship Iesus Christ the only Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world, and professe the same common beliefe comprised in the Creed.

The Creeds.2. Some of them will haue the grounds of fayth to be contained in the Creed; as Plessy lib. de Eccles. c. 5. Hereupon Marke Antony de Dominis in consil. suae profect. pag. 18. & 20. sayth: Restore peace and charity to all Christian Churches, which professe Christ by the essentiall cognisances of beliefe. Others ad to the Creeds the 4. generall Councels or at least one of them, as D. Andrews in Respons. ad Apol. Bellarmin. cap. 1. pag. 52: That which is set downe in the Creeds and 4. generall coun­cells, The Creeds & the 4. ge­nerall [...]ouncels. is to vs a sufficient obiect of fayth. And in Tortura Torti pag. 127: Nor do we lightly discerne and try heresy by other touch-stone, then by examining whether it be repugnant t [...] [Page 39] any of the three ancient Creeds, or 4. ancient generall councells. And Melancthon tom. 3. l. de iudicijs Synodorum fol. 389. sayth of himself, that he is not without the Church, because he faythfully imbraceth all the articles of the Apostles and Nycen Creed. Musculus also in the place a­boue quoted puts downe this conclusion: As many as belieue the Apostles and Athanasius Creed, hold all the Catholike fayth, and are not heretkes but Catholiks. Some of them are of opinion, that al the fundamental points of beliefe are contayned in the Creed and decalogue; The Creed and Deca­logue. as Me­lancthon tom. 1. in cap. 7. Matth. pag. 402. tom. 3. in respons. ad artic. Bauar. fol. 363. Vrsinus in Miscella­neis Thes. 8. pag. 1 [...]4. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 789. Some of them say, they are in the Creed, the decalogue, and Lords prayer; The creed Decalo­gue, and Lords prayer. as Luther tom. 7. in Enchirid. fol. 118. Beza lib. de notis Eccles. pag. 52. Keckerman lib. 1. System. Theol. 201. D. White in the preface of his way, and in his defence of the same cap. 8. pag. 54. Others reckon the 10. com­mandements, the Creed, the Lords prayer, & the Sa­craments; as D. Whitaker cont. 1. quest. 4. cap. 4. The creed De­calogue, Lords prayer, & Sacra­ments. And the Ministry. pag. 342. (howbeit quest. 5. cap. 9. pag. 362. he omitteth Sacraments, & putteth in Catechisme in exchaunge.) Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 24. vnto which Ieslerus lib. de bello Euchar. pag. 40. adioyneth the ministry. And these men according to their seuerall decisions concerning the fundamentall points of beliefe, must with like diuersity require in a limme of the Prote­stant Church either the beliefe of the Creed alone, and decalogue; or must adde besides (as each think it needfull) the Lords prayer, the Sacraments, Baptisme and wor­ship of Christ. the Ca­techisme, and the Ministery.

3. But sometymes they giue larger scope, & demaund farre lesse, to wit, Baptisme only, or faith [Page 40] in Christ. Let him let Chr [...]s [...]ianity stād (sait [...] D. Andrews in respons. cit. cap. 5. pag. 126) in baptisme and worship of Christ. M. Morton in his booke of the Kingdome of Israel and the Church pag. 91: In what place soeuer any society of men adore true God in Christ, they professe the sub­stance of Christian Religion: Baptisme alone. Ierlach. us disput. 22. de Ec­cles. pag. 662: VVheresoeuer baptisme remaines curier in re­gard of its substance, thither reacheth the territory of the Ca­tholike Church: Luther de Notis Ec­cl. fol. 150. Againe: If they acknowledge true baptisme both in o [...]rs and in other congregations, they must yeld, that in the same there is likewise the Catholike Church. And Hurterus in his Analysis of the Confession of Ausburge pag. 525: As many as are enrolled for Christs soldiers by sacred bap­tisme, or at least wise are ioyned to him, by profession of fayth, are euery one of them members of the Church simply taken, as it signifieth the company of them that are called. Serauia defens. contra Bez [...]m cap. 2. pag. 31: As long as there remaines amongst them the new and old testam [...]nt, together with the Sa­crament of baptisme, and beliefe in God the Father, and in the Sonne, and holy Ghost; and they trust to be saued by the Sonne of God and his death; albeit they adioyne a number of their owne wicked forgeries, they are notwithstanding parts and members of the vniuersall Church. The ministers of the scattered Church of the Netherlands in sua narrat. pag. 71: No man can, Professiō of Christ. nor ought to giue sentence in the Church of an others condemnation, of whome it is not publikely knowne, that he is fallen away from the foundation of the Apostolicall Confession, vttered by the mouth of Peter. Oecolampadius epist. ad Bucerum apud Hospin. part. 2. Professiō of Christ God and man. Histor. fol. 112: VVe are gladly at peace withall those that confesse with vs and teach Iesus Christ true God and true man in vnity of person. And Bu­cerus apud eundem fol. 84: VVho so preach the same Christ with vs, we account them ours, what estimate soeuer they make of vs. Beza de lib. notis Eccles. pag. 30: VVe say it is a true [Page 41] definition of the true Church, whether generally considered or in particuler, wherein it is sayd to be a company which acknowled­geth one Sauiour. To ac­know­ledge one Sauiour. For (sayth he) this al [...]ne is the only ground-work [...] of that spirituall house of God; Christ Iesus is the soule of that mysticall body, the only rule and square of that building. And the Confession of Bohemia artic. 8. defines the Catholike Church to be all Christians, That are asso­ciated in one beliefe concerning Christ and the holy Trinity. The faith of Christ and the Trinity. The Confession of Basse artic. 5. hath this assertion: VVe belieue the holy Christian Church &c. VVherein all those are Citizens, that confesse Iesus to be Christ, the lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world, and shew openly the same beliefe by works of charity. Acontius l. 3. Stratagem. Satanae pag. 119. concludes that nothing else is neces­sar [...]ly to be belieued, Beliefe of one God & Christ. but That there is one God and Christ his Sonne made man and raised from the dead; and that salua­tion is purchased by his name, and not by any other name, nor by the works of the law. And Luther vpon the 7. of Math. fol. 86. closeth vp all with this epilogue: The head and summe of Christian doctrine is this: That God saueth by Christ. that God sent and gaue his Sonne, by whome alone he pardoneth our offences, and doth iusti­fy and saue vs. This (sayth he) and nothing else, it behoues thee firmely to belieue. Sometyme to belieue their article of iustification by only fayth is as much as they require in a limme of their Church, The only article of iustifica­tion suffi­ceth. or think needfull to saluation. Luther tom. 7. tract. in 3. symbol. fol. 140: I haue found by experience, that who so haue truly and sincerely belieued that principall article of Christian fayth concerning Ie­sus Christ, though they had their errours and faults, haue at last notwithstanding byn saued. And tom. 4. in cap. 42. Pareus in 1. Galat. lect. 8. Iezler. de bello Euch. fol. 77. Isaiae fol. 178: If we abide in this article, we are secure from here­sies, and retaine remission of sinnes; which pardoneth our weak­nes in ciuill dueties and beliefe. And in cap. 43. fol. 200: VVho so belieueth this article, is out of danger for euer falling into [Page 42] error, and the holy Ghost must needs assist him. And Brocard vpon the 2. cap. of the Apocalips fol. 45: The former Ministers who were before the first councell of Trent, determined, that we ought not to contend, but that their Supper should be common, which had receiued one doctrine touching iustification. Caluin de vera Eccles. reform. pag. 316. writeth thus: I know it is the common saying of a great many, that so the do­ctrine of vndeserued Iustification continue sound, we should not be so stifly contentious about the rest. And the Author of the Preface in Syntagma Confess. after he had affirmed that the article of iustification is the ground work, the forme and soule of Christian religion, makes this demaund: How can they then but haue peace one with another, whosoeuer are fellow-partners of so great good? And he saith, it is, An vnseemly and hainous thing, that betweene such there should be emnity and debate. And indeed all Protestants should teach so, since they make this article the defi­nition, the summe, and very soule of Protestantisme, as shall be herrafter shewed in the 6. chapter. Some­tymes in a member of their Church, they require on­ly some one point of Christianity, or but the pro­fession of Christs name. For Sturmius apud Hospin. in Corcord. discord. c. 24. testifieth that Bucer sayd: He would neuer condemne any one, in whome he saw any point of Christianity. Any point of Chri­stianity. And Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 2. affirmeth that the Church may be infected with heresy from top to toe, & yet be a part of the vniuersall Church, as long as it professeth the name of Christ. And Moulins in his buckler of fayth pag. 43. The vniuersall visible Church is the company of all them who professe themselues to be Christi­ans. Thus we see, that to a member of the visible Church, yea to fayth, to Christianity, to a member of the true and Ca­tholike Church, to eternall saluation (as Protestants some­tyme iudge and determine) litle or nothing sufficeth. [Page 43] Do not these men go about to expose the Church & meanes of saluation vnto scorne and mockery? What Iew or Turke did euer make his Synagogue so com­mon?

4. Protestāts challenge those that deny euē fundamē ­tall arti­cles. Albeit the former allegations do suffi­ciently conuince, that when Protestants calculate the limmes and members of their Church, they take, to make vp the number, such as renounce the very fundamentall articles of their beliefe; yet to make it more euident, and to preuent all colour of doubt, I will adde other proofes besides. And first we haue in this behalfe their owne Confessions. For Beza lib. de Notis Eccles. pag. 45. teacheth plainly, that some er­rours euen in some fundamentall heads of fayth, may creep into the Catholike Church. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 4. cap. 3. pag. 490: It is manifest, that the true Church may erre for a tyme euen in necessary points. The like hath Hutterus in Analysi Confessionis Augustanae pag. 453. and Iu­nius doth intimate as much lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 17. D. Whitaker againe cont 2. quest. 5 cap. 17: VVe gather, that the Church may for a tyme swarue from the truth euen in some fundamentall points, and be notwithstanding safe. And Zanchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 221. will not haue vs for­sake any cōpany on occasion of false opinions, which swarue from the groundwork of fayth. D. Hall likewise in sua Roma irreconc. sect. 1. sayth, that the true Church may foster such errours, As by deduction and consequence destroy the foundations of beliefe. D. Fulke in his serm. vpō the Apocalips, hauing made this obiection to him­selfe, that seing the Church is the Espouse of Christ, it cannot be, that he suffered it to be possessed so ma­ny ages with damnable errors; answeares it in this manner: VVhat? Christ himselfe hath sayd: that the errors of false Prophets should be exceeding great, in as much as the very [Page 44] elect, if it might be, should be led into errour. And lib. de Suc­ces. Eccles. pag. 122. he sayth: It seemes not fitting to take from the Grecians the name of a Church; whome notwith­standing he confesseth to be ensnared with grieuous errors. Now a grieuous errour (according to D. Whi­taker cont. 2. quest 4 cap. 1.) dissolues the foundation, and may therfore be termed fundamentall. M. Perkins in his ex­position of the Creed, col. 790: VVhen an errour is repu­gnant to the foundation, either directly or by necessary consequence if it proceed of weaknes, he in whome it is, ought to be reputed a member of the vniuersall Church. And vpon 1. Galat. v. 2: If a Church through frailty fall into errour, although it concerne the foundation, notwithstanding it remaynes yet a Church, as is certaine by the example of the Galathians. And vpon the epistle of Iude v. 19: The Church of Gaelatia through weak­nesse remoued it selfe vnto another Ghospell, and erred in the foundation, yet Paul writeth to it as to the Church of God. D. Willet affirmeth the same in his Synopsis cont. 2. q. 3. pag. 104. And Melancthon tom. 2. lib. de Eccl. pag. 123. toucheth the same string when he sayth: The true Church it selfe may haue errours which obscure and darken the articles of fayth. And tom. 4. in cap. 9. Rom: God ga­thereth alwayes some company, in which the foundation is kept, sometymes lesse pure, sometymes more. D. White in his way pag. 111: Some articles lying in the very foundation may be be­lieued not so clearly. Nay sometymes they dare auouch, that those very Corinthians that denyed the resur­rection, and those Galatians also that changed the Ghospell of Christ into another Ghospell, were of the Church. Luther. in 1. cap. Ga­lat. fol 215. Perkins loc. cit. For thus the Switzers Confession c. 17: VVe are not ignorant, what manner of Churches those of the Co­rinthians and Galathians were in the Apostles tyme: which the Apostle accuseth of many and grieuous crimes, and yet termeth them the holy Churches of Christ. And Caluin 4. Institut. [Page 45] cap. 1. §. 27: Most greiuous sinnes possesse sometymes whole Churches. The Apostasy of the Galathians was no small offence; the Corinthians were lesse excusable then they; howbeit neither of them are excluded from the Lords mercy. Sadeel in his an­swere ad Thes. Posnan. cap. 12. pag. 866: The Gala­thians and Corinthians, though corrupted with errour, and disagreeing each from other about the cheife groundwork of be­liefe, and that not concerning the manner but touching the mat­ter it selfe, retained notwithstanding the name of a true [...]hurch. And hence he gathereth, that the debate and disagre­ment betweene the Lutherans and Caluinists con­cerning the Eucharist, doth not let either of them from being of the true Church.

5. The deeds of the Lutherans and Sacramen­taries yeld vs a second kind of proofe. For the Electo­rall or milde Lutherans in colloq. Aldeburg. scripto 8. call themselues, Lutherās professe that thē ­selues dif­fer funda­mentally. Fellowes and companions of the same Mi­nistery, fellow-cittizens and fellow-soldiers of those of Saxo­ny or rigorous Lutherans: of whome notwithstan­ding scripto 6. pag. 111. they giue this censure: They haue shewed themselues to dissent from our Churches in the foun­dation. Againe: VVe will make it euident, that they impugne the fundamentall doctrine. And scripto 4. pag. 4: Our opi­nion is, that we disagree not about impertiment matters only, or things of no consequence; but about the maine and cheifest mat­ters. And scripto 7: This one thing they ayme at, and bend all their endeauours to vndermine and ouerturne the groundwork of sauing doctrine. And pag. 374. they complaine that those of Saxony do often cry out of them, that they are worse then any idolaters. And the Sacramentaries in Praefat. Apologet. Orthodoxi consensus, write thus of the Lutherans: They haue hitherto suffered among them, such as call in question the doctrine of iustification, of originall sinne, of free will, of the Ghospell, of the law and vse thereof, of Christs [Page 46] descent into hell, of his person, of the election of Gods children, and many other articles of no small moment; which things they easily put vp, because all these go vnder the name of Lutherans. Now that the Sacramentaries likewise acknowledg the Lutherans for their brethren, is apparent by the Apology of the Church of England, by the consent of Poland, by the preface of the Syntagme of Confes­sions, Sacramē ­ [...]taries challenge Lutherās. by the Conferences of Marspurg and Mont­belgard, and other publike writings and registred acts: and yet they see and openly exclaime against their errours in fundamental points of fayth. Of Lu­ther thus writeth Zuinglius tom. 2. Resp. ad Luther. fol. 401: And yet say they differ fun­damētally from thē. VVe iudge thee a worse seductour, impostour, and de­nyer of Christ, then was Marcion himselfe. And fol. 430. Lu­ther as yet, is entangled and sticks fast in two errours exceeding grieuous, and in most foule ignorance. Of Melancthon thus sayth Caluin epist. 183: Either he openly impugneth true doctrine in the cheifest heads, or else hideth his meaning craftily or not very honestly. And epist. 179. he complaineth that Melancthon endeauoureth to ouerthrow his do­ctrine of predestination: VVithout which (sayth he) the knowledge of Gods free and vndeserued mercy is vtterly lost. The like he sayth, epist. 141. Sturmius lib. de Ratio­ne incundae Concordiae, sayth plainly, that the Lu­therans do pluck vp the foundation of Christian Religion. And Bullinger in fundamento firmo writeth, that the very infidelity of the Iewes and Gentils is by the Lutherans brought into the Churches. Cureus in Exegesi Sacramentaria pag. 91: Surely the controuesy (between the Lutherans and Sacramentaries) is concerning the foundation. The Sa­cramentaries in the Preface of the Conference at Mulbrun say, that the Lutherans. Teare in preces and adulterate the articles of the incarnation, of the true humane na­ture &c. VVhich articles (say they) no Christian man can [Page 47] doubt but are the groundwork of saluation. And in the fore­sayd preface: They are at variance, not about the Lords sup­per only, but touching the person of [...]hrist, touching the vnion of his diuine and humane nature, touching the vbiquity of his body and corporall manducation thereof common both to good and bad, touching his ascending vp to heauen, and his sitting at the right hand of his Father: of all these points they contend, and that with such exceeding heat of disputation, as that old heresies not a few, long since abolished and condemned, begin againe to lift vp their head, as if they were recalled from hell. The like they haue ibidem in Prolegomenis. Of the controuersy which is betweene the Lutherans & Sacramentaries about the [...]eall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, Martyr in locis tom. 2. p. 156. giues this iudgement: The contention and difference therein concernes the cheife heads of Religion. Caluin epist. 292. sayth, that the opinion of the Lutherans doth, By mischeiuous iuglings and legierde­mains ouerturne the principles of fayth. Beza in his 5. epist. that it destroyeth the verity of Christs body. And epist. 81. that it recalleth from hell the folly and doting errours of Mar­cion and Eutiches. Bucer cited by Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 84: It followeth thereupon, that Christ is not true man. Paraeus in cap. 3. Galat. lection. 37: There is nothing more directly opposite to Christian Religion, then to think that the body of Christ doth indeed lye hid really vnder the bread, and that the same is truly eaten with the mouth. Sadeel. in tract. de Con­iunctione &c. pag. 369. that it ouerthroweth the true na­ture of the true body and bloud of Christ VVhich thing (sayth he) we still lay to their charge. And tract. de Sacramen­tali manducatione pag. 26. that it is a word of euils. pag. 267: That it traines after it idolatry. And pag. 268: that it [...]annot stand with the verity of Christs body. Hospin. part. 2. citat. fol. 2. that it is the foundation of Papistry. And fol. 181: The base and pillar which sustaineth all the whole blended [Page 48] and disordered heape of abuses, and all the bread-worship whic [...] hath vnder the Popedome byn deuised and brought in. Lauate­rus lib. de dissid. Euchar. fol. 7. that it is the Foundation of the Popedome. Cureus in Spongia, that it is the founda­tion, the strength, the throne of the God Maozim, and of the Po­pish state. Caluin de Coena p. 8. & in Cōs. pag. 754. Beza in fo. 6. v. 23.62. & ad 4. Demonstr. Illyrici. Zan [...]hius in Confess. c. 16. sect. 12. And Vrsinus in Catechism. quest. 78. cap. 3. sayth: As long as the opinion of the corporall presence is main­tained, Popish adoration, and oblation, and the whole Popish masse is kept on foot. And there is not one Sacramentary, but thinks the verity of Christs body, and his ascen­tion, & sitting at the right hand of the Father cleane taken away, if he should say he were substantially in the Eucharist. Whereupon Zanchius tom. 1. Miscell. in iudicio de dissidio Coenae pag. 553. sayth: There are two maine reasons why the one party (to wit the Sacramen­taries) renounce the presence of the body: The one, that the ar­ticle of Christs ascension into heauen may be kept entire: the other that the nature and verity of his humane body be not destroyed. Nay some of the Sacramentaries in their Confessi­ons of faith condemne the opinion of the Lutherans as mad and blasphemous. For Confess. Crengerina cap. de coena Domini, sayth: VVe condemne their madnes, who auouch and maintaine flesh-eating, that is, who hold, that Christs naturall and very body, raw and bloudy without any change or transubstantiation at all, is receiued with the very mouth. And the Scots in their Confess. pag. 159. say they, Detest that blasphemous opinion, which auoucheth Christs reall presence in the bread & wine, and that he is receiued by the wicked or taken into the belly. This and much more of the like is sometymes the Sacramentaries plea against the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist; and yet at other tymes they professe that this contro­uersy is not of so great weight and moment, as that it should dissolue Ecclesiasticall Communion and [Page 49] fellowship. For so teacheth Martir apud Simlerum in vita eius, the author of the orthodoxe Consent. Prefat. Apologet. Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 78. Caluin de scandalis pag. 95. In Consens. p. 764. Beza lib. de coena cont. Westphalum. pag. 258. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed, col. 792. and others. Nay (as we sayd before) these men besought the Lu­therans, who stedfastly maintaine the reall presence, to hold them for brethren and members of their Church. They can then find in their conscience to haue fellowship and Communion with those men, whose doctrine they condemne, As Frantike & blasphe­mous; whose doctrine (they say) destroyeth Christs ascension, What kind of men Sa­cramenta­ries chal­lenge for brethren. and the verity of his humane nature; subuerteth the principles of fayth and cheifest points of religion; recalleth the doting follies of Marcion and Eutyches, establisheth the Kingdome of Antichrist traines after it idolatry and a world of euills. Fy on these mē beliefe, who think the maintenance of an opinion, which (as themselues professe) ouerthroweth the principall articles of Christian fayth, drawes after it idolatry, and most foule heresies, layeth the foun­d [...]tion whereon Antichristianity is raised; of so sleight consequence as it ought not to dissolue fra­ternity and Communion. What regard of fayth or saluation may we think these men haue? There is yet another point o [...] Luteranisme touching the vbi­quity, or presence of Christs body euery where re­proued of the Sacramentaries, and held in extreme dislike; of which they likewise exclaime: that it is Beza respons. ad acta mon­tisb. l. pag. 252. forged and composed of Eutychianisme and Nestorianisme: that the heresies of Caluin 4 Instit. c. 17. p. 17. Marcion and Eutyches, yea well nigh Hosp. pref. par. 2. all old heresies are by it raised againe from hell; that it subuerteth the whole Per­kins expos. Symb. coll. 792. Creed; that it takes away the Sadeel. de verit. hum. nat. cheife heads of Chri­stian Religion; & that there is scant any one article of Christian [Page 50] beliefe which it doth not vtterly abolish. And yet these selfe same Sacramentaries stile them who defend this opi­nion Sadeel. sup. Most flourishing Churches; and made earnest sure to be held for Beza in colloq. mō ­tisbel. pag. 462. brethren of those very men, who vpheld this doctrine against them, and maintayned it to their face. Nay the particuler Churches of Sa­cramentaries themselues consist of parts mainly dis­ioyned in matters of beliefe. Sacramē ­taries say there is fundamē ­tall diffe­rēce amōg them. Examples hereof we need not seeke a broad. Our owne Protestants tell vs, how the Puritans their brethren allow not of the booke of common prayer, but hold it to be full of Whit­gift. resp. ad Admo­nit. p. 145. 157. cor­ruptions and all abominations, and teach that Protestants Ib. resp. ad schedas. wickedly mangle and wrest the Scriptures, that they haue no Resp. cit. pag. 6. Pastours, that they haue not a true Church, yea not so much as the outward face of a Church; and that they exhort the Court of Parlament with perfect Pag. 32. hatred to detest the present state of the Church; that no Pag 33 Iew, no Turke, no Papist, could pos­sibly haue spoken more spitefully of their Church and state, and that they seeke to shake, nay to ouerthrow the Pag. 6. foundations, grounds, and pillars of their Church. Finally, that the Pu­ritans will not account the Protestants their Resp. ad schedas. Bancrofts suruey c. 33 brethren, and yet the Protestants neuerthelesse acknowledge Puri­tans for their Resp. ad schedas Oxon. resp. ad Mi [...]len. Lonfer. ad Hampton Court. p. 44. brethren and fellow-labourers in the Lords haruest. In Scotland likewise (as his Maiesty witnes­seth) That which was Catechisticall doctrine in one assembly, was hardly admitted for sound and orthodoxe in another; and yet these assemblies excluded not one another from the Church. What can be therefore more cleare and euident, then that both the Lutherans and Sacra­mentaries acknowledge (when they list) those to be members of their Church, who deny fundamentall articles of their fayth?

6. A third proofe may be drawne from the Protestants demeanour and carriage towards the [Page 51] Fathers, Protestāts say the fa­thers dis­sent fun­damē [...]ally from thē. whome they claime and challenge for their fellow-cittizens, and yet confesse plainly (to omit what they acknowledge concerning other points) that they were of a contrary beliefe in the article of Iustification by sole fayth; wherein (as shall be here after shewed) they say the soule, the summe, and de­finition of Protestantisme consisteth. Luther tom. 1. In the art. of iustifi­cation by only faith. colloq German. apud Coccium tom. 1. pag. 131: In which errour (that works ioyned with fayth do iusti­fy) were many of the Fathers. And tom. 5. in cap. 3 Galat. fol. 358. he sayth, that of the difference, which he espied between the law and the Ghospell, as that the law taught iustification by works, the Ghospell by sole beliefe, There is nothing to be found in the works of the old Fathers. Augustin held it in part, Hierome and the rest knew it no: Melancthon tom. 1. in Dominicam Trinitaris pag. 89: It is meruaile, that the cheife Doctours had no know­ledge of the iustice of fayth. Tom. 2. lib. de Eccles. pag. 134: Chrysostome reckons vp many wayes and meanes to obtaine re­mission of sinnes, as almes deeds, teares, and other works. The Centuriatours of Magdeburg. cent. 3. cap. 4. col. 79. & seqq. say, that the Doctours of the third age Make workes the cause of our iustice in Gods sight. Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 293: In this article of iustification this age reuolted wholy from the doctrine of the Apostles. And Cent. 5. in Prefat. they say of the Fathers of that age: Chrysostome and the residue attribute iustice vnto works, they make works the meanes of saluation, and ascribe iustification either in part, or formally, or wholly vnto works. Gerlacinus tom. 2. dispat. 13: The ancient Fathers would haue the iustice life, and salua­tion of a Christian man consist in obseruing Gods commaunde­ments, as Hilary, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom [...], Augustine, &c. Kemnitius in locis part 1. cit. de Iustifi­cat. pag. 242. sayth that the Fathers Intermingled some­tymes [Page 52] and entwyned the doctrine of good workes with the article of iustification, sometymes plied and bended the article of iustifi­cation to good works. And part. 2. tit. de lege pag. 106: If the Fathers disputes be all layd together, the summe of them is this in effect, that sinne and infirmity of nature is manifested by the law, to the end we may search out a Phisitian, by whose grace it may be so healed, as it be able to satisfy and fullfill the law, and so we be saued. And ibidem in orat. de lectione Patrum pag. 3. The sūme of the fa­thers do­ctrine is iustifica­tion by works. he sayth of S. Cyprian, He had a fundamentall er­rour. And pag. 4. of S. Hilary: He held an erroneous opinion touching the foundation. Caluin also lib. cont. Ver si pellem pag. 353: Three maine points of our sayth, to wit, the corrup­tion of our nature, free and vndeserued iustification, and Christs Priesthood, are so darkly and obscurely touched in the ancientest writers, that no certainly can be drawne thence. Againe: VVe shall neuer learne by the Fathers, how we may be reconciled to God, how the obedience of Christ is freely and vndeseruedly re­puted ours. Martyr in locis cit. de scriptura col. 1432: Other Fathers think good works much auaileable to iustification. Hospin. in epist. dedicat. part. 1. Histor: All the Fathers well nigh do now and then sprinkle and cast on with all the lea­uen of good works, and attribute iustification to them, either in part, or formally or wholy. Parcus lib. 4, de Iustificat. c. 12: The Fathers both Greek and Latin especially those that wrote before the Pelagian bickerings, fancied ouer much, and tooke too great a liking to the Philosophers doctrine, concerning the iustifi­cation of worcks. Finally M. Perkins in Problem. cap. de Iustificat. sayth, that the old writers consound the law with the Ghospell, and do not distinguish the iustice of the law from the iustice of the Ghospell.

7. To them, who in this manner ioyne friend­ship and Communion as well with such as renounce fundamentall articles of fayth, as with those whose beliefe is contrary in articles not fundamental, wh [...] [Page 53] meruaile is it, if all heretiks and Schismatiks seeme fit companions, and worthy to be accounted their brethren and fellow-cittizens? But let vs heare their owne words, wherein they acquaint vs, what ranke heretiks & Schismatiks hold amongst them. Luther tom. 7. serm. de Dominica 20. post Trinit. fol. 262. sayth: They are frantique and beside themselues who go about to seuer the Church corporally from heretikes. Hemingius in Syntag. Institut. pag. 192: In the outward society of the Church, are many heretiks and Schismatiks. Salomon Gesner in locis loc. 24: Are heretiks then in the Church? By any meanes. Brentius in Praefat. Recognit: Christ giues not ouer the conseruation of his sheep in the middest of heresies, but they must be such, as do not quite take away the foundation and Ministery. Reineccius tom. 4 Armatur. cap. 6. pag. 35: VVe affirme there are heretiques euen in the true Church. Hut­te [...]us in Analysi Confest. August. pag. 435: Neither were heresies without the territory and limits of the true Church. Plessy in his booke of the Church cap. 2. affirmeth plainly, that all hereticall and Schismaticall congregations are truly the Church. And ibid. pag. 25. he sayth: Although par­ticuler Churches be insected with heresies, from top to toe, neuer­thelesse they are parts of the vniuersall Church as long as they pro­fesse the name of Christ. Moulins in his Bukler of fayth part. 1. sect. 89: An hereticall Church may be sayd to be a true Church, euen as man blemished with a canker or infected with the plague is notwithstanding a true man. Sonis Respons. ad Spondeum c. 10. pag. 365. Heretiks are within the Church. Lubbert lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3: It is manifest, that here­tikes are, some as yet in the visible Church, some also in the church of the elect. Iunius lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4: Heretiks ab­solutely are of the Church, vnlesse they be such as ouerthrow fun­damentall articles of religion. Cap. 3: n. [...] Bullinger teacheth the same Decad. 2. serm. 8. and it is the common doctrine of [Page 54] the Protestants, who (as is before proued) exclude none from being members of their Church, that deny only such articles as are not fundamētall. Howbeit some of them vpon hereticall priuiledge (as Tertulli­an speaketh) will not haue such called heretiks; Lib. de car­ne Co [...]isti, cap. [...]5. be­ing indeed more ashamed of the name then of the thing it selfe. Zanchius likewise lib. 1. epist. ad Du­dit. pag. 150. sayth, that hereticall and Schismaticall sects are within the Church. Tilenus in Syntag. disput. 14: Heretiks euen those that subuert the foundation, and Schisma­tiks in regard of outward Communion, are in the Church, till ei­ther of themselues they go to the enemies side, or are cast out by the lawfull iudgement of the Church. And D. Feild in his first booke of the Church cap 14: Seing God gaue the power of the keyes and the dispensation of his word and Sacra­ments only to his Church, if Heretiks be not of the Church, they do not then baptize. And cap. 7: They that are partakers of the heauenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of diuine truth, and the vse of the meanes of saluation, are of very diuers sortes; as heretikes, Schismatiks, hypocrites, and those that pro­fesse the whole sauing truth in vnity and sincerity of a good and sanctified heart. All these are partakers of the heauenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of truth, and consequently are all in some degree and sort of that society of men, whome God cal­leth out vnto himselfe, & separateth from Infidels, which is right­ly named the Church. D. Whitaker contr. 4. quest. 5. c. 3. pag 679: All heretiks are within the Church. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 128: VVe must acknowledge euen heretikes themselues to be, though a maymed part, yet a part of a visible Church: Againe: If an Infidell should pursue to death an heretike professing Christianity only for Christian Prosession sake, could we deny vnto him the honour of Martyrdome? By which words it is plaine, that they admit heretiks not only into the visible [Page 55] Church, but into the inuisible also, or company of the elect and predestinate to saluation. And D. An­drews in his answere to Bellarmines Apology cap. 5. pag. 121. denyeth that the words, Catholik and Here­tike are opposite; wherefore vnlesse he will debarre and shut out some Catholiks from the Church, he must needs giue admittance to heretiks, seing by his owne verdict they may be Catholiks. D. White in defence of his way cap. 38. pag. 367: The second sort of the militant Church are hypocrites and vnsound members, that are not called effectually, but disobey the truth whereof they make profession such are heretiks, schismatiks &c. Touching their acceptations of Schismatiks, besides what hath byn already alleaged, D. Feild in his first booke of the Church cap. 13. Writeth thus: They challenge Schisma­tiks. The departure of Schisma­tiks is not such, but that, notwithstanding their schisme, they are and remaine parts of the Church of God. Iunius in the place before quoted layeth clayme to those Schismatikes, VVho (sayth he) seuer not themselues from the whole Church but only from a part thereof. But D. Morto [...] in the 1. part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 2. sayth absolutely without any acception or restraint at all: Schismatiks are of the Church. And lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 288: Variances (sayth he) and schismes do not betoken the false Church. And D. Willet in his Synopsis cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 104: VVe say that Schismatiks, though they hold some false points of doctrine, yet if their errours be not fundamentall, and if they retaine the purity of doctrine in all points necessary to saluation, and the administra­tion of the Sacraments, may make a particular Church by them­selues. These are their acknowledgements touching Heretikes and Schismatikes in generall. They ac­know­ledge the Grecians. Let vs now descend to particularities, and see the courteous ad­mission they giue to some of them by name.

8. The Grecians and other Easterne Schis­matiks, [Page 56] yea heretiks to, for the most part, find that fauour at their hands, as they vouchsafe to account them members of their Church. His Maiesty epist. ad Card. Peron pa. 13 hath thus: The Churches of Rome, Greece, Antioch, Aegipt, Aethiopia, Muscouy, and others more are members of the Catholike church. D. Whi [...]e in defence of his way c. 37. pag. 355: The visible churches of Greece, Aethiope, Armenia, and Rome, with the nations contayned ther­in, haue in them the true church of God, wherin men may be saued. D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 7. sayth, that the Assyrian Churches keep the true foundation of Christian fayth. The same, (especially of the Grecians) tea­cheth Luther tom. 2. lib. de captiu. Babylon. fol. 65. & in Assert. art. 37. fol. 114. Innius cont. 4 lib. 4. cap. 6. Sedeel. Respons. ad Thes. Posnan. cap. 12. D. Whi­taker l [...]b. 7. cont. Duraeum sect. 3. Bucanus loco 41. quest. 5 D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 5. & 28. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 120. Burhill pro Tortura Torti c. 15. and others.

9. And sometymes they are not lesse free-har­ted towards westerne heretike. Melancthon in locis à Maulio editi [...]tit. de Eccles. pag. 491. writeth, that two girles, who were burnt (as he sayth) for Ana­baptisme, They challenge the Ana­baptists. held the foundation of sayth, and died in a good Con­f [...]ssion. And Zuinglius tom. 2. lib. de Author. sedit. fol. 134. & seq. exhorting his fellowers, not to reuolt from his doctrine, for the debates and quarels be­tween the Protestants and the Anabaptists, calleth both parts most learned and sonnes of the same Father. Neither must thou (sayth he) giue any man way to shake and weake [...] thy sayth, although thou see that men of the greatest learning moue disputes, and fall by the cares with much [...]agernesse of con­tention, touching externall matters (he meanes baptisme) [Page 57] but let this be rather thy stedfast persuasion, that by the Sonne of God we are all made sonnes of the same Father. Againe: Nei­ther am I wont to speake these things, for that I am so greatly moued with the baptisme of children. And ibidem lib. de Baptismo fol. 96. he sayth, that baptisme is a matter of ceremony, which the church may omit or take quite away. Oe­colampadius in his 2. booke of epistles p. 363. sayth, baptisme is an externall thing, which by the law of charity may be dispensed withall. And Musculus in locis tit de haeresi pag. 605. reckons the Anabaptists amongst those, who (sayth he) keeping the foundations of fayth, about secondary matters haue fallen into misbeliefe. And Bucanus loc. 41. de Eccles. quest. 5. auoucheth plainly, that Anabaptists are a Church, Like as a man attainted with leprosy or out of his wits, is a man. Hi [...] Maiesty epist. ad Card. Peron pag. 25. sayth: Some reckon baptisme among those things, which whether we haue or want, the matter is not great. And D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 7. cap. 2. pag. 716. sayth we may abstaine from baptisme, so there be no contēpt and scandall in the fact. Finally D. Morton in his answere to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. albeit in the 6. chapter he make a doubt whether Anabaptists retaine and hold the foundation, yet in the 2. cap. sect. 10. speaketh thus: The Anabaptists exclude Protestants and all different professions from the hope of spirituall life, yet do not Protestants iudge the state of euery Anabaptist to be so vtterly desperate. We see how they teach that Anabaptists hold the foundation, and deny but an externall, secondary, and cere­moniall matter, and such as may be omitted, so it be don without scandall; that Anabaptists and themselues are sonnes of the same Father, that they are in the state of saluation, and that they are a church as a man tainted with leprosy is a man. Now con­cerning the Arrians of these tymes, M. Morton in his booke of the Kingdome of Israel, and the Church [Page 58] pag. 94. And the Arrians. auoucheth plainly, that their Churches are to be accounted the Churches of God, Because (sayth he) they hold the foundation of the Ghospell. Hooker in his 4. Daneus in c. 53. Aug. de hares. VVhitak. ad Rat. 10. pag. 241. Parentius in Instruct Gall. p. 27. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 181. writeth thus: The Arians in the reformed churches of Poland &c. Nay some of the Protestants lay clayme to that old here­tike Aërius, for that he agreed with them in denyall of prayer for the dead, and some other points; yet that he was stained with Arianisme, S. Epiphanius, who liued in those tymes haer. 75. and S. Augustin 53. (witnesses whole credit herein can no way be impeached) do plainly testify.

They lay claime to their pro­fessed eni­mies.10. Lastly they forbeare not sometymes to challenge for their owne, such as were their profest enemies, as is certaine by their clayme to the Papists and Grecians, who condemned and branded their doctrine with the marck of heresy. And the Sacra­mentaries pretend a right to Luther and the Luthe­rans, In Concil. Trid In Censura Orient. howbeit it is well known, that both the Master and the sect haue diuers tymes censured and condem­ned their doctrine by name, as in the Confessions of Auspurg, Mansfeld, Antwerpe, & that of Sueueland set forth anno 1563. in the booke of Concord, in the visitation of Saxony, and else where it appeareth. And that in the Conference of Marpurge and Mont­belgard they gaue them the repulse and flatly refused to admit them for brethren. Nay, as Lanatherus writeth lib. de dissid. Euchar. anno 1556: There haue byn many Synodes held (by the Lutherans) wherein they con­sulted what way they might take to quell and make an end of the Sacramentaries. And they shew the same encroaching desire in personall Claimes. For Illyricus in his Ca­talogue lib. 19. col. 1917, enrolleth amongst his wit­nesses Clicthouaeus, an earnest and vehement aduer­sary [Page 59] both of Luther and Occolampadius. D. Hum­frey in vita Iuelli claymeth Erasmus, for a main­tayner and Champion of the truth. Rainolds l. 1. de Idolat. cap. 2. M. Fox vouch­safes him a place in his kalender of Protestant Saints, and Verheiden sets his pourtraiture amongst the Worthies and Pairs of their religion. Vorstius in Ap­pend. Respons. ad Sladum pag. 136. accounteth him one of his owne, that is (sayth he) one of the reformed. D. Whitaker Contr. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 693 sayth: It is most apparent that Erasmus thought the same of religion that we do. And yet Erasmus himselfe lib. 16. epist. 11. pro­fesseth, that he acknowledgeth not Luther, and im­pugneth openly both him and his doctrine. And (as Amidorfius writeth in epist. apud Lutherum tom. 2. fol. 487.): The summe of Erasmus doctrine is this, that Luthers doctrine is heresy. O tho Brunsfelsius in his answere to Erasmus spunge, layth these things to his charge: Thou makest protestation neuer to haue conuersation or fellow­ship with those men, who imbrace the ghospell vnder Luthers name. Againe: It is well knowne and confest, that of so many enemies of the (Protestant) ghospell, no one euer did it more harme then thou. Hutterus in Expostulat. Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 72. Iames Andrew lib. cont. Hosium p. 110 D. Iames l. de corrupt. scripturae & Patrum pag. 66. and others, say the like of him. D. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani will haue King Henry 8. to haue byn a member of their Church. D. Fulke lib. cont. Heskins. & Sander. sect. 82. sayth, he was a member of the Catholike church of Christ. And D. Andrews in Resp. ad Apoll. Bellarm. cap. 1. sayth: He was a true defender of the true sayth Bucer epist. dedicat. Comment. ad Rom: He imbraced the pure Ghospell of Christ reiecting those forgeries of men which are repugnant to it. And yet, it is most cer­taine, that he sharply persecuted and pursued Prote­stants [Page 60] euen vnto death. And as Melancthon writeth to him in epist. tom. 4: He oppressed the truth then appea­ring and shewing it selfe. And as Cambden sayth in Ap­paratu Annalium Anglie. Protestants he burnt for here­tikes. Of Charles 5. Scultetus in Conc. secular. pag. 10. writeth thus: It is knowne by vndoubted demonstration, that Charles 5. departed this life trusting to the same comfort an [...] the same sayth, which Luther drew from the sacred welsprings, and broached to the people, (Iames Andrews lib. cont. Hosium pag. 233. hath the like) and yet in the same sermon p. 27. he sayth: To this alone he bent his whole endeauours, that he might pluck vp the Lutheran religion by the rootes. M Doue in his booke of Recusancy will needs persuade vs, that Bellarmine himselfe is a Protestant, or at least no right Papist. What meruaile is it, if these men be so hardy as to challenge the ancient Fathers, seing they are not ashamed to claime in this manner their pro­fessed enemies, such as are knowne to all the world, and are yet aliue.

That Protestants sometymes acknowledge Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist himselfe, and Atheists to be members of their Church. CHAP. IV.

1. THAT they sometymes confesse idolaters are members of their Church, Protestāts challenge idolaters. is euident. First for that they refuse not to receiue Papists, (as we haue heard before) in exclamations and outcries a­gainst whose idolatry, their tongues and pennes are set most a worke, for to their worship of the Eucha­rist, of Saincts, of images, of reliques, they afford no [Page 61] milder name. And secondly it appeareth by their owne words. For M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ec­clesiasticall Policy pag. 126. sayth: Christians by externall profession they are all, whose marke of recogniscance hath in it those things which we haue mentioned; yea although they be im­pious idolaters, wicked heretikes, persons excommunicable. Againe: Those whose knees were bowed vnto Baal, euen they were also of the visible Church of God. Boysseul in Confut. p. 822 answering to the place where Spondeus obie­cted that if the Church of Rome be an Idolatresse, (as Boysseul had auouched) it is not the Church of Christ; makes this reply: And why not as well as Israel? And D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475. saith: Although this errour (Idolatry in adoring the calfe) were most grieuous, yet it destroyed not the whole nature of the Church.

2. And Infidells. That they sometymes comprize also Infi­dels in the Church, is manifest, first because they af­firme that such may be saued; For M. Fox in his Mar­tyrologe pag. 495. reporteth that a certaine Prote­stant Martyr whole learning piety & zeale he great­ly commendeth, taught that a Turke, Saracen, or any Mahamet an whatsoeuer may be saued; if he trust in one God and keep his law. M. Bale in his 6. Century pag. 464. bids vs beware that we condemne not rashly any Turke. And Zuin­glius tom. 1. lib. de prouid. fol. 370. sayth: It is not vni­uersally true, that who so hath no fayth is damned. Againe: As for the damnation of vnbelieuers it is meant only of those, who heard and did not belieue. And tom. 2. declarat. de peccat. orig. fol. 118: This saying (who so doth not belieue shall be condemned) must in no wise be absolutely vnderstood, but it is to be vnderstood of those, See Homi [...] in Specim. Contr. art. 27. who hauing heard the ghospell would not belieue. And ibidem in exposit. fidei fol. 559. he sayth, that in heauen Christians shall meet many [Page 62] heathens, whose names he there sets downe, and a­mongst the rest that cruel Theseus, and Magician Numa, the founder of heathenish superstitions a­mongst the Romans. Which opinion of his those of Zurich in Apolog. Gualter. in prefat. tom. 1. Zuin­glij, Simler. in vita Bullengeri, and others seeke to patronize and make good. Now it were folly and madnes, to auouch that these men were of the num­ber of the faythfull. They belieue then that infidels may be saued. But S. Augustin was of a farre diffe­rent beliefe lib. 4. cont. Iul. cap. 3. where he writes thus: VVhat one of those, who would be accounted Chri­stians, will say an Infidell is iust, be it euen Fabritius.

3. Secondly their doctrine touching the pre­destinate carrieth with it a necessary acknowledge­ment of their Communion with Infidels. For they teach, that who so is predestinate is alwayes a mem­ber of the Church. Hus his first article condemned by the Councel of Constance was this: The predestinate remayneth euer a member of the Church. And Luther tom. 2. in Assert. art. 30: I say the opinions of Iohn Hus are all E­uangelicall and Christian. Againe: I admit all the condemned articles of Iohn Hus. And tom. 1. in disput. Lypsic. fol. 254. he maintaineth openly this article of Hus: The Church is the whole multitude of the predestinate. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmine page 125: VVe affirme that the Councell of Constance, which condemned the doctrine of Hus (that who so is predestinate is alwayes a mēber of the Church) was surely in this respect Antichristian. Danaeus in Resp. ad Bellarm. Contr. 4. lib. 3. cap. 2. sayth: The first opinion (which was the opinion of Hus) is true, and is ours. A­gaine: our opinion is that the Church is the whole company of men, whome God hath predestinated to saluation And cap. 7: It must be answered that Paul was alwayes (but not alwayes ap­parently [Page 63] in regard of men) of Gods true Church. Againe: Such Turkes and Iewes as God hath predestinated to saluation, are of the Church, euen now at this tyme in regard they are predestinate and in respect of God; but they are not yet of Gods Church appa­rently, and in respect of vs, for as much as they lack yet those marks, whereby God doth heere shew vs men who are of the church. And Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 12: The true definition of the true church is this: The company and multitude of those, whome God hath chosen to saluation. And Iunius lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 7: Paul was alwayes of the church according to pre­destination; from which (sayth he) the church taketh her be­ing, or formal definition; but not according to the outward forme of the church. What can be more apparent, then that these men teach, that the predestinate are members of the church according to the true being therof and in the sight of God, euen during the tyme of their in­fidelity.

4. Thirdly this followeth necessarily vpon that which they teach concerning infants (especially such as are descended from faythfull parents) depar­ting this life vnbaptized. For they affirme, that the children of the faythfull are actually in the Church, as the French Confession article 35: Togeather with the parents God accounteth also their ofspring in the church. And the Zuitzers cap. 20: VVhy should not they (the children of the faythfull) be ingrafted by sacred baptisme, who are Gods proper possession and within his church? Caluin in In­struct. cont. Anabap. art. 1: Vnspotted infants are in the Communion of the church before they come forth of their Mothers wombe. And Pareus lib. 3. de Iustificat cap. 4. pag. 884: Caluin on good reason determineth, that the children of the church, are borne cittizens of the church. Their doctrine al­so hath the same issue, who teach that infants (at leastwise the children of the faythfull) are saued [Page 64] without baptisme; as the Protestants in the colloq. Ratisbon. And Zuinglius tom. 2. Declarat. de peccat. orig. fol. 119: Concerning Christians children we are assured, that they are not damned for originall sinn; of others we haue not the like assurance: howbeit, to confesse ingenuously, the opinion we taught heretofore, to wit, that we ought not to iudge rashly of heathens children, seemes to vs the more probable Voritius in Anti-bellarmine pag. 542: Zuinglius and some other ghos­pellers auouch, that all children whatsoeuer are by the grace of Christ saued, others for the most part hold, that at leastwise all the elect, whether extract from faythfull or other parents do euen vnbaptized attaine to saluation. Whereof he sayth: The opi­nion of these later is surely the safest; and yet the first opinion is probable inough and ought not to be rashly condemned. Now as D. Whitaker sayth Cont. 2. quest. 1. cap. 5. & 6: All that are saued are really and actually in the church. And D. Mor­ton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 4: To be of the church in possibi­lity, sufficeth not to saluation. Lubbertus lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 2: Neither can any one be saued except he be actually and really in the church. Whence Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. fol. 177. sayth: Infants must of necessity appertaine vnto the church, seing there is no saluation without it. They teach moreouer, that Infants haue no fayth, Infants without all faith according to Prote­stants. and consequently that they are infidels, whence it ensueth that they account some infidels to be actually of the church. Caluin. 4. Institut. cap. 16. §. 19: I will not lightly affirme, that they (infants) are endued with the same fayth we find in our selues. And §. seq. he sayth: Infants are baptized for future repen­tance and sayth. Now if they dye before they are of yeares. God reneweth them by the vertue of his spirit, which we do not com­prehend, in such manner as himselfe alone knoweth how to bring to passe. Lib. cont. Seruet. pag. 647. he sayth, that that sentence of the Scripture: VVhosoeuer belieueth not in the Sonne of God abideth in death, and the wrath of God remayneth [Page 65] vpon him, belongeth not to infants, but only to such as are obsti­nate. And in cap. 5. Rom. v. 17: That you may be partaker of iustice, it is needfull that you be faythfull, because it is recei­ued by sayth. To infants it is communicated by a speciall manner. Bucer in cap. 19. Matthaei pag. 404: Paul sayth that sayth commeth by hearing the word preached, and in the same sort all the Scripture speaketh of sayth. Seing therefore infants heare not the word preached, they cannot haue this kind of sayth. But out of that, that infants want sayth, nothing lesse can be concluded, then (which some thinke) that therefore they cannot please God. In­fants are blessed by the grace of God and merits of Christ. But if they be taken hence in their infancy, they shall know God and reape felicity by some other knowledge then fayth. Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo: Infants haue yet no fayth. Againe: Infants are saued by Gods election, though they be taken out of this life not only vnbaptized, but euen before they haue fayth. Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 48: It doth not appeare to vs that infants are endowed with that habit of fayth, Infants haue not so much as the habit of fayth. which we sayd was required to the receiuing of the matter and effect of the Sa­craments, nor is it likely that they are. And in colloq. Mon­tisbel. pag. 407: VVherefore, though the children of the fayth­full want sayth, yet is not baptisme vnprofitable to them. And part. 2. Respons. ad acta Montisbel. pag. 124: All eit in­fants haue no sayth of their owne, especially actuall; yet rightly are they baptized according to the forme of the Couenant, I will be thy God, and of thy seed, which is apprehended by the parents to themselues and their children. And pag. 129: I confesse that sayth is required, that infants comprehended in the Couenant may please God; but I deny, that they can or ought to be endowed with their owne fayth inherent in them. Dancus l. 4. de bap­tismo cap. 10. pag. 268. proposeth to himselfe this question: VVhat is the fayth which in baptisme we require in infants? and answereth: None. Vrsinus in defens. ar­gument. Bezae. God receiueth infants into the Church with­out [Page 66] fayth. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 94: Seing the ho­ly Scripture doth not tell me, that infants belieue, or those mira­cles are wrought in them, neither see I that it is necessary for their saluation, I think it is inough that they be thought to be saued, be­cause by election and predestination they belong to the people of God, & are endued with the holy Ghost, who is the author of fayth, hope, and Charity. Perhaps they will answeare out of Au­gustins opinion, that they are saued by the sayth of others, to wit of their parents. But the Prophet sayth that euery one is saued by his owne sayth, not by other mens sayth. VVherefore we answere more easily, who exact expresse and actuall fayth in those that are of yeares, but in the children of Christians, who are brought to be Christened, we say fayth is begun in its principle & root, because they haue the holy Ghost firm whence all both fayth and other ver­tues do flow. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 6. c. 3. pag. 566: Baptisme doth not infuse any sayth or grace into infants. And he sayth plainly, that infants haue no fayth. And lib. 8. cont. Duraeum sect. 77: Albeit in the Sacraments fayth which receiueth the word of promise, be necessary, yet that sayth is not needfull in infants, albeit it be not to be doubted but the ho­ly Ghost effectually worketh in them after a secret and wonderfull manner. M. Perkins de praedestina [...]. tom. 1. col. 149: In­fants which dye in the Couenant, we belieue to be saued by tenour of that Couenant, but they were not chosen for fayth or according to fayth, which set they had not And [...] [...]rie causar. cap. 25: Elected [...]nfants dying in the wombe or soone after they be borne, are saued after a hidden and vnspeakeable manner in­grafted in Christ by the spirit of God. Luther tom. 6. in cap. 25. Gen. fol. 322: Vnbaptized infants haue no fayth. Melan­cthon in locis tit. de baptismo to. 3. fol. 238: It is most true that sayth is required in all that are of years. But concer­n [...]g infants (sayth he) the matter is otherwise. Infants [...] Kem­nitius part. 2. Exam. tit. de baptism. pag. 89. telleth vs that some Protestants are of opinion, that infants are in­deed [Page 67] saued by the grace of God, but without sayth. Nor doth their saying that the seed or root of fayth, or else an inclination or disposition to fayth (which some of them affirme infants to haue) help them any thing it all, both because Scharpe cont. 1. de Iustifi. graun­teth that this seed can neither haue the knowledge nor apply­ing of the promises, and therefore is not Protestant faith, and because Musculus in locis tit. de fide art. 7. con­fesseth, that they distinguish and put a difference betweene fayth and this hidden seed. Now if it be no fayth, it ma­keth not him faythfull in whome it is. And lastly be­cause (as themselues acknowledge) they are not assu­red, whither infants haue any such seed or no. For Caluin lib. 4. cap. 16. § 9. cit: VVhether they haue at all any knowledge like vnto fayth, I choose rather to leaue it vndetermi­ned. And he addeth, that the manner of their renew­ing is knowne to God alone. To these allegations you may adde, that M. Perkins in his Reformed Catho­like cont. 16. sayth, a man may be saued by a desire to haue sayth: And neuerthelesse confesseth that this de­sire is not indeed sayth. And in 2. Galat. col. 91: God accep­teth the will and desire to belieue, for beliefe it selfe. Now as long as a man hath not fayth but only a desire there­of, he is an infidel.

5. You might think, that hauing made this graunt of saluation to infidels, their liberality wold rest here, and not passe these bounds; Protestāts challenge Antichrist, but they go yet further, and bestow it sometymes euen vpon him, whome they sweare, yea belieue as an article of their fayth (and that with as great certainty and assurance is they belieue God is in heauen, or Christ is the Messias) to be that notable Antichrist foretold in Scripture. For thus writeth M. Powell lib. de Anti­christo cap. 33. pag. 338: I will in no wise say, that all the [Page 68] Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was first reuealed to be Antichristianity, are damned. Howbeit in the beginning of his booke he makes this protestation: I solemnely take God to record, that I as certainly know the Bishop of Rome to be that great Antichrist, and the Popish church to be the Syna­gogue of Antichrist, as I know God to be in the heauens, or Iesus Christ to be the true Messias promised to the Fathers. D. Whi­taker likewise com. 4. q. 5. cap. 3. pag. 694. sayth: Let vs cry aloud and swore by him who liues for euer, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist. And to D. Sanders last demonstra­tion that the Pope is not Antichrist pag. 799: VVe may take that most sacred and most true oath, and sweare by him who liues for euer, that the Bishoppe of Rome is the very Anti­christ. And neuerthelesse in his answere to the first de­monstration he sayth with M. Powell: I will not say, that from the tyme that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue byn all damned. And both he cap. cit. p [...]g. 679. & 682. & other Protestants ordinarily af­firme that Antichrists Sea shalbe in the true Church, a­mong the company of the saythfull, and that he shall be a cit­tizen, and inhabitant, and Pastour of the Church. To whom I pray will these men deny saluation, or a place in their Church, who graunt it vnto Antichrist the sworne enemy of Christ, whome the scripture it self styleth: Christs aduersary, the man of sin, the sonne of perdi­tion? I see not why they should henceforward vp­brayd vs with Antichrist, since they themselues clayme him for a member of their Church.

6. It is also certaine, that they challenge A­theists. For Illyricus in Catel. lib. 9. col. 1916. D [...] Humfrey respons. ad Rat. 3. That they challenge Atheists. Camp. M. Fox in his Acts printed anno 1596. pag. 646. allot that Atheist Machiauel an honorable roome among the witnesses and maintayners of the truth. And Luther apud [Page 69] Manlium in loc. tit. de Eccl. pag. 483. layth of Valla, that he gaue place to none but Epicure himselfe, and professed openly, that he held opinions repugnant to the foundation of sayth. Neuerthelesse the same Luther respons. ad Louan. & Colen. tom. 2. fol. 38. writeth thus of him: Valla in my iudgement was either a remanent sparke, or some fe [...]eli of the primitiue Church, whose like in constancy and vn­fayned zeale of Christian fayth Italy or the whole Church had not for many ages. One Epicure then in Luthers iudge­ment was the remanent sparke, and Iewell of the Church.

That sometymes Protestants account all those their brethren, who vnder the name of Christians oppose themselues any way against the Pope. CHAP. V.

1. THAT Protestants sometymes acknowledge all those for members of their Church, who vnder the name of Christians do any way oppose themselues against the Pope, I proue: First because some of them do openly so professe. For (as Ke [...]nice reporteth in locis tit. de Eccles. pag. 122.) Some faine the Church to be a rable of all Sects, of Anabaptists, Sacramenta­ries, Swineseldians, and others, so they be not Papists. And Ca­pito in Caluin. epist. 6. Some haue brought in a liberty as if all were of the Ghospells side, whosoeuer haue cast of the Popes yoke. Musculus also in locis tit. de caena pag. 522. sayth: I imbrace all for brethren in the Lord, howsoeuer they disagree from me or among themselues, as long as they mayntaine not the Popish impiety. Secondly, because they professe, that [Page 70] the end of their preaching was to lessen the authori­ty of the Pope, For what end Lu­ther and [...]is fel­lowes preached. and Bishops, and to be contrary to them. For thus Luther writeth of himselfe epist. ad Frederic. Elect. tom. 2. fol. 330: The Ecclesiasticall tyranny is now weakned and broaken, which only I purposed in writing. Or as Slcidan lib. 3. reporteth, He writeth, that the Ec­clesiasticall tyranny is now weakned, & that, that alone was his designe at the first. And epist. ad Waldenses in Ho [...]pin. part 2. fol. 8. he sayth, that he impugned transubstantiation only for enny of the Papists. And in par [...] Confell. apud e [...]dem fol. 13. that he impugned the Eleuation only to spite the Papists. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 10. §. 1. say [...]h: The end of our contention is, to bridle that infinite and barbarous Dominion, which those, who would be accounted Pastors, haue vsurped ouer soules. Zuinglius lib. de Auctor. Sedit. [...]om. 2. [...]ol. 125. affirmeth, that there is a sort of Protestāts, which for no other cause do heare the doctrine of the Ghospell then because they extremely hate the Popedome, and enuy Papists their felicity and glory. Bucer lib. de regno Christi cap. 4: The greatest part of men seeme to haue sought only these things of the ghospell. First that they might shake of the tyranny of the Ro­mane Antichrist, and of the false Bishops &c. Luther also tom. 2. German. fol. 22. telleth what was the end of the Sacramentaries & Anabaptists: I heare (sayth he) that some imbrace Anabaptisme for this only end, that so they may spite the Bishop of Rome, euen as the Sacramentaries do only in hatred of the Romish Bishop, deny that there is any thing in the sacrament beside bread and wine. Of the new Arians end thus writeth Z [...]nchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 154: Ou [...] Arians haue determined to ouerturne from the foundation what­soeuer is in the Church of Rome. And what end Illyricus had, thus telleth D. Whitaker ad. Rat. 8. Campiani: Illyricus went further then he should, as I think to be the further of from you, whome he hated.

[Page 71]2. Thirdly, because they call the departure from the Pope and Popish doctrine, the foundation, a good part, and the summe of the Protestant building. S [...] d [...]el Re­spons. ad Arthu. cap. 12: Protestants agree in this founda­tion, that the Church ought to be reformed out of the word of God, and that Popish errours must be remoued out of the Church. Seranta epist. dedicat ad Episc. Angliae: It is to be wondered how much almost all the Reformers please themselues in this point that they will haue nothing common with the church of Rome. Grotius apud Homium in Specimine &c: Neither can I forebeare to shew the fountaine and ofspring of this and other calamities; VVe think that we are so much the purer, the further we go from points of Romish doctrine without any difference. Vergerius dial. 1. pag. 20: VVe hope, that shortly all matters will be composed. VVe could do, by Gods helpe, that which seemed the cheifest of all and the hardest and well nigh impossible, that is, pull our selues and ridde vs of the Papists ty­ranny. VVherefore nothing is to be doubted, but we shall compasse other matters of lesse moment. For a good foundation is layd, yea a good part of the building is set vp. And Zuinglius Respons. ad Billi. tom. 2. fol. 261. When one obiected vnto him the dissention amongst the Sacramentaries in expoūding Christs words of the supper, answereth: No man ought to be offended with this diuersity, more then with the difference among many captaines, Tertull. praes. c. 41. Athanas. orat. 1. cōt. Arian. Hieron. ad Cresiphont. August. in Psal. 80. Beda l. 1. in Iob. c. 7. who go about to conquer a castle, whiles one would haue it battered, another vndermined, and a third would haue it scaled. For all agree to destroy the castle, the difference is only about the way, not about the summe of the matter. And so concludeth, that if any Sacramē ­taries haue erred, They erred (sayth he) in the letter not in spirit, in the summe they agree all. The summe therefore wherein all Protestants agree, is to ouerthrow the Popish castle, and Catholike fayth, (in which also the ancient heretikes agreed amongst themselues as [Page 72] the holy Fathers do testify) and who attempteth that by what meanes soeuer, erreth not in spirit, but in letter only, not in the summe but in some circum­stance only of Protestācy. But with what spirit they are led herein, let them heare of their owne Prophet Luther, defens. verb. coenae tom. 7. l. 411: VVhat a kind of spirit is that (sayth he) which hath no other end, but to wea­ken the aduerse party? without all doubt it is no other spirit then the Diuell.

3. Fourthly, because they describe, paint, & name a Protestant by departure from the Pope and Popish doctrine. The Confession of Wittenberg in Prefat. describeth Protestants to be such, as haue chan­ged in their Churches a kind of (Popish) doctrine, which had byn vsed for many yeares, and some other ancient ceremonies. M. Perkins in the Preface of his Reformed Catholik, sayth: By a Reformed Catholike (so he termeth a Prote­stant) I vnderstand any one, that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church, yet so as he pares of and re­iects all errors in doctrine, whereby the sayd religion is corrupted. D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis: A Protestant is he that professeth the ghospell of Iesus Christ, and hath renoun­ced the iurisdiction of the Sea of Rome, and the forced and vnna­turall obedience to the Pope. Schusselburg tom. 13. Catal. Haeret. pag. 23: A Lutheran or true Christian is he, who hath seuered himselfe from Papists &c. And tom. 8. pag. 363: True Lutherans are they who imbrace the doctrine of the ghos­pell amending Popish abuses. You see how in all these de­scriptions of a Protestant, the denyall of the Pope and Popish doctrine is put as a certaine difference, which concurreth to the making and distinguishing of a Protestant from all others. Hereupon D. Au­drews Apol. Cont. Bellarm. cap. 1. sayth: Sauing this Protestation (that they will not suffer certaine Popish [Page 73] errors and abuses) our fayth is no other then yours is, or ought to be. And he addeth, that they call their religion re­formed, only because it is purged from certaine deuises and corruptions, which had crept into it. And sayth, that Bucer and Peter Martyr did only pluck vp certaine cockle, which Pa­pists had sowed. In like sort Boysseul in his Confutati­on of Sponde pag. 724. sayth: Take away your Popery & that which dependeth thereof, and you and we shall be but one church, because we shall haue but one Confession of fayth. Moreouer Plessy in the forefront of his mystery of iniquity, painteth a Protestant with a torch in his hand, setting fire to the tower of Babylon, by which he vnderstandeth the Popedome. And fi­nally Luther in exempl. Theol. Papist. tom. 2. fol. 401. calleth himselfe an Anti-papist, as of his prin­cipall end or office, and sayth, that he was called by diuine reuelation to destroy the Popes Kingdom. D. Humfrey also termeth Ochinus a stout Anti-papist, as if to be a Protestant and an Anti-papist were all one.

4. Fiftly, because the same opinions which in Papists they detest, in other who are opposite to the Pope, they dissemble or extenuate. Lubbert. lib. 1. Replicat. cap. 4. sayth: The Lutherans dispute not with vs about the Canon of Scriptures, nor we with them. And lib. 4. de Concil. cap. vlt: VVe contend not with the Churches of Saxony, which keep images in the Churches. And yet they dispute most eagerly against Catholiks about the Ca­non of scriptures, and images. The Scots in their ge­neral Confession professe to detest Popery, for main­tayning the reall presence of Christs body in the Eu­charist, for making the signe of the Crosse, for deny­ing infants without baptisme to be saued. And in their other Confession c. 22. they say they shunne the [Page 74] Communion of the Popish Church, Conf. Au­gustus [...]vi­sit. [...]axon. Liturgia. Auglia [...]. Conference at Hampt. Court. because her mi­nisters are not Ministers of Christ, because the per­mitteth women to christen in case of necessity; and yet dissemble, that the Lutheran Protestants allow all these points; and that the English Protestants ad­mit Popish Priests for sufficient ministers command the making of the crosse in baptisme, & allow wo­mens baptisme in case of necessity; but because they are against the Pope, as well as the Scots, their op­position to the Pope, like sole fayth couereth all, and maketh that the Scots impute not these matters to them. And if at any tyme the Catholiks do set before their eyes the errors or dissentions amongst them, ei­ther they impudently La [...]ko & Erastus in Schussel. l. 4. Theol. Caluin p. 310. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 24. deny them or greatly exte­nuate them, saying, that they are not about the Apol. Anglis. founda­tion, not of Whit. Cōt 2 q. 5. cap. 8. weighty matters, of light matters, not of the Bucer in Schussel. lib cit. Cal­uin de rat. concord. p. 862. matter but of the manner, of Epist. Monitor. things indifferent, of I know not what titles, and finally only of Mart. in loc. tit. de Euchar. §. 65. Hosp part. 2 fol. 134. 163. 109. Brūsfeld. resp. ad Erasm. words. Surely I imagine, as they say, that all sinnes in the elect faythfull are veniall, but in others all are mortall: so they deeme, that all errors in those that are opposite to the Pope are veniall and light; but in Papists all are haynous and mortall. So much the alteration of the person changeth the case with them. Hereupon Q. Eliza­beth enacted, not that it should be treason for any one to dissuade frō that religion which she had esta­blished, vnlesse it were done with intention to in­duce him who was dissuaded, to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome. And hereupon also some of them openly professe, that they more esteeme Turks then Papists; forsooth because the Turke agreeth with them in hatred of the Pope and Popery, in re­spect whereof they little regard the consent in the mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation and Pas­sion, [Page 75] and other articles of Christian fayth. Sixtly they make the forsaking of Popery an euident argu­ment of true religion, and oppose their consent ther­in, as a sufficient cloake to couer all their dissentions in other matters. Zuinglius Prefat. Ecclesiast. tom. 1. fol. 39: It is an euident argument of true Religion among you, that you cast out all the filth of (Popish) idolatry and bridle the sloathfull company of Priests and put them from the Church. And when Cardinall Hosius obiected to Protestants their disagreement about the Eucharist, Iames An­drews in his answere pag. 367 sayth: In what Protestāts especially agree. VVhat is this dis­sention to you Papists? Be it we truly disagree in this point, yet in that we especially agree, that with one mind we impugne your Popery as true Antichristianisme. And Drentius in the Pre­face of the same booke: Otherwise with one consent they fight against Popery. And to the same obiection Caluin in Confutat. Holland. pag. 576 sayth thus: True; yet with one consent we all teach, that (Popish) idolatry is to be detested. In like manner Beza in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 300: I confesse; yet in this we all agree with vnited minds to impugne your transubstantiation. Sadeel also Respons, ad Sophism. Turriani pag. 562: Yet neuerthelesse this my litle booke will be witnesse with how conioyned strength all our Chur­ches do set vpon the Popish errors. And in in dice Repet. pag. 808: It is well that all they who conioyned themselues to the re­formed Church, with one consent reiect the Popes Primacy. And D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest 5. cap. 8. pag. 521: Yet in the meane tyme we all agree against the Pope. And in this vnity of theirs to be against the Pope, they greatly triumph. His maiesty in his monitory epistle p. 174: Almost the halfe part of the Christian world is gon out of Babylon. And D. Andrews respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. cap. 14: Almost False of the Christian world is so farre vnited in one pro­fession, as that they are gon out of Babylon. And when Beca­nus [Page 76] had found fault with him, because he sayd. The King of great Britany and the Kings of Denmarck and Sweden with the Princes of Germany who are of one beliefe with him, are a part of the Lords flock; because the Kings of Den­marck and Sweden be Lutherans, and therefore are not of one beliefe, with the King of great Britany; Burhill in defence of him cap. 15. answereth: That, who are of one beliefe with King Iames, is put in steed of who with him refuse to be vnder the Pope. They meane then, that all those are of one beliefe with them, and be part of the Lords flock, who refuse to be vnder the Pope. Which kind of vnity is that, which his Maiesty in his declaration against Vorstius noted Heretiques to keep, saying pag. 49: There are in Hungary and Bohemia innumerable Heretiks, who agree together only in hatred of the Pope. But not only Heretiks, but also Iewes, Turcks and Infidells agree with Protestants in this point. An excellent vnity surely, & worthy of Christians, wherein they shall haue such partners and fellowes. Seauenthly I proue it, because when they be asked, who were Protestants before Luther, they produce no other then such as were aduersaries to the Pope. Illyricus being to make a role of witnesses, dares not call them Protestants or witnesses of the Protestant truth, Editio Lugdun. but simply witnesses of the truth, or witnesses who re­claymed against the Pope and Popish errors. And in the Pre­face professeth, that he gathereth, as farre as he cold, all those, who in any sort did before Luther giue te­stimony to the truth of Christ against the errors and furies of An­tichrist. And l. 20. col. 1951. after he had brought forth all his witnesses, he sayth of them thus: They desired a fuller manifestation of the truth, which at last (sayth he) we in this sixteenth age haue obtained. That is, his witnesses at­tayned not to the knowledge of Protestant truth, [Page 77] which was reuealed but in the sixteenth age. Neuer­thelesse they seemed witnesses good inough for Illy­ricus, because in some sort they were opposite to the doctrine and deeds of the Pope. Beza also lib. de no­tis Eccles. pag. 80. when he had obiected to himself, that in former tymes their Church was not visible, answereth: I say, that from the Apostles tyme there was scarce any age, in which as soone as this Antichrist (the Pope) began to put out his head, God did not raise some, who opposed themselues against his tyranny. And to the same question thus answea [...]eth Sadeel in Refutat. art. 6 [...]. Posnan. pag. 851: VVe are ready to shew, that there was no age, in which there were not some, who reproued your false Church. Surely these men imagine Protestancy to consist in opposition to the Pope and Popery, or they say no­thing to the question proposed. Likewise D. Whi­taker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 474. proueth, that the Protestant Church hath alwayes byn in Popery, because therein haue byn some, who though they com­municated with Papists, yet before death reiected their opinions; which kind of proofe supposeth, that it sufficeth to a Protestant to reiect Popish opinions.

5. You see then, that the cheife ring leaders of the Protestants confesse, that theirs and their fol­lowers end was to abate the authority of the Pope; that they deeme the forsaking of the Pope to be the foundation, a good part, and summe of the Prote­stant building; that they account the leauing of Po­pery an euident argument of true religion; that they define, describe, paint, and name a Protestant by op­position to the Pope; that they say their faith diffe­reth not from ours, but in denyall of some of our ar­ticles; that they deny, dissemble, and extenuate whatsoeuer they dislike in those, who are aduersaries [Page 78] to the Pope; that they oppose their consent in oppo­sition against the Pope as a buckler against all ob­iections about their dissentions in other articles; & finally that being bidden to produce Protestants be­fore Luther, they name such as any way opposed themselues against the Pope. What do all these things declare, but that which some of them say in plaine words, that the Protestant Church is a rable of all sects which are not Papists.

6. But out of all things which haue byn sayd 1 in this and the former chapters. First we see, what great power Protestants take to themselues, What followeth of all hi­therto sayd. that ac­cording as they please they include, or exclude the same men out of the Church. VVho will not (to vse S. Augustins words) feare these men, who haue receiued such wonderfull power ouer men. Secondly we see, that they 2 imitate the old heretiks, lib. 3. cont. Crescon. c. 20. Praescript. c. 41.42. L. 18. de Ciuit. c. 50. who (as Tertullian sayth) make peace generally with all, and with whome diuision is their very vnity. For (as S. Augustin noteth) the diuell hath stir­red vp heretikes, as if they might be indifferently permitted in the citty of God without amendment, as the citty of confusion indiffe­rently had Philosophers of different, yea of contrary opinions. Thirdly we see, how infamous a society Protestan­cy 3 is, into which all heretikes and Schismatikes, likewise Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist, Atheists, are admitted. What sinke euer did receiue such filth? Su­rely such a rable deserueth better the name of hell, 4 then of the holy Church. Fourthly we see, how 5 monstruous a company it is which consisteth of so different and opposite members. What they meane by a Prote­stant in tym [...]past. Fiftly, we may ga­ther, what Protestants meane, when they say Pro­testants haue byn alwayes, or before Luther. For they meane not, that there haue byn alwayes some, who belieued at least all their fundamentall articles, [Page 79] but that there were alwayes some, who (as they speake) opposed themselues against the Pope or his errors, whether they were otherwise Schismatiks, Heretiks, infidels, or Atheists. Of which kind of men I deny not but there haue byn alwayes some rable, but none but a mad man will say, that it was the holy Church & spouse of Christ. Sixtly we see how litle Protestāts account 6 of their Church, fayth, and religion; and belieue no­thing lesse then that it is the church of God, or fayth of Christ. For who doubteth, but Schisme, heresy, infidelity, Atheisme, are most pestilent plagues and infernall darknesse directly opposite to ecclesiasticall Communion and fayth, which are the forme, life, & soule of the Church? And who can imagin, Note. that he can associate and vnite together formes so contrary as are light and darknesse, life and death, truth and lies? or that the society in darknesse, lies, and death, as are the societies in Schisme, Heresy, and infideli­ty, can become one with the society in light, life, & truth, as the Church is? If therfore seriously they be­lieued their Church to be the church of Christ, they would neuer thinke, that she could become one with the society in Schisme, heresy, and infidelity. And this sometymes Protestants themselues perceiue. For Brentius in Appendice Recognit. thus speaketh to the Sacramentaries, when they desired to be held for brethren of the Lutherans, whome yet they con­demned of heresy: If they iud [...]e our opinion to be impious, with what face do they desire to ioyne themselues with that Church which maintayneth impious doctrine, and to be held of her for brethren? VVhat fellowship (sayth Paul) is there of iu­stice with iniustice? or what Cōmunion of light with darknesse, or what agreement of Christ with Belial? or what for the sayth­full with the infidell? VVherefore if they desire this sincerely, and [Page 80] in earnest, they manifestly shew, that they make mockery of re­ligion, as if it skilled not which one follow, so he may passe his life peaceably and quietly. In like manner those of Witten­berge in their Refutation of the orthodoxall consent pag. 636. say: VVe cannot wounder inough, that seing they not only accuse the doctours of our Church of horrible and damned heresies, but also haue long since condemned them, to wit, of A­rianisme, Nestorianisme, Eutichianisme, Marcionisme, Mani­cheisme, and the Monothelites heresies; neuerthelesse they dare account vs for brethren and desire our brotherhood. VVho that is carefull of piety and truth can persuade himselfe, that these Sectmasters do in earnest handle religion? For if we be such as we are iudged of them, our friendship and fraternity is to be de­tested, not desired. Thus speake the Lutherans to the Sa­cramentaries, which no whit lesse falleth vpon thē ­selues, because they also challenge the Hussites and other old heretiks, whome they cannot excuse from 7 holding vile heresies. Finally we see, how vncer­taine Protestants be in determing what a Protestant is, and what is necessary to the essence & making of a Protestant; & consequently how vncertaine they must be, whome to hold for one of their houshould, whome for a stranger, whome for a brother, whom for an enemy; which church or company they must imbrace, which they must fly, which they must ac­count the spouse of Christ, which the Synagogue of Satan. Then the which vncertainty nothing can be more miserable in matter of religion. Wherefore sith they are so vncertaine in this matter, we must therin setle some certainty, and that according to their own principles.

That it is necessary for a Protestant to belieue with only speciall fayth that himselfe is iustified. CHAP. VI.

1. ABOVE all things it is most necessary to an inuisible or true Protestant in the sight of God (as they terme him) that with only speciall or peculiar fayth he belieue some thing belonging to himselfe, to wit, that he is iustified in Christ, or (as they vse to speake) that with fayth he apprehend Christs iustice, and apply it vnto him elf in particu­ler. And to a visible Protestant in sight of men it is in like sort necessary, that he professe himself to belieue with such a fayth that he is iustified in Christ. For example; For Luther to haue byn a true Protestant before God, it is needfull that he haue truly belieued himselfe to be iustified by only the foresayd speciall fayth, which he had of his own iustice; which faith they call speciall or particuler, because it was parti­culer to Luther, no man being bound to belieue Lu­ther to be iustified besides himselfe. And for Luther to haue byn a visible Protestant in the sight of men, it was needful in like manner to haue professed him­self to haue belieued that he was iustified by only the sayd fayth. The same I say of Caluin and of euery Protestant in particuler. That according to their doctrine it is most necessary to a Protestant that he belieue himselfe to be iustified by only speciall fayth is manifest. First because they teach, that a man is iu­stified by only speciall fayth, wherwith he belieueth [Page 82] something belonging to himselfe alone, not by an vniuersall or Catholike fayth whereby he belieueth the mysteryes of Christian religion common to all, and which euery one must belieue, for this fayth they call historicall, and say it may be in such as are not iust, yea in hipocrites and Deuills. Seing there­fore in their opinion no man is a true Protestant in the sight of God, but only he that is iust, nor any iust but who hath a speciall or peculiar fayth where­with he apprehendeth Christs iustice to himselfe, it is manifest, that according to their principles, none can be a true Protestant before God, vnlesse he haue the foresayd speciall fayth; and in like manner that none can be a visible Protestant before men, vnlesse he professe to belieue iustification by only speciall fayth; because none can be accounted to be of any re­ligion, vnlesse he professe to belieue those meanes of obtayning iustification and remission of sins, which that religion teacheth. Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 2. §. 16: None is a true faythfull man, None faythfull without speciall fayth. but he, who with a solid persuasion that God loueth him, assureth himselfe of all things from his good­nes &c. And §. 39. he sayth: VVithout this, Christianity standeth not. And in Rom. 1. v. 7: Hence we gather, that none do rightly account themselues faythfull, vnlesse they certainly assure themselues that God loueth them. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 780: No man can belieue himselfe to be a member of the Church, What fayth is according to Prote­stants. vnlesse he firmely and certainly persuaded that he is predestinated to eternall life. Be­sides Caluin in his litle Catechisme cap. de fide defi­neth iustifying fayth, to be a certaine and stedfast know­ledge of our heauenly Fathers goodwill towards vs. The like definition he hath 3. Pareus l. 1. de Iustit. cap. 11, Instit. cap 2. §. 2, Luther in cap. 4. Ioelis tom. 4. and generally all Lutherans and Sa­cramentaries, except that where some define it to be [Page 83] a knowledge, others say it is an assurance or confi­dence of Gods fauour. Hence it is manifest, that they account none a iust or faythfull man, vnlesse he haue a speciall fayth of his iustification and Gods fauour towards him.

2. Secondly I proue the same out of diuers commendations of Protestants touching the neces­sity and excellency of this article. For Luther tom. 1. in disp. fol. 410. sayth: In vaine he belieueth other arti­cles, who denieth that we are iustified by only fayth. And tom. 2. lib. cont. Missam fol. 390. he sayth, The Summe. that this article is the summe of his doctrine and Ghospell. And lib. de votis fol. 278. that this is the definition of a Christian, who belie­ueth to be iustified by the only works of Christ alone, The De­finition. without his owne. Tom 3. in Psalm. Grad. fol. 573: That the only knowledge of this article conserueth the Church. And fol. 576. that it is the summe of Christian doctrine, The Sun. the sunne which lightneth the Church, which falling the Church falleth. Tom. 4. in cap. 53. Isaiae fol. 200. he writeth, that it is as it were the foundation on which the Gospell relyeth, and which alone distinguisheth his religion from all others. Fol. 201. that it is like the liuely fountaine whence all treasures of diuine wise­dome do flow, The foū ­dation. and the foundation of all the Church and Chri­stianity. And Prefat in Ionam, that it is the cheife of Christian doctrine, and the summe of all the scripture. Tom. 5. Prefat. in Galat. fol. 269. he affirmeth, that it is the only rock of the Church. And 273: The rock. VVho holdeth not this arti­cle, are (sayth he) either Iewes, or Turks, or Papists, or He­retiques. And fol. 274. that in this doctrine alone the Church is made and consisteth. And fol. 333. he plainly confes­seth, that it is his only defence, Their defence. without which (as he spea­keth) both we and heretiks togeather with vs, had long since perished. Tom. 6. in cap. 21. Genes. fol. 265. he termeth it the cheifest article of fayth. And tom. 7. epist. ad Liuones [Page 84] fol. 499. auoucheth, that it is the only way to heauen, and the summe of Christian life. The only way. And finally in the first article concluded at Smalcald: In this article are and consist all which in our life we teach, witnesse, and do against the Pope, the Diuell, and all the world. This and much more writeth Luther in commendation of the necessity and ex­cellency of the article touching iustification by only fayth. And of the contrary beliefe concerning iusti­fication by works tom. 5. in cap. 3. Galat. fol. 257. he sayth: It is the sinck of all euills. And in cap. 4. fol. 402: That it taketh away the truth of the Ghospell, faith, & Christ himselfe.

3. With Luther herein agree the Lutherans. For the Confession of Auspurg cap. de discrimine ci­borum, sayth, that this article is the proper doctrine of the ghospell. And the Apology therof cap. de iustificat. that it is the principall place of Christian doctrine. And cap. de poenit: the cheifest place and principallest article about which they fight with their aduersaries; and the knowledge wherof they account most necessary to all. The Conf [...]ssion of Saxony, that this article being extinguished, there is no difference be­twixt the Church and other men. The Confession of Bo­hemia, The sūme of all Christia­nity and piety. that this article is held of them for the cheifest of all, as which is the summe of all Christianity and piety. The vniuer­sity of Wittemberg. tom. 2. Lutheri. fol. 248: It is the cheifest article of the ghospell. The Ministers of the Prince Electour in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 1. say, that this article is as it were the summe and last end, to which all the other articles do look vnto. And those of the D. of Saxony pag. 132. affirme, that as long as this doctrine standeth, Lu­ther standeth, yea Paul, yea God. This doctrine falling, Luther falleth, This fal­ling, God falleth. Paul falleth, God falleth; and all men are necessarily damned. Those of Magdeburg in Sleidan lib. 21. call this article the stay of saluation. Melancthon tom. 2. [Page 85] Lutheri fol. 506. termeth it the cheifest article. Kemnice part. 1. Examen. tit. de Iustificat. pag. 231: The cheifest place. And in locis part. 1. tit. de Iustificat. pag. 216. writeth, that it is like the castle and principall bulwarck of all Christian doctrine and religion. Lobechius disput. 22. The Bul­warck. pag. 515. addeth, that it is one of the cheifest points of our sayth, because the prore and poupe of Christianity is contayned therein, and on it hangeth the hinges of our saluation. Scnusselburg. tom 8. Catal. haeret. affirmeth, it to be the cheifest article, wherein consisteth our saluation, and which is the head of our re­ligion. Finally (to omit other Lutherans) Brentius in Apolog. Wittemberg. part. 3. pag. 703. sayth, The es­sentiall differēce. that the essentiall difference betwixt a Protestant and a Papist is, that of the Protestant religion these are the first principles: The scriptur, Christ the Sonne of God, & sayth or assurance of Gods fauour to­wards vs for Christs sake.

4. Neither do Sacramentaries dissent here­in from the Lutherans, For the Confession of Basse auoucheth it to be the first and cheifest point in Euangelicall doctrine. The French Confess. art. 18. calleth it the foun­dation. Zuinglius in Isagoge fol. 268. sayth it is the summe of the Ghospell. Bucer Respons. ad Abrincens. pag. 613. And Gualter Prefat. in Ioan. write, that about this article is almost all the whole substance of dispute with them and Papists. Bullinger in Compend. lib. 5. cap. 1. termeth it the cheifest point of holy, Euangelicall, and Aposto­licall doctrine. And lib. 8. cap. 8: The highest and cheifest head of Christian doctrine and of fayth. Peter Martyr in locis tit. de Iustif. col. 939. sayth, it is the head, fountaine, and stay of all piety. Tom. 2. epist. ad Peregrin. col. 136: The summe of Summe [...]. It is the summe of summes, and cheifest head. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 11. §. 1. that it is the cheifest proppe of religion, lib. 11. §. 17: The summe of all piety. And Respons. and Sadolet. pag. 125. that the knowledge thereof being gone, Christi glory is ex­tinct, [Page 86] religion abolished, and hope of saluation wholy ouerturned. And lib. de Necess. Reform. fol. 47. that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon this doctrine no lesse then mans life depen­deth of his soule, Pareus in Prooem. lib. de Iustificat: On this alone the hinges of our comfort and saluation do hang. And lib. 2. cap. 2. affirmeth that it was the cheifest cause of the separation of the Protestant Church from Popery. And lib. 4. cap. 2. sayth: The only doctrine of obtayning iustice and salua­tion by only sayth and of loosing them by incredulity, is the sincere and proper ghospell; all other doctrine in the scripture belongeth to the law. And those of Geneua Prefat. Syntag. Con­fess. auouch, that this article is the groundworke, forme, and soule of Christian religion; The soule. the summe of Euangelicall do­ctrine, of which men are called faythfull and true Christians, without which the knowledge of other articles hath no holesome fruit. For it is the substantiall, inward, and formall cause of saluation; of which all Sacraments instituted by God are and were pledges and seales, vnto which article all the other do tend as to their center, and in which mans felicity con­sisteth.

5. Neither do our English Protestants make lesse account of this their article of iustification by only fayth. For D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 6. cap. 3. pag. 562. sayth: It seemes to be the cheifest of all, and most fundamentall, The Prore & Puppe. as in which the Prore and puppe of our saluation consisteth; and who faine any other meanes of Iustification, do ouerthrow the foundation and most necessary heads of Christian religion, and are fallen from saluation and euerlasting life. And Respons: ad Rat. r. Camp. he writeth thus of their doctrine of Iustification by only fayth: If Iames, or a heauenly Angell disallow it, he is impure, wicked, and to be de­tested to hell. D. Humfrey in his oration de vitando fer­men to calleth this article, The cheifest point and hinges of fayth. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 4. The principall head of the [Page 87] ghospell. M. Fox in his acts pag. 440: The foundation of all Christianity. And pag. 770: The foū ­dation. The only principall origen of our saluation. And finally M. Powell lib. 2. de Antichristo cap. 5: The summe of the doctrine of sayth Neither is it to be merueiled, that Protestants so highly esteeme this their article, both because it is the cheifest bait wher­with they draw men vnto them, as also because (as Luther confessed) it is their cheife defence, without which they had long since perished; and finally be­cause Iustification being one principall end of reli­gion, if speciall fayth be the only meanes to attaine to iustification, vndoubtedly it ought highly to be esteemed of that religion, which belieueth it to be such a meanes. Protestāts esteeme of only faith. Thus we see that according to the common opinion of Protestants, to belieue himselfe to be iustified by only fayth, is the cheifest article, the foundation, the stay, the head, the fountaine, the summe, the last end, the prore and puppe, the hinges, the proppe, the castle, the bulwarck, the essentiall difference, the definition, the soule, the forme, the formall cause, the only rocke, the only safegard of Protestancy, & the only way to heauen, which falling the church, yea God himselfe falleth. But none can be a Protestant without the foundation, head, soule, forme, summe, definition &c. of a Protestant. Therefore none can he held for a Protestant, vnlesse he professe to belieue to be iustified by only speciall fayth. Whomesoeuer therefore Protestants cannot proue to haue held this article, they cannot with any reason and coulour challenge for Protestants. And because (as it shall hereafter appeare) they cannot proue that any one before Luther held this article, nay on the contrary we will proue that Luther first deuised it, they can­not with any appearance of truth auouch, that there was any Protestant before him. And in like sort, [Page 88] whome we can proue not to haue belieued this arti­cle, we may euidently conclude, that they were no Protestants.

That it is necessary for a Protestant to belieue all the fundamentall articles of Protestancy. CHAP. VII.

[...]. BESIDE the foresayd article of Iustification by only fayth, it is also necessary to the ma­king of a Protestant of a member of the Protestant Church, V [...]d. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 2. that he belieue at least all the fundamentall points of Protestancy, either explicitly or implicit­ly, so that he obstinatly deny no one of them. This is manifest. First because (as I shewed before cap. 1.) it is the common opinion of Protestants, that all those are out of the Church, whosoeuer deny one fundamentall article. Num. 3. Againe, because themselues say, that the name of a fundamentall article doth in­sinuate, that it sustaineth the Church as the founda­tion sustaineth the house. Besides, all Protestants as­signe truth or purity in doctrine for the mark of the Church, As the Confession of Ausparg cap. 7. The English Confession cap. 19. The Sui [...]zers cap. de Ec­cles. and other Protestants commonly; and their meaning is, Truth essentiall to the Church. that it is the essentiall marck. Wherupon D Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 5. cap. 17. pag. 541. sayth, that it is absolutely necessary and the essentiall marck. And at Rat. 3. Campiani, that it is the substantiall note. His Maiesty in his epistle to Cardinall Peron, that in is the substantiall forme of the Church. [...] Caluin. epist. 190. [Page 89] The purity of doctrine is the soule of the Church. And the same say Sadeel ad Sophism. Turriani loc. 1. Author de Eccles. in Danaeo pag. 1029. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 145. D. Willet. cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 102. Yea D. Morton part. 1. Apos. lib. 1. cap. 6. affirmeth, that Protestants account the truth of Euangelicall doctrin the cheifest and almost only essentiall inseparable and perpetuall marck of the Church. And hence it proceedeth, that they put the truth of purity of doctrine in their definition of the Church as an essentiall part thereof; as the French Confession cap. 27. The Magdeburgians Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 col. 140. Melancthon tom. 1 in cap. 16. Mat­thae [...]. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 20. pag. 552. Sadeel ad Sophism. surriani loc. 21. and others commonly. But this purity of doctrine if it must be in any articles, especially it must be in those which are fundamentall, as is manifest, and the Protestants do graunt. For thus writeth D. Morton part. 1. Purity in fundamē ­tal points essential to the Church. Apol. lib. 2. cap. 38. Purity in the fundamentall principles of fayth is necessary to the being and making of the Church. And D. Feild lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3: Purity from fundamentall errour, is necessarily required to a Church. And the like hath Vor­stius lib. cit. pag. 148. Nay the English Confession art. 19. defineth the visible Church of Christ to be a congregation of faythfull men in which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments duely ministred according to Christs ordinance in al those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. And his maiesty ep. cit: Whit [...]k. Cont. 2. q. [...] c. 18. Sutla l. 1. de Eccl. c. 1. Mort. Apol. l. 2. cap. 3 [...]. It is needfull that the churches be vnited amōg themselues in vnity of saith and doctrine in those points, which are necessary to saluation. And hereupon diuers Protestants deny those Corinthians who denyed the Resurre­ction, and those Galathians, who ouerturned the Ghospell of Christ, to haue byn members of the Church; because they denyed a fundamentall point [Page 90] point of Christian fayth. Wherefore vnlesse Prote­stants will deny their common doctrine in this mat­ter, reiect their owne definition of the Church, cast away their only marke of the Church, and leaue no marke of her at all, they cannot auouch any one to haue byn a Protestant, who dissented from them in any fundamentall point of doctrine.

2. If any one say, that although he, who denyeth any fundamentall point of Protestancy, cannot be of the visible Protestant Church, yet may he be of their inuisible Church: I answeare, that (as shall be shewed hereafter) there can be no Church which is inuisible in profession of fayth, howsoeuer it be inuisible in iustice and predestination; and therefore none can be of the inuisible Church, who is not also of the visible. Againe Protestants will haue none to be of the inuisible Church, but such as are iust. But how is he iust, who denieth Gods faith, and maketh him a lyer, and that in a principall point of religion? Besides, Protestants say, that none can be a member of the inuisible Church, vnlesse he be also a member of the visible Church, if so conue­niently he may.

3. Moreouer the holy Fathers most frequent­ly, Leo. Ierm. 4. de Nat. Hier. lib. 3. [...]ōt. Ruffi. Aug. l. de haer. & q. 11. in Mat. & 18. de ci­uit. c. 51. Basilius in Theodor. lib. 4. c. 19. and sometymes also Protestants themselues, do teach, that it is necessary to a faythful and belieuing man, that he deny no one article of fayth, and much lesse a fundamentall or principall article. Finally, Protestants are wont to laugh at Catholiks if they proue any Father to haue byn a Papist, because he held some fundamentall point of Papistry. For thus writeth Pareus lib. 1. de amiss. gratiae cap. 1: It is ri­diculous for him to conclude S. Augustin to haue byn a Papist, be­cause in this errour he agreed with them; no lesse them if you in­ferre, [Page 91] that we are Papists, because we agree with Papists in some truth. And D. White in defence of his Way cap. 45. pag. 432: His holding of some things superstitiously which the Church of Rome hath entertayned, proues not that he professed the same fayth the Church of Rome now doth, because the fayth of the sayd Church comprehends much more then he held; and what he held is now otherwise expounded and applyed then by him it was. And in his Way pag. 298: If he would deale faythfully and to the point, he should not say Bernard professed the Roman fayth and was a monke; but he should haue shewed, that be professed the present Roman fayth, as the Councell of Trent and the Iesuits haue set it downe, at least in the fundamentall points thereof. Let them then abide the law which themselues haue made, and let not them conclude any one to haue byn a Protestant, because he agreed with them in one or more points, vnlesse he agreed with them at least in all fundamētall points of their doctrine. I adde also, that against Protestants we do rightly conclude, that the holy Fathers were Pa­pists, if we do shew that they dissented from Prote­stants in one or more fundamentall points. For they will not deny, but that the Fathers were either Pa­pists or Protestants: But Protestants they were not, if they denyed their doctrine in any fundamentall point thereof: therfore they must needs be Papists. And the like is not of others, whome Protestants cannot cōclude to haue byn theirs, if they can proue that they were none of ours. Because neither we wil graunt, nor they can auouch, that such were either ours or theirs, as they graunt of the holy Fathers. What is necessari­ly requi­red to a Protestāts Be it therefore certaine and assured, that to a Protestant is necessarily required, that either explicitly, or at least implicitly and vertually he belieue all the fun­damentall points of Protestancy, and willfully deny [Page 92] no one of them. And that therefore Protestants can no way challenge any, who reiected any one of their fundamentall and principall articles. It remayneth that we set downe the fundamentall articles of Pro­testancy, lib. de vnie. baptism. c. [...]. because Protestants themselues agree not herein, but as S. Augustin sayd, that the Donatists did, concerning sinnes which they would haue to exclude men out of the Church; so Protestants, in a strange fashion distinguish the fundamentall points of their fayth, deuising rules of distinction amongst them, not out of the scriptures but out of their owne heads.

Which be the fundamentall heads of Protestancy. CHAP. VIII.

1. THAT we may determine which be the fun­damentall articles of Protestant religion, we must first shew, How much Protestāts esteeme the Conf. of Ausp. that all Protestants professe to re­ceiue the Confession of Auspurge, at least in the principall and fundamentall articles thereof. Of the Lutheran Protestants this is manifest. For in their conference at Aldeburg both parties of them agreed to admit it for a rule of their disputation. And ibi­dem pag. 404. those of the Electors side do say: VVe referre our selues and do looke vnto the Confession of Auspurg, as to the foundation of religion next after the word of God. And other Lutherans in Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senat. Argentinens. pag. 70. The foū ­dation of Religion. do appoint, that it be taught ac­cording to the Confession of Auspurge, presented to Charles the 5. anno 1530, and the Apology thereof subscribed at Numberg, and [Page 93] that it be the square and rule of all religion in all articles. The square of religion. He­shusius lib. de present. corp. Christi in caelo affirmeth, that amongst the Lutherans all that are promoted to de­grees and cure of soules, do sweare to the Confession of Auspurg and the Apology thereof. They sweare to it. The same testifyeth Lobechius disp. 1. pag. 12. and as Lauatherus addeth anno 1530: The lawes of the vniuersity of VVittemberg do streightly forbid to defend any opinions which are contrary to this Confession. He [...]sius also lib. cit. writeth, The authority thereof most ho­ly. that the authority thereof ought to be most holy amongst all godly men. Westphalus cont. Laskum affimeth, that it containeth the summe of doctrine founded in the word of God. Ernestus Regius in vita Vr­bani, that it is the square and rule of controuersies in the Church. Lobechius lib. cit. that it is the rule of sayth and doctrine distinguishing the orthodoxall Church from the hetero­doxall. Reineccius in armatura tom. 1. cap. 28. Cōtaineth the sūme of do­ctrine. affir­meth, that it was inspired from heauen, and written by instinct of the holy ghost. Nay some Lutherans, (as testifieth Las­kus epist. ad Regem Poloniae) sayd, that they would ra­ther doubt of the doctrine of Paul, The Rule of fayth. then of the Confession of Aus­purg. And with the Lutherans herein conspire the Sacramentaries. For as Bucer confessed in the Con­ference of Ratisbon: The Protestants condemne all writings, Inspired frō heauē. which are repugnant to the Confession of Auspurge and the Apolo­gy thereof. Caluin admonit. vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 797. sayth: Surius anno 154 [...]. Touching the Confession of Auspurg I answere thus, that as it was published at Ratisbon, there is not one word in it contrary to our doctrine. And epist. 236. sayth, that be wittingly and willingly subscribed to it. Beza epist. 1. wri­teth in this sort: I define those to be our Churches, which hold the Confession of Auspurg, the French Confession &c. And Apol. 1. cont. Saintem pag. 297: Neither is the Confession of Auspurg such, as any pious man may reiect it. Zanchius loc. cit. receiued the Confession of Auspurge as the square [Page 94] and rule of all doctrine. And as Vorstius writeth Respons. ad epist. Parci pag. 91: In the vniuersity of Heddelberg they vsed to sweare to no Confession, but to that of Auspurg. Or as D. Whitaker affirmeth Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 5. pag. 505: The Confession of Auspurg is receiued of all Protestants, vnlesse perhapps it be in one word or two, rather then in any opi­nion. And in truth seing all Sacramentaries professe to hold the Lutherans, (who follow the Confession of Auspurg) for their brethren in Christ, and besides, when we obiect vnto them their dissention in mat­ters of fayth, they appeale vnto their harmony or syntagme of Confessions, amongst which the Con­fession of Auspurg is placed, as do those of Geneua Prefat. Syntagmatis, the Switzers Prefat. suae Con­fess. Beza epist. 1. Sadeel Indice Repetit. Turrian pag. 808. and respons. ad Theses Posnan. c. 11. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 168. D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 12. & 42. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest: 5. cap. 8. pag. 521. D. Andrews Respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 1. D. Fulke de Success pag. 287. & 304. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 138. and others commonly. When as (I say) the Sacramētaries do thus, they must needs approue the Confession of Auspurg, at least in all the principall and fundamentall points thereof. For (I hope) they will not hold thē for brethren in Christ, whome they see to dissent from them in fundamen­tall points of Christian fayth; nor say, that those Confessions agree, which are repugnant in the very foundation of beliefe.

VVhich the cōfess. of Ausp. accoūteth fundamē ­tal articles2. But this Confession of Auspurg so generally receiued, and of so high account with Protestants, as we haue rehearsed, hath set downe and declared which be the fundamentall points of Protestancy. For in the beginning thereof is set this title; The prin­cipall [Page 95] articles; and after that many Protestanticall opi­nions are rehearsed, thus it sayth of them. cap. 21. The sūme of Protest. doctrine. This is the summe of the doctrine which is deliuered in our Churches. And [...]fterward naming certaine controuersies of In­dulgences, Pilgrimages, & the like, it sayth of them: These kind of matters we haue let passe, that those things which are the cheifest in this cause might be easierly knowne. Againe: Cheifest points. those things only are rehearsed, which were necessary to be told. And finally; VVe would present these articles before written, in which our Confession might be extant, Only ne­cessary. and the summe of their doctrine who teach vs, might be seene. And in another edi­tion of this Confession in Melancthon. tom. 3. thus is written in the end thereof: VVe haue comprised the summe of Euangelicall doctrine necessary to Churches. Sūme of doctrine necessary. Where­fore, vnlesse Protestants will reiect their first and most maiesticall Confession of Auspurg, they must needs confesse that the articles thereof are the summe of Protestant doctrine, the principal articles of their fayth, are they only, which are necessary to be told, and the summe of Euangelicall doctrine necessary to Churches. But surely such are fundamentall arti­cles.

3. Neither doth the sayd Confession alone, but also many other great Protestants acknowledge the articles of it to be fundamentall. For thus hath the Apology of that Confession in Melancthon tom. 3. fol. 91: Truth necessary to the Church. VVe haue comprised in the Confession of Auspurg al­most the summe of all Christian doctrine. And Melancthon himselfe in the preface of that Apology writeth, that that Confession is truth necessary to the Church. And like­wise in the preface of his 3. to me: I gathered together the heads of confession, comprising almost the summe of the doctrine of our Churches The whole forme of the Confession was after sent to Luther, who wrote back that he had read and allowed this [Page 96] Confession. And tom. 4. Respons. ad Staphylum pag. 817. sayth, that the Confession (of Auspurg) contayneth the whole body of doctrine. And in Prefat. 2. tom. Luther 11 The summe of doctrine which our Church preached is publikely comprehended in the Confession of Auspurg. The whole body of do­ctrine. Likewise the D. of Wittemberg in the preface of his Confession spea­king of the Confession of Auspurg sayth thus: VVe commanded our preachers to write the summe of their doctrine. And the Ministers of the Elector in colloq. Aldeburg scrip. 3. pag. 21. say: VVe doubt not but the summe of doctrine reuealed from heauen is dextrously, plainly, and most sweetly contayned in the Confession of Auspurg. And pag. seq: VV [...] the Confession of Auspurg we comprehended the summe of do­ctrine. Kemnice Praefat. lib. de coena: The summe of hole­some doctrine is comprehended in the Confession of Auspurg out of the word of God. Westphalus defens. altera cont. Las­kum sayth; It containeth in briefe the summe of Christian doctrine. Iames Andrews lib. cont. Hosium pag. 22: The summe of pious doctrine is contained in the Confession of Auspurg Finally the Lutherans (as the Sacramenta­ries of Newstad write in Admonit. de lib. Concord. cap. 4. Note. pag. 116) do place in the role of heretiks as erring in the foundation of sayth and saluation all those who find any sault with the Confession of Auspurg, or dissent from it in any article. And as touching the Sacramentaries themselues, the Palatin Confession pag. 198. sayth thus: That Confes­sion of fayth which was presented at Auspurg, and the Apology annexed thereto, was taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles & Prophets, and the foresayd Creed, as a certaine litle summe. Caluin. lib. 1. de Lib. arbit. pag. 142: VVhen at Auspurg there was to be exhibited a forme of Confession (Melancthon the Author thereof) would not make any stay, but only in that doctrine, Doctrine necessary to salua­tion. which alone is proper to the Church and necessary to saluation to be knowne.

[Page 97]4. According therefore to the verdict, both of Lutherans and Sacramentary Protestants, the [...]e Confession of Auspurg contayneth the summe & whole body of Protestant doctrine, and only those things which are ne­cessary to be told, and that only doctrine which is proper to the church, and is necessary to be knowne for saluation. Whosoeuer therfore dissenteth from the Confession of Auspurg, dissenteth from Protestants in the summe and body of Protestancy, in things that are necessary, [...] do­ctrine necessary to the Church, and necessary [...]o [...] ­nation. But vndoubtedly who o [...]ssenteth in s [...]ch things dissenteth in fundamentall points. And th [...]s manner of examining who is a Protestant, cannot be disliked of Protestants, because themselues vsed it against the Anabaptists in their Conference at Fran­kentall, wherein they proue, that the Anabaptistia were not before the yeare of Christ 1522: For (say they) if you read ouer all histories, you shall not find any people from the beginning of the world, who had a Confession of sayth like to yours. They are therefore of opinion, that it is necessary for an Anabaptist, that he hold their Cō ­fession. Why then may not we say the like is necessa­ry to a Protestant. Besides, Sadeel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. pag. 866. sayth, that we ought to iudge of the fayth of the reformed Churches by the Confes­sions of their fayth; which rule we now follow.

5. And if any Protestant do not thinke, that the articles of the Confession of Auspurg be funda­mentall, let him take the Confession of Saxony, Fundam. articles according to the Cō ­fess. of Sa­xony. to which many principall Protestants subscribed, and which they composed with mind to present it to the Councell of Trent. For this Confession affirmeth her articles to be fundamentall saying cap. 23: This is the summe of doctrine, which with one mouth we preach in our [Page 98] Churches. And soone after: It is true doctrine and necessary to the Church. And Hospin part. 2. Hist. fol. 215. sayth, that the composers of this Confession auouch this in summe, that that writing contayneth clearly and fundamentally the princ [...]pall articles of Christian fayth, and doctrine of Sacra­ments instituted of Christ. Or if he please let him take the Confession of Strasburg, According to the Cō fession of Strasburg which in the end thus wri­teth of the articles thereof: These are the cheife points, in which our men haue somewhat gone from the common doctrine of the Clergy Or else the Scottish general Cō [...]essiō, wher­in thus speake the Scots: VVe belieue, confesse, and sub­scribe, According to the Cō fession of Scotland. and affirme before God and the whole world, that this on­ly is the true Christian sayth, which pleaseth God, and bringeth saluation to men, which is now layd open to the world and recei­ued of diuers Churches and Kingdoms, especially of the Scottish Church. For these Confessions do affirme, that their articles are principall necessary to the Church, and their do­ctrine the only true Christian doctrine which bringeth saluation. But surely such articles be fundamentall. Therefore the articles of these Confessions be fundamentall ar­ticles in Protestancy. And consequently, that a man be accounted a Protestant according to the iudge­ment of these Confessions, it is necessary, that he pro­fesse their articles. Or finally let him make choice of the Bohemian Confession, According to the Cō ­fession of Bohemia. in the Preface whereof it is written thus: VVe imbrace and hold all things which belong to the true Church and without which she can be no where on earth. For without doubt such things are fundamen­tall.

6. But if any will not admit either the arti­cles of the Con [...]ession of Auspurg or of Saxony (which are Confessions of Lutherans) nor the arti­cles of the Confessions of Strasburg or Scotland (which are Confessions of Sacramentaries) not [Page 99] finally the articles of the Bohemian Confession (which is sayd to be the Confession of the Walden­ses) to be the fundamentall articles of Protestancy; First he shall shew, that touching which are funda­mentall articles, he agreeth neither which Lutherās nor Sacramentaries, nor Waldenses. Againe, besides that which we haue repeated out of Protestants con­cerning their account of the Confession of Auspurg he shall herein reiect those Confessions to which Protestants (as themselues say) yeld almost as much as Pa­pists do to the Councell of Trent, Vorstiue in Praefat. Antibell. Praefat. Syntagm. Conf ssio­num. which they hold for authenticall writings, and which they say haue byn sealed with the bloud of many martyrs, and approued of Kings, Princes, and common wealthes, most excellent Deuines, & great seruants of God. As­suredly if there be any certainty or worth in Prote­stant doctrine, it is in their Confession of fayth. Moreouer, he can name no other articles which Pro­testants by publike and common iudgement haue agreed to be fundamentall, and therefore either they haue not by publike consent determined which arti­cles they hold for fundamentall, or certainly no iud­gement or decree of theirs is to be more esteemed of them, then that which we find in their Confessions of fayth. If Prote­stants be not cer­taine which are fundam. articles they are not cer­taine of their Church. Wherefore either they are to be held for fun­damental articles, or else Protestants are not certaine which are fundamentall articles of their fayth. And if they be not certaine herof, they cannot be certaine what is the essence or substance of a Protestant, or who is a Protestant, who not, seing (as I shewed be­fore) the only essentiall forme and substance of a Protestant they put in the beliefe of their fundamen­tall articles. Either therefore they haue not yet deter­mined which are their fundamentall articles, and consequently they haue not determined what is the [Page 100] substance of a Protestant, or who is a Protestants who not, who is a member of their Church, who an alien; or that which they haue determined in their forsayd Confessions, is to be taken for their de­cree and determination in this matter. Finally, I re­gard not, what articles this or that Protestant iud­geth to be fundamentall, for I might set downe which Luther tom. 1. in Praefat. Disput. fol. 419. or which Zuinglius Prefat. Conf. fidei, or which Beza in fine breuis Confess. or which Bullinger Praefat. Compend. haue reckoned for fundamentall articles; but I would determine this matter out of their pu­blike Confessions of fayth, Sadeel ad Thes. Pos­nan. c 12. Beza epist. 1. Rainold. praelect. 4. because they cannot de­ny them, but in denying their fayth; as also because they are of more authority amongst Protestants, and finally because themselues require vs so to do.

7. Let it be therefore assured and stedfast, that according to the iudgement generally of all Prote­stants it is necessarily and before all matters required to a Protestant that he belieue Iustification by only speciall or particuler fayth, What ne­cessary to a Prote­stant. because this is the soule, life, definition and all in a Protestant; and moreouer (according to the iudgements of the foresayd Con­fessions) that he belieue at least virtually and impli­citly all their articles, and wittingly deny none of them, because as we see they are fundamentall arti­cles of Protestancy, without which one cannot haue the whole essence or substance of a Protestant, nor be an entire and absolute Protestant, We speak of any who are Protestāts only in part. but only in part and in some sort. And we (as hath byn often sayd) treat here only of an entire and absolute Pro­testant, such as at least hath all the substantiall parts of a Protestant, and endeauour to proue that Luther was the author of such a company and of such a faith [Page 101] and religion, and regard not whither that before his tyme there were any, who were Protestants only in part and in some sort, and held only some part of Protestant religion, but not the whole substance thereof. And hereupon we frame an inuincible ar­gument, to proue that there was no true Protestant or Protestant church before Luther. The defi­nition of a true Protestāt. Euery true Pro­testant belieueth Iustification by only speciall faith, and at least virtually and implicitly belieueth the ar­ticles of the Confession of Auspurg, or of Saxony, Scotland, Strasburg, or Bohemia. But there was no man, no Church before Luther who thus belieued. Therefore no true Protestant or Protestant church. The Maior is the very definition of a true Prote­stant, gathered partly out of the common doctrine of all Protestants, partly out of the foresayd Con­fessions of their fayth. The Minor being negatiue is sufficiently manifest, by that neither Luther, nor any in his tyme, or to this day could produce any one man or company who before Luthers preaching had belieued in that sort. This foundation therefore touching the essence and substance of a Protestant and Protestant Church being layd, to wit, that he only is a true absolute Protestant, who belieueth Iu­stification by only speciall fayth, and the foresayd other fundamentall points of Protestancy, and that the Protestant Church is a company of such belie­uers, and the Protestant religion such a beliefe and worship of God; I will endeauour in this next book out of Protestants testimonies and Confessions to proue, that Luther was the first beginner of their Church and Religion.

CHAP. I. That Protestants confesse that the substance of their Church and Religion was peri­shed when Luther began.

THE first demonstration, where­with we will proue, that Luther was the author and first beginner of the Protestant Church and re­ligion we will take out of Prote­stants Confessions of the substan­tiall destruction of their Church, Protestāts confesse their reli­gion was perished. religion & principall article of Iustification by only [Page 103] fayth, before Luther arose. For of the destruction of their fayth and religion thus writeth Luther himself tom. 1. Proposit. 62. fol. 375: Certaine it is that our Apo­staticall Bishops raigning, Gods fayth perished. Perished. And lib. de Captiu. Babylon. tom. 2. fol. 77: The Popes tyranny hath many ages agone extinguished the fayth. Extingui­shed. And lib. de ab [...]og. Mist. fol. 249. he sayth to the Catholikes: Ye haue ex­tinguished the Ghospell. And lib. de pijs ceremon is fol. 387: aliàs 393: Destroyed The doctrine of the ghospell lay destroyed by humane traditions. Tom. 3. in psalm. 1. fol. 126: VVhat thinkest thou was in the Church, but a whirle wind of Gods wrath, by which we were thrust into so many, so different, so in­constant, so vncertaine, and those infinite, glosses of Lawyers, Christ al­togeather vnknown and opinions of Deuines, & in the meane tyme Christ being altogea­ther vnknowne, stumbling into many quicke sands, gulfes, and snares of conscience were knockt together. And in psalm. 22. fol. 345: Christ together with fayth is now extinguished. Christ and fayth ex­tingui­shed. And fol. 348: Fayth lyeth extinct. And in psalm. 51. fol. 460: The former age could neither vnderstand nor soundly teach the greatest and weightiest points. Praefat. in psalm. Grad. fol. 509: God punisheth contempt so as he plainly taketh away his word whereof Popery is a notable example, Al know­l [...]dge of Christ wholy ex­tinct. in which we see it hath so fallen out. And fol. 568: Fayth it selfe was plainly extinct. Tom. 4. Praefat. Eccl. fol. 1: The schooles of Deuines haue wholy extinguished most assured fayth in Christ, togeather with all the knowledge of Christ. Tom. 5. in cap. 2. Galat. fol. 306: The Papists with their impious and blasphemous doctrine haue not only obscured, but simply haue taken away Not only obserued but sim­ply taken away. the Ghospell, and ouerwhelmed Christ. And fol 322: Christs ghos­pell being obscured, yea truly ouerwhelmed, the Pope &c. In c. 4. fol. 376: This most common and most receiued opinion of the vncertainty (of the remission of sinnes) was surely an ar­ticle of fayth in all Popery, Christ shut out of the Church. wherewith truly they ouerwhelmed the doctrine of fayth, destroyed fayth, and shut Christ out of the [Page 104] Church. Fol. 400: The Pope hath vtterly extinguished Chri­stian liberty. In cap. 1. Petri: The sincere knowledge of fayth was extinct. In cap. 15.1. Cor. fol. 134. VVithout our helpe they had neuer learnt one word of the Ghospell. Without Luther not one word or iot of the Ghospell. And fol. 141: They had not knowne one iote of the Gospell vnlesse by our labour and study it had byn brought forth into the world. [...]om. 6. in cap. 3. Genes. fol. 43: Holesome doctrine was by little and litle extinct. In cap. 4. fol. 57: The light of the word was ex­tinguished by wicked Popes. In cap. 17. fol. 199: That I may say all in one word the Pope hath truly buryed Christ. In cap. 48. fol. 643: The Pope hath obscured, nay destroyed the doctrine of sayth. In cap. 49. fol. 660: The Pope hath truly obscured the doctrine and taken away the Promises, Christ truly buried. that we knew not what Christ was Fol. 666: He hath extinguished the Gospell. Tom. 7. lib. de Missa fol. 230: The knowledge of Christ was truly abolished and destroyed This ye Papists ye cannot deny, the mat­ter it selfe proclaimeth it. And fol. 231: All true VVorship of God being extinct from the bottom &c. Epist. ad Fredericum Electorem fol. 506: Know­ledge of Christ truly de­stroyed. The Pope of Rome hath most plainly roo­ted out the Ghospell truly oppressed and ouerthrowne. lib. cont. Papatum fol. 469: Fayth was weakened, choaked, and ex­tinguished, and Christian liberty lost. Thus plainly speaketh Luther almost in all his Latin comes of the substan­tiall destruction of his fayth and Ghospell before that (as he sayth) he brought it againe into the world. Ghospell most plainly rooted out. To which he addeth in his 7. Dutch tome in his admonition to the Germans: This abomination was increased so, that they blotted out and supprest the words of this Sacrament and fayth, so that neither a letter, nor point of them remayned in all Popery, in all masses, and bookes. Thus Lu­ther.

2. In like manner the Protestants in Sleidan lib. 1. fol. 258: The Pope made lawes, by which true knowledg was vtterly oppressed. Melancthon tom. 2. Lutheri fol. [Page 105] 192: Scholasticall diuinity being receiued, fayth was destroyed, the doctrine of works being admitted. The Magdeburgians Praefat. Centur. 5: Extreme abolitiō of religion. There was an extreme abolition of true Religion and the word of God vnder Popery. Caluin Praefat. Institut: In former ages men had extinguished the light of God. And 1. Institut. cap. 11. §. 9: Many ages since true religion was drowned and ouerthrowne. 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 2: The sub­stance of Christia­nity bu­ried. Vnder Popery that doctrine without which Christianity cannot consist was all buryed and shut out. Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 128. he sayth, that the necessity to leaue the Roman Church was, That the light of diuine truth was extinct, the word of God buryed &c. And p. 130. Cheifest points of doctrine ouer­throwne from the root. maketh this speach vnto God in defence of his forsaking the Roman Church: There were not a few profane opinions, which euen by the ground ouerthrow the cheifest points of that doctrine, which thou diddest deliuer vnto vs by word. Lib. de necess. Refor. pa. 49: VVhen the word of God was choaked with these so ma­ny & so thick darknesses, Luther stept forth &c. pag. 62: None prayed to God with assured sayth, that is in earnest, neither could they, for Christ being buryed in that manner as he was &c. Word of God en­ded. Re­spons. ad Versipell. pag. 358: They haue extinguished the doctrine of saluation. In Psycopan. pag. 388: The word of God being ended by peruerse vse and sloth now returneth to light. In Rom. 11. vers. 22: The truth was taken away. The light put out. S. deel. de vocat. Minist. pag. 552: God suffered that light to be put out which should perpetually haue lightned vs in gouerning our life. Pure wor­ships ba­nished. Crispin Prae [...]at. operum Occolampadij: Both the do­ctrine of saluation and piety were taken away, they banished out of the Church all pure worship of God. Celius secundus Ca­rio de amplitudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 33: True Christ ta­ken out of the world. And so by litle and litle true Christ was taken out of the world, and Anti­christ put in his steed. And Hospin. part. 1. Histor. lib. 4. pag. 291. writeth, that after 800. yeares after Christ the light of the holesome and true doctrine began to be darkned, till [Page 106] it was vtterly put out. The light cleane put out. Thus forraine Protestants, both Lutherans and Sacramentaries.

3. Amongst English Protestants thus wri­teth M. Bale Cent. 4. c. 6: Holesome truth perished from the earth. Cent. 1. pag. 69: From this tyme (anno 607) purity of heauenly doctrine vanished out of the Church. The truth perished frō earth. In his Apology against Priesthood and vowes fol. 3: Two things haue cheifly byn the cause of the vtter decay and full destruction of Christian religion &c. Vanished out of the Church. M. Powell in [...]tinerarium Cam­br [...]ae lib. 2 cap. 7. sayth, that about the yeare 1189: There was the cheife raigne of darknesse, in so much that not on­ly preaching of the true word, but also the true religion was ba­nished and scarce the name of Christianity remayned. Vtter de­cay & full destructiō of religiō. M. Fox in the Protestation before his Acts, affirmeth that about the yeare 1215. and 1080: Christian sayth was ex­tinguished. And pag. 840. that Christian Religion was wholy changed into Idolatry. D. Fulke ad Cauillat. S [...]aple­toni: Scarse name of Christia­nity remayned. Scarce could he fiue hundred yeares after banish the true doctrine of saluation out of the Churches of Europe. And final­ly the Apology of the English Church part. 5. cap. 13. diuis. 1. sayth, that Papists haue broken in peeces all the pipes and conduicts, haue stopped vp all the springs and choaked the fountaine of liuing waters, and by damning vp all the foun­tains of Gods word, haue brought the people into a pittifull thirst. Item: Not a sparck of diuine light found. VVith great distresse went they scattering about seeking some sparck of heauenly light to refresh their consciences withall, but that light was already throughly quenched out, so that they could find none. This was a rusull state, this was a lamentable forme of Gods Church. It was a misery to liue therein without the Ghospell, Protestāts light tho­roughly quenched out, without light, without all comfort. Thus write these learned Protestants both English and strangers of the destruction of their doctrine, their fayth, their religion, and Ghospell before Luther arose, which do so plainly testify the substantiall destruction ther­of, [Page 107] as I may well vse S. Augustins words in the like occasion: If I should speake thus, they would resist and cry, Lib. 1. de pec. mer. c. 9. that I speake not truly, thought not truly. For in these words, if they were spoken by others, they would imagin no other mea­ning, then that, which in the foresayd (Protestants) they will not vnderstand.

4. Protestāts confesse their lun­dam. art. perished. Neither write they otherwise of the de­struction of their principall and most fundamentall article of Iustification by only fayth. For thus the Confession of Anspurg cap. 20: VVhen the doctrine of fayth, which ought to be principall in the Church, lay so long vn­knowne, Sole faith vnknown as all must needs confesse that there was a most profound silence of the iustice of fayth, that in sermons only the iustice of works was spoken of in Churches &c. And tit. de bonis ope­ribus pag. 25: Horribly ouerwhelmed. In tymes past certaine absurd opinions horri­bly ouerwhelmed this doctrine, in which the vnlearned faigned that men did satisfy the law of God. In the meane tyme there was great silence how Christ is to be apprehended by fayth. And pag. 27: The was no word of fayth which is necessary for remission of sinnes. And pag. 19: In tymes past there was great silence in Churches of the exercises of sayth. And Praefat. Apol. Con­fess: August. in Melancthon tom. 3. fol. 27: All Chur­ches, Monasteries, schooles, briefly all bookes of late diuines, No man taught &c All Prot. cōfort vnknown were before mute of the iustice of fayth. No man taught sinnes to be for­giuen by fayth in Christ, Sacraments were impiously profaned, after that opinion, that they iustify by the work wrought, was receiued. And this opinion did wholy oppresse the doctrine of saith. Praefat. Conf. Saxoniae: All this comfort, which is necessa­ry to euery one, how a man conuerted to God is iustified, was vn­known. The Protestant Princes and Cities in Sleidan lib. 21. fol. 240: The contention is about the doctrine of sayth, and of the true knowledge of God, which is the cheifest head of Christian life and of pure religion. Vtterly extinct. And it cannot (say they) be denyed, that this doctrine was vtterly extinct, and a new doctrine [Page 108] brought in. And lib. 13. [...]ol. 304: It cannot be denyed, that there was no word taught of receiuing grace by Christ of remis­sion of sinnes. Luther in Catechismo Maiori tom. 5. fol. 627: No mā be­lieued iu­stification without works. Popery raigning, fayth wholy neglected and obscured was in pitifull plight. No man belieued Christ to be a Lord, who had reconciled vs to the Father without our worcks. Tom. 7. in c. 5. Matthae [...]. fol. 23: The Popish company saying nothing of the cheifest article of iustification by fayth in Christ &c. And in 3. Symbol. fol. 140. I haue obserued, that all errours, heresies, and all impiety came into the church principally, because this ar­ticle, or this part of Christian sayth in Iesus Christ was despised and neglected or vtterly lost. And in the Epitaphe gr [...]uen vpon Luthers tombe is this verse: He restored to the world the difference lost before, which is meant of the dif­ference which Luther taught to be between the law and the ghospell, that the law teacheth iustification by good works, the ghospell by only fayth, without which difference Luther professeth that Christiani­ty cannot stand. And in his table talkes cap. de morte he thus speaketh: Shew me one place of iustification of fayth in the decrees, in the decretals, in the Clementines, in all the summes and sentences, Coccius to. 1. pag. 1217 in all the sermons of Monks, in the statu­tes of Synods, in all the Postilles, in all Hierome, Gregorie &c. Thus assured Luther was, that before he preached, of this principall article of iustification by only fayth, there was no news in the whole world.

5. The same confesseth his Copemate Melan­cthon, who tom. 2. Respons. ad Clerum Colon. pag. 96. hath these words: The doctrine of pennance was ouer­whelmed, there was no word of fayth by which remission of sinnes is to be receiued: and pag. 97: The doctrine of true inuocation and of the exercises of fayth lay dead. If any (sayth he) denie, that such was the state of the Church be may be disproued not on­ly by testimonies of honest men, but also by the bookes of Monkes. [Page 109] And pag. 99: There was no speach of the hope of free mercy. And lib. de vsu integri Sacramenti pag. 188: The Popes haue destroyed the true doctrine of fayth. And the same Me­lancthon or Carion in Chronico lib. 4. pag. 418. & seq: These errours being setled and established by publike autho­rity, drew after them a great ruine, wherewith they wholy de­stroyed the doctrine of iustice before God, and free remission of sinnes. And pag. 439: Schoole diuinity qu te trampled and extinguished the least sparkles of pure doctrine, The least sparkles extingui­shed. touching the law, the ghospell fayth and iustification before God. And pag 4 [...]3: They haue quite taken away the difference betweene the law and the ghospell. Vigand. lib. de bonis & mal [...]s Germaniae: The difference betwixt the law and the ghospell was quite blotted out after the Apostles tym. Quite blotted out. The Magdeburgi [...]ns Pre [...]. C [...] ­tur. 13. The doctrine of sayth without works was extinct. The matter it selfe shewed, that pure doctrine was vtterly supprest. Kemnice in l [...]cis part. 2. [...]t. de Iustificat pag. 246: In all ages the light of holesome doctrine touching iustification first decayed, after more and more obscured, and last was plainly lost and extinguished. And pag. 244: Plainly lost. In our tyme God hath resto­red the doctrine of iustification out of most thick darknesse. And Humius Praesat. lib. de libero arbit: The article of [...]usti­fication was by Luther brought into light of out of the more then Chymerian darknesse of former ages. Thus the Luthe­rans.

6. The like Confession make the Sacramen­taries. For thus writeth Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 125: VVe say that doctrine (of Iustification by only fayth) was by you blotted out of the memory Blotted out of memory. of men. Lib de Necess. Reform. pag. 46: The vertue of fayth was vtterly ex­tinct, the benefit of Christ destroyed, mans saluation ouerthrown. And lib. de vera Reform. pag. 322: By these, the Apostoli­call doctrine was corrupted, nay destroyed and abolished. Corrup­ted, nay destroyed. Iezle­rus de bello Euchar. fol. 24: The doctrine of iustification [Page 110] was most sowly darkned & corrupted. Pareus lib. 5. de Iusti­ficat. cap, 3: The doctrine of grace began to be obscured, and at last to be vtterly oppressed in Popery. Only nam of Christ remained Finally M. Fox in his Acts printed 1610. pag. 391. sayth: In these later dayes the only name of Christ remayned among Christians. As touching fayth, the end, and the vse of the law, of grace and iustification by sayth, of liberty of a Christian man, there was no mention nor any word almost spoken of. Thus both Lutheran and Sa­cramentary Protestants confesse, their doctrine of iustification (in which as we haue seene they affirme the definition, life, soule, and all points of a Prote­stant to consist) to haue perished, byn extinguished, horribly ouerwhelmed, vanished out of the church, no spark thereof to be found, the light therof cleane put out, and vtterly extinct, before Luther start vp. And consequently they must needs also confesse, that the substance of their Church and religion was perished, which could not be without the soule, life, definition and summe thereof.

7. Neither do they lesse openly confesse that their Church was perished. Protestāts confesse that their church perished. For thus sayth Luther lib. de Captiu. Babylon, tom. 2. fol 76: But now fayth being not spoken of, the Church is extinguished by infinite laws of works, and ceremonies. Respons. ad Catharin. fol. 140. after he had sayd that the Church is conceiued, formed, borne, nourished and conserned only by the vocall word, he ad­deth: Extingui­shed. By the Pope and Papists the vocall ghospell being choaked and extinct, was silent through all the world. Tom. 3. in psal. 17. fol. 285: And now that common sort of preachers reprobate what proposeth it to vs in the Church of the deeds of Saints, but some small works, vntill faith being extinguished there become nothing but heathenish superstition where once the Church of God was, the name only of the Church left, Name only of the Church left. the substance quite lost. In psalm. 22. fol. 332: This day vnder the Popes dominion [Page 111] there is not lest one trace of the Church which appeares. And 10. 6. in cap. 49. Genes. fol. 666: The order of the Church perished. The Pope hath extinguished & swallowed vp the Church. Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 132: The matter came to that passe, that it was manifest and euident to the learned and vnlearned, that the true order of the Church then perished, the Kingdome of Christ was throwne downe, Christs Kingdome throwne downe. when this dominion (of the Pope) was erected. 4. In­stitut. cap. 3. §. 4. after he sayd that Apostles, Euange­lists, Prophets were instituted only for that tyme when Churches were to be set vp, or to be drawne from Moyses to Christ, he addeth: In our tyme God rai­seth Apostles, or at least Euangelists. For there was need of such to reduce the Church from the reuolt of Antichrist. The Frēch Confession art. 31: In our dayes the state of the Curch being interrupted, State of the church interrup­ted. God raised vp some extraordinarily which might restore the decayed ruines of the Church. Or as it is in the French copy: In our dayes when the state of the Church was interrupted, God raised vp some after an extraordinary manner, that they might set vp the church a new Church to be set vp a new. which was in ruine and desolation. But surely that church, which was in ruine and desolation, & so as it needed to be set vp a new, was substantially fallen. Danaeus in lib. Augustini de haeresibus cap. 95. About the yeare after Christs passion 574: This slaughter, plague and tyranny of the whole Church began, Slaughter of the whole Church. which afterward vtterly destroyed the Kingdome of Christ. Kingdom of Christ vtterly destroyed And lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 8: The Church was in banishment 350. yeares. Aretius in locis part. 3. fol. 25. hauing sayd that Luther was immediatly sent of God, addeth: God then vseth immediat vocation, when there is no Church founded, or hauing byn founded is so degenerated, No church or only sha­dow ther­of. that the only shadow of her remayneth. Chassan. in locis lib. 2. de Eccles. pag. 151: It is false that the Church shall neuer be broken of. Sadcel. lib. de vocat. oftentyms sayth, that the Church was corrupted, decayed, ouerthrowne, and her foundation shaken and [Page 112] ouerturned. And p. 555, that to restore her we must do, as men vse to do in renewing that building which is quite fallen. And in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. cap. 8: VVhen Popish errours had possessed almost the whole world, nor there appeared openly true fruits of the Church, nay nor true lea­ues; we say the Church was in one or two. The Church was in one or two. Boysseul in Con­furat. Spondae [...] pag. 742: It is true that all the Church was corrupted, all adulteresse, all Idolatresse. Soninus in Metho­do Theol. pag. 212: about the tyme of Gregory the great the Church degenerated more and more, vntill at last it lost all purity and plainly fell to dotage yea to madnes, and in the VVest ended in Popery, and in the East in Mahometisme. D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 512: As men do in a building fallen, that who will renew it buildeth not in the old foū ­dation because it is loosed and not sound, but layeth some new foū ­dation; so it was done in the renewing of the Church (by Lu­ther). Behold the old foundation of the Church put away, and a new layd. A new foundatiō of the Church layd. And pag. 510. he sayth, that before Luther the state of the Church was fallen and quite ouerthrowne, and the church decayed & ouerturned. And quaest. 5. cit. pag. 528: Luther tooke vpon him to restore religion corrupted. And Controuers. 4. quest. 5. cap. 12. pag 683: So at last the Curch was oppressed & extinguished. D. Fulke in his answere to a false Catholike pag. 35. The true Church sailed immediatly after the Apostles tyme. D. Morton. Apol. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 25. Protestant mini­sters were raised to set vp againe the Church being pitifully fal­len. Nothing in the Church but pitiful ruines. The Apo [...]gy of the English Church part. 4. cap. 9. diuis. 3: For these men new after they haue left nothing re­mayning in the church of God that hath any liknesse of his church, yet will &c. Ibidem cap. 14. diuis. 1. & 2: Long agoe hath the Bishop of Rome willed to haue the whole church depend vpon himselfe alone; wherefore it is no meruaile though it be clea [...] fallen downe long agoe. And part. 6. cap. 17. diuis. 1. & 2. [Page 113] VVhen we likewise saw, that all things were quite trodden vnder foot by these men, The only name of the Apo­stolike Church rooted out from the groūd and that nothing remayned in the temple of God but pitifull spoiles and decayes, we reckoned it &c. M. Fox loc. cit: The Church being degenerated from the Apostolike in­stitution aboue all measure, reseruing only the name of the Apo­stolike Church but farre from the truth thereof in very deed, did fal into al kind of extreme tyranny &c. And M. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts defens. pag. 217: VVhen Antichrist had rooted out the Church euen from the ground. Lastly Orhinus one of the foure false Apostles of England hath these words: Considering how Christ by his wisedome power, Coccius to. 1. pag. 983. Quite ouer­throwne. good­nes, had sounded, builded, setled, his Church, with his bloud wa­shed it, with his holy spirit enriched it, and at last seing it quite ouerthrowne, I could not but meruaile.

8. To these their plaine Confessions of the entire destruction of their Church we may add that commonly they say, Protestāts say that Elias thought the church was peri­shed. that Elias the Prophet did think, that the Church had fayled in his tyme, and that besides himselfe there was no faythfull man or member of the Church. Luther lib. de Missa tom. 7. fol. 237: Elias thought the whole church of God to haue byn ex­tinct, that himselfe was left alone, and the only Christian. Beur­lin in Refurat. Soti cap: 53: Elias complaineth before God, that besides himselfe there was neuer a Godly man remayning. Lobechius disput. Theol. 10: Elias thought the Church had holy perished. Zuinglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Euchar: Elias thought that he was alone. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11: Elias thought that piety was perished, and that all Saincts were cut of in Israel. Caluin in Antid. art. 18. Paris: Elias thought himselfe alone to remaine of the Church. And in Rom. cap. 11. v. 2: He thought that in his nation religion and worship of God had perished. He condemned the whole nation besides himselfe of impiety. He imagined that he had byn left alone. Keckerman lib. 3. System Theol. pag. [Page 114] 389: Elias belieued that he alone remayned of the people of Is­rael, who could be sayd to be actually a member of the true Church. Lubbert lib. 6. cap. 3. Elias thought that besides him­selfe there remayned none who was truly turned to God. Riuet. in Epitome Controuers. tract. 1. sect. 37: Elias thought that he had remayned alone. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 134: Elias thought that of the true worshippers of God he alone remayned. Boysseul in Confutat. Spondaei pag. 247: Elias thought that he was the whole Church of God Nay Polanus part. 3. Thes. de Eccles. sayth plainly in his owne person, that the church failed in Elias his tyme. The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 12. diuis. 1. &. 2. sayth: VVher was that Church then when Ely the Pro­phet so lamentably and bitterly made his mone, that only himselfe was left of all the whole world, who did duely and truly worship God? And M. Iewel in Defe. Apol. part. 4. c. 4. diuis. 2. Elias thought all the godly in Israel had byn slaine and not one left aliue. D. Fulke ad Cauillat. Stapletoni: It sell to Elias, that he seemed to be left alone of all the number of the Godly, which sincerely worshipped God. M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Eccles. policy pag. 126: He tooke it as though there had not byn remayning in the world any besides himselfe, that caryed a true and an vpright hart towards God, with care to serue him according vnto his holy will. D. Sutclife lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 6. pag. 95: The church in Elias his dayes did seeme to him so de­stroyed, that he thought he had byn left alone. D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 476: Elias thought the whole Church of the saythfull was perished in his tyme. Elias belieued that none remayned besides himselfe. Elias thought that he alone was left a true worshipper of God. And pag. 475: Elias sayd that he was alone left the true seruant of God. I dispute not now, how falsly they impose vpon Elias this blas­phemous opinion of the church perishing or destru­ction, only I note, how vnder the name and autho­rity [Page 115] of that great Prophet, they teach that the church may perish, which sometymes they are ashamed to auouch in their owne names.

9. Moreouer they teach, that the Church may consist of one or two, which is in effect and in other words to say, that it may perish. Luther lib. de notis Eccles. tom. 7. fol. 148: Protestāts Chu [...]c [...] may [...] of [...] child This is called the Christian socie­ty, & it is necessary that there be alwayes such men in the world albeit of them there be only two or three, or children alone. Are­tius in locis part. 3. fol. 50: Any number, though neuer so small, sufficeth to the Church for extern [...]ll matters. Iuniu [...] cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 16: Of any number. Two men ordered towards God are a Church. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: It is false, which he sayth, that two men cannot make a Church. And pag. seq he graunteth that Protestants teach that ech man is a seuerall Church. And pag. 478: Of two only. If in the most forlorne tymes of the Church there be one or another faythfull seruant of God, it is inough. If one or two. Which also Bucanus saith loc. 41. de Eccles. sect. 14. Nay Luther in cap. 7. Gen. tom. 7. fol. 107. sayth: If I were the only man in the whole world who did hold the word, I alone should be the church. Of one alone. And Riuet. in Epitom. Cont. tract. 1. sect. 27. The Church subsisteth in euery one of her members. Finally they think, Protestāts belieue not the cōtinuāce of their Church. that their Church and religion shall not alwayes endure. For thus Luther writeth in cap. 2. Mathae [...] tom. 4. fol. 438: VVe cannot comfort our selues so as the Pa­pists do, with that consolation, that the Church shall not perish. For whersoeuer we cast our eyes we are diuersly terrified, the fu­ry of Satan and the world is extreme, wherewith he endeauou­reth to extinguish this doctrine. But the Popes boast, and that with full mouth, that the Church shall not perish. In cap. 55. Isaiae fol. 226: There is danger least it shortly fall out, that the word be againe taken from vs. Tom. 3. in psalm. grad. fol. 489. alias 508: The Pope obstinatly keepeth those promises, with [Page 116] which Christ did comfort his followers, that he would be with them to the end of the world. That S. Peters boat althought it be in danger, shall neuer be drowned. But the true (Protestāt) Church to which alone that was sayd, doth not so belieue that, nor so cheare vp her selfe with the trust of those promises. Kem­nice in locis part. 1. tit. de Iustificat. pag. 216: I often tremble that Luther oftentymes (I know not with what abode) repeateth those words, This doctrine after my death shall be dar­kened againe. The Confession of Mansfeld: It is euident what shall follow at length, to wit, a horrible destruction of pure doctrine, which suddenly we shall leese beyond all expectation. The Magdeburgians Praefat. Cent. 5: The reuealed truth is already peri [...]hed, and that vpon the suddaine, what re­mayneth but vtter abolition of true religion? Caluin in his Catechism: I am so doubtfull touching posterity, that I scarce dare thinke thereof. Author Praefat. in Syntag. Confess: VVe haue cause to feare, that matters will returne to the darke­nesse of former tymes. And Paraeus in Miscellanca Vrsini pag. 39. sayth, that all good and wise men do easily perceiue, that there hangeth ouer their heads some dreadfull night and darcknesse. M. Iewell in his ser­mon in cap. 1. Aggaei: This Ghospell which ye now loath, shall be taken from you. D. Whitaker cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 503: That which he sayth that neither Lutherans nor Zuinglians nor Caluinists shall last euer, is vncertaine. And lastly D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 31. sayth: Protestants say not, that their Church cannot faile: Thus ye see that Protestants cannot comfort themselues that their Church shall not perish, that they do not be­lieue that they shall not be drowned, that a horrible destruction and vtter abolition of their doctrine is to follow, that they dare scarce thinke of posterity, that it is vncertaine whether they are to last for euer, and that they belieue not that their Church cannot faile.

Consider now diligently (good reader) First how not few but very many Protestant writers haue confessed that their Church and religion was then 1 perished when Luther began. Secondly, Note. that not 2 obscure writers, but the most famous amongst them. Thirdly, that they haue not seldome confessed it, 3 but oftentymes. Fourthly, that not in obscure or generall termes only, but in plaine and most parti­culer 4 words. Lastly, that not only in their contenti­ous writings against their aduersaries, or in their sermons to the people (in which speaches some vse to speake hyperbolicaly) but also in their most sober and temperate writings, as in those wherin they de­liuer their doctrine or relate histories, in their com­mentaries vpon the scripture, in their Confessions of fayth, and in their speaches vnto God himself. Be it so, that one or two, or some few in heat of conten­tion should haue hyperbolically sayd, that their church and religion was perished without meaning so. But that so many, and so great masters, so often, and in so many kinds of writings, so plainly and so particulerly, should say that their Church and reli­gion was perished, and yet not meane so; cannot be sayd, vnlesse we will graunt that so many & so great Maisters of Protestants in so great a matter haue de­ceiued their Readers, and haue written one thinge and meant another, and that their meaning is not to be gathered out of their owne most frequent and most plaine words, vttered in all kinds of writings, but out of our fancie and pleasure. Scorp. c. 12. VVhat (as Tertul­lian sayth) meane they otherwise then they write, masters of deceit not of truth?

10. If any demaund, how it came to passe, that Protestants should so often and so plainly say, [Page 118] that their Church and religion was perished before Luther appeared, Wherfor Protestāts say their Church was peri­shed. I answeare, that there were many causes thereof. First because it was so euident, that their Church and religion was not at all when Lu­ther began, that (as themselues haue confessed) they cannot deny it. It cannot be denyed. If any deny it he may be con­uinced. 1 All men must confesse it. The matter it selfe proclaimeth and proueth it. Num. 1.4.5.7. And finally that it is manifest both to learned and vnlearned. Secondly, they sayd so for to moue men to 2 hate the Pope and Papists, whome they affirmed to 3 haue destroyed the fayth and Church. Thirdly, for to purchase the loue of the people, as who had re­stored to them againe the Church and Religion. 4 Fourthly, they sayd so for to excuse their preaching and playing the Pastours without ordinary calling, as if forsooth when they began, there had byn no church which could giue them cōmission. Finally, 5 as phrantike men so Protestants sometymes are in good fittes, in which they see and confesse the truth. But at other tymes when Catholiks out of this peri­shing and destruction of their Church and religion do inferre, that it is not the Church or religion of Christ, Matth. 16. against which (as he hath promised) the gats of hell shall not preuaile, but some other Church & religion either first began by Luther, or else restored and renowed by him after that it was substantially perished and destroyed; then they mollify and glose their former sayings, deuise strange & violent senses of their words, and euery way seeke out shiftes and sleights whereby they may auoyd the force of their owne testimonies, which we shall rehearse and re­fute in the next chapter.

The Protestants shiftes for to delude their foresayd Confessions touching the substantiall decay of their Church and Religion refuted. CHAP. II.

1. ALBEIT the foresayd confessions of the Pro­testants touching the substantiall decay of their Church and religion before Luther arose, be so plaine and euident, as we may well say with Tertul­lian: VVho will not acknowledge these rather then expound thē? De Resur. c. 21. Yet because the obstinacy of heretiks is so great, as it may be sooner ouercome then persuaded, & is wont to seek out all shifts to auoyd the force euen of their owne words, I will heare set downe their shifts and confute them.

2. Their first shift is, Their first shift. that the forenamed Pro­testants by the words of fayth, religion, and the like, when they say that they perished, did not meane the inward fayth of the heart, as if no man in his heart had held the Protestant fayth or religion, but only the outward profession thereof, and so meane only, that the outward profession of Protestancy was pe­rished, or that none professed it. I graunt indeed, that somtyme they speake of outward profession of faith, but this commeth all to one purpose. That they say in­ward faith perished. Because the profession of faith can no more perish in the church, then the fayth it selfe, as hereafter we shall proue by the confessions of Protestants themselues. But that they speake not also of the inward fayth, or of fayth it selfe, is most false. First, because they say so with­out 1 all proofe, neither can they proue it otherwise [Page 120] then because perhaps the same Protestants haue o­ther where sayd the contrary, which kind of proofe we hereafter shew to be nothing worth. Lib. 2. c. vl. Againe it is 2 credible, vnlesse one will belieue what he list, that by so many words of light, clarity, religion, worship of God, truth of God, Ca. 1. n. 2. 3. sayth, true knowledge, knowledge of fayth, Chri­stian fayth, knowledge of Christ, as they haue vsed and we repeated, they meant not fayth it selfe, but only the 3 outward profession of faith. Besides, they sayd plain­ly, That none belieued to be iustified without workes. That the doctrine of Iustification by sayth, was blotted out of the memory of men, Cap. 1. nu. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 that holesome truth perished from earth, and that it was taken from men, that Christ was buryed and taken out of the world and the Church, that all (Protestant) consolation was vnknowne, that without Luther one iot had not byn knowne, that the knowledge of Christ, the knowledge of sayth, fayled, and last­ly that Christ was not vnderstood but vtterly vnknowne. Which words are manifestly spoken & meant of true or in­ward fayth. I adde also, that it is a rule of ciuil law approued by Luther and Protestants, Luther de abrog mis. & epist, ad Amsd. Schusselb. tom. 4. Ca­tal. haeret. that who cold speak clearely, and yet spake obscurely, should haue his words expounded against him. Seeing therefore Protestants could haue spoken farre more clearly, if they had meant only that outward professiō of faith had perished, we may lawfully expound their words against themselues.

3. To this shift is another like, wherewith they say that the foresayd testimonies of Protestants touching the destruction or decay of their Church are not to be vnderstood of their inuisible Church, The secōd shift. which they say is the company of only true fayth­full and predestinate men, but of the decay of their visible Church, which they say is the company of al those that professe true doctrine, and is the Church [Page 121] not in the sight of God, but only in the eyes of men. I do not deny, that sometymes they speake of the vi­sible Church, notwithstanding (as before I sayd) it comes all to one purpose, because (as shall be proued hereafter) there can be no inuisible Church without a visible, nor a company of faythfull and predesti­nate men, but they must professe their fayth. The Pro­testāts say the true Church hath peri­shed. But most false it is, that they speake not also of the true Church, which they will haue to be inuisible to any but to God alone. For first (as before I argued) this cannot be proued otherwise, then that perhaps the same men haue at other tymes sayd the contrary, 1 which will proue, that they like lyers haue contra­dicted themselues, not, that they haue not sayd this, which they haue as clearly sayd, as euer they sayd a­ny thing else. Besides, in saying (according to their 2 meaning) that the Church hath not perished or can­not perish, they do not indeed cōtradict themselues, when they say that it hath or can perish. For when they say, that the Church cannot perish, by the name of the Church, they vnderstand not the Catholike Church, that is, the Church spread throughout the world: Cap. 1. n. [...]. for (as we saw) they teach that the Church may consist or be reduced to one or two, and that Elias thought there was none of the Church but himselfe. Whereupon D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 608: findeth fault with Cardinall Bellarmine, when he sayth that there is alwayes a visible Church, by the name of the Church he vnderstandeth not one or two, but a multitude. Neither also do they by the name of the Church, when then say it cannot perish, vnderstand any true parti­culer Church consisting of a Pastour and flock, as is euident; both because they say the Church may be reduced to one or two, as also because (as shall here­after [Page 122] appeare) they thinke that all Pastors may pe­rish; Cap. 7. and lastly because D. Whitaker loc. cit. repre­hendeth Bellarmine for that by the name of the Church which cannot faile, he vnderstandeth a multitude gathered toge­ther, in which are Prelates and subiects. They are therefore of opinion, that both the Catholike Church spred through out the world, and euery particuler church consisting of Prelates and subiects, may faile and pe­rish; and when they say the Church cannot faile, by the name of the Church, they vnderstand fayth; and meane, that there shall alwayes be fayth in some one or other, as clearly appeareth by their former words, and also by these of D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag. 469: What Protestāts meane by the church whē they say it can­not perish. Hence he gathereth, not as our aduersaries do, that the vi­sible Church shall neuer saile, but that sayth shall neuer saile in the whole, but that to the end of the world Christian religion shal remayne in some. This (sayth he) is the very thing which we say & maintaine. Ye see plainly, that when they say the church cannot faile, they only meane that fayth can­notvtterly faile, but that it shall be alwayes in some. Wherein there is no contradiction to that which o­therwise they teach, that the Church can faile, be­cause fayth and the Church are different things; nei­ther doth fayth in whome soeuer, and in how few soeuer, make the Church. Wherefore if they be mad men and no Christians, who say that the Catholike Church may faile, or that the Church is not to dure for euer (as D. Whitaker himselfe sayth cap. 1. & 2. cit.) certainly these Protestants are such. For whiles they say, that the Church may be brought to one or two, and that all Pastors may perish; they manifest­ly say indeed and effect, that both the Catholike and all kind of true Churches may faile. Moreouer I 3 proue, that they meane that the true Church was [Page 123] perished, because they think that she is made by in­ward fayth; but this they affirme to haue perished, as euen now appeared. Besides, the very name of the 4 Church properly signifieth the true Church, and only improperly that which is not the true Church. And therefore when it is simply and absolutely put, it ought to be taken for the true Church; which thing also themselues do teach. For thus writeth Sa­deel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. cap. 4. pag. 827: VVhen the Church is simply put, or when it is sayd the Church of Christ, it properly signifieth only the elect. Hereupon also Kemnice in loc. tit. de Eccles. cap. 3. defineth the Church to be the Catholike company. But the Catholike company is the true Church, as is euident by the Creed, where we professe to belieue the Catholike Church, and is confessed by D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest. 1. cap. 2. & 5. by D. Morton Apol. part 1. l. 1. cap. 13. by Lubbert lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 4. by the French Catechisme Do­min. 15. and others. And therefore most rightly saith S. Augustin, that it is a wicked, impudent, detestable, De vni [...]. Bapt. c. 14. Conc. 2. in Psal. 101. and abominable speach to say the Church hath perished; which yet would not be, vnlesse by the name of the Church were vnderstood the true Church. For what offence were it to say, that the false Church had perished? Furthermore, when heretikes as the Donatists, Calu. cont. Seruet. pa. 657. Whitak. Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. & 3. Ser­uetus, and the like, do say that the Church was perished or banished, the Protestants themselues vnderstand thē of the true Church; why then ought not Protestants to be vnderstood in the same manner, when they vse the same words? Againe, because sometymes they say, that the Kingdome of Christ, the temple of God hath peri­shed. Cap. 1. n. 7. But what can be the Kingdome of Christ and temple of God, but the true Church, for the false is rather the Kingdome and temple of Satan? Where­upon [Page 124] D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 3. cap. 1. pag. 466. sayth: The scriptures most plainly teach, that there will be no end of the Kingdome of Christ. And ad Demonstrat. 17. Sanderi: VVhat other thing is the temple of God, but the Church of Christ, which is built with liuely stones? And M. Powell lib. 1. de Antichristo cap. 3: The Church is defi­ned 1. Tim. 3. to be the temple of God. Hereto we may add, that Ochim sayth, that that Church which Christ foun­ded, washed with his bloud, & enriched with his holy spirit, (which vndoubtedly is the true Church) was vtterly destroyed. Num. 8. Finally because they say, that Elias thought that there was not remayning one pious man besides himselfe, that he was the only Christian, the only true worshipper of God, which was left aliue, and actuall member of the true Church. Seing therfore they will make Elias to thinke so of the true church, of the same also ought themselues to be vnderstood, who vse to draw arguments out of Elias his words; especially when as they say, that it sufficeth if there be one or two faythfull men in the most forlorne tymes of the Church, which they must needs meane of the true Church which they will haue to consist only of the faythfull seruants of God.

That they meane of the vni­uersall Church.4. Their third shift may be, that when they speake of the destruction of the Church, they meane not of the vniuersall or whole Church, but of some particuler, or part of the Church. But this is easily refuted. First because (as we haue rehearsed) they say there was a slaughter of the whole Church, that all the Church was corrupted, all became idolatrous, that scarce the name of Christianity was left, that none belieued, that not one iot of the ghospell had byn knowne without Luther, that the whole know­ledge of Christ, all pure worship, all true religion was abolished. Secōdly because vnder the name of Elias they plain­ly [Page 125] say, that the whole Church was extinct, the whole Church failed, he alone was a faythfull man, Num. 8. and actuall member of the true Church. Wherefore either they thinke it not blas­phemy to say the whole Church hath perished, or this horrible blasphemy which calleth in question all religion, they most impiously attribute to that holy Prophet. Thirdly, because they say that their Church was brought to one or two, and that it is inough to the Church, if there be one or two faythfull persons. But what man well in his wittes will say, that one or two are inough to make the Catholike or vniuersall church. Finally, this shall yet more appeare out of the chap­ter following, where we shall see, that they teach that the whole world did fall from the fayth.

5. Their fourth shift is, That they meane of a substan­tiall peri­shing. that by the words Destruction, decaying, failing, ouerthrowing, and such o­thers, they meane not a substantiall perishing of the fayth or Church, but only an accidentall corruption of becomming worse. But this shift also is soone re­futed. First because Luther sayth of his fayth, 1 do­ctrine or ghospell, that it dyed, was neglected, ouerwhel­med, extinct, blotted out, taken away, ouerthrowne, lost, Cap. 2. n. [...]. aboli­shed, forgotten, and rooted out. And that he might put it out of all doubt, that by these words he meant a true and substantiall destruction or perishing, he added vnto them most significant aduerbes, saying that it was truly ouerwhelmed, wholy extinct, vtterly extinct, Ib. extinct from the bottome, plainly extinct, plainly taken away, simply taken away, quite taken away, vtterly buryed, vtterly lost, wholy abolished, and blotted out, and most plainly rooted out. And least any one might also cauill that these words are not meant of a true and substantiall destruction, he sayd further, that the Pope hath obscured, nay extinguished the doctrine of fayth: They haue darckned, nay wholy ouerwhel­med [Page 126] Christs Ghospell: They haue not only obscured, but absolu­tely taken away the ghospell. Lib. 1. de peccat. mer. c. 4. Surely (as S. Augustin sayth) such kind of words needs no Expositor but only a reader. In like sort other Protestants say of their fayth or ghospell, that it was banished, cast out, extinct, ended, choaked, buryed, obscured till it was vtterly extinguished, Num. 2.3. that it perished from the earth, and vanished out of the Church. They add also, that it was wholy ouerturned, vtterly extinct, quite changed into idolatries, ouerturned from the root, and that there was an vtter abolition, an extreme salling away, and full destruction of it, so that not so much as one litle sparke could be sound, but it was quite extinct, & scarce the name of Christianity was left.

6. Besides of their principall and most fun­damentall article of Iustification by only fayth they say, C. 1. n. 4. 5. 6. that lay long vnknowne, that there was profound silence of it, that no man taught it, that it was neglected, lost, blotted out, extinct, and horribly opprest, that it was corrupted, nay extinct and abolished, that no man belieued it, that it was vtterly ex­tinct, plainly lost, quite lost, wholy suppressed, wholy oppressed, wholy trampled, wholy dasht out, vtterly blotted out, quite ex­tinct, quite taken away, quite neglected and blotted out of the memory of men, and not only obscured but quite extinguished. But if this doctrine were so extinct as no man be­lieued it, and blotted out of mens memory, surely not only the Profession of their fayth but also their fayth it selfe was vtterly perished; and consequent­ly also their Church, whereof this article is the life, soule, summe, definition, and all.

Num. 7.7. Of the Church also they say, that it was banished fayled, was oppressed, extinct, ouerturned, fallen, wholy fallen, that it fell to Antichrist, that the old foundation thereof was remoued, and a new layd, that the order of the Church pe­rished, that there was a slaughter of the whole Church, that Christs Kingdome was throwne downe & razed to the ground, [Page 127] that in the temple of God there was nought but pittifull ruines, that the Church was from the foundation rooted out and ouer­throwne by the ground, and that where it once was there remay­ned only the name, the substance being quite lost. Surely either by these manner of speaches is signified a substantiall destruction, or that cannot be plainly signifyed by any manner of words. Besides the formes of speach do more clearly signify a substantial destruction, thē those which Protestants condemne in some heretiks. For Caluin lib. cont. Seruetum pag. 657. condemneth Seruet for saying, that there had byn a long banishment of the Church from the earth, and that she had byn driuen out of the world. And yet as we see Danaeus sayth, that the Church was banished. Powell, that all true religion was ba­nished. D. Fulke, that the true doctrine of saluation was driuen out. An [...] Crispin, that all true worship of God was driuen out D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 471. and otherwhere, condemneth the Donatists and other Heretikes for saying, that the Church perished; and yet Bale sayth that holesome truth perished from the earth. And Lobechius vnder Elias his name, that the Church quite perished. Moreouer they say, that the Church may be reduced to one or two, which is indeed to say that the Church may substantially perish, Num. 8. for the Church is defined to be a company or multitude in the English Confession article 19. That the Church cannot consist of one. in the French art. 27. in the Suitzers art. 17. and in the Flemish art. 27. But one or two are not a company. Whereupon Da­naeus lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 16. sayth: It is written of Vlpia [...] the Lawyer in the ciuill law, that at least three persons are requi­red to make a Colledge; and if to a Colledge much more to the Church. And Lubbert lib. 2. Replicat. cap. 3. sayth plainly, that one man makes not a Church. And Po­lanus in Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1: One man, though neuer so [Page 128] holy, cannot be a church. Beurlin also in Refut. Soti: Nei­ther do we call the solitude of one man, which worshippeth God, the Church. And D. Whitaker. lib. 1 de Scriptura cap. 11. Sect. 4. How can the Church be in one, seeing the very name of the Church doth signify a company or multitude? If therefore there be but one, there is no Church. For the Church cannot be imagined to be but in many. Iuel. Defēs. Ap. part. x. c. 1. Fulk. de Succes. p. 89. Beza in Catech. c: 5. Brent. in Prolog. q. 4. And much lesse can one or two be the Catholike Church, that is (as the Prote­stants themselues expound it) the Church spred throughout the whole world, because one or two cannot be spred throughout the world. Whereupon the Scots in their Confession cap. 18. say, that two or three make not the vniuersall Church. And Zuinglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. tom. 2. fol. 192: VVho sayes that the Church signifieth some few, erreth, like to him who sayth that people signifieth the King. Surely it should be a notable flock which consisted of one or two sheep, a worthy Kingdome which had but one or two subiects, and a strange Catholike or vniuersall Church which contayned but one or two faythfull persons. What? can the gates of hell preuaile so farre against the Church, as they can reduce her to one or two Chri­stians? What other thing is this, then to say that the Church can perish? For seing the Church cannot be imagined but in company or multitude, who sayth [...]hat the Church can be brought to one or two, doth indeed say the Church can be destroyed.

8. If any reply, that S. Augustin vpon the 128. psalme sayth that the Church was once in Abel alone, and Tertullian. lib. de poenit. cap. 10. the Church is in one or two; I answere, that S. Augustin there by the Church vnderstandeth those only, whome the scri­pture by name hath canonized, as it hath Abel; for otherwise it is manifest, that in Abels tyme, there [Page 129] were others that were of the Church besides him­selfe, to wit Adam and Eue. And Tertullian by the Church vnderstandeth, not the Catholike or vni­uersall Church as we do, but any number of Chri­stians, such as were those domesticall Churches, which S. Paul sometymes saluted.

9. The last refuge may be, that what Prote­stants haue sayd of the destruction of the Church and fayth, they meant not of their owne Church and fayth, but of some others. But this is a fond shift. For first, as I haue shewed, they meane the destruction of the true Church and fayth. Eyther therefore their Church and fayth is not the true but false, or else they meane of their owne. For the true Church and fayth is but one, as the Apostle sayth Ephes. 4: One God, one fayth. And the Nycen Creed: I belieue one church. S. Cyprian lib. de vnit: One God, one Christ, one Church, and one sayth. S. Hilary ad Constant: VVhatsoeuer is be­sides one fayth, is not fayth but treachery. And S. Leo serm. 4. de Natiuit: Vnlesse it be one it is no fayth. Nay Luther lib. cont. Papa [...]um tom. 7. fol. 461: Christ knoweth not two kinds of vnlike Churches, but one only Church. Caluin 4. Inst. cap. 1. §. 2: VVe cannot find two or three churches vnlesse Christ be pluckt in peeces. And in his Catechisme: As there is one head of the faythfull, so they must all be vnited in one body, that there be not many Churches, but one only. And hereupon in­ferreth Sadeel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. art. 61. that what is sayd of the true Church, is sayd of theirs. Seeing (sayth he) the true Church is one and not many, as often as the truth of doctrine shineth openly, so often we say the true Church and ther­fore our Church was visible. Secondly because (as we haue seene) they speake of the destruction of their most principall article of iustificatiō by only faith, which they affirme to be the life, soule, and summe of their [Page 130] Church. Thirdly because they estsoones speake of the destruction of the Ghospell: but by the name of the Ghospell they meane their owne doctrine, as by the name of Gospellers they vnderstand themselues, as hereafter shall appeare. Finally, because they pro­fesse that by the name of a Protestant, Lutheran, or Caluinist they vnderstand a true Christian. Sadeel lib. de peccat. remiss. cap. 1: Ours, that is the true Christian Catholikes opinion. D. Fulke lib. de Succest. pag. 186: I will neuer deny that Iewell was a noble Protestant, that is a Christian. And ad Cauillat, Staplet: The community of Christians, whome ye call Protestants. Hutten in Expostul. cum Erasmo: Against Lutherans, that is maintayners of the truth. Schusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. haeret. Pap. 73: A Lu­theran or true Christian, is &c. And lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. fol. 131: Lutherans that is true seruants of Christ. Beza cont. Illyricum pag. 168: VVe perceiue no difference betweene Sa­cramentaries and Christians. Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 384: The Sacramentaries, that is the orthodoxall. And Danaeus cont. Bellarm. pag. 311: The Caluinists, that is Christians. pag. 169: A Caluinist, that is, a godly man.

10. Wherefore out of all wh [...]ch hath byn sayd in this and the former Chapter, I thus make my first demonstration to proue that Luther was the Author and first beginner of the Protestant Church and religion. If the Protestant Church were not at all when Luther began, he was the author thereof: But it was not at all: Therefore he was the author of it. The Maior or first pro­position is euident. For if it were not at all when Luther began, he was the beginner of it. The minor is manifest by the foresayd Cōfessions of Protestants, wherein they plainly say, that it was substantially perished.

That euery man followed a Church and religion different from the Protestant before Luther arose. CHAP. III.

1. THE second demonstration wherewith we will proue Luther to haue byn haue byn the Author of the Protestant Church and religion we will take from the Protestants confessions, that whē Luther first began all the world and euery man im­braced a different religion. Luther in the Preface of his first come: Here see euen by my case, The whole world. how hard it is to yet out of errours which are confirmed by the example of the whole world, and by long custome as it were changed into nature. And to. 2. this is written in his Epitaph: O Christ, Long custome. he shewed th [...]e when all the world was ouerwhelmed with darkenesse. And lib. 1. de captiuit. Babylon. fol. 72. being to write a­gainst Masse, he sayth: Neither let it moue thee, that the whole world hath the contrary opinion and custome. And fol. 68: There is almost this day nothing more receiued or more se [...] ­led in the Church, then that Masse is a sacrifice Again [...]: So many ages I set vpon a thing, which being approued by the custome of so many ages and consent of all, is so ingrafted, as it is needfull to change almost the whole face of the Church. Consent of all. And lib. de [...]r [...]g. Miss. fol. 244: How often did my trembling hart quake, and reprehending me obiected that their strongest and only argument: Art thou only wise, what did all erre, Only Lu­ther wise, were so many ages ignorant? Behold how Luthers heart or conscience did tell him that he alone knew Protestancy, and that for many ages all were ignorant of it. And in hi [...] ta­ble talkes, fol. 10: These cogitations were very troublesome [Page 132] to me. Thou only hast the pure word of God, all others want it. And lib. cit. de Missa [...]ol. 247: The common people without doubt are most fully persuaded, that all men are holpen by Masses, for it seemeth incredible, that all the world should be so forsaken of God. And fol. 256: It seemes incredible to them, that Lu­ther alone should be wise. Contra Cochlaeum fol. 408: The Sophisters and Monks haue seduced the whole world to trust in works. The whole world vn­der the Pope. Tom. 3. in psal. 82. fol. 481: In tymes past the whole world was vnder the Popes Dominion. Tom. 5. [...]n 4. Galat. fol. 388: In former ages Paul was vnknown to the whole world. Tom. 6. in cap. 11. Genes. fol. 130: The wicked impostour (so he termeth the Pope) hath deceiued all the word. in c. 37. fol. 506: The whole world was horribly brought into madnes and solly by Papists. In cap. 19 fol. 238: In the former age all things lay in darknesse. Tom. 7. epist. ad D. Sabaudiae fol. 483: VVe confesse that the world was by the Pope most miserably seduced & ensnared in those traditions of men, but rather snares of the deuill, whiles all were persuaded that in keeping them they obtayned saluation, in omitting them sell into damnation And serm. de Simulacris fol. 277: All the world was filled with the other abuse of images: For who would (haue put images in Churches) if thereby he had not thought that he did seruice to God. Thus much Luther.

2. And in like manner speake the Lutherans. The Confession of Auspurg. cap. 20: No man admoni­shed of the difference betwixt humane traditions and Gods law, no man taught how good works did please. The Magdebur­gians Praefat. Centur. 5: All alike were drowned in the im­pieties and Aegiptian darknesse of Antichrist. All alike. And Praefat. Centur. 8: Antichrist had brought vnder his yok all Europe that we may (say they) speake nothing of other parts of the earth. All Europe. Melancthon tom. 4. Prefat. in Act. Ratisbon. pag. 730: Only Luther durst touch the errours of the Popes & schooles. Our Churches follow him rather then the consent of so many ages, [Page 133] Popes and schooles. Lobechius disput. 29: The Roman ty­ranny hath ouerwhelmed the Church and held the Christian world in thraldome. Huber. in Antibellarm. lib. 4. The Christian world. cap. 3. Our Church hath a new forme not vsed at that tyme when the Pope possessed all. Morgestern tract. de Eccles. pag. 145: The whole Christian world knoweth that before Luther all chur­ches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cymmerian darknesse. All churches. Hitherto the Lutherans.

3. Amongst the Sacramentaries Caluin 2. Institur, cap. 2. §. 4: All, All euē to the com­mon peo­ple. euen to the common people are em­b [...]ed with this principle that man hath free will. Lib. 4. cap. 18. §. 18: The Abomination of Masse profered in a golden cuppe hath made so drunke all Kings and people of the earth from the highest to the lowest that they put the whole hope of their sal­uation in it alone. Al people on earth from the highest to the lowest Which very words are repeated by Lobechius disput. 26. and by Hospin. epist. dedicat. 1, part: Histor. and part. 2. fol. 25. And the sayd Cal­uin lib. 4. cit. cap. 10. §. 5: The whole world was couered with a most thick mist of ignorance. And lib. de Coen. pag. 10: VVith how thick a mist of darknes was the world beseiged. Againe: VVhen Luther began to teach he so handled the matter of the supper, as that, what belongeth to the corporall presence, he seemed to leaue such as all then receiued. And lib. de Necess. Reform. pag. 46: It is manifest that the whole world was bewitched with these wicked opinions before Luther appeared. The whole world. And Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 130: All things were stuft with pernicious errours. There was none which truly esteemed that only sacrifice (of Christ) none which so much as dreamed of his eternall Priesthood and the intercession which dependeth thereupon, none rested in his only iustice. No mā so much as dreamed of &c. But now whereas all did put their trust in good works when they went about by good words to purchase thy (God he speaketh to) grace, to ob­taine iustice, to purge their sinnes, to satisfy thee. All which (sayth he) do dash out and annihilate the vertue of the crosse of [Page 134] Christ. Respons. ad Ve [...]pel. pag. 354: Seeing the whole VV [...]sterne hurch as he calles it defendeth obstinatly all the ini­piety which we iustly detest &c. All the we [...]terne Church. And epist. 141: VVe are comp [...]en to make a separation from the whole world. Bucer lib. [...]0 v [...] [...]su Ministerij pag. 602: It is plaine, that for many ages past God reuealed to no nation the doctrine of our sal­uation, and all things belonging to his Kingdome so farre as he h [...] d [...] in our age: L [...]b. de Concord. pag. 660: This error of the reall presence preuailed with all Nations of the whole world. D. [...] [...]it. de Antichristo cap. 26: At length an­tichrist and his doctrine ouercame, all men holding their peace & shamefully and basely submitting themselues vnto him vntill Iohn V [...]i [...]l [...]s arose who stoutly opposed himselfe against him. S [...]eidan ep [...]t. [...]ed [...] H [...]tor: The beginning (of Protestancy) was slender and almost contemptible, One only man. and one only bare the ha­ [...] and brunt of the whole world. Bibliander Orat. ad P [...] o [...]e [...] Germ: VVe put it as a thing knowne by it selfe most cleare and out of all doubt, Al people from the first to the last. that after Gregory the great his death the Pope of Rome was Antichrist, who with his abom na­tions bl [...]sphemies and idolatries did so besot all Kings and people from the first to the last, that they became more blockish then [...]rute beasts Z [...]inglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de E [...]char: The whole body of Christen­dome. I think no man will deny this that we all ran to masse as to a sacred refuge. Daniel Camier. epist. 49: Errour pos­sessed no [...] one or two small parcels, but Apostasy turned the very whole body away from Christ. Hospin. Praefat. part. 2. Hi­sto [...]: None stroue against From Gregories tyme no man stroue against superstition, but all added and put to what strength each one could. And ep. dedicat. part. [...]: This most grosse and more then Cymmerian darknesse endured in the whole Christian world these 6. hundred years last past. Viretus in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 224: The whole Christian Nation The whole Christian Nation. vtterly bewitched as it were with sor­ceries and alienated from God and true religion &c. Praefat. Syntag. Confess: VVhen all was couered with most grosse [Page 135] darknesse of ignorance and idolatry. Gualter. Praefat. Com­ment. Epist. ad Rom: In the point of the reall presence the whole Christian world was greatly deceiued. And Praefat. in [...]om. 2. Zuinglij: The whole world was before bewitched with trust in outward signes. Iezler de bello Euchar. fol. 24: The former age was euery where drowned in most thick darknesse which no man in his witts can deny. Brocard in c. 2. Apocal. fol. 41: Al & eue­ry mēber of Christ. VVhen the preaching of the ghospell was al­lowed in Luther and his first onset against the Papacy the know­ledge of Christ was sound missing in all and euery of his mem­bers.

4. Amongst our English Protestants thus speaketh the Author of the Apology of the English Church pag. 38: VVe are indeed departed from him, who we saw had blinded the world for many ages. His Maiesty in his M [...]nitory epistle pag. 37: In those ages a thicker and more blind ignorance of truth possessed the world. Pag. 100: How ma­ny ages was the Christian people held in so great blindnes and ig­norance of holesome doctrine. And pag. 160: A darck night of Popish doctrine possessed the world. D. Wh [...]taker Con [...]. 2. e [...]. 3. pag. 467: The plague (of Popery) at last went through the whole world. Pag. 468: That Antichristians plague raged through all parts of the world, and through all visible Churches. And Cont. 4. quaest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 684: In tymes past no re­ligion had place in Churches but Papisticall. D. Humfrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani: At length all left the fellowship of the Church. M. Perkins in Exposit. Symboli: During the space of 900. yeares the Popish heresy spred it selfe ouer the whole world. And D. White in his way pag. 352. com­pareth Popery before Luthers tyme to a leprosy. which (sayth he) possesseth euery part of man. And in his defence cap. 37 he sayth: I affirme Papacy to be a leprosy breeding in the Church so vniuersally, that there was no visible company of people appearing to the world free [...]om it. And whe­ther [Page 136] any company at all, knowne or vnknowne were free from it wholy or not, I neither determine, nor greatly care. M. Iewel serm. in cap. 11. Lucae pag. 208: VVhen all the world the people Priests and Princes were ouerwhelmed with ignorance, when the word of God was put out of sight: when all schooles, Priests, Bishops, & Kings of the world were sworne to him (the Pope) that whatsoeuer he tooke in hand they should vphold it: VVhen whosoeuer had muttered against him, must straight way haue byn excommunicate & put to most cruel death as Gods ene­my. M. Fox in his Acts p. 391: All the whole world was filled and ouerwhelmed with errors and darknesse. And finally D. Bancroft in his suruey c. 4. pag 60. hath these words: Both the Priests of all sortes and likewise the people became in tyme to be so drowned in the puddles of Popery, all of them together from the toppe to the toe, Al people from the toppe to the toe. forgetting &c.

5. By these confessions of Protestants we see plainly, that all the westerne Church, all Europe, all Christian Churches, the whole Christian nation, the whole body of the Church, the whole world, all, all without exception, all alike, all euen to the last, all euen to the common people, all Kings and people from the first to the last, all Priests and people from top to toe, all and euery one were ouerwhelmed with Po­pish and more then Cymmerian darknesse. Secondly we see, that no man strone against Popery, no man admonished, no man taught, no man belieued, no man so much as dreamed of that which is the cheifest and most principall point of Protestancy, but one only, and Luther alone was wise. Thirdly that the case was such for so many ages, for 600. yea for 900. years last past. Fourthly that it is so manifest, that as themsel­ues confesse the whole Christian world knoweth it, it is con­fessed manifest by it selfe, most cleare, and out of all doubt, and no man in his writtes can deny it. To all which if you add, that very many, and most famous Protestants, of­tentymes, most plainly, most freely, and in all kind [Page 137] of writings haue confessed this, ye shall most eui­dently perceiue, Lib. 1. cont marc. ca. 3. de carne Chr. c. 5. li. 22 cont. Faust. c. 15. that vnlesse it be hereticall licence (as Tertullian speaketh) or by some diuelish priuiledge (as S. Augustins word is) their confessions can be vnder­stood in no other sense, then that when Luther be­gan, there was not one Protestant in the whole world. Lastly we see hereby, that Protestants herein imitate the phrases of old heretiks: Cont. epist. fund. c. 4. for Manichee as S. Augustin writeth sayd: Almost all nations are ignorant how the truth is. And the Donatists: The Church is perished from the whole world. The Luciferians in S. Hierome: Heres. 69. The whole world is become Diuels. Whose damned speach sayth he, doth frustrate the Passion of Christ. Dial. cont. Lucifer. Nestorius in Vincent. Lyrin. auouched. That the whole Church had erred. And other heretiks there say, Learne true fayth which besides vs none vnderstandeth, Cap. 26. which lay hid for many ages and now of late is reuealed and shewed. Marcion also and Valentinian in Tertullian auouch, Praes. c. 28. that all had er­red, at whome he pleasantly iesteth in these words: Forsooth truth which was to be freed expected some Marcionists or Valentinians (Lutherans or Caluinists.) In the meane tyme men preached amisse, belieued amisse, so many thousands we wrongly Christened, so many works of fayth wrongly done, so many miracles so many graces done amisse, so many Priesthoods so many functions wrongly executed.

6. If any say that the scripture sometyme speaketh vniuersally when notwithstanding it is not to be vnderstood vniuersally, as when it sayth: All seeke their owne: There is not one that doth good, no not one, and the like, and therefore though the foresayd spea­ches of Protestants be vniuersall, yet they are not to be vnderstood vniuersally: I answeare, that it is found to affirme, that the foresayd speaches of Prote­stants ought to be vnderstood according to certaine [Page 138] speaches of the scripture, and those spoken of other matters, rather then according to their own plaine and manifest signification. Who made this law of expounding Protestants words? Or do they keep it in expounding Catholiks or other mens wordes? God may speake in scripture as he thinkes best, Pro­testants ought according to custome, (which as is sayd is the law and rule of speach) both to speak and to be vnderstood. Besides, sith we know, that the scripture cannot lye or gainsay it selfe, and in other places it sayth the contrary, we iustly limitate its v­niuersall speaches in this or that place. And therfore vnlesse Protestants can shew that they haue the like priuiledge that they cannot contradict themselues as the Scripture hath, there is no reason to expound them according as we do the holy Scripture.

7. If any reply that also Saint Hierome Dial. cont. Lucifer. sayd that the whole world meruay­led how it was become Arian, and yet meant not that the whole world was Arian? I answeare, that Saint Hieromes example doth nothing auaile Prote­stants. First because Saint Hierome sayd once so, Protestants very often. Againe, he sayd so only in heat of dispute with his aduersary; Protestants haue written so when they disputed with none. Besides, Saint Hierome in the very same place expoundeth himselfe, that he meant not that indeed the whole world was become Arian: For he sayth, that it was euident that the Bishops vvere no Arians, but belieued a right and abode in the agreement of fayth, but only speaketh so because all the Bishops assembled at Arimini yelded to the Arians, that the word Consubstantiall should not be vsed. But Protestants say not that all the world yelded to the Pope about the suppressing of [Page 139] one only word, but that all from the first to the last, from the top to the toe were drowned in Popish errours, and none belieued or so much as dreamed of that which is most fundamentall and necessary in Protestant religion: Which kind of speaches S. Hierome neuer vsed. Againe, Saint Hierome vsed only this phrase: The whole world, but Protestants vse both that and many more and more plaine. Lastly albeit Saint Hierome had spoken altogether as Pro­testants do, yet there were no reason that they should be vnderstood rather according to Saint Hieromes meaning, then according to their owne most pro­per, most plaine, and most frequent words, especial­ly when as Luther sayth tom. 1. fol. 414: Many thinges are borne withall in the Fathers, who were knowne to be ortho­doxe, which we may not imitate.

8. Wherefore out of all which hath byn re­hearsed in this chapter I thus frame my second de­monstration: If so be that before Luther arose there were not one only Protestant in the whole world, but that all & euery man followed a different Religion, Luther was the Author and begin­ner of the Protestant Church and Religion. But that is true, as manifestly appeareth by the manyfold and open confessions of Luther and many and most famous Protestants. Therefore &c.

That Protestants confesse their Church and re­ligion to haue byn altogeather inuisible before Luther appeared. CHAP. IV.

1. THE fourth demonstration, wherewith we will proue Luther to haue byn the Author of the Protestant church and religion we will draw out of that which they confesse of the inuisibility thereof before Luther brake out. And by the way I must aduertise the Reader of two things. The one is, that by the name of the Church is not to be vn­derstood only the men who are of the Church, but their society in religiō wherby they make a church. wherefore those Protestants speake not to the pur­pose, who to excuse the absurdity of their doctrine touching the inuisibility of the Church, say they meane not, that the men, whereof it consisted, were inuisible men; for it sufficeth, that they confesse, that they were inuisible worshippers of God, according to the Protestant manner; or that their society in this kind of worship of God was inuisible. Note. The other point is, that in these kind of questions: VVhether be­fore Luther the Protestant Church were? VVhether it were visi­ble? Colloq. Ba­tisban. Ses. 1.6. 10.17. Iuel. Def. Apol. par. 5. c. 15. d. 1. VVhither it had Pastors? and the like: the Catholiks hold the negatiue part, and Protestants the affirma­tiue, and that it belongeth to the affirmer, to proue what he affirmeth: wherein if he faile, he is ouer­come: and it is not needfull for the denyer to proue his denyall, but is sufficient reasonably to answere the proofes of the affirmer: which if he performe, he [Page 141] hath wonne the cause. As if one like Anaxagoras would say, that there were many worlds besides this: or that such and such things haue byn done in tymes past; he were bound to proue what he sayth, & he that should deny such matters, were not bound to proue his denyall, but only reasonably to answere his aduersaries arguments. And the reason is mani­fest, because for to affirme or belieue any thinge, we must haue reason or proofe thereof: bur for the not belieuing of it, we need no other reason, then to shew that there is no sufficient reason why it should be belieued. Hereupon Luther in his booke against Henry 8. King of England tom. 2. fol. 340 sayd: He must be taught the principles of disputation, who hauing to proue his affirmation, vrgeth his aduersary to proue his denyall. And Vorstins in his Antibellarm. pag. 464: It is inough for the denyer, probably to deny. Wherefore in these kind of questions Protestants ought to be vrged to performe their part, that is, to proue what they affirme, to wit, that before Luthers tyme their Church was, had Pastors, and the like: which if they cannot do, they must needs confesse, that in this debate they haue lost their cause. And they ought not to presse vs to proue, that before Luther their Church was not, had not Pastors &c. Because (as I sayd) herein we are only the defenders and denyers, Tom. 1. fo. 389. 473. and therefore it sufficeth for vs to shew, that no reasons, which the Protestants alledge conuince a reasonable man to be­lieue that there was any such Church before Luther appeared: which if we do, we haue wonne the cause. That the Protestāts Church was inui­sible to strangers. Neuerthelesse, (that I may vse Luthers words in the booke before cited) Albeit it belong not to vs to proue the ne­gatiue, let vs do it.

2. First therefore, touching the inuisibility [Page 142] of the Protestant Church before Luthers tyme, Pro­testants confesse, that it was inuisible to Papists, to enemies, to the world, and to all that were not of it. For thus sayth Sadcel in his Refutation of the 61. ar­ticle pag. 538: VVe deny not that the Godly men lurcked vnder Popish darknesse; and we giue God thanks, that such persons, fa­milies, Inuisible to Papists. and companies, were for a tyme inuisible and vnknowne to the Pope and all his Catchpoles, seing they were for a long tyme like sparckles couered with much ashes. The same he sayth in his answere to Arthur cap. 8. and to the Sophismes of Turrian loco 10. and to the Repetition of them pag. 706. Danaeus in his booke of Antichrist cap. 38. wri­teth: That there were very few Protestants and those dwelling in wildernesses, and also vnknowne to others. vnknown to others. Iunius in his 4. booke of the Church cap. 5. speaketh thus of Prote­stants before Luther: They professed their sayth amongst themselues, but not before dogges & wild beasts who would runne vpon them. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quaest. 2. cap. 2. pag. 458. VVas it (the Protestant Church) manifest to all? No: but to those only who had eyes. And pag. 468: There was no true Church on earth, Knowne only to Protestāts which appeared to all. And quest. 6. cap. 2. pag 359: VVe care not for their obiecting solitude vnto vs. For we are not ashamed to haue recalled our Church out of this kind of solitude. D. Fulke to the Cauillations of Stapleton: The whole forme of the Church was for some ages vnknowne to the vngratefull world. And in his booke of succession pag. 118: They confessed Christ, but not alwayes before heretiks; but before them [...]elues and the Church. And in his notes vpon the 11. cap. of the Acts; If by visible you vnderstand that which is seene and knowne to the whole world; it is not true, that the Church was alwayes visible. D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology booke 1. cap. 16. sayth: They professed secretly not publikely. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 95: That they professed among [Page 143] themselues. Osiander in his Manuel pag. 59: In the visible Church of Rome there was the inuisible company of belieuers hid­den to the eye of the world. Caelius secundus Curio in his booke of the lardgnes of the Kingdome of God, pag. 212: It came to passe that for many yeares the Church lay hid; and that the Cittizen of this Kingdome could scarce, or not at all be discerned from others. And the Scots in their generall confession: VVe say, that this is the only true Christian sayth, which is now reuealed to the world. Thus they acknowledg that before Luthers tym Protestants were vnknown to the Pope and his officers, to their enemies, to the world, to all others besides themselues, could not be discerned from others, lurcked in desertes, in dark­nesses, like sparkles vnder much ashes, professed not their fayth before the world, or their aduersaries, but at most before themselues, and were known on­ly to those that had eyes, that is, to themselues.

3. The same also they meane, They teach that the church may be inuisible to the world. when they teach that the church of God may be inuisible to the world, and all that are out of it. Iunius in his 2. book of the church cap. 13: VVe conclude that the outward forme and visible shape of the Church, may so in common vanish, that it cannot be pointed at, or perceiued of the world. And againe: The Church is oftentymes couered and inuisible to the world. Often inuisible to the world. And cap. 16: The visible fashion of the Church may be hid and faile from the vngratefull world. And in his Theologicall Theses cap. 43: Sometymes the church appeareth to the faith­full alone; sometymes it is knowne to some godly persons, not to euery one. Besnage in his booke of the state of the visi­ble and inuisible Church, cap. 4: The Church is not al­wayes knowne to the world. Sonis in his answere to Spondé cap. 2. pag. 32: God sometymes taketh away the face of the Church from men. Lubbertus in his 3. booke of the Church cap. 4: VVe affirme that the Church may be [Page 144] driuen to those straights, that it may lye hid from the world and persecutors. And cap. 6: VVe deny that she is alwayes visible to the world; which he repeateth againe cap. 7. Riuet in his Epirome of Controuersies treatise 1. sect. 37: It happeneth sometymes that the Church hath byn inuisible, or rather hidden sometymes from the eyes of persecutors, sometymes from the eyes of the faythfull themselues, to wit of some and the most of them. D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: VVe say, that the Church may be conserued in so few, that it appeare not to the world. And quaest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: It is most false, that the Church shall alwayes be knowne, and manifest to the world. D. Fulke to Stapletons Cauil­lat. Bullinger, Alphonse, Chytreus, Marlorate and all the rest, do acknowledge that the Church by the defence of Christ shalbe protected in the desert, that is in places remote from the sight and accesse of the wicked. Againe: The Church is not alwayes ap­parent to the multitude of the wicked. And in his booke of Succession pag. 19: It is not doubted, whether the Ecclesiasti­call succession of persons and places ought sometymes to be visible to the world, but whether at all tymes. And pag. 21: Sometyms the Church is vnknowne to the world. Pag. 42: God would sometymes prouide for the Church in this sort, in striking her e­nemies with blindnes, that they could not find her. And pag. 129. The externall policy of the Church is vnknowne to the world, that is, to the enemies of the Church. And pag. 366: I affirme that the Church is sometymes vnknowne to the world. D. White in his way to the Church pag 86: The que­stion is only of the outward state of the Church, whether it be al­way visible to the world or not, that in euery age those congrega­tions may be discerned and pointed to, which are the true Church; For we say not. Pag. 87: This number may be very small, and their profession so secret amongst themselues, that the world, and such as loue not the truth shall not see them, they remayning so hidden, as if they were not at all. And pag. 97. The Church [Page 145] may be hid or become inuisible sometyme, so that the world can­not see it. D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology, lib. 1. cap. 16: Protestāts proper defence. Protestants say the Church is not alwayes knowne to all the faythfull, nor to her enemies. And this he termeth the proper defence of Protestants. And cap. 13: VVhen Prote­stant say, the Church is sometymes ecclipsed like the moone, they meane that she is brought sometymes to so sew, that it is not seene but of those, which are in her, but not openly knowne by her visibility, rites, or visible Succession, or to all the faythfull: D. Willet in his Synopsis Cont. 2 quest. 1. pag. 67: A num­ber of faythfull people hath byn alwayes in the world, but not al­wayes visible to the world. Againe; If by visible they vnderstand that which is actually visible, we say it is not so alwayes visible to the world. Thus we see that for to maintaine the inui­sibility of their Church, they teach that the visible forme of the Church of God may vanish, mayly hid, may faile from the world, is often taken away from men by God, is vnknowne to the world. That the Church sometymes is vnknowne or appeares not vi­sible to the world, sometyme knowne only to the faythfull, & yet not to all them neither, but to some and the fewer of them, and that neither, by any visi­ble rites, nor by visible succession, and that this kind of doctrine they terme the proper defence of Prote­stants, to wit, for to defend the inuisibility of their Church before Luther. Which kind of defence hath neither truth nor probability, and though it had, yet would it not suffice to defend the inuisibility of their Church before Luthers tyme, when it was in­uisible not only to the world, to enemies, to straun­gers, to some or most of the faythfull; but to all and euery one, as shall manifestly appeare hereafter.

4. If any say, that it is no meruayle if Pro­testants teach that their Church was inuisible to the [Page 146] world, because the true Church cannot be seene but by fayth: I answeare, first that this supposeth their Church to be the true Church, which ought not to be supposed, but proued. Secondly that they teach, that the Church may be vnknowne, not only to the world, but also to some or most of the faythfull. Lastly that the true Church may be knowne two wayes, one way to be the true Church of God, an other to be knowne distinctly from all other Chur­ches; The true Church discerned from all other Churches euen by Infidels. as Christ was knowne to be the Messias only by his disciples, but yet he was knowne distinctly from all other men by the Iewes. And the scripture is knowne to be the word of God only by Christi [...]ns, but is knowne distinctly from other writings by In­fidels. And in Christs tyme his company was known to be the true Church of God, only by the faythfull, but knowne distinctly from all other companies or Churches euen by Infidels. And the same we say of his Church from his tyme vnto our dayes, that it is and euer was knowne to be the true Church of God, only of the faythfull, but known and seene distinct­ly from all other Churches euen by the world & In­fidels. And of his kind of knowledge and visibility, wherewith the true Church is knowne and visible not only to the faythfull, but euen to Infidels, and of the opposite ignorance or inuisibility we speake in this matter, and Protestants also, as appeareth by their testimonies already rehearsed, & shall yet more by those which we shall repeat hereafter.

That they say their Church was sim­ply inuisi­ble.5. Further more therefore Protestants do not only teach that their Church may and hath byn in­uisible respectiuely; that is, to this or that kind of men, (as we haue already heard,) but also they graunt, that it may be simply and absolutely inui­sible. [Page 147] Luther vpon the 90. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 493: The Church was and abode in Popery, but truly so hidden, as to one that would iudge by the appearance, the seemed to be no where at all. Seemed to be no where. And vpon the psalm. 22. fol. 344: The Church is brought into the dust of death, so that no where there appeareth any shew or trace of her. And vpon the first chap. of Mi­cheas tom. 4. fol. 434: No trace of church appeared. In the former ages there was no true forme of religion extant. The Magdeburgians in the pre­face of their 10. Century: It is very hard to find, where & which the Church was in this age. No forme extant. Likewise in the Preface of the 11. Century: Euery where was darknes, neither durst the Church mutter any thing. Gerlachius in his 22. disput. of the Church pag. 927. writeth, that before Luther: The true Church withdrew it selfe from the eyes & sight of men, into lurking holes, and hid her selfe in darknesse. Zuinglius in his supplication to the Bishop of Constance, tom. 1. fol. 120: The heauenly doctrine lay a long tyme hid. Hospi­nian in the epistle dedicatory of the first part of his History: From the yeare 1200. vntill the yeare 1515. the Church lay miserably ouerwhelmed, as it were, with a most deep and most strong deluge. Caluin in the Preface of his In­stitutions: God permitted that in former ages there should be no face of the true Church extant. No face of the church extant. And addeth of his owne doctrine: It lay a long tyme vnknowne and buryed. Againe: For some ages all things were drowned in deep darknes. And vpon the 23. chapter of the Acts vers. 6. he sayth: The Church was hidden from the eyes of men. And in his Pre­face vpon Isaias: Touching the oueward shew of the church, nothing for many ages appeared, but desolate and confused wast on all sides. Beza in his book of the notes of the church pag. 99: The Church lurked in the wildernes. Pareus in his 4. booke of grace and freewill cap. 6: In Constantines tyme the church began to wa [...] sick to death; notwithstanding the Catholike Church remayned. But where? In the desert, as in the [Page 148] world withdrawne from the eyes of men. Sadeel in his trea­tise of the vocarion of Ministers pag. 533: After the Church had a long tyme lurked, the Lord called her at this tyme into light. Could not be discerned. Voyen in his Preface of Catalog. Doct: The true visible Church could not be discerned: no tract of Gods grace appeared in his Church. The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 4. diuis. 2. sayth, that 40. yeares agoe truth first began to spring, vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of. Vnheard of. D. Humfrey vnto the 3. reason of F. Campian pag. 286: VVhy the picture of the Church in these later tymes cannot be seene of our aduersaries, or drawne of vs &c. And pag. 288: If the only names of our Fathers were extant, who eyther by tea­ching, Not so much as their names ex­tant. or monishing, or writing, did help the Church of Christ, we should see another ranck and progresse of the Church, another succession of Bispops, another picture of Protestants. And pag. 291: And yet they will obiect that our Church was hidden, which they no where suffered aliue. D. Whitaker Controu. 2. quest. 3. pag. 479: VVhen they aske of vs, where was our Church in tymes past for so many ages, we answere, that it was in a close wildernesse, that is, that it was hidden, lay secret, fled the sight of men. And quest. 5. c. 3. pag. 499: Luther brought the fayth out of darknesse, wherein before it lay drowned. And cap. 4. pag. 502: Our Church was then, but you will say, it was not visible. Not visible. VVhat then? therefore was it not? No. For it lay hid in the wildernesse. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed colum. 788: VVe say that many ages past before this our age, that vniuersall defection ouerwhelmed almost all the world, Not visible. and that our Church was not visible at that tyme. M. Base, in his 1. Century of the writers of Britanny cap. 4: From Phocas vntill the renewing of the Ghospell, the do­ctrine of Christ lay so long in lurking holes. M. Downham in his 2. booke of Antichrist cap. 2: The generall defection of the visible Church began to worke in the Apostles tyme. M. Powell in his 1. book of Antichrist c. 23: Our religion [Page 149] lay long tyme vnknowne and buryed. vnknown & buried. And M. Cox Chancel­lour of Oxford in King Edward 6. tyme exhorting the vniuersity men to Protestantisme, biddeth them pluck out truth lying long tyme lurking in Trophonius denne. Thus clearely and thus many wayes they simply and absolutely graunt, that their Church was inuisible vnknowne and buryed before Luther arose.

6. The same also they intend, They teach the Church may be simply inuisible. when they say, that the Church either was, or can be inuisible. For they would neuer say so, vnlesse they knew that such was the condition of their Church before Lu­ther began. Luther vpon the 90. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 495: Sometymes the Church was most weake and so dispersed as it appeared no where. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg pag. 448: No where appeare. It is certaine that it may fall out, that the true Church may ly hidden, and her visible forme not at all tymes appeare to the eyes. Herbrand in his Compend. of diuinity, place of the Church, pag. 502. writeth: That the faythfull sometymes appeare not to the eyes, euen of the Godly. Not to the Godly. Kemnitius in his common places tit. the epistles of the Apostles pag. 78: Sometymes the true Church (another bastard and company preuailing and ouertop­ping) doth so as it werely hid, that Elias may say, I am le [...]t alone. Gerlachius in his 22. dispute of the Church, pag. 946: No surely, if at some tyme the Church be not seene with corporall eyes, therefore she is not. Caluin in the Pre­face of his Institutions: Sometyme God taketh away the outward knowledge of his Church from the sight of men. Some­tyme the Church hath no apparent forme. And in his treatise of the true Reformation of the Church pag. 332: The Church sometyme lyeth hid, and flieth the sight of men. And in his Antidote of the 18. article of the Vniuersity of Paris. VVe gather, that the Church is not at all tymes subiect to the eyes of men, as the experience of many ages witnesseth. [Page 150] Againe: Elias thought himselfe only left of the Church; falsly indeed, but that is a proofe, that she may lye so hidden. And in his 4. booke of Institutions cap. 1 §. 3. he affirmeth, that it is not needfull to see or to feele the Church, and that she may passe our knowledge. Beza in his Confession cap. 5. §. 9: Diuers tymes the Church seemeth to haue perished vtterly. Iunius in his 3 book of the church cap. 16: The Church shall neuer end, but shall lye hidden, ac­cording to her visible forme. Chassanio in his common p [...]aces loc. 2. of the Church pag. 148: The Church is not alwayes visible. Danaeus in his 3. booke of the Church cap. 2. Bellarmine will haue that only to be the Church which is visible which is most false. Cap. 12: God oftentymes will haue some visible Church on earth, and often tymes none. VVhen there is no visible Church, Oftētyms no visible Church on earth. then this precept (of adioyning himself to the Church) ceaseth. And cap. 13: Bellarmine labou­reth to proue the true Church of God on earth to be alwayes vi­sible. That being most false &c. And cap: 16: VVe say, we af­firme, we auouch that the Church may so faile on earth, not that there is none at all, but that there is none in respect of vs, that is, of men, that there be none visible to vs on earth. Againe: S. Paul inferreth generally that the whole Church may leaue to be visi­ble. And lib. 4. cap. 8: The true Church may sometymes faile to be visible. Son is in his answere to Sponde cap. 2: pag. 33: The whole Church may haue to be visi­ble. God maketh that the Church is not alwayes visible. Plessy Mornay in his booke of the Church cap. 1: Oftentymes the good corne is hidden vnder the chaffe without any appearance of the Church. Polanus in his Antibellarm. Colledge disput. 14: The visible Church may faile. Buca­nus in his common places loc. 41. sect. 9: It oftentymes happeneth that there is no company of men extant which publike­ly and visibly worshippeth God purely. The visi­ble church may faile. And sect. 12: There is alwayes on earth some number which worshippeth Christ piously, but this number is not alwayes visible. Trelcatius in his 2. [Page 151] booke of Theologicall Institutions maketh rhis title of one Chapter:: That the visible church may fayle against Bellarmine. Hyperius in his Methode of diuinity lib. 3. pag. 548: VVhiles Elias wandred here and there, there ap­peared no face of the Church. Sadeel in his refutation of the 61 [...]rticle pag. 531: They are deceiued who think there is no Catholike Church, vnlesse they measure it with their eyes. And pag. 535: The true church maybe conserned without any visible state. And in his repetition of Sophismes pag. 610: It is plaine, Wanteth outward forme. that the Church is not so to be tyed to any out­ward forme whatsoeuer, that it ought to be denyed to be a Church, as often as that forme shall not be extant. And of vo­cation of Ministers pag. 543: The Church sometyme wan­teth the externall forme. Againe: It is cleare that the Church hath sometymes byn without visible and personall succession. Pag. 550: Mens wickednes doth sometymes take from vs the visible face of the Church. And againe: It is sometymes so darkned, that it appeareth not to our eyes. The whole visible Church may pe­rish. Scharpe of Iustification Cont. 5: The visible Church as such may perish. The members of the visible Church may perish, yea the whole visible Church, as such. Bastingius vpon the Catechisme, title of the Church, pag. 227: VVithout doubt in euery age things haue byn so troubled, as like a graine, couered with straw, there ap­peared no face of the Church. Vorstius in his Antibellarm. pag 133: A litle before the calling of Abraham, no where ap­peared any visible Church. And pag. 136: Hereupon it follow­eth that the visible church of Christ not only in a great part, The whole visible Church may faile. but also taken whole in her vttermost extent, may for some tyme faile from the true sayth, and be wholy darkned. The outward church of Christ may perish. And pag. 424: Neither did Christ pro­mise, that he would absolutely and perpetually hinder the peri­shing and corruption of the outward Church. The Flemmings Confession article 27: The Church in the eyes of men for sometyme seemeth as extinguished. And Napper vpon the [Page 152] 11. chap. of the Apoc. pag. 186: They erre, who think that the true Church is alwayes visible. And vpon 12. cap. pag. 195: The visible Church wholy imbraced the errors of merits, of indulgences &c. And Proposit. 20. pag. 41: The true Church was inuisible, and the true knowledge of God so couered with darknesse, that none could visibly enter. Thus foraine Protestants. Of our coūtrymen D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest 3. cap. 2. pag. 470: Sometymes obscurity most of all helpeth the church. For at some tyme she could not be safe, vn­lesse she lay hid. And cap. 3. pag. 474: VVe say that sometyme the Church may auoyd the sight of men, & hide it selfe in corners. Cap. 1. pag. 466: VVe confesse, that euer more there is on earth some number of them, who piously worship Christ, & hold the true fayth and religion, but we say that this number is not al­wayes visible. Their (Papists) opinion is, that there is euer more on earth a visible church. Not alwayes visible. It may fall out that there cannot be foūd out and knowne any true and certaine visible church. And cap. 2. cit. pag. 468: Our aduersary would proue, that there was alwayes in the world some visible church. And pag. 469: Hence inferreth (Denis the Carthusian) not as our aduersaries do, that the visible church can neuer perish, The visi­ble church may pe­rish. or that there is euer more in the world some visible church; but that sayth shall neuer perish wholy, but that Christian religion shall still perseuer in some to the end of the world. This (sayth Whitaker) is plainly that which we say and defend. Marke how plainly he profes­seth, that they do not teach, that the visible Church cannot perish, Note. or that there is alwayes some visible Church on earth, but only that some shall alwayes belieue the Christian religion. The same doctrine he teacheth pag. 470. 473. 475. 476. and 479. And q. 6. cap. 2. pag. 559. And in his third booke against Du­raeus sect. 5. 6. 7. 11. M. Perkins in his problem. title of the church: The ancients do acknowledge, that the church on earth is not alwayes visible. D. Willet in his Synopsis [Page 153] Cont. 2. q 1. pag. 67: VVe say the church is not always actual­ly visible to the world: nay it may sometyms be so hid and secret that the members know not one another. Againe: In Elias tyme not visible. In the dayes of Elias the church was not visible. And quest. 2. pag. 74: A visible church we define, to be a congregation of men, amongst whome the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments admi­nistred. Such a church hath not alwayes byn, neither can we be assured that it shall alwayes be sound vpon the earth. There was a tyme when as the visible church failed vpon earth. The visi­ble church failed. This inui­sibility of the Protestant Church, which I haue hi­therto proued by their manifold Confessions, I will also proue by sequels out of other their sayings. First therefore D. Morton in his Apology part. 1. book. 1. cap. 31. disliketh not these words of Bellarmine: Protestants when they say the church cannot faile or perish, meane the inuisibible church. And many of them in expresse words deny, that the Promises of perpetuity, Protestāts say the promises belong not to the visible Church. which in the scripture are made vnto the church, Math. 16. and other where, be made to the visible church. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 468: It is most false, that it is the visible church, against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile. And Daneus Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 717: There (Math. 16.) is not meant the visible church. To whome assenteth D. Willet in his Synopsis cont. 2. quest. 2. M. Powell of Antichrist lib. 1. cap. 10. Beur­lin in his Refutation of Sotus, cap. 53. Moulins of the vocation of Ministers lib. 1. c. 4. & in his Bucklet part. 1. pag. 49. And D. Morton lib. cit. cap. 13. addeth that those three places Math. 16. & vlt. and psal. 47. which promise the perpetuity of the Church, Protestāts belieue not the visible church. Are euery one of them vnderstood, almost by euery Father, of the only company of the elect, which the Protestants call the in­uisible Church. Besides, they all generally teach, that by the Catholike Church, which they professe to [Page 154] belieue in the Creed, they meane not the visible Church, but only the inuisible. Luther in his booke of abrogating Masse, tom 2. fol. 247: VVho shall shew vs the holy church, seeing it is hidden in spirit, and is only belieued, according as I belieue the holy church. Zuinglius in his expli­cation of the 31. article: The church, which consisteth of those which are knowne to God alone, in that which we professe in the articles of our creed. Danaeus lib. cit. pag. 713: The question is of the true church of God whereof it is sayd in the creed: I belieue the holy church. Bellarmine vvill haue it to be the visible, vve deny it. The like he sayth pag. 789. 717. 718. and 725. Vorstius in his Antibellarm. pag. 144: VVe professe not in the creed to belieue the visible church, but the inui­sible. D. Whitaker lib. 3. against Duraeus sect. vlt: You see vvhat Catholike church vve belieue, not the visible multitude of Christians, but the holy company of the elect. The same he sayth Cont. 2. quest. 2. cap. 2. Brentius in Prolegomi­nis pag. 2. and others commonly. Furthermore they say, that the visible Church is not the true Church in the sight of God. For Caluin in his 4. book of In­stitutions cap. 1. §. 7. They say the visible Church is not the true Church before God. and the rest graunt, that both wicked and reprobate Christians may be of the visi­ble Church, but deny that they can be of the true Church in the sight of God. Now surely if the visi­ble Church be neither the true Church in the sight of God, nor she to whome he hath promised perpe­tuity, nor she which Protestants do belieue; what reason can they haue to belieue that the visible Church shall alwayes remayne, or (which is all one) that the Church shall be alwayes visible. Againe, their common doctrine is, that preaching of true do­ctrine is the note of the visible Church; for so tea­cheth the Confession of Auspurg cap. 7. the English Confession artic. 19. and all the rest. To which his [Page 155] Maiesty in his epist. to Cardinall Peron, D. Whita­ker Contr. 2. q 5. c. 17. D. Morton part. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 6. M. Willet in his Synopsis Cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 102. Sadeel to Turtians Sophismes loc. 5. Vorstius in An­tibellarm. pag. 145. and others do adde, that it is an essentiall note of the visible Church. And it is mani­fest that they must say so, because they vse to define the visible Church, to be a company, vvherein the pure vvord of God is preached, & the Sacraments rightly administred. For so it is defined of the English Confession and of Sadeel lib. cit. of Whitaker quest. 5. cit. cap. 20. of Me­lācthon tom. 1. in cap. 15. Matth. and of others gene­rally. But before Luther there was no preaching of Protestantisme, as we shall heare them confesse cap. 7. therefore there was then no visible Protestant Church. Finally, sometymes they say that not only preaching of the word, but that also a lawfull mini­stery; or, that not only what true preaching soeuer, but also such as is made by a lawfull Minister, of the word, is of the essence and substance of the visible Church. For thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. cap. 19. pag. 550: Stapleton sayth, that the preaching of the Ghospell by lavvfull Ministers is the proper note of the church; and vve say no othervvise And pag. 551. That he confesseth true preaching by a lavvfull Ministery to be a note of the church, is no other thing then that vve say and defend. The like hath Sa­deel in the place now cited: and the Switzers Con­fession cap. 17. putteth lawfull preaching for the chie­fest note of the church; Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 1. for a perpetuall note, & the conclusions defended at Geneua pag. 845. for an essentiall note thereof. But before Luther there were no Protestant Ministers at all, as we shall hereafter heare the Protestants confesse. Therefore no visible Protestant Church.

[Page 156]8. By that which hath byn rehearsed, it is manifest, Summe of the fore­sayd con­fessions. that very many and very famous Prote­stants haue often and plainly confessed that when Luther came first (as they speake) to the Ghospell, the Protestant Church and religion was not visible, say hid, lurked, lay in the wildernes, in lurking holes, indarknesse, in Trophonius his denne, was buryed, was vnknowne, vnheard of, appeared to none, cold not be discerned: Her image could not be seene, no shew of, besides a huge spoile did appeare; no face, no fashion, no trace of her was extant, and she was so hid, that he who would iudge according to the outward shew, would think her to be no where: And that this is so manifest, as that the experience of many ages beareth witnes thereof. With what words, I pray you, could they say that their Church was altogeather inuisible, if they haue not sayd it in these?

9. Moreouer it is manifest, that for to main­taine their inuisible Church, they do teach, that the Church may be vnknowne to the godly, & to those who are of it; that it may be not visible, not appeare, not be seene by corporall eyes; that the externall knowledge therof may be taken from men, that it may consist of no apparent forme, be without any visible condition, without visible succession, and destitute of outward forme. That the visible face thereof may be taken from vs, that it may seeme to haue vtterly perished, that the visible Church may perish, the outward Church perish, that it may wholy leaue to be visible, and the whole visible Church perish, and finally that there be no true visi­ble Church in the world.

10. Besides, it is cleare, that they teach, that [Page 157] not only some part of the visible Church, but also (as they speake) the whole and all the visible Church may pe­rish, and that it may fall out that there be none, De grat. & lib. arb. c. 8. none at all, no visible Church in the world. Certainly (as S. Austin speaketh) these words need no witty interpreter, but only an attent hearer.

11. Whereby also it is euident, Protestāts vntrue shifts re­futed. that D. White in the defence of his way cap. 38. and 40. sayd vntruly, that Protestants imagine not the Church to haue byn at any tyme simply inuisible. For as we haue heard, they oftentymes professe openly the con­trary. Vntruly also D. Whitaker auoucheth Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 472. that we slaunder them, when we say they make such a Church, as sometymes can be seene of none. For as hath byn seene, many, Num. 5.6. and he amongst the rest, haue taught so. But D. Whita­ker by the name of a visible Church, vnderstandeth not a company visibly professing their fayth, but one or two, or some few visible men, who keep their fayth secretly in their harts. But this, is not the church to haue byn visible, but the men to haue byn visible. Besides that, it is inough for vs, that the Protestant Religion and manner of worshipping God was before Luthers tyme altogeather inuisi­ble, and only secret in the hearts of some few. For thence it will follow, (as shall appeare hereafter) that it is not the religion of God, which can neuer be kept so secret and inuisible. Vntruly also sayth Iu­nius Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 16. when he writeth: This only we say, the visible manner of the Church may ly hid, or faile to the vngratefull world, not that it can become inuisible in it selfe. For that which is so inuisible, as the Protestants haue sayd the Church may be, is in it selfe inuisible. Lastly some do vntruly expound the foresayd words [Page 158] of Protestants, as if they had only sayd, that their Church had byn inuisible in some sort, not simply and absolutely; because their words were most ab­solute: and it is sophisticall to expound so many ab­solute speeches, only in some sort: Besides, hereafter we shall see, that sometymes they confesse, that their church was so inuisible, as it implyed contradiction to haue it seene, and those who limitate the former speaches, agree not togeather in their expositions; For D. Whitaker loc. cit. sayth they only meane, that the Church is not alwayes to be seene glorious and of euery one. D. White lib. cit. cap. 37. that they meane that the Church is not alwayes to be seene a part and free from all errour. D. Morton Apol. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 13. that they only meant, that the church is not alwayes to be seene publikely of all men by her visible rites, and visible succession: which shift he calleth the Bulwarck of Protestants. But this Bul­warck is built of him without all foundation, and is manifestly ouerthrowne by the former Confessi­ons. D. Feild sayth they meane not, that the Church is wholy inuisible, at any tyme; but that it is not al­wayes to be esteemed by outward appearance. But what more manifest; then that they teach that the Church may be wholy inuisible, as appeareth by their words already rehearsed, The Protestāt Church impossi­ble to haue byn seene. and shall yet more ap­peare by and by?

12. For they not only confesse that their Church was altogeather inuisible before Luther arose, but also they affirme, that it is a most vniust and impudent demaund, to request them to shew it before that tyme. Hutter in his Analysis of the Con­fession of Auspurg pag. 448: Impudent demaund. It is an impudent demaund of the Romanists, to request to haue shewed vnto them such a church [Page 159] in former ages, which touching the publike ministery and visible forme, agreed in all things with Luther. For we haue demon­strated that the true Church then lay hid. D. Fulke in his booke of Succession pag. 19: But you bid me bring forth those elect (Protestants) which lay hid through all the world. Good God how vniust a thing do you demaund, Vniust. that I should bring forth them, whome I say lay hid? And Sadeel to the Repe­tition of Turrians Sophismes pag. 766: But I promised not as you say, that I would answeare to this your question, where those inuisible remnants lay hid? as if I had not sufficiētly answeared, when I sayd that they lay hid by the vnsearcheable counsaile of God. And in his answere to Theses Posnan. cap. 8. He will haue them to haue layne so closely, that it cannot be knowne what they did. And in his booke of Vocation of Ministers pag. 551: At last came that generall Apostasy, which the Apostle foretold. For then the outward light of the Church being quite extinct, Only sha­dow and name of visible Church. there remay­ned the only shadow and name of the visible Church. The same also intimateth Plessy Mornay in the Preface of his Mystery of iniquity, when he sayth: VVe are not bound to shew the Church, it sufficeth that God knew his owne. And Iohn Regius in his Apology pag 176: You deny that Luther sound a company of his sect. I say there was an ecclesiasti­call company of true religion, and which agreed with Luther in all points. But when the Iesuits vrge to shew a follower of reli­gion, they would that Luther shew, that which implieth, Implied to be visi­ble. and proue the inuisible to be visible. Napper vpon 12. cap. Apo­cal. pag. 294: From the yeare 316. God with drew his visible Church from the open assemblies of men, to the hearts of particu­ler men, and from that tyme the Church lay hid and was inuisi­ble. The same he sayth pag. 188: But if so it be an im­pudent and vniust demaund to haue their Church shewed before Luther, if it were withdrawne from open assemblies to the hearts of some, if her outward [Page 160] light were quite extinct, and the only shadow and name of the visible Church remayned, and lastly if it implyed contradiction that she should be shewed; it is most euident, that she was altogeather inuisible. The same also they intimate, when they say, that the Church either hath byn at any tyme, or may be thus inuisible. Luther vpon the 90. psalme tom. 3. fol. 495: Church no where but in the sight of God. The Church was then (in Elias tyme) but so hid­den, as it was no where, but in the sight of God. Hyperius in his Methode of diuinity, lib. 3. pag. 349: VVas not the true Church at that tyme (of Elias) altogeather inuisible to men, and knowne to God alone? The Switzers Confession cap. 17: The Church hidden from our eyes, and knowne to God only, Knowne to God alone. doth often fly the iudgement of men. Besnage in his booke of the state of the visible and inuisible church, cap. 4: The Church is eftsones knowne to God alone. Son is in his answere to Sponde cap. 2. pag. 32: VVe say the state of the Church is such, as is sometymes known to God alone. And D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 478: VVe say that the externall state of the Church doth cease, and that the faythfull and godly may be so scattered, that they worship God only in heart and mind. Worship God in heart on­ly. But who seeth not, that it im­plieth manifest contradiction, that a Church which is no where but in the sight God, which is knowne to God alone, which flyeth mans iudgement, and which worshippeth God only in heart and mind, should be visible or seene of man? How long the Protestāts Church was inui­sible.

13. If any aske them, how many ages their Church was thus inuisible? Luther vpon the 1. cap. to the Galat. tom. 5. fol. 214. sayth that she lay hid aboue 300. years. To whome commeth neere Da­naeus in his 3. book de Roman. Pontif. cap. 8. saying, the Church was in banishment 350. years. But Luther better thinking on the matter, in his booke of the [Page 161] Popery tom. 7. maketh her to haue lurked 600. years. And with him agreeth Hospinian in his epistle de­dicatory of the 1. part of his History. Melancthon in his oration for Luther tom. 2. will haue this lurking to haue byn 400. yeares. But Caluin his booke of Scandals, Perkins and Bale in the places before ci­ted, will haue it to haue continued 900. years. Parcus aboue cited will haue it to haue begon in Constan­tines tyme; and Napper from the yeare of our Lord 316 With whome consenteth Brocard vpon the 11. Chap. Apocal. pag. 110. Fuccius in his Cronology fetcheth the beginning of this lurking a litle higher, from the yeare 261. and finally Curio of the large­nesse of Gods Kingdome pag. 33: Almost from the Apo­stles ages euen to our tym. Which they also intimate, who say that Popery began in the Apostles tyme. O Christ most patient Lord (that I may cry out with Tertullian) who so many years (yea so many ages) diddest suffer thy do­ctrine to be turned vpside downe till Luther came to helpe thee.

14. Luther Author of the visible Protestāt Church. Of all things which haue byn related in this Chapter, it is most cleare, that Luther was at least author of the Protestants visible Church, and if not the first which founded it, yet the first which after it was fallen & in substance perished, did rayse and restore it againe. For when Luther began first to preach, there was no visible Protestant Church at all, and by his preaching there became such a visible Church. Therefore vndoubtedly he was the author thereof. And if any Protestant against so many and so open Confessions of his Fathers and brethren, will say that there was a visible Protestant Church before Luther, he shall first gainesay so many wit­nesses without all exception in this matter, who ha­uing searched all corners, and enquired of all men [Page 162] haue neuerthelesse confessed, that at that tyme no such visible Church appeared. Besides, he shall say that, without all either diuine or humane testimo­ny; which to do of tymes before his age, is to play the Prophet, or rather the mad man. For it is not the part of a man in his wittes, to affirme without all kind of testimony, especially such a thing and so manifestly false, as that so many, and such kind of men, as had most need to affirme it, were neuerthe­lesse forced to deny it. That it wanteth all sufficient humane testimony is euident, because neither the foresayd Protestants, nor any yet to this day, could bring forth any sufficient witnesse, who would de­pose that he had seene such a Church before Luthers reuolt. That also it is destitute of diuine testimony, is manifest by what hath byn before rehearsed. For Protestants (at we haue heard) teach, that the pro­mises of perpetuity, which in the scripture are made to the church, Sup. num. 7. are made only to the inuisible church, that is to a society of men in election and Iustificati­on, out of which Church they exclude the repro­bate and wicked; and not to the visible Church, that is, to the society in Profession of true doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacraments. And in truth they most needs say so, sith they commonly teach, that the inuisible Church, whereof the elect and iust alone are members, is the true Church before God: and that the visible Church, whereof the wicked & reprobate may be members, is but a Church in sight of men, that is a shadow and outward shew of the Church. And it is cleare, that God promised perpe­tuity to that Church only, which in his sight is the true Church; and not to her which is no Church, but only in sight of men. When as I say they teach [Page 163] that God promised perpetuity and continuance on­ly to the inuisible Church, out of his promises they cannot inferre, Lib. 2. cōt. Maxim. c. 3. l 3 c 176 that the visible Church hath or shall euer continue. Of whome therefore (that I may vse S. Augustins words) hast thou heard this? whence diddest thou learne it? where hast thou read it for to belieue it? where­upon hast thou presumed for to affirme it, where there is neither any authority nor reason? If Protestants cry out, Whitak. cont. 2. q. 3, c. [...]. that it is most absurd, to say in Elias his tyme there was any Church visible amongst the Gentiles beside the Synagogue, which now after so many thousands of years we cannot name; how much more absurd ought they think it, to say that before Luther arose, there was a visible Protestant Church, which yet none neither of that Church, nor out of it, neither at this tyme, nor at that, could euer name?

15. It being thus manifest, that Luther was the Author of the visible Protestant Church, it followeth likewise that he was the author of all and Euery Protestant Church. For (as shall be shewed hereafter) there can be no such inuisible Church as Protestants meane, that is, such as belieueth and worshippeth God only in hart and mind, and no way professeth outwardly her fayth and religion. Yet before we come to that, we will first refute those, who when they consider how absurd a thing it is to affirme such an inuisible Church, especially for so many ages, they begin to shufle and either send vs to others, or themselues name vs such, as only in part or in some sort held Protestantisme, but imbra­ced not all the substantiall points thereof, and there­fore were but halfe Protestants. For to vs it sufficeth, that we shew Luther to haue byn the Author and beginner of whole and true Protestants, such as held [Page 164] all points that are necessary to the making of an ab­solue Protestant.

Those confuted who say there were some visible Protestants when Luther arose. CHAP. V.

What a mā Illyri­cus was.1. SOME Protestants, when we aske of them who were the visible Protestants before Lu­ther began, do not themselues name any, but send vs to Illyricus or M. Fox. So playeth D. Whitaker lib. 3. against Duraeus sect. 12. Colloq. Aldeburg Hos [...]. part 2. fol. [...]c 4. Beza epist. 55. in Mat. 20 ver. 15. in 4. Ephe. S [...]uitet. Praefat. in tom. 1. Pareus lib. 5. de Am [...]sl. grat. cap. 1 Melanc [...]h. tom. 2. Hesk. in Antid. Sch [...]sselb. Praf. to. 2. Kemnit. loc. p. 261. and lib. 7. sect. 1 D. Fulke of Succession pag. 324. Schusselburg in 8. tom. of his Catalogue of Heretiks pag. 365. Vorstius in his Au­tibellarm. pag. 159. Lubbert lib. 5. of the Church c. 2. and others: These men do manifestly shew that thē ­selues know not of any such visible Protestants. For they would neuer lay the burden of answering this question vpon others, if they could haue answered it themselues. And besides, they declare that they know no author worthy of credit, to whome they might send vs, for the answere of this so important demaund, else they would neuer haue referred vs to Illyricus or M. Fox. For Illyricus in the iudgement of most Protestants both Lutherans and Sacramen­taries, was a vagabond, a hell hound, an heretike, a Manichee, deceitfull, a lyar, an impostor, a falsifier, a Cauiller, a sclaunde­rer, a singular inuenter of sclaunders, a sycophant in his own iud­gement, impudently blasphemous, a broacher of doctrine which bringeth in Epicurisme and mortality of the soule, and ouer­throweth all religion; and who had nothing to impugne truth [Page 165] withall, besides an audacious ignorance, and a very diuilesh spirit. This and much more write the Protestants them­selues of Illyricus; wherefore to send vs to such a man, is plainly to confesse that they know no man of credit to whome they may referre vs. And of the like stuffe is Fox, a most impudent patcher of lyes, who in his false Martyrologe proposeth theeues, traytors, sorcerers, murderers of themselues, Ana­baptists, Papists, professed enemies, and some then aliue, for Protestant Martyrs, as Allen Cope sheweth in the sixt book of his dialogues. Beside, those whom Illyricus nameth before Luther, himselfe dares not cal Protestants, but VVitnesses of truth; because forsooth they disliked some doctrine or fact of the Pope. And such witnesses also they are, as some of them be Popes themselues, as Lib. 19. Pius 2. some famous Papists, as Lib 15. Peter Lumbard, and Gratian, whome himselfe cal­leth the Lib. 15. & 16. Pillars of the Religion of the Roman Antichrist, and sayth they renewed Popery euen from the foundation; some professed aduersaries of Protestāts, as Lib. 19. Clich­toucus; some of the holy Fathers, who (as before was seene) condemned the very soule and summe of Protestancy; some those, who only disliked the cor­rupt manners of some Popes, as Centur. 6 cap. 1. Richard Hampell; some Atheists, as Lib. 19. Machiauell; some who any way Praf. Catal. gainsayd either the doctrine or deed of any Pope. Surely for Illyricus to bring such witnesses, after he had searched in all corners, and raked in all chanels, doth manifestly bewray, that there can no true Protestants be found before Luthers tyme. For Illy­ricus, though neuer so impudent, would haue byn ashamed to haue bragged of such silly witnesses, if he could haue found any true Protestants whatsoeuer. Besides, such fellowe [...], may be only sayd to haue byn [Page 166] Protestants, and can no way be proued to haue byn simply and absolutely Protestants, such as we speake of. And we care not whom any one may say to haue byn Protestants (for as Luther sayth, Tom. 2. fol, 437. what is more easy then to say any thing?) but whome he can proue & con­uince to haue byn such; without which his saying is but voluntary and ridiculous, and the beliefe ther­of rash and vnreasonable.

2. And as for those, which M. Fox produceth for Protestants before Luther, they liued in the year of our Lord 1521. as himselfe writeth pag. 749. in the edition of 1596. that is, in the 4. year of Luthers new preaching, and we aske for Protestants before Luther. Besides they all abiured their fayth, as him­selfe confesseth pag. 750. and soone after dyed for sor­row, or lingered away with shame; and we aske for Protesters not Abiurers. Moreouer no one of them is found to haue held that cheife and fundamentall ar­ticle of Protestancy of Iustification by speciall faith, albeit, as Fox writeth pag. 550: There was such dili­gent inquisition made as that no article could be so secretly taught amongst them but it was discouered. Wherefore these wretched Abiurers were no Prote­stāts, but some reliques of the Wiclifists or Lollards, whereof we will intreat anone.

The wal­denses were no Protestāts3. Others say, that the Waldenses were the visible Protestants before Luthers rising, but there is no apparent reason to say, that they were true & ab­solute Protestants, to wit, such as held all the whole substance necessary to a Protestant. For first, there is no writer before Luthers tyme who sayth that they belieued to be iustified by only fayth. Neither can any such thing be gathered, either out of their own opinions, or out of the writings of Catholiques [Page 167] against them at those tymes. And Illyricus in his Ca­talogue of witnesses printed at Geneua 1597. lib. 15. pag. 544. writeth their opinions out of an ancient Catholique writer, and pag. 559. out of Aenaeas Sil­uius, and pag. 539. relateth their Confession out of Sleidan, and himselfe pag. 536. reckoneth 13. of their articles, of which he hath these words: These are the articles of the VValdenses, albeit others part them into more branches, and make them more. But in none of them is there any trace of only iustifying fayth. The same I say of their Confession which the sayd Illyricus hath in his Catalogue printed at Geneua 1526. yea there col. 1832. he sayth, that Husse and Hierome of Prage did add vnto the doctrine of the Waldenses the article of free iustification by only fayth, as (sayth he) Syluius intimateth: wherein albeit he belye both Husse and Hierome & also Syluius, Num. 7. because neither they knew of any such iustification, (as shall straight appeare) neither Syluius intimateth any such matter; yet it clearly bewrayeth, that the waldenses belieued not iustification by only fayth. Moreouer Luther (as we shall now rehearse) confesseth that the Waldenses knew nothing of his imputatiue iustice by only fayth: How then can they be sayd to haue byn true and absolute Protestants, who wanted the very soul, summe, and definition of a Protestant? Secondly they not only belieued not iustification by only fayth, but belieued the contrary; that is, to be iusti­fyed by good works. For thus sayth Luther of them in his table-talkes chap. of Suermers: The VValdenses are holy workmen and belieue not that sayth without works doth iustify, and know nothing at all of imputatiue iustice. Cocciu [...] 10.1. lib. 8. And Bennet Morgenstern in his treatise of the church p. 1 [...]4. speaketh thus vnto them: Yee confirme the doctrine [Page 168] of Antichrist, touching good works, iustification, &c. And thē ­selues in their Apology printed at Hanow togeather with the history of Bohemia pag. 256. plainly shew, that they belieue a man to be iustified by fayth, cha­rity, hope, penance, and works of mercy, and do say: That deuout prayer doth purge, and pennance cleanse a man.

4. Thirdly, the Waldenses are condemned of Protestants, both Lutherans and Sacramentaries. Melancthon in his Counsailes part. 2. pag. 152. wri­teth: See Refut. Orthod. Consensus pag. 418. I reioyce that you agree with vs in the summe of doctrine. I know the VValdenses are vnlike. And in Carions Chro­nicle printed at Paris 1357. he sayth that they sowed errors, denyed all oathes, and all forme of prayer, besides the Lords prayer. Morgenstern in his fornamed booke pag. 79. giueth this verdict of them: They haue proudly neglected the light of doctrine which is kindled from heauen in this age; & haue with tooth and na [...]le by writing among their own men se­cretly defended those most grosse erros, which in the year 1523. were discouered by Luther. Besides Selnecer (as he repor­teth) affirmed, that they had grosse errors, and such as were not to be borne withall. Leonicus Antisturmius also in Danaeus in his answere to his Sonde pag. 1516. pro­nounceth them to be impious; and Schusselburg in his 3. t [...]me of the Catalogue of heretiks pag 188. reie­cteth them as heretiks. Camerarius in his booke of the Church in Bohemia, Poland. &c. pag. 273. wri­teth thus: VVe can say that the VValdenses were neuer one with our Churches, nor our men would euer ioyne themselues to them. Whereof he giueth these two reasons: because the Waldenses would not haue extant any publike declaration of their fayth; and for peace sake did vse the Popish masse. For these two causes (sayth he) our men did not ioyne themselues to them, neither did they think that they [Page 169] could so do, with good conscience. Caluin also epist. 278. thus writeth to the Waldenses themselues: VVe abide in one opinion, that the forme of your Confession cannot be abso­lu [...]ely admitted without danger. And M. Iewell also in de­fence of the Apology part. pag. 48. sayth plainly of the Albigenses: They are none of ours. D. Humfrey to the third Reason of F. Campian pag. 371: They are not wholy ours. And Osiander in his 13. Century lib. 1. cap. 4. Pantaleon in his Chronicle pag. 98. & Melancthon in the foresayd Chronicle of Carion, reckon them a­mongst heretiks: But the Albigenses were all one for religion with the Waldenses, as D. Fulke sayth in these words, lib. de Success. pag. 332: That epistle of the Arch-bishops, doth proue that the Albigenses & VValdenses were all one. The same also confesseth Illyricus in his Cata­logue in 4. to. pag 536. Where also pag. 561. he spea­keth in this sort: The VValdenses or Albigenses. Yea the Waldenses themselues, in the Bohemian Confession (if it be theirs) do insinuate that they are condemned of the Sacramentaries, wheras they say in the 13. ar­ticle, that they, who deny the supper of the Lord to be the true flesh and bloud of Christ, do call them Idolaters, Antichrist, and men branded with the marke of the beast. Besides Illyricus in his foreci­ted catalogue writeth, that the Thaborites, who in­deed (sayth he) followed the opinions of the Wal­denses, were grieuously vexed and persecuted of Rokesana and other Hussites. Wherefore; sith Pro­testants commonly challenge the Hussites for their brethren, they ought not to claime also the Walden­les, whose doctrine the Hussites did persecute. Cer­tainly the Confession of Bohemia (which is sayd to be theirs) doth plainly distinguish them from Pro­testants, especially from Sacramentaries. For art. 2. [Page 170] they say: VVe must keep the commandements in hart & deed. Art. 5. that those which repent must confesse their sinnes to a Priest, and aske absolution of him. Art. 9. that Priests ought to be single. Art. 11. that Sacra­ments are necessary to saluation. And art. 13. that the Eucharist is the true body of Christ, as (say they) Christ plainly sayth: This is my body; of which word: we ought to belieue the plaine sense, not de­climing to the right or left. Whereupon it is no mer­uayle, that Caluin in his 249. epistle denieth it to be lawfull for a Christian man, to imbrace the Wal­denses Confession, in these words: Consider you whe­ther it be lawfull for a Christian man to imbrace the forme of the Confession (of the Waldenses) who without any distin­ction bind vp all in one bundell of damnation, who precisely con­fesse not, the bread to be presently the body of Christ. Surely we think not.

5. Fourthly I proue the same, because the Waldenses hold many errors, which the Protestants condemne. Illyricus in his foresayd Catalogue pag. 545. relateth out of an ancient writer aboue 300. years agoe, that they taught, that a Priest being in mortall sinne cold not consecrate the Eucharist; that euery oath is a mortall sinne; that they disallowed matrimony. And likwise out of Aeneas Syluius, that they sayd it was lawfull for euery one to preach; & that he who was guilty of mortall sinne, was not not capable of any secular or ecclesiasticall dignity. Neither auayleth it any thing, that now in the Cō ­fession of Bohemia (which is sayd to be the Walden­ses Confession) there is found the article of iustifica­tion by only fayth, because that Confession was pre­sented in the yeare 1525. as the very title thereof de­clareth, & in the Preface mention is made of Charles [Page 171] 5. Emperour, which was after Luther had preached some years. As also because Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 11. sayth, Sacramē ­taries haue cor­rupted the Wal­denses Cōfessiō. that the Waldenses Confession was re­newed or rather corrupted by the Sacramentaries, as the Waldenses themselues say in the Preface of their Confession printed anno 1538. as witnesseth Schus­selburg, lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. art. 6. fol. 55. Moreouer Illyricus in his Catalogue in fol. col. 1502. writeth, that after Luther was knowne, the VValdenses did greedily purchase greater knowledge. Morgenstern in his foresayd booke pag. 79. sayth, that they borrow the best part of their doctrine from the Lutherans. And D. Fulke in his booke of Succession pag. 360. that they learnt of those of Basle, to amend certaine errors, which they had receiued from their an­cestors. Why then shall we not think, they receiued the doctrine of iustification by only fayth from Lu­ther especially sith (as I befor sayd) there is no men­tion of it amongst them in former tymes? Againe Iurgenicius in the 2. chap. of his warre of the 5. ghos­pell, affirmeth that the Authors of the Bohemian Confession do professe in the beginning thereof, that they would neuer conioyne themselues to the Wal­denses; and therefore the Bohemian Confession is not the Waldenses Confession. Nor albeit therein be mention of iustification by only fayth, can it be in­ferred, that therefore the Waldenses did belieue it. Finally (as I haue often sayd and it must be alwayes inculcated) I regard not, whome any one sayth to haue byn Protestants, but whom he proueth to haue byn such. Neither whome he can proue to haue byn Protestants in part and in some sort; but whome he can proue to haue byn absolutely and wholy Pro­testants, at least for the substance of Protestancy. Nei­ther will it auaile any whit, to complaine, that we [Page 172] haue burnt the writings of the Waldenses, by which they might proue that they were true Protestants. For if they haue nor wherwithall to proue they were true Protestants, they in vaine do feigne it. Besides, we asked of Luther & his followers to produce one man, Waldensian or other, who had byn a true Pro­testant, before Luthers preaching; for which end there was no need of writings, but of liuing men.

Wiclif was no true Pro­testant.6. In like sort I proue that Wicliffe and his followers were not true and absolute Protestants. First because the Wiclifists are by name condemned togeather with other heretiks of Protestants in their Apology of the Confession of Auspurg, chap. of the Church in these words: VVe haue plainly inough sayd in our Confession, that we disalow the Donatists and VViclifists. Secondly because neither in Wiclifs booke, nor of any of his schollers, is there any signe of sole iustify­ing fayth; neither did euer any Catholike writer contend with them there about. Thirdly, because as Melancthon writeth in his epistle to Myconius in his 1. tom. printed at B [...]sle pag. 416: VViclif neither vnder­stood, nor held the iustice of fayth. Yea Husse his principall follower, (as we shall anon rehearse) belieued that works did iustify. And Wiclif himselfe in Thomas Walden. tom 3. tit. 1. cap. 7. bid euery one hope in the proper iustice of his life, and men to trust in their merits: which thing alone doth separate him farre inough from the Protestants campe. Fourthly, be­cause the Wiclifists are reckoned amongst Heretiks of many Protestants, as of Schusselburg tom. 3. Ca­tal. pag. 190. of Kemnice in fundament is Coenae pag. 114. of Pantalcon in his Chronicle, and of Matthias Hoe disput. 27. they are termed most monstrous monsters. And D. Cay in his 2. booke of the antiquity of Cam­bridge, [Page 173] obiecteth Wicliffe to the Oxford men, as a flaine of their vniuersity. Fiftly wiclif taught di­uers things, which Protestants dislike. And to omit these things which Catholikes obiect vnto him, Canisius to. 3 antiq. lectionum. Rokesana Prince of the Hussites, in his dispute with Catholiks before the King of Bohemia, hath these words: These are the articles of VViclif: That tithes are meere almes: That the Clergy ought to haue no ciuill go­uernment: If a King be in mortall sinne, that he is no more a King: Which last article Osiander in his 15. Centu­ry repeateth thus: There is no temporall Lord, no Prelate, no Bishop, whiles he is in mortall sinne. And Melancthon in his foresayd epistle: VViclif doth plainly, sophistically and seditiously wrangle vpon ciuill dominion. And in his dis­pute of the right of Magistrats: VViclif is mad, who thinketh the wicked to haue no Dominion. And in his Com­mentaries vpon Aristotles Politiques: VViclif would haue those, who haue not the holy ghost, to loose their Domi­nion. So that I meruaile how D. Andrews in his answere to the Apology of Bellarmine, could say that it is a sclaunder, that Wiclif taught so, when as not only Catholiks, but euen Hussites and Pro­testants do affirme it. Moreouer Wiclif (as Osian­der reporteth in the place aforecited) did condemne lawfull oathes, and taught, that all things fell out according to absolute necessity. And Melancthon in his sayd epistle giueth this sentence of him: I haue looked into VViclif, but I haue found in him many other errors, Wiclife held not iustice of sole faith. by which one may iudge of his spirit. He at all vnderstood not, nor held the iustice of sayth. He fondly confoundeth the ghospell and politique affaires; would haue Priests to haue nothing pro­per, &c. And in his common places chap. of Eccle­siasticall power: That superstition of VViclif is pernicious and seditious, which driueth the ministers of the Church to beg­gery, [Page 174] and denyeth that it is lawfull for them to hold any thing proper. M. Stow also in his Cronicle anno 1376. wri­teth, that he taught that, Neither King nor lay man could giue any thing to the church for perpetuity. Finally Vadianus in his fi [...]t book of the Eucharist, pag. 168. confesseth that in many things he fouly erred.

Hussites no Prote­stants.7. Husse likewise and his partners we proue, not to haue byn true and absolute Prote­stants. First, because it cannot be proued, that they held the foresayd article of iustification by on­ly fayth, and the other fundamentall points of Pro­testancy. Secondly, because Husse is by name re­iected of Luther, who in the defence of his 30. ar­ticle tom. 2. thus writeth of him: He agreeth not with me. He gaue not a litle to the idol of Rome. He seemeth not to repugne against the Popes Monarchy. And vpon the 2. psal. tom. 3. fol 395: Husse did not condemne the sacri­fice of Masse, as we do. And vpon the 9. chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 108. he sayth, that Husse held a doctrine most pestilent, most pernicious, horrible, and wholy impious, yea very diuelish. And in his Lypsicall dispute tom. 1. fol. 260: I know, and that very well, that an euill Prelate is not to be reiected, and therefore I damne the article of Husse. And both there and other where, Tom. 1. fo. 30. 291. 292. 251. oftentymes denieth himselfe to be a Bohe­mian, by which he meant an Hussite. And in his table-talkes chapter of S [...]ermers sayth: Husse be­lieued that works with fayth do iustify; which point alone excludeth him from the number of Protestants. Husse be­lieue not sole faith. And in the chapter of Antichrist: Husse departed not one iot from the Papists, but only reproued vices and naughty life. Which also affirmeth Hierome of Prage, Husse his fellow, in M. Fox, vpon the 11. chapter of the Apocal. Where also M. Fox himselfe writeth, that [Page 175] Husse agreed with the Papists touching transub­stantiation, Masse, Vowes, Predestination, Free will, formed fayth, cause of iustification, and me­rits of works: which plainly declare how litle he held of Protestancy. Lastly when Bellarmine wrote, that there was not in the world, when Luther be­gan, any religion but Paganisme, Iudaisme, Maho­metisme, Grecisme, Nestorianisme, Hussites here­sy, and the Romane fayth; D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 502. denyeth these to haue byn all; For (sayth he) our Church was then. In which words he professeth the Protestants to be a different church from the Hussites. Iunius also lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 6. acknowledgeth that some Protestant deny Hussi­tes to be of their Church. And Luther vpon the 53. Chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 220. thus writeth: There is no religion in the world which receiueth this opinion of iustification (by only fayth) and we our selues in priuate do scant belieue it, though we publikely defend it. By which words he sheweth, that neither Hussytes, nor Wal­denses, nor any Christians besides Protestants, and scarce they also, do belieue the principall and most fundamentall article of Protestancy, howsoeuer openly they professe it.

That the Church cannot be so inuisible, as Pro­testant confesse theirs to haue byn be­fore Luthers tyme. CHAP. VI.

1. BY the name of the Church, we vnderstand not (as I sayd before) only the men, but men sociated, or the society of men, in the fayth & wor­ship of God. Wherfore that a church be sayd visible, not only the men, but their worship of God must be visible. Neither by this word visible, do I vnderstand here, that only which can be seene, but whatsoeuer is sensible; according both to the vulgar phrase of speach, wherewith we say: See how it soundeth, as S. Augustine noteth, and also after the phrase of scrip­ture, Lib. 10. Confess. c. 35. wherein, as the same holy Doctour obserueth: All sensible things are called visible. And Protestants, (as is before shewed) do confesse that before Luthers rising their Church was simply inuisible, Lib. 1. de mor. Ma­nich. c. 20. and vnseene of any, either of those within or without her. And ne­cessarily they must say so, because they can name none at all, who before Luther arose, did see a com­pany of men, who professed to belieue iustification by only fayth, and the rest of the fundamentall prin­ciples of Protestancy: yea they affirmed, that it was so inuisible, Ca. 4. n. 11. as it implyed contradiction to haue byn seene of any.

That the Church cannot be inuisible.2. Now that the Church Militant or liuing on earth cannot be so inuisible, I proue; first, because it is against an article of fayth of diuers Protestants. And if perhaps any hereupon imagine, that either [Page 177] Protestants neuer graunted the contrary, or that if they did graunt it, their testimonies against themsel­ues are not to be accepted; let him read what here­after I write touching that matter, in the last chap­ter of this booke. Wherefore in the Confession of Saxony cap. 15. they professe in this sort: God will haue the Ministery of the ghospell to be publike, he will not haue the voice of the ghospell to be shut vp only in corners; but will haue it beard of all mankind. Therefore he will haue publike and seemely meetings and in them he will haue the voice of the ghospell to sound. He will also haue these same meetings to be witnesses of the Confession and separation of the Church from the sects and opinions of other Nations. God will haue his Church to be seene and heard in the world, and will haue her deuided by many pu­blik marks from other people. And the same they repeat in the Consent of Polony cap. de Coena. And the same Confession of Saxony cap. of the Church: VVe speake not of the Church as of a Platonicall idaea, but we shew a Church, which may be seene and heard. The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard in all mankind. VVherefore we say, that the Church is in this life a visible company &c. Secōd­ly it is against their owne definitions of a militant Church. Protestāts definitiōs of the Church. For the foresayd Confession of Saxony de­fineth the Church in this life to be a visible compa­ny. The Magdeburgians in their 1. Century lib. 1. c. 4. col. 170. do thus write: The Church may be thus defined: The Church in this life, is a company of those, The c [...]urch in this life. who imbrace the sincere doctrine of the Ghospell, and rightly vse the Sacraments. And the very same definition giueth Melancthon tom. 4. in cap. 3.1. ad Tim. pag. 398. Hutterus in his Analysis of the confession of Auspurg pag. 444. saith: This Church, which is sayd to be, and to be belieued, The Church which we belieue. is not a Pla­tonicall idea, but the visible company of those, that are called. Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 2: [Page 176] [...] [Page 177] [...] [Page 178] The militant Church is the company of the elect, and truly sayth­full, Church militant. professing the same sayth, partaking the same Sacraments, &c. Hereof properly speake the scriptures, when they call the Church the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ, redeemed with the bloud of Christ, sounded vpon a rock. Gerlachius tom. 2. Disput. 22: Defining the Church, as it is on earth, we say that it is a congregation of men, Church on earth. who called by the voice of the Ghos­pell, heare the word of God, and vse the Sacraments instituted of Christ.

3. Thirdly it is against the properties and markes of the true Church assigned by the Prote­stants themselues, to be altogeather inuisible. For thus their Confession of Auspurg cap. 7: The Church of Christ properly so called, The proper Church. hath her marks, to wit, pure doctrine, &c. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: The true church is discerned from other nations, by the voice of true doctrine, and lawfull vse of Sacraments. The true Church. The French Confession art. 27: VVe belieue that the true church ought to be discerned with great care. VVherefore we affirme out of the word of God, that the Church is the company of the faythfull, who agree in follow­ing the word of God, and imbracing true religion: wherein also they daily profit, growing and confirming themselues mutually in the feare of God. The Confession of the Low Coun­tries art. 29: By these markes the true Church shall be discer­ned from the false, if in her the pure preaching of the Ghospell be of force: by these markes it is certaine that the true Church may be distinguished. The Confession of Scotland art. 18: It is necessary that the true Church be discerned from the false, by euident marckes, least being deceiued we imbrace the false for the true, to our eternall damnation Againe: VVe belieue the markes of the true Church to be true preaching of the word, &c. Melancthon in his answere to the Bauarian articles tom. 3. fol. 362: It is euident, that the true Church is a visible company. And vpon the 16. to the Romans tom. 1. pag. [Page 179] 486: She is the true Church, who teacheth the Ghospell aright, and rightly administreth the Sacraments. Danaeus in his booke of Antichrist, cap. 17: The pro­per defi­nition of the Church. This is the proper definition of the Church, that the true Church is the company of the fayth­full, who serue God purely, and keep the notes of adoption insti­tuted by him, such as are the heauenly word, the Sacraments and discipline. By these 3. marks the false Church is distinguished from the true. Lubbert in his 4. booke of the Church cap. 2: VVe say that the Church doth shew her selfe to be the true Church, by the sincere preaching of the word of God. And Beza wrote a booke of this title: Of the true and visible marks of the Catholike Church. D. Whitaker in answere of the 3. reason of F. Campian: That we iudge to be proper to the true Church, that it increase and conserue Christs word, that it vse the Sacraments enti [...]rly and purely. These we defend to be the most true and essentiall properties of the Church. Take these away and you will leaue nothing but the carcasse of the church. Againe: They containe the true nature of the church, which if they be present, they make the church, and take it away, if they be taken away And D. Feild in his 1. book of the church cap. 11: VVe say, that that society wherein that outward pro­fession of the truth of God is preserued, is that true church of God, &c. Finally to omit the words of others, the same teach Wigand in his method of doctrine cap. 19. Gesner in his 24. place of the Church, The Magde­burgians in the Preface of their 6. Cētury, Heshusius in cap. 1.1. ad Cor. Soterius in his method, title of the church, Pelargus in his Compend. of diuinity loc. 7. Sohnius in his Thesis of the Church, Bullin­ger in his Catechisme fol. 44. Aretius in his places part. 3. fol. 50. Theses of Geneua disput. 74. Summeoī Protest. former Cōsessiōs. Thus thou seest (good reader) that according to the mani­fold iudgement of Protestants, a part of the defini­tion, of the essence, the marke of the Church in this [Page 180] life, of the Church militant, of the Church which is belieued, of the proper Church, of the Church whereof the Scripture properly speaketh, when it calleth her the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ; of the true Church, of the Church properly so ter­med, and finally of the Catholike Church; that (I say, it is of the definition and essence, a marke of this church, to be a visible company professing the faith, partaking the Sacraments, mutually confirming themselues, and that otherwise it is (as they say) but a carcasse of the Church. Wherefore it implieth ma­nifest contradiction, that there should at any tyme haue byn a true Church, and not a visible company: because nothing can be without all its essentiall parts. The Protestant Church therefore, which (as we head) was before Luthers tyme altogeather in­uisible, was no true and proper Church, but (to vse their termes) a Platonicall idaea, or a carkasse of a Church. If any reply, that when Protestants affirme the foresayd definitions, properties, and marks of the true Church; they meane not by the name of the true Church that which is simply and absolutely the true Church, but that which is the true visible Church; I aske, why then do they simply call it the true Church, if they do not so meane? why are not their words conformable to their meaning? Besides, the Church wherof they giue the foresayd definitiōs and marks, they call not only the true Church, but also the Church properly so termed, the spouse and body of Christ, the Catholike church, and such like, which cannot agree to any, which is but a Church in appearance only, and in the sight of men, but on­ly to that which is the Church in very deed, and in the sight of God. Further more, according to the [Page 181] opinion of Protestants these two termes True and Vi­sible, in the nature of the Church do one destroy the other; as these two, True and Painted, exclude each other in the nature of a man. For they imagine that the true Church is a society in something that is in­uisible, to wit in iustification and predestination. Wherupon they deny any ill or reprobate Christians to be of the true Church. Wherefore, as he should speake fondly, who should say A true painted man; so, according to their owne opinion, they speake as fondly, when they say The true visible Church. But as we can only say, the true picture of a man, attributing the word True, to the picture, not to the man; so they should only, The true appearance or shew of the Church, g [...] ­uing the word True to the shew, not to the Church it selfe. But they are ashamed to speak so, least when they inquire the marks of the true visible Church, Why Protestāts somtyme call the visible visible Church the true Church. it should appeare, that they seeke not the marks of the true Church indeed, but only of the shew, shadow, or shape of the Church. And yet in very truth they seeke but the marks of the shadow of the church. For the inuisible Church, consisting only of the iust and elect, which alone they will haue to be the true Church; hath no certaine marks; else we should know certainly who were the iust and elect. And this themselues confesse; for thus writeth D. Whi­taker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 8: Protestāts giue no marks of the true & Catholike Church. The question is not of the marks of the inuisible Church. Againe: VVe say the marks of the Catholike Church simply so called, are knowne to God alone. And D. Humfrey to 3. reason of F. Campian pa. 281. sayth that the marks do not reach vnto the nature of the true Church. And the reason is manifest, because (as I sayd) otherwise we should know who were the iust and elect.

[Page 182]4. If any againe reply, that when Prote­stants say, The true visible Church, they meane the visible Church true in doctrine, in which speach there is no contradiction according to their owne opinion, because they admit, that the visible Church, (that is, the society in true doctrine and right vse of Sacra­ments, into which Church or society the wicked or reprobate may enter,) may be true in doctrine, though they graunt not, that such a Church or so­ciety be the true Church in nature or essence. Which perhaps Vorstius meant, in his Antibellarm. pa. 180. when he sayd: The outward Church is not without cause called the true church of Christ by reason of the prosession of true doctrine. I answere, if they so meant, why did they not speak so? were they ignorant, that it is one thing to be true in doctrine or in speach, and another to be true in nature? as a lyer is a true man in nature of man, but not true in his speach. Or if they did know this, why did they abuse the words and their hea­rers? Moreouer, though in this sense their words did not destroy themselues, as they did in the former, yet fondly should they (as they vse to do) assigne the truth of doctrine for the marke of the true Church in doctrine. For this were to assigne a thing for a mark of it self; as if to know a true man of his word, one should giue this marke, that it is such as speaketh truth. Besides this were rather to define what is a true man, then to giue the marke to know who is a true man. And yet marks are giuen to know which is the true Church, not what is the nature of the true Church.

5. If yet any reply, that the visible Church or society in profession of true doctrine and right vse of Sacraments, is termed of Protestants the true [Page 183] Church, not because this Church or society is of it self the true church or the society instituted by God, but because alwayes in, or vnder it there is the true Church, to wit the society in iustice and predesti­nation; by reason that in euery company of them that professe true doctrine and rightly vse the Sacra­ments, there are some, who are sociated and vnited in iustice and predestination. Which D. Whitaker intimateth, when Cont. 2. quest. 4. cap. 1 pag. 485. he sayth: The visible Church, which holdeth and professeth true sayth, is the true Church only of the part of the elect and prede­stinated: I answere, that this supposeth a thing doubt­full, and perhaps false. For what certainty can there be, that in euery particuler company of them who professe the true fayth & rightly vse the Sacraments, there is alwayes a cōpany of the iust and elect; when as Christ sayth: Many are called but few are chosen, Matt. [...]0. espe­cially, if (as Protestants say) one or two make a church. Surely Danaeus Cont. 4. pag. 689. seemeth to deny this, saying: These visible companies are sometymes a part of that (true) Church, sometymes none. But admit that in euery company of true professors there be always a company of iust and elect, what reason were this, to terme the society in profession of true fayth, the true Church, if in deed the society in iustice & pre­destination be the only true Church. This would suffice to say, that the apparent Church could neuer be separated from the true Church, but not to call that society the true Church, which indeed is only the outward appearance of the true Church. And much lesse would it suffice, to call it the church pro­perly so termed, the spouse and body of Christ, the Catholike Church, the Church which we professe to belieue; as the Protestants haue termed the visible [Page 184] Church. Neither can these epithets or names be gi­uen to any other society, then to that which hath the true nature and substance of the Church indeed; because they signify as properly and expresly that only Church; as she can be expressed of vs by any words whatsoeuer. And sith Protestants haue giuen them all to the visible church, they must needs con­fesse that shee hath the nature and substance of the very true Church indeed; and consequently that an inuisible Church is no true Church indeed.

6. Fourthly I proue that the Church cannot be inuisible, Protestāts somtyms say that the church cannot be inuisible. because oftentymes Protestants do con­fesse it. The Apology of the Confession of Ausburg chap. of the Church: The Church is principally the society of fayth and of the holy Ghost in the hearts, which yet hath her outward markes, that she may be knowne. Luther vpon the 4. chap. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 56: The Church was neuer so voyd of externall marks that it could not be not knowne where God was certainly to be sound. And vpon 51. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 474: For Christ will not lye hid in the world, but will be preached; not between wals, but vpon the house top. Melan­cthon vpon the 11. of Daniel tom. 2. pag. 511: It is ne­cessary, that the Church be a visible company. Againe: VVe seigne not an inuisible Church, like to a Platonicall idea. And in the Preface of his 3. tome, he thinketh it so absurd to put an inuisible Church, as he sayth: To what ten­deth that perdigious speach, Mon­struous to say the Church was inui­ble. which denyeth that there is any visi­ble Church. We must needs confesse a visible Church. And vpon the 3. chap. 1. Tim. tom. 4. pag. 398: Others (sayth he) setting aside wholy the externall shew, do speake of an inuisible Church, as of a Platonicall idaea, which is no where seene or heard. Kemnice in his common places title of the Church cap. 3: God will haue vs to know, where and which is the Church. Therefore she must be knowne, not to God [Page 185] only, but also to vs; and therupon is defined to be the visible com­pany of them, who imbrace the Ghospell of Christ, and rightly vse the Sacraments: Iames Andrews in his book against Hosius pag. 210: VVe are not ignorant, that the church must be a visible company of teachers and hearers. Againe: The Church is, and is called a company of men, chosen of God, in which the word of God soundeth incorrupt, &c. Hunnius in his treatise of Freewill pag. 91: God in all tymes hath placed his Church as in a high place, and hath exalted it in the sight of all people and Nations. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg, pag. 430: The elect are not the whole Church, no if you speake only of the true church. For the church consisteth not only of inward sayth in Christ, but also of the outward administration of the word & Sacraments. Now as farre as this in outward rite is performed, so farre the true Church truly is visible. Beurlin in the Preface of his Re­futation of Sotus: I confesse the Church of Christ is alwayes to be acknowledged visible. And he addeth, that all con­fesse the same. The same doctrine is taught by Ges­ner loc 24. by Adam Francis in his 11. place, and by other Lutherans. Amongst the Sacramentaries thus writeth Vrsin in Prolegomenis ad Catechcsin pag. 2: The Church must needs be seene in this world, that the elect may know vnto what company they must adioyne, themselues in this life. Iunius Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. affirmeth, that it is impious to say that the Church can wholy want a visible forme. Keckerman in the 3. book of his Theo­logicall systeme writeth, that the Church must always be sensible, that other nations may know to what church they ought to adioyne themselues; and that Confession of sin­cere doctrine can neuer faile wholy, nor the visible church wholy erre. Danaeus in his booke of the visi­ble Church dareth to say, that who denieth the true church of God, and that visible, to haue byn from the beginning of the [Page 186] world, he without doubt sheweth himselfe to be ignorant in holy scripture. Amongst our English Protestants M. Hooker in his 3. booke of Ecclesiasticall policy pag. 126: God hath had euer, & euer shall haue some Church visible vpon earth. D. Feild in his 1. booke of the Church cap. 10: For seing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saued, and no man can be saued vnlesse he make Confession vnto saluation (for fayth hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice) it can­not be, but they that are of the true Church, must by profession of the truth make themselues knowne, in such sort that by their pro­fession and practise they may be discerned from other men. And D. White in defence of his Way cap. 4. pag. 390: I ac­knowledge the prouidence of God, who hath left the records of history to confirme our fayth, and freely graunt our religion to be false, if the continuall descent thereof from Christ cannot by such record be shewed. Moreouer at sometyms they not only confesse that the Church is alwayes visible, but also graunt that the scripture teacheth the same in those parables of the barne and the net. For out of them Caluin 4. Protestāts confesse that the Scripture affirmeth that the Church is alwayes visible. Institut. cap. 1. § 13. inferreth that the Lord pronounceth, that the church shall be vexed with this euill till the day of iudgemēt, to be burdened with the mixture of the wicked. Of the same opinion is D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 471. and others. But that church which contayneth the wicked, is the visible Church, for the inuisible they will haue to hold only the good. The Scripture therefore testifieth that the visible Church shall euer be. Yea Protestants now and then take it so ill, that it should be sayd, that they teach that the visible Church perished for many ages, that D. Sutliue in his answere to Exceptions cap. 7. sayth that Bellarmine lyeth in saying so. And D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag 472. sayth, we slaunder them, when we affirme they put such a Church, as at sometymes can be seene of none. [Page 187] And sayth, that in this matter there is no controuer­sy about the thing, but about the manner, to wit, no question whither the Church be alwayes visible or no, but in what manner it is visible; because forsooth we will haue the Church to be at all tymes visible clearly, and of all men; and they will haue it to be at sometymes visible but obscurely, and of few. The like sayth Kemnice in his Common places title of the Church cap. 3. Reineccius in the 4. tome of his Armour cap. 8. and D. Morton in the 1. part of his A­pology lib. 1. cap. 13. But yet that in this matter we neither bely nor sclaunder them, is manifest by what we haue rehearsed in the 4. chapter before going in the 5. number, and those that follow. To which I add, that Caluin in the Preface of his institutions setteth the state of this question betwixt vs & Pro­testants in these words: Vpon this hinge hangeth our con­trouersy, that they (Papists) will haue the forme of the church to appeare and be visible at all tymes: On the contrary we say, that the church may consist of no apparent forme. And I would to God, that Protestants would constantly agree, which vs in this matter of doctrine, that the church of God is alwayes visible to some, either of those that are in it, or out of it; that the debate might remaine only about the matter of fact, VVhy Protestāts contradict thēselues about the inuisibili­ty of the Church. whither the Protestāt Church before Luther appeared, were seene of any either Protestant or other. But Protestants standing betwixt truth and lyes, whiles they consider the na­ture of the Church of God, especially as it is descri­bed in scripture, confesse that it must needs be visi­ble, not only to her children but to others also. But when they look back vpon the state and condition of their owne church before Luther began, are com­pelled to deny the same, as before we most euidently [Page 188] shewed: which thing alone, if it were well consi­dered, would discouer sufficiently, that in their own consciences they acknowledge their Church not to be the true Church of God.

Inuisibili­ty cōtrary to the ends of the Church.7. Fiftly, I proue that the Church cannot be inuisible, because that were contrary to the ends for which the Church was instituted of God: whereof one was, that men should worship him after that en­tier manner of worship which man is to giue, which is to honour God not only with heart and mind, but also with tongue and deed, as it is euident; and Cal­uin in his Confutation of a Hollander, many wayes proueth that the Church must render to God, not only inward but also outward worship. But an in­uisible Church worshippeth God only in heart and mind, as Whitakers words are. Another end of the Church is to feed her children with the word and Sacraments, to correct and gouerne them by disci­pline, and to defend them from enemies; as also is manifest and scripture teacheth. Which offices, a Church, which neither seeth her children, nor is seene of them, cannot performe. Likewise another end is to conuert the world, and those who are out of her, to the fayth and worship of God; which she can no way do, if neither her doctrine nor ex­ample be seene of them. And yet as Luther sayth vpon the sixt chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 234: The Church is in perpetuall practise of conuerting others to the fayth.

Inuisibili­ty against the nature of human societies.8. Sixtly, it is against the nature of a society of men amongst themselues, for to be inuisible. For as men consist of a body which is visible by the co­lours, and of a soule which is seene by the actions thereof; so it is necessary that the society in which [Page 189] they ioyne, be visible, either by it selfe, or by some other thing. Whereupon well sayd S. Augustin: Li. 19. cōt. Faust. c. 11. Men cannot ioyne in any religion true or false, vnlesse they be bound to­geather by some fellowship of visible signes or Sacraments. And the same, confesseth Gerlachius in his 23. disput. of the Church pag. 995. saying: VVe willingly confesse & graunt, that the church cannot be, except there be some outward and vi­sible signes, by common communion and participation whereof so­ciety amongst men may consist. And seauently it is contra­ry to the example of all other societies amongst men whither religious or prophane, whereof none con­sisteth in a thing which is altogeather inuisible, and whereby the members of that society cannot be knowne the one to the other.

9. Seauenthly, Against the perpe­tuity of the Church. it is contrary to the conti­nuance and conseruation of the Church on earth to be visible. For if the Church which was in the for­mer age had not byn seene of that which is in this age, how could the Church of this age haue receiued the fayth? We aske therefore, how the Protestant Church of our age learned the fayth of the Church of an other age, if in the ages before Luther she were so inuisible as you haue heard them confesse: Pro­testants scared with this question like men with a thunder clap, leape a sunder, and euery one answea­reth, not what he knoweth or can proue, but what seemeth to him least absurd, that hereby we may perceiue, that all their talke of their Churches being before Luthers tyme, is but as the scripture sayth, fa­bles and vaine speaches, or fancies and fictions of men, speaking without either testimony or reason. Some of them say, that before Luther their Church receiued the fayth immediatly from God alone. Du­ring Popery (sayth Boysseul in his Confutation of [Page 190] Spondé pag. 75) the holy Ghost taught fayth without a prea­cher. Protestant Church taught miracu­lously. The same also intimate Iunius Cont. 4. lib. 3. ca. 13. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed Col. 788. The Author of the church in Danaeus Opuscles pag. 1029. D. Fulk of Succession pag. 320. and others, who say, that the Church VVas propagated and receiued fayth by extraordinary meanes. And they also, who write, that their Church was preserued miraculously, meruei­lously, by wondrous meanes, or by meere miracle; as Luther of priuate Masse tom. 7. fol 240. Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 1. §. 2. Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 763. Danaeus of Antichrist pag. 1021. & Son is against Spondé cap. 2. pag. 36. But this their assertion they neither do, nor can proue otherwise, then because God can in such manner preserue the church.

10. Thou seest (gentle reader) vpon what a vaine foundation this imaginary church is built, for the space of many ages, in which it lay inuisible and lurcking in holes & corners. For they confesse, that for many ages it was not seene of any man; and if at any tyme they confesse not so much in words, in deeds they confesse it alwayes; because they can ne­uer name any, whom they can proue to haue seene it in former ages; and neuertheles they will, that for al those ages it learnt their fayth miraculously and im­mediatly from God alone. When we aske testimony hereof, they produce neither diuine nor humane worthy of credit; when we demaund proofe, they giue vs no other then this, Verstius Antibel. pag. 468. Fulke de Succes. pa. 74. that God could so teach it fayth. As if God did, or doth all that he can do. We speake of an effect, or a matter of fact, of Gods will; and they answere of his power. When we af­firme any thing, they exact demonstrations, that is, plaine testimonies of Scripture, or at least pregnant [Page 191] proofes deduced thence. And when they affirme a matter of so great weight and so incredible, as is that the church was so many ages taught her faith of God alone, they will haue vs to belieue it, not only with­out any testimony of God or man, but euen contrary to the testimony of them both, for one silly sophisme, ridiculous to the very children, and scorned euen of themselues in other matters, as shall by and by ap­peare. Surely that I may vse Saint Augustins words: They seeme to thinke, that they haue not to do with men, Cōt. Adi­mant. c. 4. but as if they were meere beasts, who heare thē or read their writings, they abuse the ignorance or dulnesse of them, or rather their blind­nes of mind. Or as Caluin sayth: Antid. [...] Conc. c. 15. These masters need haue a heard of Oxen, if they would haue auditors to whome they may perswade what they will. But to their Argument I say with Tertullian against Praxeas cap. 10: Surely nothing is hard to God. But if in our presumptions we will so rashly vse this sentence, we may feigne any thing of God; as if he had done it because he could do it. But we must not belieue he hath done that, which he hath not, because he can do all things: but we must seeke whether he hath done it or no. Luther also vpon the 46. cap of Genesis tom. 6 fol. 624. saith: God can gouerne the church by the holy Ghost, without the Ministery; but he will not do this immediatly. And vpon the 32. chap. fol. 454: He could by the holy Ghost inwardly enlighten the hearts and for­giue sinnes without the Ministery of the word and Ministers; but he would not. And the Confession of Suitzers cap. 18: God by his power can immediatly gather a church of men, but he chose rather to deale with men by the ministery of men. Caluin vpon 3. chap. 1. Cor. v. 6: Nothing hindereth God that he may not inspire fayth into men asleep; but he hath otherwise de­termined, to wit that, that fayth should come by hearing. And vpon 1. chap. of S. Luke v. 37: They raue peruersely who imagine of Gods power without his word. It is a dangerous dispute [Page 192] what God can do, vnlesse withall we find what he will do. And 4. Institut. cap. 17 §. 24. he sayth: VVe aske not here what God could, but what he would do. The like words he hath cap. 1. §. 5. lib. 2. cap 7. pag 5. and de vera Eccles. Re­form. pag. 326. Beza in the 2. part of his answere to the Acts of the Conference at Montbelgard pag. 97: An argument taken from the power of God needeth no answere, vnlesse his will also appeare to vs by his word. The Author of the orthodoxall consent in the Preface: It is ridi­culous to vrge the omnipotency of God, where we know not hi [...] pleasure. Sadeel of Sacramentall manducation pag. 272. setteth downe this as a Theologicall principle: VVe may not in diuinity argue from the omnipotency of God, vn­lesse his will be before declared by his expresse word. Let Pro­testants therfore produce Gods expresse word, wher­in he sayth, that he hath, or will for many ages mi­raculously by himselfe alone teach the Church her fayth. Danaeus also in his 4. booke deamiss. grat. cap. 15: It litle auaileth to proue Gods power, vnlesse his will also be proued. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 6. cap. 1 p. 617: VVhat a kind of argument is this? This may be done, because no­thing is impossible to God, therefore it is done, or sometymes hath byn? Doth our fayth rely vpon such foundations? Finally Ca­saubon in his 7. Exercitation against Baronius: It is a saying of the Fathers that Gods power is the refuge of Heretikes. Thus thou seest how vaine, euen by the Protestants iudgement, is this proofe of the Churches learning immediatly from God. They are wont to scoffe at the Miracles done by Saints, albeit we proue them by sufficient testimony of man: & themselues feigne a continuall miracle, yea so many miracles, as they feigne men, whome they say for many ages learn [...] their fayth immediatly of God; which they can proue by no sufficient testimony, either of God or [Page 193] man. Yea we will most manifestly herafter disproue it. Here I will only note, that those Protestants seeme to haue byn some Enthusiasts or heauenly Prophets, as Luther scoffingly termed some, who in his tyme challenged such immediat learning from God; and that the Protestants themselues do sometymes con­demne this immediat learning from God, as Fana­ticall, Anabaptisticall, Suenckfeldian, and Enthu­siasticall.

11. The Confession of Auspurg art. 5. Protestāts reiect im­mediat taeching of God. (as Fabritius relateth out of the originall copy) sayth thus: They condemne the Anabaptists and others, who think that the holy Ghost cometh to men without the outward word. Martin Luther vpon Genesis tom. 6. fol. 117: The holy ghost doth not teach new reuelations besides the ministe­ry of the word, according as the Enthusiasts and Anabaptists true Fanaticall Doctours do dreame. And in the 8. art. of Smalcald: In this we most constantly stand, that God will not otherwise deale with vs then by the vocall word and Sacraments. Schusselburg also in the 10. tom. of his Catalogue pag. 30. rehearseth it is an errour of Suenckfeld, that men may be saued without the outward word of God and Ministery. And Melancthon in his answere to the Bauarian Articles tom. 3. fol. 372. affirmeth, that it is the opinion of Suenckfeld and the Anabap­tists: That God communicateth himself to men without the mi­nistery of the word. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen title of the Sacrament of Orders pag. 391: Iustly we disallow of Enthusiasts and Anabaptists, who imagin the exercise of the outward ministery not to be needfull. And title of P [...]n­nance pag. 316: The Enthusiasts are condemned, who feigne that God forgiueth sinnes immediatly, and without the vse of the ministery. D. Whitaker Cont 2. quaest. 3. c. 11. pag. 328: VVe wholy reiect reuelations, which are besides the word, as Fa­naticall, [Page 194] Anabaptisticall and altogether hereticall. And in his 1. booke of the Scripture cap. 3. sect. 1. pag. 44: VVe must expect no more immediat reuelation. It is so. And he ad­deth, that Protestants hisse out all those who pretend these kind of reuelations. And in the 2. book cap. 10. sect. 4: VVhy are the Anabaptists held for Heretiks, if the church do know matters of fayth without all externall meanes by the on­ly instinct of the holy Ghost? Pareus in his 3. booke de Iu­stificat. cap. 3: The exception which they make of speciall reue­lation, is a meere iest. For besides the Prophets, Apostles, & some few Apostolicall men, God doth not deale, nor hath dealt with speciall reuelations; but with ordinary, and will haue the Church to be content with the word and the holy Ghost working in the hearts of the faythfull. And cap. 8: God will not haue his church to be taught and confirmed by Enthusiasticall reuelations; but by bearing of his word and ordinary vse of the Sacraments. Final­ly Beza in the Conference of Montbelgard pag. 407. sayth: That we haue no testimony in scripture of extraordinary meanes of infusing fayth. Besides, it was the fashion of both old and new heretiks to boast of speciall reue­lations. Of old heretiks witnesseth S. Augustin in his booke of heresies; and Caluin in his booke of true Reformation pag. 322. Of Munster, Carolstade, and the Sacramentaries Luther testifieth the same vpon the 22. of Esaiae tom. 4. fol. 280. Of Gentilis, Caluin in his booke against him. Of Storcke, Manlius in his Common places pag. 482. Of Peucer and Bergius, Schusselburb. lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 1. pag. 172. that I may say nothing of Luther, The Protestant Church not taught by ordi­nary meanes. Zuinglius, and Caluin.

12. Others therefore teach that the Protestant church before Luther, receiued the fayth, not by any extraordinary way, but by ordinary meanes, to wit, by hearing some true doctrine of Popish preachers, [Page 195] and some by reading scriptures: Thus D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 424. Behold new fables and fictions (for we are like to heare no other kind of stuffe of Protestants in these matters of fact) not only lesse proued then the former, but also lesse pro­bable or possible. For it was at least possible, that God alone should haue taught his church; but that before Luthers reuolt either Popish or Protestanticall prea­chers, or the Scripture should haue taught Protestan­cy, hath neither shew of probability nor possibility. Not Protestant preachers, because before Luther there were none at all, as hereafter both D. Whitaker and others shall confesse. For the present it may suf­fice, that Luther vpon the 22. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 344. writeth: That there was lest only the scripture, and that com­prised not in voice, but in letters, by which we might restore our selues to the fayth. And Against Catarine tom. 2. fol. 140. he sayth, that the vocall ghospell, being choaked and extingui­shed by Papists, was silent in all the world. Neither could the Scripture teach Protestancy, not only because it tea­cheth no such doctrine, but also because it plainly professeth, Rom. 10. that none can come to fayth but by bea­ring of preachers lawfully sent, as hereafter we shall see Protestants do confesse. In the meane tyme it may suffice, that Danaeus in his book of the visible church pag. 1069. writeth, that S. Paul sayth that fayth commeth by hearing, not by priuate reading; and that we open a gap to Fanaticall spirits for to contemne their Pastors, if we say that reading alone will suffice to get fayth; which Protestants haue experienced. For thus wri­teth Luther in the Preface of his Catechisme tom. 5. fol. 645: There are found some this day euen of the Nobility, who dare say, we need no more Pastors or preachers; that bookes suffice out of which euery one may learne the same things by him­selfe [Page 196] without any mans teaching. And Caluin vpon the 2. Thess. cap. 4: Certaine phanaticall fellowes do bragge, that they need no more the help of teachers, because reading may abundant­ly suffice.

13. Neither could those imaginary Prote­stants learne Protestancy of Popish preachers. First, because Protestants, (as before his shewed) cōplaine, that Papists had extinguished all their fayth. Againe because now no man learneth Protestancy of Popish preachers, and besides because Papistry and Prote­stancy are directly opposite, as Luther sayth in cap. 3. Micheae tom. 4. fol. 446. and tom. 7. epist. ad Eslin­genses, and against King Henry tom. 2. fol. 497: Or (as Brentius speaketh in his Apology of the Confes­sion of Wittenberg pag. 703) they differ in the very princi­ples: or (as Beza writeth in his Confession cap. 7. pag. 56) In the very summe of saluation. And as D. Whitaker affirmeth in his oration that the Pope is Antichrist, Protestā ­cy & Po­pery quit opposite. Papistry is more repugnant to Protestantisme, then hoat to cold, black to white. How then is it possible that they should haue learnt Protestancy of Papists, who teach so cō ­trary doctrine. Lastly because Protestants themselues deny it. For Luther vpon the Graduall psalmes tom. 3. fol. 516. thus writeth: In Popery there was neuer heard one pure word of sinne, of grace, of the merit of Christ. And fol. 568: Vnder the Pope all pulpits, all Churches did sound out no­thing but wicked doctrine. And in cap. 2. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 297: Seeing Papists know not what fayth is, it is impossible that they should haue fayth, and much lesse teach it to others. And the Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the Preface: No man taught, that sinnes were remitted by sayth in Christ. Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 2. §. 2. sayth, that in Popery the doctrine without which Christianity cannot stand, was all buryed & cast out. And in Respons. ad Versipellem [Page 197] pag 360: In Popery there soundeth the bare and empty name of Christ. And vpon the 2. cap. 2. Tim: There is a horri­ble destruction of the gospell in Popery. Wherfore none learnt the Protestant Ghospell either in Popery, or of Po­pish preachers. Besides althogh they cold haue learnt the faith of Popish preachers, yet they should be asha­med to say, that they had learned it of them, whom they account the bondslaues and ministers of Anti­christ.

14. Ninthly, Nothing can make the church inuisible. I proue that the Church could not be inuisible, because there is nothing which can make that the Church professe not her fayth. For if any thing, most of all persecution. But as the wa­ters did lift vp the Arck of Nöe, which was a figure of the church; so do persecutions raise vp the church, and make her more knowne. And as the heauen in day tyme all shineth, but at might glittereth in the starres, so the church in tyme of peace flourisheth in all her members, but in tyme of persecution is most glorious in her constant soldiers. And there are many and most excellent testimonies of the holy Fathers, how that the Church is by persecution made more pure, more famous, and more plentifull, which one may read in SS. Iustin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Grego­ry Nazianzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, Augu­stin, Leo, Theodorete, Gregory the great, & others. I according to my purpose will alleage only the te­stimonies of Protestants. Luther vpon the 1. psalme tom. 3. fol. 125: The faythfull, whiles they are killed do en­crease, while they are diminished do multiply. And vpon the 9. of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 84: The Church is made fruithfull with the bloud of the Godly, and increaseth. Caluin against Seruet. pag. 595: The true and proper church rising vnder per­secution, flourished vnder the same. The like he hath vpon [Page 192] the 2. Tim. cap. 2. and Philip 1. Lubberia lib. 5. de Ec­cles. cap. 3: The true Church grew vnder suffering persecuti­ons. And the Apology of the English Church in the end: This flame the more it is kept downe, so much the more with greater sorce and strength doth it breake out and fly abroad. D. Fulke of Succession pag. 255: I acknowledge that the Church is so farre from being extinguished by the persecution of the materiall sword, that I graunt it giueth her occasion to delate and extend her bounds. For so, as Tertullian sayth well, the bloud of M [...]rtyrs is the seed of the Church. This all that are not starck blind do see to haue happened to our Church. For how much the more Antichrist raged with fire and sword, so much the more fa­mous she became. And D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 501: Persecutions destroy not the Kingdome of Christ, but make it more famous. And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 2. pag. 669: VVhen tyrants ra [...]ed against the church, religion suffered no losse; yea then most of all flourished How then could the Protestant church, if it were the true church of God, become inuisible before Luther arose, by persecu­tion?

15. If any reply, that this is true of violent persecution of the heathens, but not of persecutions by fraud & deceit, as is the persecution of Antichrist, which made the Protestant Church in former tyms to become inuisible: I answere that first he speaketh voluntary without all proofe. Againe, that the En­glish Apology and D. Fulke speake namely of Anti­christs persecution, meaning the Pope, which they say hath since Luthers tyme made their church more famous. How then could it before his tyme make it inuisible? Moreouer, the scripture and holy Fathers teach, that Antichrist shall rage most cruelly against the Church: and Protestants affirme that the Pope, whome they will haue to be Antichrist, hath byn so [Page 199] cruell against Protestants, as any Herode, Nero, Do­mitian, may seeme to haue byn mild if they be com­pared to him. Finally, heretikes do by fraud perse­cute the Church, and neuerthelesse the Apostle saith: There must be heresies, 1. Cor. 10. that those who be tryed may be made ma­nifest. So farre is fraudulent persecution from making the Church inuisible, as it maketh the tried faythfull to be manifest. And both S. Augustin oftentymes, & others obserue, that heresies haue byn occasion of great increase of knowledge vnto the Church.

16. Tenthly I proue, Protestāts inferre an inuisible Church to be no Church. that the Church can­not become inuisible, because Protestants do often inferre such and such a Church or company not to haue byn, because it was not seene; as in the Preface of the Protocoll of Frankentall, they proue the Ana­baptists were not before the year 1525. Because (say they) if you read all stories you shall find no people from the be­ginning of the world, who had a Confession of fayth like vnto yours. But by the same manner it were easy to proue that Protestants were not before Luther. For as Spa­latinus in his relation of their Cōfession of Auspurg boasteth: One shall not find such a Confession neither in any history, neither in any ancient Father or Doctor. In Luther tom. 9. German. And Fox in his Protestation before his Acts sayth, that of their Church there is no mention made in Histories. Lu­ther also vpon the 3. chap. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 358. writeth that of his principall opinion nothing is read in books of Monks, of Canonists, of Scholmen, yea nor in the books of ancient Fathers. There was a wonderfull silence of it for many ages in all schooles and Churches. Likewise, when one sayd, that the Roman Church was a member of the Catholike Church, Caluin in his Answere ad Ver­sipellem pag. 359. sayd: I do not gainsay that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholike, if he could shew a Church [Page 200] at Rome. Which supposeth that no Church is where it cannot be shewed. When Bellarmine sayd, that be­side the Synagogue of the Iewes there were in Elias tyme Churches amongst the Gentils, D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475. thus answered: If they say that God had other Churches, let them shew them, and tell which they were, and where they were. And D. Rainolds in his 12. Prefection vpon the scripture col. 106. infer­reth, that none of the Synagogue did belieue those bookes of Scripture which they deny to be canoni­call, because we cannot name any. When D. Har­ding sayd that there was such an heresy, M. Iewel art. 2. diuis. 8. pag. 75. denying it, sayth: It must needs be a very straung heresy that neuer had neither beginning nor en­ding, nor defender nor reprouer, nor mouth to speake it nor eare to heare it, nor pen to write, nor tym to last in, nor place to rest in. And if an heresy must be heard of, certainly much more the Church of God. When Beza impugned the Arians, thus he discourseth epist. 18. pag 98: If their opinion be true, we bid them shew where there Church hath byn, sith from the propagation of the ghospell it is easy to demonstrate, that neuer any one held any such thing, who was not condemned by the perpetuall consent of the Church. And he addeth epist. 81: Certainly there hath byn no true Church, if these men teach truth. When the Bohemians would proue that they had borrowed nothing of the Anabaptists, thus they write in the Preface of their Confession: Our Congre­gation was long tyme before any thing was heard of the Anabap­tists, or their name knowne in the world. Finally M. Ban­croft in his Suruey of the pretended discipline cap, 2. auoucheth, that the Geneuian discipline began of Caluin, because before him it was neuer seene or heard of. And if they think that a discipline, or an hereticall company could be, and not be seene or [Page 201] heard of in the world; how much more ought they to think the same of the Church of God?

17. Lastly I proue that the Church of God could not be inuisible, Absurdi­ties follow of the in­uisibility of the Church. because thereupon would en­sue many and great absurdities. For first, if the visi­ble Church should faile, it is manifest that it is not the Church of Christ, against which he hath pro­mised, that the very gates of hell shall not preuaile. And if it be graunted, that the visible Church is not the Church instituted by Christ, it must needs be but a humane society instituted by man. How then shold it come to passe, that one cannot be saued, vnlesse he be in the visible Church, if so he can be, as common­ly all Protestants do teach? Who contemne all ordi­nances of men as vnnecessary to saluation, why mak they such account of this humane institution? At the last the Protestants haue felt this mischeife, as ye may see in Caluin in his 3. homily in his Opuscles pag. 548. and Danaeus in his booke of the visible church; where they bring many reasons to proue, that it is necessary to be of the visible church. But seing them­selues do teach that the visible church is not the true Church in the sight of God, and consequently a hu­mane institution, how can they proue, that God hath commaunded, or men can appoint so strictly to ob­serue this one humane Institution, vnder paine of damnation? Another inconuenience is, that Christs promises touching the continuance of his church are exposed to the laughter and mockery of Iewes and Infidels. For sith (as the Law sayth, and Protestants acknowledge) among men, there is no other account made of things that appeare not, then of things that are not; what man will reasonably perswade him­selfe, that Christs Church hath euer continued in the [Page 202] world, if she for many ages appeared in no one cor­ner of the world? Surely this seemeth so incredible, that I think not, that any man well in his wittes be­lieueth it, howsoeuer for to defend the Protestants Church he may say it. But farewell rather such a Church which cannot be defended but by such im­probable paradoxes.

18. The 3. inconuenience is, that the church of God should haue byn much more miserable then hath byn the Synagogue of the Iewes, euen since it hath byn forsaken of God. For the Synagogue hath euer since Christs tyme byn visible vnto the world, and professed her fayth both before her owne and o­thers. Lib. 12. cōt. Faust. c. 11. The Iewish nation (sayth S. Augustin) whether vnder Pagan or Christian Kings, hath not lost the signe of her law, wher­with it is distinguished from other nations and people. The same testifieth S. Hierome epist. 129. ad Dardan. And Pe­ter Martyr in his Common places title of the Iewes §. 47: The Hebrews, albeit subdued of the Romans, yet neuer tooke their lawes, rites and customes; they keep their own yet as well as they can. And Sadeel in his Answere to Theses Posnan. cap. 8. graunteth the same. And the Magde­burgians in euery Century make speciall mention of the Iewes. To this some Protestants say, that it is no meruaile that the externall condition of the Church was more miserable thē of the Synagogue. Iunius & Daneus l. 4. de Eccl. c. 5. But who­soeuer shall read the Prophesies of the glory and am­plitude of the Church, will think this strange. But besides, not only the externall, but also the internall state of the Church was more miserable then the Sy­nagogue, if the Synagogue durst in all ages, euen be­fore her enemies, professe her faith; and the Church of Christ for long tyme durst mutter nothing euen before her owne children; yea (as we shall hereafter [Page 203] heare the Protestants teach) adored Antichrist, and obserued Antichristian and idolatricall rites & wor­ships. The 4. inconuenience is, that if we say that the Church may be, and yet not be seene of any, we giue occasion to euery new start vp heretik, to say, that his church hath euer byn: neither can we refute this his dotage, vnlesse we do maintaine that the church must be euermore visible, & professe her faith; which (as we haue seene) Protestants themselues do suppose, when they proue that any Church or company hath not byn in former tymes.

19. Out of all which hath byn sayd in this chapter, it appeareth euidently, that whither we put the forme of the Church in some visible thing or in­uisible, whether we say that the only elect and iust be of the church or not they alone; of what kind so­euer (I say) the forme of the Church be, and whoso­euer be of the Church (of which matter I disput not now) it is euident I say, that the Church of God ne­uer is at any tyme, but she professeth her sayth be­fore her children and before the world; and conse­quently that the Church her profession of fayth, or (which comes all to one) that the Church according to her profession of fayth, is euermore visible, or sen­sible, which sufficeth to my purpose; because before Luther arose, there was no Church visible in profes­sion of Protestant fayth. Wherefore I frame my 3. demonstration for to proue Luther to haue byn the Author of the Protestant Church in this sort: VVhen­soeuer the Church is, she is visible in profession of her sayth: (whe­ther this profession be an essentiall forme, or a pro­perty or accident inseparable) But the Protestant Church immediatly before Luther arose was not visible in profession of her sayth: Therefore immediatly before Luther she was not at [Page 204] all. And by his preaching became to be: Therefore he was the Au­thor thereof. The Maior or first proposition of the Syl­logisme is euident by all that hath byn layd in this chapter. And the Minor or second proposition by all the verball Confessions which we haue reheased in the former chapter, & by reall confessions of all Pro­testants whatsoeuer, who neither in Luthers tyme nor since, could bring forth any man worthy of cre­dit, who had seene any company professing Prote­stancy before Luther began to preach it. Then the which yet nothing had byn more easy to do, espe­cially in Luthers tyme, if any such company had byn extant.

That Protestants confesse, that before Luther their Church had no Protestant Pastors. CHAP. VII.

1. THE 4. demonstration for to proue that Lu­ther was the Author of the Protestāt church and Religion, we will take out of that Protestants acknowledge their Church before his tyme to haue wholy wanted Pastors. First therefore they confesse, that their Pastors in former tymes were vnknowne to the world, Protestāts Pastors vnknown to the world. and to Protestants themselues. D. Fulk in his booke of Succession pag. 26: God hath raised vp Pastors in all ages, howsoeuer they were vnknowne to the world. And pag. 22: I deny (sayth be) this Succession (of Pastors) to be alwayes notorious to the world. And in his answere to Stapletons Cauillat: who will acknowledge that she alone it the true Church, who can shew her Pastors in a continuall succes­sion? [Page 205] D. Humfrey to 3. Reason of F. Campian p. 288. confesseth, that not so much as the names of the Pa­stors, who taught their Church, were extant. D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 6. page 508. thus wri­teth: VVhat then? was the succession of our Pastors alwayes vi­sible? No. For this is not needfull. Though therefore our Pastors were not in tymes past manifest, neither can we name then, yet &c. D. Morton in the first part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 21. sayth, that the Catholike church cannot alwayes shew the ordination of Pastors. D. White in his way to the church pag. 410: I haue shewed the teachers of our fayth do lawfully succeed, and so alway haue done, though not outwardly and visibly to the world. The like he hath pag. 411. and 436. Sadel wrote his book de vocatione Ministrorū against such Protestants, as thought that their mini­sters wanted all lawfull calling, because (sayd they) they haue no perpetuall visible succession from the Apostles vnto these tymes. And himselfe there pag. 560. confesseth, that visible succession hath byn broken of, for many years in the church. Thou seest (good reader) how they plainly confesse, that before Luther start vp, their Pastors were vn­knowne to the world, not manifest, their succession not always visible, their names not extant, nor they can be named of Protestants. And indeed and effect they all confesse the same, when as none of them can produce any one man worthy of credit, who heard any Protestant preacher, who before Luther arose preached iustification by only fayth, and the other fundamentall points of Protestancy.

2. Secondly Luther eyther complaineth or boasteth for sometyme he alone preached Protestan­cy. In his Preface vpon his 1. tome: At first I was alone. Luther alone. And in his booke of the captiuity of Babylon tom. 2. fol. 63: At that tyme I alone did role this stone. And against [Page 206] the King of England fol. 497: I alone stood in the battell. I alone was compelled to cast my selfe vpon the weapons of the Em­perour and the Pope. I stood alone in danger forsaken of all, hel­ped of none. And vpon the graduall psalmes tom. 3. fol. 5 [...]5: In the beginning of my quarrell I took all the matter vpon my selfe, and did think that by Gods help I alone should sustaine it. And otherwhere, (as before is reported) he sayth, that without him others should not haue knowne one iot of the Ghospell. Melancthon in the Preface of the Acts of Ratisbon tom. 4. pag. 730: sayth: Luther alone durst medle with the errors of the Popes & schooles. Zuin­glius in his Exegesis to. 2. termeth Luther Ionathas, who alone durst set vpon the campe of the Philistians. And Cal­uin in his Admonition to Westphalus pag. 787. saith: Luther alone doubted not to set vpon all Popery. Besides, Lu­ther (as before we haue rehearsed) writeth, that the only scripture was left, whereby men might recouer the fayth. But if at that tyme there had byn other Protestant Pastors, the scripture had not byn alone; and without Luther men might haue learnt the gos­pell. Neither had Luther byn left alone and forsaken of all, The Protestant Ministery wholy perished. but some of them would haue stept out and se­conded him especially after they saw that the prea­ched without all danger.

3. Thirdly Protestants do sometyme plainly say, that their ministery was wholy perished before Luther arose. Taken away. Luther in his booke of priuate Masse tom. 2. fol. 249: Papists haue taken out of the Church the true Ministery of the word. And of the Institution of Mini­sters fol. 372. Abolo­shed. he writeth, that Protestant ordination was by Papists abolished and extinguished. And vpon the graduall psalm. tom. 3. fol. 568: The Church had no true Ministry vnder Antichrist. No true Ministery Vpon the 25. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 319: In our tyme after those Popish monsters the true know­ledge [Page 207] of the word, and of diuine ordination was extinguished. And vpon the 49. chap. fol. 655: Extingui­shed. VVe are not the church for any ordinary succession. Caluin epist. 290: Because the true ranck of ordination was broken of, by the tyranny of the Pope, now we need haue new help to raise againe the Church. Brokē of. And in Answere to Sadolet pag. 132. he writeth, that when the supremacy of the Pope was set vp, the true order of the Church perished. Perished. And of true reformation p. 322: Not without cause do we auouch the Church of God for some ages to haue byn so io [...]ne and scattered, that is it was destitute of true Pastors. Beza in his Catechisme, Destitute of Pastors title of the Church, cap. 5 sect. 18: In our tyme it came to passe, thinges being so fallen downe, that there was left no place for ordinary vo­cation. And epist. 5. pag. 39: In our tyme ordinary vocation, Ordinary vocation no where. which no where was, neither could, nor ought to be expected. And Epist. 24: Ye know, being taught by fresh examples, how the publike ministry being as it were ouerwhelmed for a tyme, yet the church of God remaineth. And epist. 81: The matter came to that passe, Ouer­thrown to the groūd that the Ecclesiasticall order was wholy ouer­throwne euen to the foundation, the vaine names therof only re­mayning. And lib. de Notis Eccles. pag. 82: They, who in our memory haue freed the church from the tyranny of Antichrist, had none of whome they might lawfully aske or receiue imposition of hands. And epist. 86: It is mani [...]est, that for some ages law­full order was quite abolished in the Church; Quite abolished. none not so much as the slenderest shadow of the cheifest part, of ecclesiasticall calling, remayning. The French Confession art. 31: Sometymes, as in our age, the state of the Church being interrupted, it was needfull, that some (Pastors) should be extraordinarily raysed of God. Sadeel also de Vocat. Ministrorum p. 556. sayth, that true Order (of Pastors) was interrupted. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 510: VVe say, that our mens calling was not ordinary, but extraordinary; Wholy corrupted because ordinary calling was wholy corrupted. Againe: The state of the Church [Page 208] was fallen and wholy ouerturned. And pag. 612: VVhen ordi­nary succession was corrupted, God found an extraordinary way, by which the Church might be restored. For God would that this restauration should be made, not in the old foundation, that is in succession of Bishops, but after a certaine new extraordinary manner. And D. White in defence of his way cap 49. pag. 421: Finding no other kind of Pastors, sayth, that the Protestant Pastors were euen those, who liued in communion of the Roman, Greek, Arme­nian, and such like Churches; and addeth that his aduersary doth deceiue the reader when he intima­teth, that Protestants goe about to shew any other kind of Pastors. Finally all those, who affirme that the vocation or Mission of Luther and their first Mi­nisters was extraordinary, must needs say, that there were no former Protestant Pastours, of whome they could haue byn sent or approued.

Protestāts say the Church may be without Pastors.4. The same also they insinuate, when they teach, that the Church may be without Pastors, which they affirme, that thereby they may defend the being of their own Church before Luther, when it had no Pastors. Luther in cap. 4. Oseae tom. 4. fol, 295: As if the Church were tyed to any certaine order (of Mi­nistery) The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: God est­soones restoreth the Ministery. Caluin of true Reform. pag. 332: I graunt indeed that it can neuer fall out that the Church perish; but when they referre that to Pastors which is promised of the perpetuall continuance of the church, in that they are much deceiued. For the Church doth not perish streight, if Pastors he wanting. Beza of the notes of the Church pag. 55: Or­dinary succession and vocation of Pastors was not always needfull or perpetuall. Sadeel in Answere to the abiured articles pag. 533: It is false that the outward Ministery must be perpe­tuall. The same he hath in Repetit. Sophism. Turriani [Page 209] pag. 763. Iunius and Danaeus lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 8. Bucan. in his 41. place de Eccles. quest. 19: Sometyme the outward and vsuall ministry of the church being interrupted, the Church is extraordinarily nourished of God, as it were in the desert. Keckerman in his Theologicall Systeme lib. 3. pag. 397: The Church is often pressed so, that the order of suc­cession (of Pastors) must be somewhat interrupted. And Vor­stius in his Antibellarm. pag. 158: The ordinary succession vseth oftentymes to be interrupted for some tyme. Lu [...]bert in his 5. booke of the church cap. 5: VVe say that the church may for a short space be depriued of Pastors. D. Whitaker c. 6. before cited, pag. 510: I gather that true and lawfull suc­cession may be broken of, and that it is not a true, but only an ac­cidentall note of the Church; because it pertaineth not to the es­sence of the Church; but only to her externall state. And pag. 512: VVe say that ordinary succession hath oftentymes byn in­terrupted, and cut of, in the true Church. D. Morton. lib. cit. cap. 17. writeth thus: The matter of the proposition, to wit, where there is no succession there is no Church, ye know to be weake. And cap. 18. he affirmeth this saying to be false: Succession of doctrine cannot be deuided from succession of persons. And cap. 23. sayth: Succession of fayth may be with­out succession of doctrine; and succession of doctrine without suc­cession of persons. D. Fulke lib. de Succes. pag. 319: Yea euen the very publike preaching of the word may be silent for a tyme; and the Church being depriued for a tyme of this ordinary meanes of her saluation, may be preserued so long of God. And D. VVhite in his way to the Church pag. 87: All the ex­ternall gouernment of the Church may come to decay, in that the locall and personall Succession of the Pastors may be interrupted. And pag. 403: For the externall Succession we care not; it is sufficient that in doctrine they succeded the Apostles and primitiue Churches, and those faythfull witnesses, which in all ages since im­braced the same.

[Page 210]5. By the foresayd Confessions of Protestants it is most cleare, that when Luther began to play the Pastor, there was no Protestant preacher at all. For they acknowledge, that they are no Church for any ordinary succession; that the true order of the church perished, that the true Ministery was taken out of the Church, true knowledge of diuine ordination was extinguished, and ordination abolished and de­cayed: That the Church had no true Ministery, and that she was destitute of true Pastors. And that they meane these words both of a substantiall & vniuer­sall destruction of true Ministry, is manifest both by the selfe same words and others also. For they adde withall, that the state of the church was quite ouer­throwne, ordinary vocation wholy corrupted, that ordinary vocation was no where, no place left for ordinary vocation, and there were none, of whome those who freed their Church from Popery, might receiue imposition of hands: that the state of the Church was so interrupted, that God must raise vp Pastors extraordinarily, that the true ranck of ordi­nation was so cut of, as that their needed a new suc­cour and a new foundation; lastly that the Ecclesia­stical order, the vaine names therof only remayning, was ouerthrowne from the foundation, and lawfull order quit abolished: that there was not left so much as the slenderest shadow of the cheifest parts of eccle­siasticall vocation. In which words either they say that there was neuer a Protestant Pastor at all, or that can be sayd by no words whatsoeuer. And such was the state and condition of the Protestant church, not for a small tyme, but as themselues say, for some ages. And for this cause vsually they call Luther & his first partners, their Plessie l. 1. de Eccl. c. 11. Napp. in 14. Apocal. first ministers, first Sadeel de Vocat. pag. 556. teachers, first G [...]alt. Praefat. in ep. ad Rom re­storers [Page 211] of the ghospell, first Perk. in [...]. Galat. cap. 11. preachers of the ghospell, first re­storers of the house of God, Apostles and Euangelists.

6. Finally I proue that there was no true Protestant preacher before Luther, out of the reall cōfession of all Protestants. For none of them all can by any sufficient testimony or argument proue, that there was any such Pastor. Wherefore this is rashly affirmed and fondly belieued. [...] Marc. [...] Either proue (sayth Ter­tullian) that which thou belieuest, or if thou prouest it not, how doest thou belieue it? And that common argument of theirs, wherewith they vse to proue, that they had a Church and Pastors at all tymes, because they bring the Scripture to proue their doctrine to be true; we shall hereafter shew to be a most vaine Sophisme. And besides themselues do ouerthrow it, in teaching as we haue seene, that the Church may be without Pastors; wherby it would not follow that they had Pastors, albeit they could by the Scripture proue that before Luther they had a Church. Moreouer then those who endeauour to name some Protestant prea­chers or Pastors before Luthers tyme, do plainly shew that there was no true and absolute Protestant Pa­stor, to wit such as taught iustification by only faith, and the rest of the fundamentall opinions of Prote­stancy. For the Apology of the Church of England pag. 103. sayth, That they gaue not so cleare a light, but light­ned as it were some sparck. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: That they ioyned stable vnto the foundation. Cruci­ger and Rorarius in Luther. tom. 1. fol. 202: That they had some litle light. D. Fulke of Success. pag. 131: That per­haps in all points they knew not the Apostolicall doctrine. And D. Whitaker de Scriptura lib. 2. cap. 8. sect. vlt: How­soeuer they were enuironed with most grosse darknesse, yet they told some sparckes of truth, and shewed them to others. And [Page 212] what other thing I pray you is this, but to confesse, that such were but Protestants in part and in some sort. Yea they name some, whome they confesse to haue reprehended only certaine abuses amongst the Papists, as Melancthon in his Answere to the Baua­rian articles tom. 3. fol. 369. and Illyricus in his Ca­talogue lib. 15. confesse of Hilten. It remayneth yet for the accomplishing of this demonstration, that we also shew by the Confessions of Protestants, that the true Church of God can neuer want Pastors, as they haue confessed theirs to haue wanted for the space of some ages.

That the true Church cannot be without Pastors. CHAP. VIII.

1. THAT the Church can neuer be without Pa­stors, I proue first out of the Confessions of the Protestant faith. For thus professe they to belieue in the Confession of Saxony cap. 12: The Sonne of God hath giuen ministers of the Ghospell vnto the Church, to the end it do not quite perish. Againe: He would haue alwayes a com­pany in mankind, in which the Sonne himselfe appointed and conserued the Ministery of keeping and spredding his doctrine. The Confession of Suitzers cap. 18: God hath alwayes vsed ministers for to setle and gather him a Church, and also for to gouerne and preserue it; and vseth the same now, and further will vse them whiles the Church shall be on earth. The French Confession art. 25: VVe belieue the Church cannot consist if it haue not Pastors, who haue the office of teaching. The Con­fession of the low Countries art. 30: VVe belieue that the [Page 213] true Church ought to be gouerned and ruled by that spirituall po­licy, which God hath taught in his word, so that there be Pastors and ministers in it. And the Confession of Strasburg: Seing the [...]hurch is the Kingdome of God, it hath diuers functions of ministers.

2. Secondly I proue it, because for the church to be without Pastors, is to want some part of the es­sence and definition giuen by the Protestants them­selues. For Luther Proposition 15. to. 1. fol. 385. thus defineth a Church: It is a number of baptized persons and belieuers vnder one Pastor. And tom. 2. fol. 366. he sayth: The publike Ministery of the word whereby the Mysteries of God are dispensed, must be instituted by holy ordination, as the thing which in the Church is the cheifest and principallest of all. Kem­nice in his Common places title of the Church pag. 146: The Church consisteth of Pastors and learners. Gerla­chius in his 22. Disput. pag. 966: The Church is not a company meeting by chance or disordered, but called by the voice of the cryers of the word for to heare the doctrine of the Ghospell. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 7: The Ministery is the cheifest sinew and soule of the Church. Beza of the Notes of the Church pag. 9: By the name of the Church properly ta­ken, it is certaine that not only Pastors but also stocks are vnder­stood. Iunius Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 15: God instituted or­ders in the Church, for the essentiall outward constitution therof. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: The Church cannot subsist without Pastors of whome it is taught. For doctrine doth make and constitute the Church, and is her soule and life. And cap. 18. pag. 546: The Church is no other number, then that which holdeth the pure preaching of the word and right vse of the Sacraments. And cap. 17. dag. 541: Syn­cere preaching of the word and lawfull administration of the Sa­craments do make the church; in so much as whersoeuer they be, there the Church is; and where they be not, the Church is not. [Page 214] D. Feild in his 2. booke of the Church cap. 6: The Mi­nistery of Pastors and teachers is absolutely and essentially necessa­ry to the being of the Church. And lib. 1. cap. 10: Bellarmine laboureth in vaine in prouing that there is and alwayes hath byn a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry or vse of Sacraments; for all this we do most willingly yield vnto. Yea the Philosophers by the light of reason perceiued, that it is impossible they should be a Common wealth without Magistrates. This same also is manifest by many other definitions which Protestants haue made of the Church, and we haue rehearsed them before, in which they place true preaching and administration as essentiall parts of the true Church; which yet cannot be without Pa­stors.

3. Besides, this were against the definitions of the Church giuen by the holy Fathers. For thus writeth S. Cyprian epist. 79: The Church is the people vnited to the Priest, and the flock cleauing to the Pastor. And this he proueth out of those words of our Sauiour Math. 16: Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock will I build my Church. S. Hierome also in his dialogues against the Luciferians: It is no Church which hath no Priest. S. Igna­tius in his epist. ad Trallianos: VVithout these (Priests) the elect Church is not, no congregation without these, no meeting of Saints. And whereas Danaeus lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 8. sayth, that these Fathers define only a visible church, that auaileth nothing: because indeed there is no Church on earth which is not visible in profession of faith. Againe, Pastors shall be at least of the essence of the visible Church, and consequently the Prote­stant Church, which before Luther wanted Pastors, was no visible Church. Furthermore, S. Cyprian proueth his definition out of those words of Christ [Page 215] Matt. 16. which (as is certaine and Protestants con­fesse) are spoken of the true Church in the sight of God. And S. Ignatius sayth, that there is no elect church, no congregation of Saints, without Priests: which he must needs meane of the true Church. And Saint Hierome simply sayth it is no Church, which hath no Priests: which he could no wayes say, if the true Church in the sight of God could be without Priests. And hereby also is refuted Sadeel in Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 652. when he sayth: The defi­nition of S. Cyprian is not essentiall, nor properly teacheth what the Church is, but what a one it ought to be. For S. Cyprian inferreth out of his definition, that if one be not with the Bishop, he is not in the Church. And Saint Hierome pronounceth one Hilaries sect to haue pe­rished with him, because he left no Pastor behind him. And for this cause the Fathers do still obiect vnto heretiks the want of succession of Pastors, as an euident marke that they are not the Church; as euen Protestants themselues confesse. For thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 509: The Fathers rebuked heretiks that they wanted succession of Bishops. Sadeel of Vocation of Ministers pag. 546: S. Augustin oftentyms opposed this succession against the Manichees and Donatists. Zanchius of the Church pag. 138: I admit that succession of true Bishops is a marke of the Church; and of this speake the Fathers. The like confesse Caluin Respons. ad Versi­pellem pag. 358. and 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 3. Beza epist. 1. Plessy de Eccles. cap. 3. Fulke de Success. pag. 36. D. Morton Apol. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 13. Iames Andrews cont. Hosium pag. 89. and others. Neither is it true which D. Whitaker and Sadeel say, that the Fathers did not think that they conuinced the Heretiks not to be the Church, because they wanted succesion of [Page 216] Pastors. For S. Irenaeus sayth that hereby he con­foundeth heretiks, and that this is a most full demo­stration. S. Augustine writeth, that this argument of succession held him in the Church. S. Athanasius calleth it a notable and admirable argument. And Sadeel himselfe loc. cit. sayth that with this battering ramme S. Cyprian did especially vanquish the Nouatians. And Peter Martyr in his Common places tit. de Schis­mate, writeth that S. Augustines argument taken from the succession of Pastors was very euident against the Donatists.

Protestāts confesse necessity of Pastors4. Thirdly I proue that the Church cannot be without Pastors, because eftsoones the Protestāts confesse it. Luther vpon 10. chap. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 125: The Church cannot consist without continuall vse of the word. And of the Notes of the Church tom. 7. fol. 151: The Church cannot be without Pastors. Melancthon v­pon the. 3. cap. of Math. tom. 1. fol. 258: God will alwayes haue some publike Ministery. He will not suffer the publike mini­stery to be destroyed. And in cap. 16. pag. 489: There is no Church where there is no true Ministery. And ibideth in his sermon vpon the rock pag. 176: The Church is built vpon the Ministery. And tom. 1. in loc. cap. de Eccles. fol. 227: VVe must not seigne a Church without the Ministry. And cap. de numero Sacramentorum. fol. 334: The Ministry can­nat be quite destroyed. And in his dispute of Ecclesiast. policy tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 442: The Church cannot exist. this ministry being extinguished. Kemnice in his Common places tit. of the Church cap. 4: There are promises ex­tant of the perpetuall conseruation of the Ministry in the Church. Gerlachius Disput. 22. pag. 940: The publike Ministry is alwayes conserued. Iames Andrews against Hosius pag. 330: No man denieth that the Church cannot be without Bi­shops Oecolampadius vpon the 62. cap. of Isaias pag. 30 [...]: God raiseth vp at all tymes Apostles and preachers. Bola­nus [Page 217] in his Syn [...]agme lib. 7. cap. 11: The function of ordi­nary Ministers after the Ecclesiasticall order is one setled, is per­petuall, and to endure to the end of the world: Caluin 4. In­stitut. cap. 2. §. 4: For neither the light and heat of the Sunne, nor meat and drinck are so necessary to cherish and sustaine the present life, as the Pastorall function is for to conserue the church on earth. And §. 3: God hath setled foreuer the way of gouer­ning and holding his Church by Ministers. And §. 4: The church can neuer want Pastors and teachers. Beza de Notis Eccles. pag. 60: The church can neuer want either the seed of the word, or sowing, or sowers. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 197: The Ghospellers acknowledge the 3. other orders to be perpetuall in the Church, to wit, Pastors, Priests, and Deacons. D. Whi­taker cont. 2. quest. 3, cap. 2. pag. 469: I answere that there were alwayes Pastors and sheepe, and that there shall be euer Pa­stors to the end of the world. And quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: I confesse the succession of Pastors to be necessary. Againe: I an­swere that the Church cannot stand without Pastors. D. Fulke de Succes. pag. 22; I graunt that the succession of Pastors is ne­cessary in the church. And pag. 95: The true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles neuer wanted cryers. D. White in defence of his way cap. 35. pag. 381: The Church shall neuer want Pastors. And his Maiesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 61: Neither can hell stand without some order and distinction. The Diuels are deuided into Legions and haue their Princes, how then can any compa [...]on earth stand which is confused and disor­dered without all difference of orders or dignity. You see how confused a thing Protestants account the Church to be without Pastors, and that they speake far other­wise of the Church, when they consider the true na­ture thereof, then when they looke vpon the condi­tion of their owne Church in former tymes before Luther. Neither do they only sometymes confesse that the Church cannot be without Pastors, but also [Page 218] acknowledge that Scripture [...]o [...]h teach so. For thu [...] Melancthon in his foresayd dispute fol. 483: Scripture requireth. Pastors. VVhere the Church is, there must needs be lawfull ordination of Mini­sters; which ordination is one of the proper giftes of the Church, according to that of the 4. chap. to the Ephesians: He hath giuen Pastors &c. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen tit. de Sacramento ordinis pag. 192: The Sonne of God him­selfe will conserue in the Church with perpetuall calling the Mi­nistry of those who teach the Ghospell. So sayth Paul Ephes. 4. Caluin. 4 Institut. cap. 3. §. 2: In these words (Ephes. 4) he sheweth the Ministry to be the cheife sinew, wherewith the faythfull hung togeather in one body, and insinuateth also that the Church cannot otherwise be safe, vnlesse it be propped with these helpes, in which God would place her safety. The like he hath in cap. 4. Ephes. and 1. Cor. cap. 6. and 12. and 1. Tim. cap. 3. D Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 19. pag. 549: This place of Esay cap. 59: My spirit &c. sheweth that the true preaching of the word shall be perpetuall in the Church. D. Whitgift in his Answere to the Admonition pag. 17: The place of Mathew 9. sheweth that Ministers are necessary in the Church. D. Fulk ad Cauillat. Stapl: You do that which is done already, whiles you proue out of the Apostles writings that the continuance of the Pastors and Doctors is of no lesse certain­ty, then the continuance of fayth and doctrine. And de Succes. pag. 180: The Scriptures promise perpetuall succession of Pastors and Doctors.

Preaching necessary to fayth,5. Fourthly I proue this same because Pro­testants sometymes do teach, that preaching (which cannot be done without Pastors) is necessary to in­graft fayth in men. For, as before we rehearsed, they condemne the Anabaptists and Suenckfeldians in that they teach, that men can come to fayth with­out preaching. And Luther tom. 1. fol. 54. writeth that the administration of the word by a Priest is [Page 219] needfull for faith. And Cont. Caterin tom. 2. fol. 140. sayth, that by the vocall word the Church is concei­ued, formed, nourished, begotten, and conserued. And de instituendis Ministris fol. 372: Seing the church is brought forth, nourished, and conserued by the word of God, it is manifest that she cannot be without the word; or if it be with­out the word, that it leaueth to be a Church. In cap. 17. Io­annis tom. 5. fol. 203: For God hath not determined to con­serue them (the faythfull) without outward meanes, albeit he could do it. Also vpon the 1. chap. of Zacharias: Although God can teach men the Ghospell without sermons, yet he will not do it. And of the Notes of the church tom. 7. fol. 149: VVhat could or would the people of God belieue, vnlesse the word of God sounded there. Melancthon in locis tom. 3. cap. de libero arb. fol. 311: God gathereth a true Church by the voice of the Ghospell and not otherwise. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen tit. de Sacramento ordinis pag. 391: God by his certaine counsell hath determined, that he will dispense those things, which belong to the matter of our saluation, not im­mediatly by infusing new and peculiar reuel [...]tions into the minds of men without any meanes, but by the outward Ministry of the word. Caluin. 4 Institut. cap. 1. §. 5: Howbeit Gods power be not tyed to outward meanes, neuertheles be hath tyed vs to the ordinary meanes of Preaching. Many are pusht on by pride, dis­daine and emulation to perswade themselues that they can profit inough by priuate reading and meditating. And §. 4: The knowledge of her (the visible Church) is profitable to vs; yea necessary, for we cannot come to life vnlesse she conceiue vs in her wombe, beare vs, nourish vs with her duggs. And in 1. Tim. cap. 3: The office of preaching which God hath left in his church, is the only instrument of truth, that it go not out of mens minds. The Ministery of the word being taken away God truth will fall downe. Beza epist. 20: It is cleare that fayth cometh of hea­ring, and therefore preaching must goe before fayth. Tayé in [Page 220] his Enchiridion disput. 60: The necessity of ecclesiasticall Ministry appeareth in that without it we can not know the word of God, nor his will therein reuealed vnto vs. D. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scriptura cap. 9 sect. 9. pag. 106: The ministry being taken away, neither fayth, nor Charity, nor obedience, nor any vertue will remayne safe. And cap. 2. sect. 6. pag. 37: VVe cannot at all belieue without the Ministry of the church. And lib. 3. cap. 15 sect. 20. pag. 478: I affirme, determine, and hold, that there is no entrance to saluation without the Mi­nistry of the word. Againe: by the Ministry of Pastors we be­lieue the Scripture, neither is it to be hoped that without this Ministry sayth can grow in our minds. And cap. 5. sect. 2: I confesse the Ministry of the Church to be most necessary. And Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 19. pag. 550: VVe neuer come to fayth without preaching of the word. D. Fu [...]ke de Succes pag. 30: The peoples saluation cannot be procured without preaching. And pag 162: No Christian will deny preaching of the word to be necessary for the edification of the church. M. Latimer in his sermons fol. 38: Take away preaching and take away saluation. Fol. 99: The office of preaching is the only ordinary meane, whereby God hath determined to saue vs. M. Cartw­right in M. Hooker lib. 5. of Ecclesiasticall policy p. 41: Reading may set forward, but not begin the worke of salua­tion, sayth may be nourished therewith, but not bred; herein mens attention to the Scriptures and their speculation of the crea­tures of God haue like efficacy, both being of power to augment, but neither to effect beliefe without sermons. And the Puri­tans in D. Whitgifts Answere to the Admonitions: Reading is no feeding. How then could there be any Pro­testant Church or fayth at all before Luther, when (as we heard before) there was then no Protestant preacher? Scripture requireth preaching And in like sort sometymes they confesse, that the Scripture it selfe teacheth, that preaching is necessary to haue fayth. The Confession of Auspurg. [Page 221] cap. de potest. Eccles. pag. 59: Euerlasting iustice, the holy Ghost, eternall life, cannot be had but by the ministry of the word and Sacraments, as Paul sayth. The Confession of Bohe­mia art. 10: They graunt that none can attaine to right sayth, vnlesse he heare the word of God, according to that of S. Paul; Fayth is of hearing. And againe: How shall they belieue in him of whome they haue not heard. And the Protestants in their conference at Marspurg agreed, as reporteth Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol 77: That the holy Ghost, if we speake of the ordinary course, giueth fayth to none, vnlesse preaching or the vocall word goe before; but by and with the vo­call word he worketh and maketh fayth, where and in whome it pleaseth him, Rom 10. Caluin also 4. Institut. cap. 1. §. 5: God inspireth fayth into vs by the instrument of his Ghospell, as Paul admonisheth, that sayth is of hearing. Againe: VVe must hold that which I haue set downe out of Paul, that the Church is not otherwise edified but by outward preaching and in 1. Tim. cap. 3: Paul meaneth simply that which in other words he deli­uereth Rom. 10. because fayth is of hearing, that there will be no sayth vnlesse there be preaching. The like he hath 1. Cor. 3. v. 6. Heb. 4. v. 12. and Ephes. 4. v. 12. Beza in the Conference at Montbelgard pag. 407: The ordinary manner whereby fayth is infused, is by hearing the word, Rom. 10. And Bucer in cap. 10. Rom: The Apostle knew that God could call men without the ministry of men, neuertheles he absolutely wrote: How shall they belieue in him of whome they haue not heard. Hyperius also vpon the same place: That is, that all belieue and call vpon God, it is needfull that be­fore they heare the Ghospell and be taught. D. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scrip. cap. 2. sect. 4: That of the Apostle, how shall they belieue without a preacher, conuinceth this much, that preaching is necessary to conceiue assured of fayth God. And c. 10. sect. 4: The Apostle doth plainly say, that fayth is of hearing. And Cont. 2. quest. 5. c. 19. pag. 549: This place (of Isay 59.) [Page 222] sheweth that true preaching of the word shallbe perpetuall in the Church. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 787: I answere that place Rom. 10. Faith is of hearing, to be vnderstood of iustifying fayth. So that neither the visible nor inuisible Church could euer haue byn without preaching.

6. Out of all that hath byn sayd in this and the former chapter I thus make my fourth demon­stration, for to proue that Luther was Author of the Protestant Church. If before Luther the Protestant Church had no Pastors, she was not then at all: But then she had no Pa­stors at all: Therefore then she was not at all: And by him she came to haue both Protestant Pastors and sheep: Therfore by him she had her beginning. The Maior is euident by those Confessions of Protestants which we haue rehearsed in this chapter; and the Minor by those that were re­peated in the former.

That the Protestants Church and Religion before Luther was no where. CHAP. IX.

1. THE first demonstration, for to proue that Luther was Author of the Protestāt church and Religion, Protestāts name not the place. shall be taken from want of place; to wit, that it was no where before Luther began. And this I proue, first, because they oftentymes say, that before Luthers tyme their Church was in the desert, in darknes, in lurking holes, in Trephonius denne; neuertheles they tell not where this desert, this dark­nes, this lurking hole, this denne was. Secondly, some of them confesse, that they know not where [Page 223] their Church was in tyme pa [...]t. D. Whitaker Cont. [...] quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475: Know not the place. They are angry with vs that we cannot [...]hew, and as it were point with our finger where our Church was in tymes past. The same insinua­teth Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 766. saying, that he answered this question, VVhere there Church lurked, when he sayd, That it lay hid by the vn­searcheable iudgement of God; as if he sayd: It lay so close hid, that it cannot be knowne where it lay. Also D. Hall in his Rome Irreconcileable sect. 1. when he calleth this our demaund, VVhere their Church lurked, an idle demaund of Pettifoggers. But that it is no idle demaund, is manifest. For first, what man in his wittes seeth not, that she, who is pretended to be the Catholike Church, that is, spred ouer the world, was not at all, if no place can be found where she was for many ages. Againe, because the holy Fathers and Protestants themselues demaund this of here­tikes. VVho are yee (sayth Tertullian) when, Praes. 32.37. and whence come ye? where lurked ye so long? Againe: Let them bring forth the o [...]spring of their Churches. S. Athanasius: VVhence came these things? yea what hell hath vomited them out? Lib. de Ni­cen Synod. & de Syn. Selenuc. Lib 3 de Bapt. c. 2. And S. Au­gustine: VVhere appeared Donatus? Out of what ground sprung he? Out of what sea arose he? from what heauen fell he? And Beza epist. 18. demaundeth the like of the Arians say­ing: If their opinion be true, we bid them shew then where was their Church. Besides, the Confession of Saxony chap. of the Church, professeth, that the true Church knoweth where the is. And Kemnice in his Common places tit, de Eccles. cap. 3: God will haue vs to know which, and where is the true Church. Wherefore it is no idle but a most ne­cessary thing, to know where the Church is: and if Protestants immediatly before Luther arose, knew not where the Church was; it must needs follow [Page 224] that she was not the true Church.

Catholiks alwayes asked where was the Protestant Church.2. Thirdly I proue it, because euen those who take vpon them to tell where their Church was in former tymes, do shew indeed, that they know no place where she was. For as M. Iewel sayth art. 1. di­uis. 7. pag. 10: Eckius, Pighius, Hosius and others haue often cryed out a mayne in their bookes and pulpits, where was your re­ligion before Luther first began to preach? And that the same hath byn demaunded by Catholiks, confesseth Pe­ter Martyr in locis tit. de discessu ab Eccl. Rom. col. 1492. Beza de Notis Eccles. pag. 78. and in his 132. question. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. M. Per­kins in his Reformed Catholik tract. 22. cap. 1. and others. And it is manifest by the writings & speaches of all Catholikes. Yea Luther in cap. 19. Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 125. writeth, that this was our first argument a­gainst them, and will be our last: Art thou alone wise, or doest thou thinke that all our auncestours saw nothing? Did all those, who were before thee, erre? Because he saw, that this argument did most presse him, and that he could neuer answere it. Let vs see therefore, what they an­swere to this our first and last demaund so often and with such earnestnesse and so great cryes proposed of vs. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. proposeth their answere in these words: Protestāts answere. Stapleton sayth that Caluin and we say, that the true Church was in Popery, but that Popery was not the church: That indeed we all say. And the same in sub­stance answereth Luther lib. de seru. arbit. tom. 2. fo. 438. in psalmos graduales to. 3. fol. 589. And de Missa priuata tom. 7. fol. 236. Iames Andrewes cont. Ho­sium pag. 326. Herbrand in Compend. Theol. loc. de Eccl. pag. 502. Hunnius Praefat. tract. de Iustific. Hu­berus in Antibellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Hutter in A [...]alysi Confess. August. p. 447. Gerlachius disput. 22. p. 952. [Page 225] Lobechius disp. 10. pag. 202. Gesnerus loc. 24. Rei­neccius lib. 4. armaturae cap. 3. And amongst the Sa­cramentaries Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 2. §. 11. Peter Mar­tyr, Beza, and M. Perkins locis cit. Sadeel in Refut. Thes. Posnan. cap. 8. Polanus part. 3. Thes. de Eccl. Daneus de Antichristo cap. vlt. Iunius lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 166. Vorstius in Catechism. quest. 54. art. 2. Soh­nius in method. Theol. pag. 213. Bucanus loc. 4. de Eccl. and others commonly.

3. But this answere satisfieth not our que­stion, for many causes. First, because to say that the Church was in Popery, but Popery was not the Church, doth not seeme an answere, but a ridle, & perhaps put of purpose, because as Bucer sayd: Lib. 1. epist. Zanchii. Pro­testants mysteries must not be expounded to Papists. Secondly they agree not among themselues what they meane by Popery. For Boysseul in his Cōfutation of Spon­dé pag. 723. will haue it to be Popish doctrine, say­ing: He knoweth not what we call Popery. He imagineth, that it is men. But we say, that it is heresies and errors, the abuses & idolatries of the Roman Church. And D. White in defence of his way cap. 32. pag. 305: The Papacy is nothing else but a disease or excrement breeding in the Church. Moulins of Arnolds flights cap. 6: Popery is a masse of errors, and cor­ruption of Christianity. And Caluin in 1. Galat. v. 9: Pope­ry is a horrible ouerthrow of the Ghospell. Others by Pope­ry vnderstand the company of Papists. Schusselburg tom. 8. Catal. heret. pag. 480. writeth that Popery signifieth a company. And Iames Andrewes Cont. Hosium pag. 326. sayth: Popery, that is, the Pope, Bishops, and they who consent to their impiety. Thirdly Popery whereby you vnderstand such a company, or such doctrine, is no place; & we aske for the place wher­in Protestants were before Luthers tyme. Fourthly, [Page 226] because we aske not wher only they say thier church was, (for what can they not say?) but where they proue their Church to haue byn. Lib. 1. cōt. Gaud. c. 33. Wherefore that I may imitate S. Augustins words, I demaund whither God told them that their Church was in tymes past in Popery, or man? If God, let them read it out of the Scripture. If man, let them bring him forth that we may iudge, whither he be worthy to be belieued or no. If neither God nor man told them this, then it is, 2. Pet. 1. (as the Scripture speaketh) an vnlearned fable, which cannot be proued by any diuine or humane testimony, a fiction, a dreame, which they would be ashamed to vtter, if they were not compelled by necessity to say somewhat. But (as S. Hilary sayth) he is not ashamed of folly, who hath lost religion. Fiftly I proue this, Lib. 7. de Trinit. because Protestants euen by their manner of speach do be wray, that they are not certaine that their Church was in Popery. For D. White in his Way cap. 33. pag. 338. sayth: It is more then probable. O­siander in his Manuel englished pag. 65. sayth: It is Credible. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 22. sayth: How ma­ny shall we think there were. Others confesse, that they know not those Protestants whome they say to haue byn in Popery Luther in psalm. 45. tom. 3. fol. 447: Vnder Popery there were alwayes and yet are some belieuers, whome we know not. Know not. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 476: VVe say there were in tymes past many thousands of men in Popery, who professed our fayth and adored not the beast; whome albeit we cannot name, Can not name. yet God knew. Besides, some of them say, that there was no face or shew of their Church in Popery. D. Whitaker loc. cit. p. 477: VVe say, that there were so few good in Popery, as they appeared not. Appeared not. And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682: VVe surely say, that in tymes past the Church lay hid in Popery. And Luther [Page 227] vpon the 90. psalm. fol. 495: The Church was in Popery, but truly so hidden, as to him, that would iudge of the outward appearance, it might seeme to be no where. Caluin also 4. In­stitut. cap. 2. §. 12. speaketh in this sort of his Prote­stants, who [...]e [...]he imagined in Popery: In whome all things are so out of order, as there may rather seeme the face of Babilon then of the citty of God. By what appearance then iudge they, when then say that their Church was in Popery.

4. Sixtly, What kind of Persons they chal­lenge. I proue that the Protestant church was not in Popery; by the Persons whom they chal­lenge. Luther cont. Caterin. tom. 2. fol. 140. writeth thus: VVhere ye see no ghospell, as we see none in the Synagogue of the Papists, there doubtles is no Church; vnlesse you except in­fants and simple folke. And fol. 155: whome in all the world hath not the Pope subdued, Infants & silly ones. except perhaps infants and silly per­sons, saued by an vnknowne Counsaile. M. Bale Cont. 1. cap. 74. writeth, that their Church since Phocas the Em­perours tyme, VVas in lurking holes and amongst idiots. Ger­lachius disput. 22. Idiots. sayth that Infants were no small part of their Church Osiander loc. cit. pag. 65. that they were a great part. And as Lobechius addeth disput. 10. pag. 202: The noblest part. A worthy Church vndoubted­ly, which for many ages consisted of infants, idiots, and such silly persons. And they more silly who giue credit to so silly an affirmation of Protestants with­out all proofe; and they most silly of all who relin­quishing the Catholike Church, adioyne themselues to such a childish and silly Church, so sillily affirmed and without proofe. Seauenthly Protestants themsel­ues do plainly professe that the entire substance and essence of their Church was not in Popery, but only some part thereof. And we, (as hath byn often sayd) speake not of a Church in part, or in some sort, but [Page 228] of a Church which hath all the essentiall and sub­stantiall partes, The whole essence of a protestāt Church not in Po­pery. and may be simply and absolutely tearmed a Church. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. after he had sayd §. 1. that it is certaine there is no Church where lyes and falsity haue gotten the vpper hand; he straight sayth §. 2: Seing matters go so vnder Popery, VVe may gather how much of the Church remayneth there. And ad­deth, that vnder Popery. That doctrine without which Christianity standeth not, is all buryed and thrust out. And Re­spons. ad Sadolet. pag. 128. writeth: That in Popery there appeareth scarce any scattered and torne remnants of the church. Scarse any remnants. Only rubbish. Peter Martyr in locis tit. de discessu a Rom. Eccl. col. 1493: Now there are left among Papists only some rubbish and parcels of old walles, togeather &c. Sonis Resp. ad Spon­deum cap. 2. pag. 32: Antichrist hath left nothing in all the building, but some old wals. But old wals. Sadeel Praefat. lib. de Verbo scripto: The Roman Church is so depraued and corrupted, that whiles we seeke the Church, in the church; we are forced to be­hold only ashes of the Church. Only ashes. The Apology of the Church of England part. 4. cap. 9. diuis. 3: These men now haue left nothing remayning in the Church of God that had any likenesse of his Church. Nought but ruins. And part. 6. cap. 17. diuis. 1: VVhen we saw that nothing remayned in the temple of God but pittifull spoiles and decayes, we &c. Finally Luther in Psalm. 22. tom. 3. fol. 132. No trace. sayth, that in Popery there was no trace of the Church. And in psalm. 17. fol. 285: They haue brought mat­ters to such passe, Name on­ly. that where the Church of God was heretofore, there is nought but heathenish superstition and the name only of the church remayning; the substance is quite lost. The same al­so meane those, who say that in Popery were some small footsteps, some reliques, and parcels of the church, albeit they had not this exclusiue terme, Only. But if in Popery the doctrine without which Chri­stianity cannot stand were wholy buryed and shut [Page 229] out; If therein scarse appeared torne parcels of the Church, only ashes thereof were seene; if nothing remayned but old wals, rubbish and ruines; nothing entire and like to a Church; and the name only re­mayning, the substance were quit lost, doubtles there was no absolute and true Protestant Church in Po­pery, but only in part and in some sort. Which Da­neus plainly intimateth when he saith Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 387: Some footsteps of the Church remayne yet in that (Popish) company, as if the ruines of a house cast downe and the bare walls were called a house equiuocally. Or as Caluin speaketh Respons. ad Versipellem pag. 357: In some part the Protestant Church was heretofore in Pope­ry.

5. That I may therefore gather togeather all that Protestants say of their Church in Popery befor Luthers tyme; Concerning the persons whereof it consisted, they were infants, idiots, silly ones, and perhaps not they neither; Concerning the substāce, it was only ruines, rubbish, old walles, ashes, and name only of the Church. Concerning the number, it was Luther in psalm. gr [...]t. f. 368 de Missa loc. 7. fol. 236. Gerla. disput. 22. Acontius l. 1. Strat. p. 25. Sade [...]l ad Sophis. pag. 596. ad Thes. Pos­non. 18. Very small, slender reliques, few remnants, and scarce a few reliques, so small reliques, one or two persons. Tou­ching the place wherein she was, that was lurking holes, or rather none at all. For so sayth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 468: The holy and pious men were togeather with their Pastors dispersed into this or that place without any certaine aboad or Succession. And quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 503: Our men were in tymes past scattered here and there. Touching the state of their Church, that was [...]up. c. 2. quite fallen downe. Mouching the face or shew thereof, that was rather of Babylon then of the Church. As for the Condition, it was afflicted of Antichrist, with sauadge domination, was misera­bly [Page 230] brought to naught, and all her affaires most des­perat. For profession of fayth, she made none at all. For externall rites and worship, she was compelled to keep very Babylonicall, heathenish, idolatricall, and Antichristian rites. For piety, that was all driuē out. Touching fayth, that was quite extinct. As for her Conseruation, that was by meruailous and mi­raculous meanes, & by meere miracle. And lastly for the testimonies whereby either her being, are any of these points are proued, they are pure Pythagoricall, that is, their owne words, which is (as themselues say) arguments of fooles, or rather lyes, for who so speaketh of himselfe speaketh lyes.

6. My eighth reason is, because Protestants should haue sayd that their Church had bene in any company rather then in Popery. For Luther lib. cōt. Regem Angliae tom. 2. fol. 334. writeth, that Popery is the most [...]stilent abomination of Satan, which hath byn, or hereafter shallbe vnder heauen. And in cap. 25. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 342: Popery is a Congregation of diuels and of most wic­ked men. And lib. cont. Papatum. tom 7. fol. 479. saith: It is the last mischeife of the world, and to which all the Diuells with all their cunning & power cannot bring a greater. Caluin ad Vs [...] sipel. pag. 360. VVhitak. cont. 2. q 6 c. 1. Ochin. di [...]l. 25. Horne of the su [...]r. p. 101. Others say that Popery is the body of Satan and Antichrist, the dun­geon of errors & heresies, that it is worse thē any sect of heretiks, yea then Paganisme, or Turcisme; And almost all of them cry that it is the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist. Moreouer Luther in Actis exustionis decretalium tom. 2. fol. 123. pronounceth, that it were safer liuing in the wildernes, to see no man, then to conuerse in the Popish King­dome. And in cap. 2. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 327: VVhosoeuer is earnestly affected towards Godlines, let him tremble at the name of Popery. And Protestants commonly gather out of that saying of the Apocalips: Go out my people, that it is [Page 231] the commaundement of God, that all pious men should goe out of Popery. If then Popery be the Sy­nagogue of Satan and Antichrist, & worse then any hereticall, Turkish, or heathenish company; or any other, whom all the diuels which all their cunning could raise; If all pious men ought to tremble at the hearing of the name thereof, and rather liue in a de­sert then therein; If finally it be the Commandemēt of God, that all godly men should goe forth of Pope­ry, how came it to passe, that in former tymes the godly (forsooth) Protestants liued in Popery, and in Popery alone, & that for so many ages? Would god­ly men abid in that company, and only in that com­pany, and so long tyme, which was the worst that could be, before which they shold haue preferred the wildernes, haue shaken at the name thereof, & were commanded to come out from thence by Gods ex­presse commandement? Surely the Protestants must not only haue byn children and simple, but also im­pious and vngodly. What I could not, or would not the spouse of Christ lurke for so many ages, but in the stewes of the diuell? Could Christ be no where, but with Antichrist? Would only Antichrist for so many ages affoard Christ and his church a harbour or lurking place? l. 1. de mor. Manich. c. 16. O straightes (sayth S. Austine) O in­credible absurdities! For what greater straights, what more incredible absurdity can there be, thē to thrust Christ and his Church into the diuels stewes, and that for many ages togeather? 4. Instit. c. 16. §. [...]. But as Caluin himself sayth: There is no meruaile if these reprobate spirits, as if they were frantique, do thrust in most grosse absurdities for to defend their errors, for God iustly punisheth their pride and obstinacy which such giddinesse.

7. Ninthly, I argue, and aske what is the [Page 232] meaning of the foresayd ridle: The Church was in Popery but Popery was not the Church. First, I suppose that by Po­pery heere, they meane not (as did Boysseul) popish doctrine; as if the sense were, that the Protestant Church consisted of Popish doctrine, as we say that the Popish Church consisteth (to wit formally) of Popish doctrine; the Iewish Church of Iudaisme, & the Turkish of Turcisme; because this sense were too far from the question, which demaundeth the place, and not the forme, or doctrine of the Protestant church in former tyms. Besides, it were too too ab­surd to say that the Protestant Church consisteth in the contrary doctrine, which he condemneth. Sup­posing therfore, that hereby Popery they vnderstand the company of Papists, their meaning cannot be, that their Church was in the company of Papists, as in a multitude of men amongst whom they liued on­ly, but did no way participate of their doctrine or worship; both because in this manner, it had byn knowne to Papists, which notwithstanding they deny, as before we shewed, and anone shalbe proued to be false; as also because in this sort their Church may be sayd to be in Iudaisme, Turcisme, & the like, if they liue among Iewes or Turcks; which is so ab­surd as Protestāts deny their meaning to be such. For thus Beza epist. 10. quest. 4: The Church was in Popery, which can no way be sayd of the Turks. And M. Perkins lib. cit. after he sayd that the Church was long tyme in Popery, addeth, VVhich cannot be likewise sayd of Turks and other Infidels, that the Church was conserued, or that yet any hidden Church is conserued among them. Neither can their meaning be, that the Protestant church was in tymes past in Popery, as a part in the whole, to wit, because it consisted of some that belieued both Protestancy [Page 233] and Popery, or if they did not belieue Popery, yet they professed it; because after this manner Popery should no lesse haue byn the Church, the Church should haue byn in Popery. For as the church should haue byn in Popery, because it consisted of such a part of Popery; so Popery shold haue byn the church because such a part of Popery had byn the Church. Besides, it implieth contradiction, that one should belieue both Popery and Protestancy, which as Pro­testants say, are right opposite in many fundamental points. If any reply, that those Papists in whom the Protestant Church of old tyme did consist, did not belieue all fundamentall points of Popery, nor were absolutely Papists, but only in part and in some sort: first he mocketh the Reader in saying absolutely, that the Protestant church was in Popery, because Pope­ry absolutely taken, doth signify absolute Papists or Papistry. Besides he feigneth and deuiseth those Pa­pists in part & in some sort, and cannot proue by any sufficient testimony that there were any such; Wher­as according to S. Augustin, He must proue, not speake at random. Nor can he say, 2. Cont. Petil. c. 18. that the Protestant Church consisted of such, who though they belieued litle or no Papistry at all, yet outwardly professed it. For if outwardly they professed only Papistry, how know you that inwardly they belieued Protestancy? Will you, as S. Augustin sayd to the Donatists, Lib. 2. de Baptis. c. [...] iudge of mens harts and not of their open deeds? Besides such Papists are feigned and not at all proued. And if there had byn any such, they should haue byn termed De­nyers not Protesters. Lastly such men cold not haue byn the visible Church of Protestants, because they denied their fayth and professed Antichristianity; and consequently were no holy men, of whom only [Page 234] their inuisible Church consisteth.

8. Tenthly I argue by enquiring the man­ner, how the Protestant church in former tyms was in Popery; to wit, whether it professed the substance of the Protestant fayth, or no: and whether it com­municated with Papists in their Popish worship or not? Protestants, like men vncertaine answere di­uersly to this question. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474. sayth: Our Churches were alwayes in the middest of Papists churches, distinct from Papists in Communion and Profession. But this is soone refuted. First, because it cannot be proued. Cont. Par­men. ca. 38. And to cast out words and proue naught, what is it (as S. Augustin sayth) but to dote? Besides if the Protestant Church had professed Protestancy, she had byn knowne to Papists; and the same had also byn if she had not communicated with them. For as D. Andrews writeth of the Catholikes in England: They come not to seruice, they heare not sermons, they refuse to take the Communion, without this or any other oath one may know them to be Papists. But she was not knowne to Pa­pists, because not only all Papists, but also Prote­stants deny that. Besides otherwise Catholiks would not haue so earnestly enquired of Protestants, where their Church had byn heretofore. Moreouer Catho­likes had persecuted them as they persecuted Luther, so soone as he was knowne for a Protestant. Lastly, because Protestants cannot name any Papists, who knew of their Church before Luthers tyme. Others therefore say, that those imaginary Protestants pro­fessed their fayth, if not at other tymes, yet at least at the point of death. D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag. 473: Many at the point of death, if not before, prosessed their fayth. The same sayth Luther of priuate Masse tom. 7. fol. 237. and Lobechi is Disput. 10. To which D. White [Page 235] in defence of his way cap. 4. pag. 424. addeth, that they renounceth Papistry also in the agony of their conscience. And Hunnius before cited, not knowing what cer­tainly to determine, sayth: that they did either openly gird at Papistry, or secretly with themselues detest it, or at least in the last examen of tentations (the stuble of errour being fired) did hold the foundation of saluation. But to speake with S. Au­gustin: VVho sayth this, but he that sayth what he will, lib. 5. cont. Iul. c. 4. and will not heare what is true? They say that in the Scripture alone that saying of Pythagoras Schollers (he sayd it) taketh place. Bulling. in Compend. fidei [...]. 1. c. 3. But if they vsed not this Pythagoricall priuiledge, they would be more dumbe then fishes. What man or diuell told them this professiō of their men at the houre of death? How learnt they that, which at that tyme no man could fish out? Againe, if only at the houre of death they professed Pro­testancy, they were Protestants no longer then they lay a dying; and consequently the Protestant church endured no longer then some of her children were dying. A strange Church certes, that liued no longer then her children dyed; nor at any tyme drew breath, but whiles they gaue vp the ghost. Where­fore they find out other deuises to say, that those fei­gned Protestants communicated with Papists and professed their fayth in things lawfull, as in Bap­tisme, reading of the Scriptur, and such like; but not in things vnlawfull. Thus Reineccius in the 4. tome of his armour cap. 4. Thou seest reader, that as these Protestants had their being only by these mens ima­ginations, so they did, or did not, what, or in what manner they will haue them. O great fabulosity, (that I may cry out which S. Epiphanius) of them, who vtter these things? so manifest it is, that this is a shop rather of iuglers, then of those who haue the shape of the promise of life and of vn­derstanding. [Page 236] For who besides his owne imagination, told Reineccius, that those Protestants deuided thus their Communion with Papists? who besides him­selfe heard euer of such a halfe-communion?

9. Wherefore others of them do absolutely say, that their imaginary Protestant Church in Po­pery communicated with Papists, How im­pious their church in Popery was. and professed their fayth. For thus writeth Luther in psalm. Grad. tom. 3. fol. 568: The Church vnder Antichrist had no true Ministery or worship, but was forced to keep the very Babylonicall and hea­thenish rites of Papists. The same he intimateth tom. 7. lib. de Missa priuata fol. 236. & 237. and lib cont. Pa­patum fol. 456. Osiander also in the epist. dedicatory of his 8. Century sayth of those Protestants, that al­though from their heart they disallowed the Popish errors, yet they durst not professe their owne opinions; but neglected not the ex­ternall rites, and were carryed away with the common custome as it were with a torrent, for to do those things which others did; whose weaknesse (sayth he) God did beare withall and pardon. And the same pardon Luther de Missa priuata fol. 237. bestoweth vpon them saying: No sinne could hurt them; but God must pardon the miserable, afflicted, oppressed and captiue Church. Thus these men haue Gods pardon in their hands, that when they please, God must par­don those, who all their life tyme denyed their faith and serued Antichrist and idolatry. Iunius also lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 5. sayth, that the Church in former tyms was all one with the Roman. Againe: She communicated with the Roman Church in worship of God euery where, so long as she was suffered to communicate in pure worship, in right fayth, and good conscience. Forsooth the Synagogue of Antichrist, (as they account the Roman church) vseth pure wor­ship, or the Church of Christ communicateth with her in right fayth, and good conscience. And D. Whi­taker [Page 237] Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682. writeth, that those feigned Protestants, Perhaps vsed Popish ceremonies for customes sake. And pag. 689: Antichrist deceiued the elect and seduced them. The very elect erred. And Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: In Popery there were many (Protestants) who communicated with Papists. Gerlachius tom. 2. disp. 22: They were driuen into the common opinions with an vniuer­sall and fatall ouerflow of superstitions. And Casaubon epist. ad Peron pag. 10. writeth, that the godly communi­cated with Babylon. D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13: The authors of those (Popish) errours, and those that were free from them were of the same Communion. D. White in his way pag. 171: The children of God abode in the communion of the Roman Church. And in the defence cap. 44. pag. 394: VVe do not hold a definite number of persons, distinct from the members of the Church of Rome, and liuing apart in another so­ciety by themselues in secret, as it were the 7. sleepers lying hid in a mountaine: but we affirme this company liued in the middest of the Church of Rome it selfe, and were the visible Prosessors ther­of. This also is that, which Caluin would, when 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 12. he sayth, that his Churches in Popery were prophaned with sacrilegious impiety, corrupted and almost killed with pernicious doctrines; in which lay halfe buryed, the ghospell ouerwhelmed, godlines banished, and all things so out of order, as there seemed rather the face of Babylon then of the citty of God. And vpon the 23. of the Acts: VVe com­plaine that the Church was corrupted of them (Papists) the temple of God prophaned, Li. 2. cont. Cresc. c. 17. that it differed litle from a swines­cot. See. sayth S. Augustine, to what a precipic [...], the difficul­ty to find where to get out hath brought these men. They sayd their Church was in Popery, and afterward found not how to creep out, but by this most steep & crag­gy precipice. For what steeper precipice, what grea­ter absurdity can there be, then to say that the church [Page 238] of God (which the Protestants will haue theirs to be) for many ages denyed her fayth, professed infide­lity, forsook Christ, worshipped Antichrist, or to vse their owne words, Did vse very Babylonicall and An­tichristian rites, was corrupted with pernicious doctrine, propha­ned with sacrilegious impiety, Epist. 40. Epist. 27. and out of which godlines was ba­nished? God forbid (sayth S. Cyprian) that a company of fal­len persons should be called the Church. Againe: God forbid, & his mercy and inuincible power neuer permit, Epist. 1. that a company of fallen persons be called the Church. And Beza himselfe: The Church is a community of Saints, not a company of excommuni­cated or sacrilegious persons. And shall we think, that be­fore Luther arose the Church of God for many ages was nothing else but a company of fallen, sacrilegi­ous, hypocrites, denyers of Christ, and worshippers of Antichrist? Is such a company the holy Church? Is the Communion of such, the Communion of Saints which we belieue in our Creed? Is such a so­ciety the spouse and mysticall body of Christ, the wife of the lambe, the Kingdom of God? Surely a fit Church for protestants, and a fit company, to which the forsakers of the Catholike Church may adioyne themselues, and most worthy to be eschewed & de­tested of all that loue Christs or their owne honour. For who is he, either pious or well in his wits, who will make himselfe of that company which for ma­ny ages consisted all of lapsed Hypocrites, denyers of Christ, and worshippers of Antichrist? The whole Scriptures and Fathers say that the spouse of Christ is honest and chast, and cannot be deflowed. But this protestant harlot did for many ages prostitute her selfe to Antichrist.

10. Moreouer this kind of company which thus communicated with Antichrist and professed [Page 239] his doctrine, could not be the visible Protestant Church. Conf. An­glic. art. 19 For her they define to be a company which professeth Christs true doctrine, and rightly vseth his Sacraments. But this foresayd company, as themselues write, Durst not prosesse their opinion, had no Ministery, & did obserue Babylonicall and heathenish rites. Nor were they their in­uisible Church, which alone they will haue to be the true Catholike and proper Church, because she according to all their opinions, is the company of Saints & elect only. The Confession of Auspurg. art. 7: The Church properly so called, is the congregation of Saints, who truly belieue and obey Christ. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 1. cap. 3: Thus we define the Catholike Church; It is a company of holy men, whome God hath chosen in Christ, to euer­lasting life. This definition (sayth he) excludeth all hypocrites. But those who worshipped Antichrist were no Saints, obeyed not Christ, were hypocrites. There­fore they were no Catholike or true church. Againe, it is the common doctrine of Protestants that naugh­ty & great sinners are no mē ers of the true church. For thus the Confession of the Low-countries art. 29: Hypocrites belong not properly to the Church. Caluin 4. Ill mē not the true church by Protestā [...] Institut. cap. 1. §. 7: Into that Church, which is indeed before God, none are admitted but such as both by grace of adoption are the sonnes of God, and by sanctification of the spirit true members of Christ. Peter Martyr in his places tit. de Eccles. col. 1368: VVe affirme that such (wicked) men are not indeed & before God members of the Church. Arctius in locis part. 3. fol. 50: The Church, properly so called, consisteth only of the true members of Christ. Bucer lib. de vi & vsu Ministerij pag. 558: The true Church consisteth only of those that are borne a new. D. Whitaker cap. 3. cit: VVe all belieue that Catholike Church, which we professe in our Creed, to consist of no euill or reprobate persons, but only of the elect, iust, and holy. And c. 7: [Page 240] VVe deny ill men to belong to the Church, which is the body of Christ. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 795: An ill man cannot be a member of the Church. Adā Fran­cis loc. 11. de Eccl: Ill men are only in name members of the Church. And finally Musculus in locis tit. de Eccl. pag. 299: Not so much as the name of the Church ought to be giuen to the wicked. But they who were such as the Prote­stants before described, were no Saints, were not iust, were not sanctified; but ill, wicked, hypocrites, if euer there were any: therefore they could not be the true Catholike and proper Church before God. Furthermore Protestants vse to teach, that those who communicate with Papists do cut themselues from the true Church. The French Confession art. 28: VVe think all those who adioyne themselues to these (Popish) actions and communicate with them, do separat themselues from the bo­dy of Christ. Luther in cap. 13. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 163: VVho acknowledgeth the Pope for master, he hath no part with Christ. And in cap. 28. fol. 396: If the Pope must be wor­shipped, Christ must be denyed. And de Missa priuata tom. 7. fol. 475: VVhosoeuer is vnder the Pope and obeyeth him can­not be saued. Caluin against Seruer. pag. 607: Is it not a profanation of the sacred vnity, to professe one God and faith with an impious and prophane company? And Respons. ad Versip. pag. 362: How wicked and soule treachery is it to abide in that sacrilegious company (of Papists)? And D. Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Campiani: None abide with the lambe in the moun­taine, who haue any commerce with Antichrist. And Caluin in Confutat. Hollandi & lib. de vitandis superstitio­nibus, bringeth many proofes to shew that the faith­full may not communicate with the false Church, and therto citeth the letters of Melancthon, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and those of Zurich: and the same is commonly taught of Protestants. How then did not [Page 241] those Protestants separate themselues from the body of Christ? how were they saued, who in tymes past communicated with papists? How were they saued vnlesse God be an acceptour of persons and tyms, that he will cut of some from his body, and from hope of saluation, who communicate with Antichrist, and not others, at these and not in former tymes. Againe, Protestants teach that the Church ought to professe her fayth, as besides the testimonies before repeated, the Preface of the Confession of Saxony sayth: They that are demaunded must needs tell the doctrine. And the Cō ­fession of Bohemia art. 2: They teach, that they must vn­doubtedly belieue all the articles of the Creed, and confesse them with the mouth. Luther in 1. Petri cap. 2. tom. 5. fol. 464: If any now, as the Emperour or other Prince, should aske me my fayth, I must plainly confesse it to him. And de Scru. Arbit. tom. 2. fol 432: Truth and doctrine must alwayes be preached openly, and neuer kept secret or crookt and turnd awry D. Feild lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 10: For seeing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saued vnlesse he mak cōfession vnto saluation, for fayth hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice, it cannot be but they that are of the true Church must by the profession of the truth make themselues knowne in such sort that &c. And the Preface of the Syntagme of Confessions: VVhen euery one ought, according to the Apostles precept, giue a reason of his hope; how much more the Church? And D. Whitaker Cont. 4. quest. 6. cap. 2. pag: 696: True sayth can no more be separated from confession with the mouth, then fire from beat, or the sunne from its brightnes and beames. What fayth then had those protestants, which, as is sayd, durst not professe their mind? And Cont. 2. qoest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 472: It is not lawfull for the godly to dissemble true Religion, or make shew of false; nor to conceale what they think of Religion, if they be examined of them who haue authority to aske them of [Page 242] their fayth. But it is not credible that in so many ages, in no part of the Christian world, no Catholike Ma­gistrate should aske any protestant of his fayth, espe­cially if it be true that Luther writeth in psalm. 22. tom. 3. fol. 344. that Papists do so examine the body of the Church, that all her bones may be counted, that is, none of them can by hid. VVherefore we must not imagine that there are any hidden bones of Christ, all are bewrayed and counted, wheresoeuer they are, either by the espials of secret confession, or by the tortours or examiners. Which sheweth, that if there had byn any true protestants heretofore, they would haue byn discouered.

11. Finally they are brought to these straights, that sometymes they say, that the protestant church, (which they imagine was heretofore in popery,) did consist of those who were papists both in opinion and profession. This Caluin intimateth in the words before cited, when he sayth that his church was cor­rupted with pestilent doctrine. And Luther de Missa priuata tom. 7. fol. 231. saying: The very elect were seduced in that great darknesse. And in cap. 9. Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 95: Behold (sayth he) the whole face of the Churches vnder Pope­ry. Did not they all who truly felt the burden of sinne imagine that they should by good works satisfy for their sinnes? Which thing alone would suffice to blot them out of the role of protestants. D. White in defence of his way cap. 36. pag. 350. sayth those imaginary protestants were corrupted, some more some lesse, with those errors, which (sayth he) now we fly. And cap. 40. pag. 394. graunteth, that they were infected with damnable heresies. D. Whitaker lib. 2. de Scriptura cap. 8. sect. vlt. sayth: They were beset with most thick darknes. Napp [...]r in cap. 12. Apocal. pag. 195. that their visible Church in tymes past: VVholy embraced the errors of merits and in­dulgences [Page 243] &c. And Morgerster [...] tract. de Eccl. pag. 41: These things were in tymes past to be forgiuen the godly, that they belieued the Pope to be [...]hrists vicar, and head of the church, Po­pery to be the church, Saints to be prayed vnto, Masse to be the Lords supper. Are these men (think you) in their wits, who call them godly, and say they must be pardo­ned, who belieued Antichrist to be Christs vicar, Antichrists Synagogue to be the Church of Christ, and horrible idolatry (such as they account Masse & prayer to Saints) to be seruice of Christ? The same also they meane, when they challenge the simple & ignorant Papists for theirs, or confesse the vulgar Ro­man Church to be the true Church, or (as others of them speake) graunt the Roman Church, but deny Popery, the Popish, or Roman Popish Church. For they imagine, that the simple Catholike people nei­ther doth now, nor in former tyms did belieue those points of fayth, which themselues deny. But this they feigne of the simple Catholike people, and can­not proue it. Besides, there is no Catholike [...]o sim­ple, as doth not vertually belieue all points of Ca­tholike fayth, which Protestants deny, sith he actu­ally professeth to belieue whatsoeuer the Catholike Church teacheth. Neither is there any at all, who doth not belieue iustification by good works, which point alone would suffice to make them no Prote­stants. Besides, Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 8. sayth that we affirme him to be no Christian, who doth not vndoubtedly agree to all points of doctrine, as well affirmatiue as negatiue. And the same sayth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 8. pag. 519. D. Morton part 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 9. and D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis. Yea, as be­fore we rehearsed, Cap 2. they confesse that before Luthers reuolt all from head to foot were drowned in the [Page 244] pudles of Popery, that none dreamed of that which is the cheifest point of Protestancy. Wherfore Schus­selburg tom. 8. Catal. Haeret. pag. 440. seemeth to say. That befor Luther arose Popery was the true church like as the Synagogue of the Iewes was before the comming of Christ, for thus he writeth: Popery, as Iu­daisme heretofore, signifieth that company, which at least in her tyme had the true Church with it. Such were the Iewes before the comming of Christ, and the Papists before the comming of Lu­ther. His meaning, (as I suppose) is that as the Chri­stian Church is in state another church from the Sy­nagogue; because it hath other Sacraments, other Sa­crifyce, and more points of fayth, and Christ another founder of the Church distinct from Moyses; so the Protestant Church is a distinct Church from the an­cient Christian Church, and Luther not only ano­ther Elias, as they call him, but also another Messias, a founder and beginner of another Church, distinct from that of Christ, at least as far as his church diffe­red from the Synagogue. Behold Christian Reader wherto all their winding, turning, and doubling about the being of their Church in Popery, is come. Surely (as S. Augustin sayd, L 20. cont. Faust. c. 12. against the Manichees) their imaginations haue lost all wayes. For they are nothing, b [...] the visions of frantike men. For their remayneth no pro­bable way to defend, that their Church was hereto­fore in Popery. It is mere frenzy to think, that it wa [...] in Popery virtually and implicitly, like as a plant i [...] in the seed, or a man in a child, at the Christia [...] Church once was in the Synagogue, or that it wa [...] openly distinct in Communion and Profession fro [...] Papists: or that it consisteth of such, which either i [...] hart, or at least in Profession were Papists; or finally that the Church of God (such as they will ha [...] [Page 245] the Protestant to be) was for many ages in a differēt, yea a most opposite church; where neither by diuine nor humane testimony it can be proued to haue byn; neither can there any way be imagined, by which it may with any appearance or probability be sayd to haue byn there, Thus (sayth S. Augustine) do they dote, lib. 20. cōt. Faust. c. vl. who not abiding true doctrine, turne to fables.

12, And out of these, wherewith we haue shewed, that the Protestant Church heretofore was not in Popery, is refuted also Zanchius Praefat. lib. de Natura Dei, where he sayth that their brethren in tymes past liued in some obscure vallies and Moun­taines, and met at night. And D. Fulke lib. de Succes. pag. 324. saying, that in Europe the Church was by Antichrist thrust into obscure places; but least they should be tript in their lying, they name neither those mountaines, nor vallyes, nor places, nor their night-owle-brethren, nor finally proue any thing. L. 14. cont. Faust. c. 9. But as S. Augustin sayd of Faustus: They say it & away, they neuer seeke to proue it. Or as Christ sayd of the ad­uersary man, they sow cockle and depart. It sufficeth for these new Pythagorians, to powre out lyes like oracles: for they assure themselues that with retch­lesse men they will find credit of themselues, & like weeds grow without tilling. Hence also is refuted the same Fulke in cap. 10. Apocal. Where he affir­meth his brethren hertofore haue liued in the Alpes, in the Appenine Mountaines, and in the Hereinian Forest. He might better haue sayd they liued in the Wildernes of Vtopia, for he proueth nothing. L. 16. cont. Faust. c. 26 O man (that I may cry out which S. Augustine) thincking only of his owne talke, and not thinking of any gainesayer! Againe: Doest thou not know, lib. 4. cont. Cres. c. 54. or doest thou not feele with the heart of what man soeuer, that in dispute where truth is sought, where [Page 246] proofe followeth not, the talke is vaine and foolish. Wherefore now let vs heare their arguments, or rather So­phismes, wherwith sometymes they endeauour to proue, that their Church was in tymes past in Po­pery.

The Sophismes, wherwith some Protestant make shew to proue that their Church was heretofore in Popery, refuted. CHAP. X.

1. THE first argument, wherewith Protestants would seeme to proue, that their Church in former tymes was in Popery, is grounded vpon that saying Apocal. 18: Goe out of her (Babylon) my people. Therefore Gods people were in Babylon, that is, (say the [...]) in Popery. Thus argueth Luther in cap. 12. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 144. And in cap. 19. fol. 234. The Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 8. Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 10. and others commonly. Yea M. Perkins in his reformed Catholike tract. 22. writeth that by this commandement, it may be gathered that the true Church is, and was long tyme in the Roman Church. Wherein he speakes more truly then he meant. For the true Church is and was alwayes in the Romane; but the Protestant, neither is, nor was there. To the argument I answere, that this place can be no sufficient ground of fayth among the Pro­testans, because their Angel, their Apostle, and E­uangelist Martyn Luther, denyeth the Apocalipse to be Canonicall Scripture. Againe, though indeed it be canonicall Scripture, yet for the most part it is so [Page 247] obscure, as but very few places therof are fit to groūd any point of fayth; as is euident both by the booke it selfe, which is well nigh all Mysticall and allegori­call, and by the iudgement of the Fathers and con­fession of Protestants. Euseb. l. 7. cap. 20. For thus sayth S. Denis Pa­triarch of Alexandria of the Apocalipse: I verily think that almost in euery sentence there lyeth some mysticall and mer­ueilous sense. Likewise S. Hierome: Epist. ad Paulin. The Apocalipse hath as many mysteries as words. And S. Augustin: In the booke of the Apocalipse many obscure things are told, and there are few things therein, lib 20. de Ciuit. c. 17. by light whereof the rest may be sought ought with la­bour And with Protestants D. Andrewes in his an­swere to Bellarmines Apology cap. 9: Is he ignorant, that concerning the Apocalipse nothing certaine or of fayth is yet pre­scribed by the Church, that it may be lawfull to vse one only kind of interpretation and no other; as if it were so cleare and euident that it were a hainous offence to leaue it, or to dissent any way from it. Yea as any may with greatest probability shew the pro­phesies there to be fulfilled, so is it free for any to vse his iudgement & to follow his own opinion in explicating them. And D. Whi­taker Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3 pag. 677: It is well inough knowne that Iohn in the Apocalipse speaketh not of cleare and open matters, but of obscurt and hidden. M. Brightman in his Preface of the Apocalipse: In so great abundance of an­cient and new expositions, the Apocalipse yet, as all agree, needeth an Apocalipse. And M. Sheldon in his booke of the mi­racles of Antichrist cap. 4. pag. 54 calleth it a darck & Mysticall prophecy, in which (sayth he) quot verba, tot latent Mysteria. And pag. 226: The Apocalipse is a booke wholy my­sticall, which doth (excepting some few doctrinall rules and ex­hortations to vertue) in types, figures, formes, and resemblances, describe and foretell the future euents of the church. How then can Protestants gather certainly out of the Apoca­lipse, that their Church heretofore was in Popery? [Page 248] But, as Luther in cap. 9. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 114. spea­keth of the Anabaptists and others: VVhy Protestāts accoūt to much of the Apoc. The Anabaptists make so much of obscure bookes as the Apocalipse, because there they may seigne any thing. And in cap. 11. fol. 136: Ambitious heads think it a great matter, if they giue their iudgment freely of obscure places, and after stubbornly maintayne their opinion. And Praefat. in Cantica tom. 4. fol. 47: Some do put all their labour in hard places, thinking it a commendation of their wit to medle with those matters, which others by reason of their obscurity do fly, & because in obscure places euery one may diuine and follow his owne head.

2. Thirdly I answere, that the foresayd place is allegoricall, mysticall, and obscure, and therefore not fit to ground fayth vpon. That it is mysticall and allegoricall, is manifest, because Babylon doth not litterally, but at most mystically signify Popery. That also the sense which Protestants frame thereof is ob­scure, is euident, because they cannot either by any part or by any circumstance therof, clearly shew, that by Babylon is meant Popery. Besides, neither any of the Fathers, nor of those imaginary Protestants be­fore Luther, did perceiue this sense; otherwise some of them would haue obeyed Gods commandement, and gone out of Popery. But it were playne madnes to vrge an incredible thing, (as is that Protestants were heretofore in Popery) to be belieued certainly, for one mysticall & obscure place. VVho (sayth S. Au­gustin) without great impudency will goe about to expound for himselfe, Epist. 48. any thing spoken in Allegory, vnlesse he haue manifest places, by which the obscure may be lightned. Let them bring therefore some euident place, Morton part. 2. l. 2. c. 5. wherein Babylon sig­nifieth Popery. Luther also sayth: If in the new testament the signification of a figure be not cleare, we must not rely vpon it, because the diuell, an excellent craftsman, playeth with figures, & [Page 249] if he catch a soule which without certaine ground wresteth the Scripture to Allegories he vseth to cast him here and therelike a dye. Bnd in cap. 3. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 52: An Allegory ser­ueth nothing for proofe. Kemnice also 1. part. exam. tit. de epist. Apost. pag. 79: VVe say, that a sentence is not to be buil­ded vpon any obscure places of Scripture, which cannot de proued out of other cleare places. Peter Martyr in locis tom. 2. tract. de Missa: An opinion is not to be founded in doubtfull words, Sadeel ad Sophism. Turrian. loc. 11. pag. 597: The most learned interpreters do teach that Anagogicall argu­ments must rely vpon cleare and expresse testimonies, if they will breed sayth. And Pareus lib. 4. de Iustificat. cap. 15. pag. 1120: Testimony for a false opinion is in vaine sought out of an Allegoricall and most obscure place. But as the Fathers haue noted, it was euer the humour of heretiks, to seeke some pretext of allegoricall and obscure places. Of the Gnostiques, thus, writeth S. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 1: Heretikes seeke out obscure places. VVhereas many parables and Allegories are recited, which may be drawne into diuerse senses, they craftely accommodating that which is ambigious vnto their deuise, do lead into captiuity from the truth, those which haue a weake fayth in Christ. And S. Augustin lib. de Vnitat. ca. 24. sayth to the Donatists: Yee willingly abide in obscure matters, that you may not be com­pelled to confesse cleare matters. And of heretiks in generall thus speaketh Tertullian: Praes. c. 17. Diuers presumptions of necessity will not acknowledge those things, by which they may be ouer­come; and relye vpon those, which they haue falsely forged, and haue taken out of vncertainetyes. Againe: De pud. c. 16. This is the custome of froward men, idiots, and heretikes, by occasion of some doubtfull passage to arme themselues against an army of the whole testa­ment. And Clement 7. Stromatum: They seek out doubt­full speaches, and turne them to vphold their opinions. The like writeth Luther of Anabaptistes. And others, as hath byn now rehearsed. Wherfore Protestants do follow [Page 250] the custome of Gnostikes, Donatists, Anabaptists, froward idiots, and heretikes, whiles they fit the Al­legory of Babylon to their turne, whiles they wil­lingly abide in obscure matters, and make such ac­count of the Apocalipse because there they haue leaue to feigne any thing, whiles they rely vpon those things which they take out of vncertainties, and by occasion of one ambiguous and doubtfull place, are armed against an army of sentences of the Scripture, which teach that neither Popery is Babylon, nor Protestants the people of God. Moreouer Donatists for the very like place Isaiae 52: Goe backe againe out of the midst of her, lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 14. L 2. cont. Parmen. c. 28. l. 2. cōt. Gaud. c. 9. would proue that they ought to go out of the Catholik Church of their tyme, as witnesseth S. Augustin, and Danaeus confesseth lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 9. who also in lib. 1. August. cont. Parmen. hath these words: The argument of the Donatists out of Isay the 52. was, That we ought to goe backe and goe out of the midst of Babylon. And the Anabaptists in Zuinglius tom. 2. in Elencho fol. 21. Out of this selfe same place of the Apocalipse, did gather that they ought to goe from Protestants. Why then may wee not say with D. Whitaker: Cont. 2. q. [...]. c. 23. Our aduersaries serue themselues of the same weapons, whereof most wicked heretikes did; and herein shew themselues to be nothing lesse then Catholikes. Moreouer I say, that if I list to ex­pound Scriptures at my pleasure, I might say, and more probably too then Protestants, that by the fore­sayd words God commandeth Protestants to goe out of Protestancy. For Protestancy may well be called Babylon, because it is a Masse and confusion of oppo­site heresies, where almost euery one hath a fayth of his owne, and speaketh a peculiar language, nor vn­derstandeth the tongue or doctrine of another. And Protestants may be called the people of God in that [Page 251] they are baptised, and therein dedicated to his ser­uice; and pretend the fayth of Christ as did Israel euen after it had foresaken the Synagogue: De prouid. art. 22. And as Caluin sayth that God calleth euen the disobedient, his seruants, as Nabuchodonozor in Hieremy, and as God hath both good and faythfull seruants, and naughty and vnfaythfull; so hath he good & naugh­ty people.

3. Secondly I answere, that the argument which can be framed out of this place, to proue that which the Protestants write of their churches being in Popery before Luther arose, to wit: Goe you my peo­ple out of Babylon. Therefore before Luthers tyme the church was in Popery, and so secret as for many ages she was not seene either of her own or of others; is a meere Sophisme. First because one vnknown thing is here proued by another more vnknown, a false thing by another not only false, but also impossible. For more vnknowne it is, more in­credible, more impossible that the Protestant church should be the people of God, or that Babylon, out of which Gods people is bidden to goe, Popery: then that Protestants haue byn heretofore amongst Pa­pists. For this, although it be both false and incre­dible, yet it is not impossible, as the other is. How then can they proue vnto vs, that they were hereto­fore in Popery, by affirming that they are that peo­ple of God, and Popery that Babylon, sith this is to vs farre more incredible, then the other. Let Baby­lyn sometyme in Scripture mystically signify the citty of Rome; let it also signify the number of the wicked both faythfull and Infidels; but in Scripture it neuer signifieth a certaine religion, and least of all Popery. Besides his Maiesty in his Epistle to Cardi­nall Peron, hath those words: VVhat that Babylon is, out [Page 252] of which Gods people is commanded to go, the King enquireth not in this place, nor pronounceth any thing of that matter. And if his Maiesty will not pronounce what that Babylon is, why should Ministers do it? Secondly, it is a So­phisme, because there are many things in the conse­quent, which are not at all in the antecedent, al­though it be vnderstood as Protestants would. And therefore herein they not only proue an vnknowne thing by another more vnknowne; but some things they proue only by themselues, that is, they affirme them, and proue them not at all. For let the Prote­testants be the people of God; and let Popery be that Babylon (which they can neuer proue) neuerthe­lesse that the Protestant Church had byn in Popery so long tyme, to wit, so many ages, and in such man­ner, to wit so secret as she was altogeather inuisible either to her own or to others, can no way be gathe­red out of the foresayd words, though they were ex­pounded according to the Protestants mind.

4. Their second argument they ground vpon that, 2. Thessal. 2. that Antichrist shall sit in the tem­ple of God, which they expound, as that the Pope should sit in the true, that is, according to them, the Protestant Church, and consequently that heretofor the Pope ruled ouer Protestants. To which I answer, that this argument is a Sophisme like to the former. First, because it proueth an vnknown thing by ano­ther more vnknowne; and one vntruth, by another both vntrue and impossible. For it is more incredi­ble to vs, that Protestants are the temple of God, or the Pope Antichrist, then that they were heretofore amongst Papists. Secondly if hence they Inferre, that their Church was so long in Popery, and in such manner as we haue recited out of their words, they [Page 253] will inferre that in the consequent, whereof there is no signe in the Antecedent, although it were ex­pounded to their desire. Thirdly I say, that there can be no certainty gathered out of this place, because it is obscure, as appeareth both by it selfe, and by the different expositions thereof, Lib. 20. de Ciuit. c. 29. and by the iudgement of S. Augustine, who writeth thus: In what temple of God Antichrist is to sit as God, it is vncertaine, whether in that ruine of the temple which Salomon built, or in the Church. A­gaine: I truly professe my selfe not to know, what he sayd; yet I will relate the suspicions of men, which I haue heard or read of this matter. And againe: One in this sort, another in that, ghesseth at the obscure words of the Apostle. Yea D. Andrews intimateth, Respon. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 5. that it cannot be certainly gathered hence, that the Pope is Antichrist, when he sayth: It is probably gathered out of the 2. chap. 2. Thessal. That the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist. But we regard not, whence they probably gather what they please, but only whence they can certainly & vndoubtedly proue what they say. Fourthly I say, that whatsoeuer is the temple of God wherein Antichrist shall sit, this place it selfe sheweth, that the Pope is not Antichrist, because he sitteth not in the Church of God as God, but as Bi­shop, and as Gods vicar. Fithly I adde, that the Prote­stants themselues do not firmly belieue, Protestāts not cer­taine that the Pope is Anti­christ. much lesse as a point of their fayth, that the Pope is Antichrist, howsoeuer they vse the name of Antichrist as a bugg to feare children. For Melancthon, as Schuffelburg reporteth, seemed to doubt whether the Pope were Antichrist, or no. D. Whitaker lib. 1. cont. Dureum sect. 33: sayth: In the meane tyme, l. 4. Theo [...] Cal. p. 166 we must needs probably and iustly suspect the Pope to be Antichrist And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3: Many who care not much for the Pope, do not think, that it can be pro­ued that he is Antichrist. And his Maiesty in his Monitory [Page 254] epistle pag. 70. Surely for so much as pertayneth to define An­tichrist, I would not vrge a thing so obscure and hidden as a mat­ter necessary to be belieued of all Christians. And the same sayth Moulins in his defence of that Epistle. To which his Maiesty addeth pag. 142. these words: If any list to refute this my ghesse concerning Antichrist, &c. Be­hold how the Protestants themselues doubt, account it but a suspicion, a ghesse, an obscure matter, and not needfull to be belieued, that the Pope is Antichrist. How then can they certainly gather out of the fore­sayd place, that the Pope sat among Protestants? Yea some of thē deny the Pope to be the true Antichrist. For thus Luther in cap. 9. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 122: VVe hold the Turck for the true Antichrist. Zanchius lib. 1. Epist. ad Stuckium: I am perswaded that the name of Antichrist a­greeth rather to the Turck then to Pope. And in his answere to an Arian, Antithes. 21. col. 879: The Bishop of Rome is not that Antichrist whereof is meant 2. Thessal. 2. And in his Disceptation betwixt two Deuines pag. 637. and re­spons. ad calumnias pag. 217. he plainly denyeth, that the Pope is that notable and singular Antichrist, wherof the Fa­thers speake. And his opinion herein many Protestant vniuersities do iudge probable, namely the vniuersi­ty of Marspurg, Heidelberg, Zurich, & Basle, among which, that of Zurich hath these words: The 2. Thesis of Antichrist, cannot be reiected as hereticall, seeing it is very pro­bable. For almost all the Fathers are of that mind. Againe: Since malice daily increaseth, nothing letteth but at the last some no­table one may come who in impiety surpasseth all the enemies of the Ghospell. Vorstius also in his Antibellarm. pag. 79: VVho discourse more aduisedly of this matter, do graunt that it is very likely, that yet some one shall arise, to whom all the qualites of Antichrist may agree in the highest degree. What certainty then can Protestants haue out of the foresayd place, [Page 255] for their purpose, sith some of their best learned doe but doubt, and others deny, that the Pope is that An­tichrist, wherof S. Paul speaketh?

5. The third argument they wring out of the 12. Apocal. where it is sayd, that the dragon shall cause the woman, that is, the Church, to fly into the wildernesse. This also is a fallacy, not vnlike to the former. First, because it is more vnknowne that the Protestant church is the woman, or the true church, or the Pope that Dragon, or the Popery the desert, hē that Protestants were heretofor amongst Papists. A­gaine there is no speach at all, that the Church shold be so long tyme and so secret as Protestants say their church was in Popery. Yea the tyme which this wo­man was to abide in the wildernesse, is set downe, to be 1260 dayes, or (as it is sayd cap. 20.) a small tyme. And as Luther vpon Daniel tom. 4. fol 265. and Bul­linger conc. 46. in Apocal. write: Almost all Doctours at­tribute but 3. yeares and halfe to the persecution of Antichrist. Wherefore these kind of testimonies, by which Pro­testants make shew to proue that their Church was heretofore in Popery, are but as S. Augustin speaketh of the like testimonies vsed by Donatists: De vnit. c. 19.23. Slender snares of delayes, wherewith you vnderprop an euill cause, by delaying. But we demaund some manifest testimony. Therefore bring out some manifest, produce some thing that needeth no interpreter, or if you cannot performe that which so iustly we demaund of you, belieue truth, hold your peace, sleep a nap, and after waken to sal­uation.

6. Their 4. Sophisme they draw out of rea­son in this sort: As soone as Protestancy was publik­ly preached, many came out of Popery, and followed it. Therefore there were who in Popery did belieue it. This fallacy is nothing better, then the former. For [Page 256] if it be reduced to a Syllogisme, it will be found to rely vpon this principle: If any in a company do fol­low the preaching of a new doctrine, there were some therin, that before tym belieued it; which prin­ciple is manifestly false. For neuer any heretiks prea­ched, whome some vnsetled Christians did not fol­low; and yet who will say that there was neuer any heresy preached which before had not byn belieued of some Christians. Epist. Mo­nitor. pag. 107. Whitak. cont. 2. q. 5. c. 6. Pless. de Eccles. c. 11. Sadeel. Re­futat. Pos­nan. c. 10. Besides Protestants account it for a wonderfull miracle, that at the beginning so many Papists came out of Popery vnto them; but it had byn no shadow of miracle, if before they had byn Protestāts. Morouer the number of Papists forsaking Popery argueth not, that before tymes they had byn Protestants, but that they were vnsetled Papists, who as the Scripture speaketh, were carryed about with euery wind of doctrine; Ephes. 4. and that protestancy is a vo­luptuous and licentius doctrine, because (as Caluin sayth) deceitfull doctrines do soone bewray themselues, whiles they are admitted of all men with gentle cares, Praef. Inst. and are heard of the world applauding thereto.

7. Of all which hath byn sayd in this and the former chapter I frame my fift demonstration in this manner: If the Protestant Church and Religion were no where before Luther arose, it was not all. But before him it was no wher. Therfore not at all. And by him it got to be some where. Therefore by him it got to be. The minor is manifest by all that hath byn sayd in the former chapter. The case of the protestant Church before Luther. And the maior is euident by it selfe. For no company of men, much lesse a Catholike or vniuer­sall Church, can be, and be no where. And these 5. de­monstrations which hitherto we haue made, haue byn taken out of the state wherein the Protestants confesse their Church to haue byn before Luther [Page 257] arose. For by them hath beene shewed, that before him according to the most free, most frequent, and most euident confessions of the famousest Protest­ants, it had no Cap. 8. Pastours to gouerne, no Cap. 3. sheep to be gouerned, no Cap. 5. appearance to be seene, no Cap. 9. place to abide, no Cap. 1. being to be. What then could it be but a fiction of lying men, or an imagination of phrantike men, vainely deuised, vntruly auouched, and foundly belieued.

That all the Protestants first heard of, had beene in former tymes Papists. CHAP. XI.

THE 6. demōstratiō for to proue Luther to haue bin the Author of Protestācie shall be grounded vpon that all Protestāts who were first heard of had bin al Papists before Luther began to teach. Luther before a Papist. Of him­selfe, thus writeth Luther Prefat. in tom. 1. Before all things I request the godly reader, that he read all with iudgement, and consider that I was once a monck, and a most madde Papist, when I began this cause; so druncken and drowned in Papistry, that I was most ready to kill all, if I had bin able, &c. And in psalm. 45 tom. 3. fol. 441: I was baptised in the Popes house, I was catechised, &c And in psalm. 51. fol 476: I wholy liued so in trust of my iustices, as if any had then [...]aught that which I now teach, I thinck I should haue torne him with my teeth. And in cap. 1 Galat. tom. 5. fol. 291: If any at anytime, surely I before the light of the gospell, did thinck piously, and was zealous for Popish lawes and traditions of Fa­thers, and did in great earnestnes vrge and defend them as holy, and the obseruation of them as necessary to saluation. I purely [Page 258] adored the Pope, and what soeuer I did, I did of a simple heart, a good zeale, and to the glory of God. The authority of the Pope was so great with me, that I iudged it a crime worthy of eternall damnation to dissent from him; and would haue subministred with fire and sword for the defence of the Popes authority.

2. Melancthon, who, as Caluin writeth, was a principall Minister of God in doing great matters, and was indeed Luthers chiefest instrument, in his dispute of Matrimony tom. 2. Luther. fol. vlt. giueth God thāckes, Melan­cthon first a Papist. that he was deliuered out of the king­dome of Antichrist and Poposh errors; and sayth, as reporteth Scusselburg tom. 13. Catal. Haer. pag. 625. of himselfe: I moued not these controuersies, but fell into them after they were moued, which being many and not explicated, I began to consider them with a desire of truth And the Saxo­nicall Ministers in the Cōference of Alburg. Scrip. 7. pag. 349. write that Melancthon of his owne accord acknowledged himselfe a scholler of Luther. yea the whole Vniuersity of Witterberg, The Vni­uersity of Witter­berg first Papist. out of which al­most al Luthers first champions came, was in former times Popish; as appeareth by their epistle ad Militi­tium tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 205. where thus they write: VVe are so affected both to all the Christian Religion and the sea Apostolike and holy Church of Rome, that if we were certaine, that D. Martin Luther were fallen into so foule and impious er­rours, we first of all would not only yield him vp to the law, but also would punish him and cast him out. And in their Epi­stle to Pope Leo 10. ibid. fol. 206. Most holy Faoher we deuout and obedient children of your Holynes, do most humbly & earnestly beseech &c. And below: Neither would we euer seeme such, as would pertinaciously hold any opinion contrary to the Catholike doctrine, ready at all tymes to obey yours and the holy Churches behests in Christ. And in another letter to Fredericke the Elector fol. 227. Aboue all thinges we ex­ceedingly [Page 259] like that your highnesse simply and purely honoureth the holy Church and the Pope. Neither will we euer be of any other mind. VVe preferre nothing before the iudgment of the Roman Church. And not only the Vniuersity, but the people of VVittemberg were also Catholiks, as Luther de­clareth in these wordes, to Fredericke Elector fol. 330. It cannot be denyed that the Reformation of doctrine and religion in this Church (of VVittemberg) began by me.

3. Fredericke also the Elector Frederike Elector first Ca­tholke. and Luthers chief Patron was a Papist. For thus himselfe writeth to Cardinall Raphael. tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 228. Your kindnes God willing shall neuer see that I haue any other mind or will then to shew my selfe obedient and officious vnto the Ca­tholike Church. And his Counsailers tom. 2. fol. 116. professe that he is an obedient sonne of the Holy Catholike Church. And likewise tom. 1. fol. 101. Fredericke the E­lector aboue all loueth the Catholike and Apostolike truth. Be­sides (as Luther writeth tom. 7. sermone de simula­cris) he put siluer statuaes in the Church, thinking thereby to merit at Gods hands. And tom. 2. lib. de abroganda Missa fol. 268. He deceaued by Papists, did greatly increase and adorne the house of All Saints. He foun­ded also a Colledge of Canons, where he kept Masse vntill the end of the yeare 1524. as Chytreus testifieth lib. 11. histor. Saxon. and Luther intimateth in for­mula Missae tom. 2. fol 387. saying. Be not you or any o­ther afraid, that in our VVittemberg that sacrilegious Tophee remayneth as yet, which is the wicked and lost mony of the Prin­ces of Saxony, I meane the temple of All Saints.

4. Pomera­nus. Bugenlage the Pomeran and first Protestant of VVittembrge had beene before a Papist. For as Scultet. concione saecul. pag 15. reporteth when he first read Luthers booke de captiu. he sayd: Since the beginning of the world the Sunne neuer beheld a greater heretike [Page 260] then Luther. Of Osiander Osiander. thus writteth Danaeus res­pons. ad Leonicum pag. 1518. He was a most wicked Frā ­ciscan Erier: His proper name was Hosen, that is hose or ho­sier, but of hosier he would be called Hosion, that is a holy man.

5. The same also we manifest of the Captains of the Sacramentaryes, among whom Zuinglius Zuingli­us. wri­teth thus of himselfe epist. ad Fratres tom. 1. fol. 341. I will not deny, that in tymes past I receaued guists of the Pope. For then I thought it lawfull to vse the Popes liberality, when I thought it a pious and godly matter to defend to my strength his Religion and fayth. And Luther lib. de Coena writeth that Zuinglius was become seauen tymes worse, then when he maintayned Popish religion. Likewise Oecolampadius Oecolam­padius. Zuinglius his cheifest partener thus witnesseth of himselfe respons. poster. ad Porkey merum pag. 108. I entred into a Monastery being of a good age and a man & Do­ctor, and with mature aduise. To which Hospin addeth part. 2. hist. fol. 35. He entred two yeures before into the Monastery of our Sauiour neere to Auspurge, and there became a Monke, fearing some danger of the common wealth by Luthers writings. Pelicanus. And ibidem fol. 42. he sayth that Pellican was a Franciscan. And fol. 213. that Bucer Bucer. became a Dominican in his childhood, of whome also and Peter Martyr D. Andrewes Respons. ad Apol Bellar. sayth: They left their monkish life.

6. Of Caluin Caluin. thus testifyeth himself lib de scan­dalis pag. 100. Vnder the Popes tyranny I was free to marry, since God deliuered me from thence &c. And respons. ad Sa­dolet. pag. 122. If I would haue prouided for my matters, I should neuer haue left your faction. In his Testament: God deliuered we from the deep darknes of Idolatry, wherein I was drowned. And Pareus lib. 2. de amiss. grat. cap. 1. VVhence were Luther and Caluin but of Papists? The same appeareth out of his life written by Beza, where he [Page 261] sayth that he had a benefice in the Cathedral Church of Noyon, and the cure of a Parish thereby, and that he was first put in mind of Protestancy by Robert Oliuetan. That Peter Martyr Peter Martyr. was long tyme both Catholike and Canon regular, Simler testifyeth in his life, which also he affirmeth of Zanchius Zanchius. saying, that he was one of the 18. companiōs that forsaking Popery followed Peter Martyr, who also in his pre­face de Natura Dei sayth that he was 35. yeares of age when he left Babylon.

7. Concerning the Lutherans in generall Lutherās in general thus writeth Luther epist. ad Erford. fol. 500. In which (errour of Antichrist) we being all stifled enthralled wlth a grieuous and miserable slauery, did serue the God and Prince of this world, seruing the same in sinnes and all kind of impiety. And tom. 4. in cap. 43. Isaiae fol. 179. VVe are accounted heretikes of the Pope, as who haue deuided our selues from that Church wherein we were baptized and instructed. In cap. 4. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 377. VVe old men were brought vp in that (Popish fayth) and haue so swallowed it, that it hath entred the most inward sinewes of our harts. And therefore we forget it with no lesse paynes, then we learne the true sayth. Ye heare how hardly the very first Protestants could be­come Protestants, & leaue to be Papists. And in cap. 11. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 129. he thus boasteth: VVe are holy Apostataes, for we haue fallen from Antichrist and the Church of Satan. Melancthon likewise in cap. 7. Math. tom. 1. fol. 406. VVe were heeretofore subiect to the Popes kingdome. Tom. 2. cont. Suenefeld pag. 200. VVe de­parted from the Popes Churches. Tom. 3. ad Art. Bauar. fol. 364. There was necessary cause, that we should forsake the Papists. And tom. 4. in Act. VVormat. pag. 403. VVe haue iust cause of departure from the Popish congregation, and with good conscience we forsooke the consent of so many Nations. [Page 262] Iames Andrewes cont. Hosium pag. 332. The more aged doe gratefully acknowledge, that they came from you, that is, lest you, and your doctrine. And Schuffelburg in Epist. dedicat. tom. 8. Catal. haeret. hath these wordes: It is behoofull to haue before our eyes the causes whereon our conscien­ces may in the stormes of tentations rely, why in this our age An­cestours would and ought to deuide themselues from the Roman Church. Behold how their consciences were tossed as with a storme, for that they had forsaken the Ro­man Church Lobechius also disput. 10. pag. 224. sayth: Our Ancestours did well, that they went out of the Ro­man Babylon.

Sacramē ­taryes in generall.8. Of Sacramentaryes also in general thus wri­teth Zuinglius in Praefat. lib. de ver. & tals. relig. fol. 159. VVe were alas long tyme so besieged with the iuglings of men. And Caluin in confess. Fidel pag. 111. VVe dis­semble not that we also were of the number of them (who ho­nour Masses) vntill the abuses of Masse were discouered. And 4. Instit. cap. 6. §. 6. VVe departed from the Roman church. cap. 15. §. 16. VVe were christened in the Popes kingdome. Respons. ad Versipel. pag. 360. Of our owne accord we went from the rable of Popery. Resp. ad Sadoler. pag. 122: That I may not make any long role, this I say, there was none of those who were beginners of this cause, but might haue beene in better estate and condition among you then that he needed there­fore to thinke of any new k [...]nd of life. Peter Martyr in lo­cis col 1459. proposeth this question: VVhether the Ghospellers be Schismatikes, because they separated themselues from the Papists. And col. 1465. concludeth thus: Seeing there were so many and so iust causes of our departure from Po­pery, our separation seemeth to be very laudable & not to be disli­ked. Zanchius tract de Eccles. cap. 18. It is manifest that we departed from the Church or rather from the sect of the Pope. And this we willingly confesse. Bullenger tom. 1. decad. 5. [Page 263] serm. 2. fol. 282. VVe willingly confesse that we went from the Roman Church. Musculus in locis tit. de Schismate p. 620. VVe are termed Apostataes of the Romanists, as many haue forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church. This we are so farre from denying as we thinke that we should rather glo­ry theereof. Plessie de Eccles. cap 11. pag. 361. writeth that Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, Mar­tyr and others out of whose schoole sayth he the Ministers who gathered the Church from Antichrist did come were Priests, Cu­rats, Doctours of diuinity &c, To whome Beza lib. de Notis pag. 8. adioyneth Pellican and Haller and o­thers more. D. Whitaker lib. 9. cont. Duraeum sayth: Luther was a Priest according to your order, and such were Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadious and others without number. M. Perkins in cap. 4. Galat. v. 26: All the first renewers of the Ghospell were either Priests or teachers of Schooles. Parae­us lib. cit: Are we worthy of blame or heretikes because we left the Popes Church? And in the end of his booke de Iu­sticatione: Our Ancestours 97. yeares ago had necessary cause for to forsake Popery. And Scultet. in concione saeculari pag. 4. This is the hundreth yeare since God pluckt our Ancestors out of Popish darknes. Finally Polanus in praefat. Thes. de Eccles: VVe haue separated our selues from the false Catho­like Synagogue.

9. The same also is manifest of the English Pro­testants by their owne wordes. For thus they speake in their Apology part. 5. cap. 12. diuis. 1. English Protestāts It is true we haue departed from them. Item: True it is we were brought vp with these men in darknesse and in the lacke of the knowledge of God. And part. 6. cap. 20. diuis. 2. As for vs truly we haue fallen from the Bishop of Rome. Causabon also Epist. ad Card. Peron cap. 16. The king confesseth, that his church hath forsaken no few points of that fayth and discipline, which at this day the Roman Church doth professe. And pag. [Page 264] 17. The English haue gone from that Church. M. Hooker lib. 4. de Polit. Eccles. pag. 181. VVe were a part of them. M. Powel. lib. 1. de Antichristo cap 21. VVe con­fesse we haue separated our selues from the Bishop of Rome, and his Synagogue. M. Perkins in cap. 5. Galat. vers. 21. VVe haue separated our selues from the Roman Church. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest 6. cap. 3. sayth: The Roman Church was iustly lest of vs. And D. Morton part. 2. Apol. lib. 2. cap. 10. The former booke tould a iust cause of our se­paration from you. In like manner those of Zurich in Sleidan lib. 4. histor. say: After the rising of the Gospell we haue cast of that burden which the Pope had put vpō vs idiots. And adde withal that before they had heard nothing of Pro­testancy. Suitzers. And the Suitzers in their confess. cap. 17. confesse that their Churches had parted themselues from the Roman Church. And the Scots in their confess. write that the truth was lately borne amongst them. Polonians. And the Polonians in their consent, that God hath de­liuered their Churches out of the grosse darcknes of Popery.

10. Furthermore of the whole Protestants church or of Protestants in general, The whole Protest. Church. thus they write. Lobe­chius disp. 12. pag. 254. Our confession (of Ausburg) was the beliefe of the whole orthodoxall Church gone out of Roman Babylon. And in like sort speaketh Daneus de Anti­christo cap. 17. Pareus Proaem. l. de Iustificat. The E­uangelicall Church was compelled aboue 96. yeares ago to make a diuisions from the Popish Church. The like he hath lib. 2. cap. 1. & lib. 3. cap. 8. Schusselburg tom. 8. catal. pag. 727. Our Church departed from the Church of the malig­nant. Polanus part. 2. Epist. ad Bezam. The reformed Churches did well that they did separate themselues from the Po­pish Church. Aretius in loc. part. 2. fol. 10. Our reformed Churches departed from Popery. D. Andrewes respons. ad Apoll. Bellarm. cap. 14. boasteth that almost halfe of the [Page 265] Christian world is gone out of the Roman Babylon. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. sayth: England, Ger­many, Scotland long agoe haue fallen from the Pope. And the English Apology glorieth in this sort, part. 1. cap. 1. diuis. 3. For they be not all made at this day so many free citties so many Kings, so many Princes which haue fallen away from the seat of Rome. Daneus cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 12. All Scot­land, England, Saxony, Denmarke, a great part of Germany, all Suitzerland, the greater part of the Grisons haue fallen from the Church of Rome. D. Sutliue lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 2. p. 251. Our Church hauing shaken off the filth of the Roman church is returned to the Catholike fayth. And pag. 254. England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmarke, Norwey, Saxony, Pomerania & the chiefest parts of Germany, France, Flandres, Poland haue fallen from the Pope. Moalins lib. de. fug. Arnoldi cap. 2. Our Churches be called reformed, because they be Christian Churches purged from Popery. D. Rainolds amongst his conclusions putteth this for the sixt: That the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Germany, and other kingdomes and Common wealths haue iustly separated themsel­ues from the Roman. And addeth with all that, All refor­med Churches haue departed from the Roman Church. Bren­tius in his Apology for the confess. of Wittemberg pag. 873. speaking of Protestants sayth: VVe also once were all fooles seduced and seducing and seruing idolatry and An­tichrist. Serauia defens. lib. de Grad. Minist. cap. 2. pag. 33. I marke that the Authours of all Reformations which were made in our age were Priests of the Roman Church. To al which I adioyne that Luther in cap. 2. Oseae. tom. 4. fol. 279. sayth that these be the speeches of Papists. VVere yee not Christned in the Popes Church? VVhy therfore go yee from her? And he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church is their Mother, but sayth that they haue left her, because she is a harlot and an adulteresse. [Page 266] And Scrauia de diuers. Minist. grad. cap. 6. pag. 30. hath these wordes: Popish Church Mother of Prote­testants. The Roman Church is our Mother in which and by which God regenerated vs; but because she is a harlot and an Adulteresse, we iustly contest against her. The like hath Iunius lib. singulari de Eccles. cap. 17. and others commonly. So that they acknowledge themselues to be the children of an harlot, and con­sequently bastardes, & not begotten of God, because God begetteth not children of harlots, but only of his chast spouse the Church. Let them therfore heare the Romā Church speaking to them in these words of S. Hierome: Dial. cont. Lucif. If an Angel or Apostle haue rebaptised thee I breake not that which thou followest. But if thou borne in my lappe, nourished with the milke of my breasts, doest draw thy sword against me, restore what I gaue thee, and be if thou canst, a Christian by other meanes: I am a harlot but yet thy mo­ther: I keep not chastity to one husband, such I was when thou wert begotten. Or els let them harken to S. Athanasi­us: It remayneth that they find fault with the basenesse of their stock, De Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. and say that they came not of pious, but of heretikes, nei­ther feare they that which is written in the Prouerbs, An ill brood curseth their father. Or else let them giue care to S. Au­gustin thus speaking to the Manichees: doe so slaues of Cham. L. 11. cont. Faust. c. 24 lib. 6. c. 5. Get you gon who despise the naked flesh wherof you sprung. Againe: Yea thou often maryed to elements or rather harlot prostitute to deuils and great with sacrilegious vanities darest thou reuile Catholike maryage of thy Lord with the crime of vnchasti­ty. But omitting this, because Protestants regard not, how farre they disgrace themselues, so that they re­uile the Church of Rome; out of that which we haue rehearsed in this Chapter, it appeareth how impu­dently D. Morton 1. part Apol. lib. 1. cap. 10: wrote that Melancthon, Pellican, and others were Prote­stants before Luther arose, and much more impu­dently [Page 267] D. Feild sayd lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 8: that be­fore Luthers time those who defended the Popish errors, were but some faction like to those in the Church of Corinth, who in S. Paules time denyed the Resurrection: which vntruth is so apparant, as to haue related it only, is to haue confuted it. But here by the Reader seeth how needfull it is for me to heap vp many testimōies of Protestants, for to proue euen those things which are most manifest.

11. My sixt demonstration therfore I frame in this manner: If all Protestants who were first knowne, whe­ther people or perticuler persōs, were Papists before Luther began to preach, then were there no Protestants before him, and he author of their Church: But all the first knowne Protestants were such. Ergo. The Maior is manifest by it selfe, & the Mimor by that which hath bin recited in this chapter.

That no Protestant ancienter then Luther did come forth and adioyne himselfe to his com­pany when Luther safely preached. CHAP. XII.

THE seauenth demonstratiō for to proue Luther to be the first Beginner of Protestancy, shall be taken from thence, that after that Luther securely preached Protestancy, no Protestant ancienter thou he peeped out, and adioyned himselfe vnto him. This I proue: first out of the reall Confession of all Protestants, who neither then, nor hitherto could name one such Protestant. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that Luthers company was altogether [Page 268] new, & no one member thereof before him; neither did he adioyne those whome de drew out of Popery vnto any company before extant; neither did any company which had bin before, adioyne it selfe vnto him. Secondly this may be proued by the silen­ce of D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 3. where being vrged with this argument, he answeareth it with silence only, and standeth mute, as confessing the accusation to be true. Thirdly I proue it by the sillinesse of the Answeares of other. Iunius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 5. sayth only, that some ancienter Protestants came forth, and adioyned themselues to Luther, but nameth none, nor proueth any thing; & therfore giueth words & nought else. He should, as Tertullian said to old heretikes, haue feignes the na­mes of some. Praescrip. c. 32. For after blasphemy what may not they doe? But I know not how it cometh to passe, that wheras Pro­testants feigne many things and persons, yet they dare not feigne names. As D. Sutliue, when in the Preface of his book of the Church he had sayd only, that Bolsec (who wrote Caluins life) doth insinuate that he wrote for hire; after growing more bould in his answeare to exceptions cap. 4. pag 120 deui­seth a synode, D. Sutcli­ue feig­neth a Sy­nod. in which (as he sayth) Bolsec publikely re­canted the book which he had writtē of Caluins life. Of which Synode none before him euer heard, but since D. Morton and M. Beard write that they haue heard of it, 1. part. A­pol. lib. 2. cap. 33. Beard Mo­tiue. 12. perhaps by D. Sutliue, but yet durst not feigne the names either of the men who held this synode, or of the place where it was held, nor yet specifie the yeare of our Lord when it was held. This he left to others to feigne, or to himselfe at more leasure

2. Fourthly it may be proued by the ridiculous nomination and prouing made by some. D. Morton [Page 269] part. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 16. writeth that Melan­cthon, Pellican, Lambert, Capito, Osiander, Stur­mius, Bucer came forth, which he proueth because Alphonse a Castro in the epistle dedicatory of his booke against heresies hath these words; Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone, but accompanyed with a great troupe as with a guard, and nameth those before cited. But first it is ridiculous to say, that the fore­sayd persons were Protestants before Luther, sith partly themselues, partly Protestants deny it, as we shewed in the former chapter. Againe, it is ridicu­lous to proue this by Castroes testimony, who being a Spaniard, and those all Germans except Lambert who was a French mā, it is most likely that he neuer knew thē nor heard of their names before Luther had reuolted. Moreouer ridiculous it is, to imagin that in the forecited words Castro should say, that the for­named persons did come forth in such sort as we mean, that is, came out of the Protestāt lurking holes, or to haue bin secret Protestāts before Luther appea­red; seeing he only saith, that they came forth in such sort as he saith Luther came forth, to wit forth of the Catholik church & of Catholiks became heretiks.

3. Fiftly I proue it out of the common doctrine of Protestants, wherin they teach that euery one ought to adioyne himselfe to the visible Church if so he can conueniently. For so teacheth the Confes­sion of the low countryes art. 28. the French art. 26. Melancthon in cap. 8. Matth. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 1. D whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3 cap. 2 and others commonly. But these former Protestants (if any such had bin) might conueniētly haue ioyned them­selues to Luthers cōpany after that they saw him to preach securely and out of danger. Seeing therfore, [Page 270] no such came to him, it is manifest that there were no such at all. Finally this is manifest otherwise. For suppose, that before Luther they lay so close, as that they worshipped God only in hart and soule, yet when they saw Protestancy to be preached pu­bliquely and securely, and that they might liue openly and amongst men, who will imagine, that they would preferre darcknes before light, and lur­king holes before townes and citties, and alwayes keep in deserts? Certaidly such kind of fellowes should be rather batts or owles, then men. Besides being iust men, forsooth, why did they not afford God externall worship whē they might securely doe it? Why did they not according to Christs comman­dement celebrate the memory of his Passion by recei­uing of the Sacraments?

4. Out of these I compose the seauenth demon­stration: If after that Luther securely preached Protestancy, neuer any ancienter Protestant came forth and adioyned himselfe to his company, there were no Protestants before. But no such euer came forth. Ergo. But if there were no Protestant before Luther, vndoubtedly he was the beginner of that company.

That the Protestant Church, and Religion is new. CHAP. XIII.

THE eighth demonstration with which we will proue, that Luther was the beginner of the Protestant Church and religion, we will frame out of Protestāts Confessions of the nouelty therof: First [Page 271] therfore they say, that in the iudgment almost of all men it is new, and that it is almost impossible, Now in almost all mens iud­gement. to wipe away from it the spot of noueltie. Thus Illy­ricus in the Preface of his Catalogue: VVhen Doctours raysed of God preach the (Protestant) gospell and doe inueigh against contrary errors, they seeme in the iudgement almost of all men to bring a new doctrine vnheard of before and to impugne the old. Againe: It is very hard and almost impossible to remoue the hatefull marck of nouelty from the (Protestant) doctrine. Almost impossi­ble. To which D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 454. addeth, that the Protestant religion, VVas altogether new to most nations.

2. Secondly in equiualent words they oftentymes call their Religion new or begun of new. For as we shal straight rehearse they terme it in the blade, renascent, reuiuing, borne a new, renewed, repayred, restored, raysed a­gaine, resuscitated. And what can be meant by these termes, but a religion either new or newly erecteth, such as Christs religion is not? For neither is it new in it selfe, neither can it be begun or raysed anew, because it can neuer fall. Luther in cap. 22. Genes. tom. fol. 208. writeth thus: Borne a­new. In the beginning of the gospell borne a new, Monetarius &c.. In cap. 31. fol. 434: Nine assemblies haue beene held since the Ghospell began to be borne a new. In cap. 32. fol. 458 After the light of the Ghospell was borne againe. In cap. 48. fol. 643. Borne a­gaine. At the beginning of the Ghospell rising againe. In cap. 49. fol. 662. They desire to ex­tinguish the light of the Ghospell rising againe. In cap. fol. 342. I remember that before these tymes of the Ghospell borne a new. And in the Praefat. Deuter. tom. 3. Ienen. fol. 75. The rising againe or rather springing Ghospell. Rising a­gaine. Thus speaketh Luther. Melancthon Apol. pro Luthero tom. 2. Lu­theri fol. 194. You oppose against the rising light of the Ghos­pell. And respons. ad Clerum Colon. tom. 2. pag. 97. [Page 272] The beginning of the pure doctrine rising againe. And in cap. 7 Matth. tom. 1. Renewed. fol 398: He termeth it renewed doctrine. Carion in Chron. pag. 706. calleth their Church the renascent Church. Iustus Ionas Epist. dedicat. lib. Lutheri de Iudaeis tom. 7. fol. 166. God would that in our time the Gospel should be borne againe vnder the house of Saxony. Reuiuing. Besoldus in his Preface of the 4. part of Luthers Cō ­mētarie vpon Genes. hath these words: In the begining of the Church borne anew. O siander in his Manual engli­shed pag. 62: Our doctrine is renewed. And his sonne Lucas Epist. Euchar: The doctrine of the gospel borne againe. The author of the Sponge in Daneus pag. 13. Christia­nity greene. calleth it the light of the Ghospell borne againe, the Euangelicall doctrin reuiuing or quickning againe. Kemnice in locis part. 2. p. 106. In the beginning of the Ghospell borne againe. Amongst the Sacramentaryes Zuinglius speaketh thus in sup­plicat. ad Suithenses fol 121: Christianity being greene, christianity rising againe. And in Eccles. fol. 41. New born truth. Which phrase he repeateth disput. tom. 2. fol. 607. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca sayth of Luther: The new borne Church doth owe much vnto him. Recalled Ghospell. Muscle Epist. dedicat. locorum. I was in the beginning of the new rising E­uangelicall truth. Bucer in Retract. pag. 642. vseth. these words: Beginning of the new born Ghospell. Among the Ministers of the recalled Ghospell. Beza in cap 3. Rom. v. 20. They by whose Ministery God in our age hath recalled to light Christs Ghospell almost buryed. Gualter. Praefat. in Rom. How much harme the Anabap­tists did at the beginning of the new borne Ghospell. Quick­ning a­gaine. Martyr in locis tom. 2. pag. 228. In the beginning of the Ghospell born againe. And in Epist. dedicat. comment. ad Rom. The Ghospell quickning againe. Hospin. Epist. dedicat. 1. part. histor. The Euangelicall truth borne againe. Sohinus in Methodo Theol. pag. 215. Among the Doctours of the Church borne againe. And Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 7. §. [Page 273] 24. The doctrsne of the Ghospell borne againe. lib. de scand. pag. 76. & 94. The ghospell borne againe. Admonit. 2. ad Westphalum pag. 784. The Ghospell is borne againe. And cont. Scruetum pag. 592: Of the Ghospell borne againe. And in like manner he speaketh ordinarily. Sadel respo. ad Arthurum cap. 7. The Church borne againe. Paraeus in Miscellan. Vrsini pag. 26. The light of the Ghospell borne againe. Danaeus respons. ad Solnec. pag. 1565: In the very beginning of the Ghospell borne againe. Ples­sic de Eccles. cap. 11: Christ borne againe. Cambden in apparatu Annalium: The rising religion of Protestants. Christ borne a­gaine. V­sher de Success. cap. 8. In the beginning of the Ghospell born againe. Scult. in Praesat. 4. partis Medullae: Thou wert in the floure of the Church borne againe. In the floure of the Church. Moreouer Luther tom. 1. in dis. fol. 410. calleth his doctrine, A doctrine repayred in this age. And Praefat. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 270. sayth: In these later tymes the holesome knowledge of Christ was againe resuscitated Iames Andrewes lib. cont. Hosium pag. 1 The Lord by the Ministery of Luther hath re­suscitated the doctrine of the Ghospell. And pag. 349: Repaired. Among our men after the doctrine of the Ghospell was resuscitated. Ke­nice Praefat. in lib. de vnione hypostat: Resuscita­ted. It is now three score yeares since the ancient serpent raised againe the heresy of Berengarius for to oppresse as they say in the hlade the doctrine of the Ghospell then first restored by Luthers Ministery. Ghospell in the blade. Caluin l. de Coena cap. 10: This controuersie began betweene them, who were the chiefest captaines in restoring the doctrine of the ghospell, and bringing it backe as it were when it was lost. Restored. Lib. de libero arbit. pag. 147. The purity of the Ghospell was re­stored by Luthers labour especially. Et epist. ad Ducem So­merseti: God would haue me to be one of those by whose labour he restored this tyme the sincere doctrine of the Ghospell. Da­naeus in method. scripturae pag. 400: There are 54. years past since that tyme that the pure light and doctrine of the Ghos­pell [Page 274] was first restored to the world. Apol. Eccles. Angl. part. pag. 64. It is no new thing though at this day the religion of Christ be entertained with despits and cheks being but lately restored and as it were comming vp againe a new. Ibid. cap. 17. Our desire was to haue the temple of the Lord restored a new. Iezier de bello Euchar. fol. 72: Euen from the beginning of the restored Euangelicall light. M. Bancroft in his Sur­uey cap. 8. In this later age of the world it hath pleased God to restore vs the light of the Ghospell. And M. Alenson in praef. contro. 4. Whitakeri: After the restauration of the Ghospell. And many more (as we see in the chapter following) call their ghospell restored Religion. By which it may appeare that D. Andrewes Respons. ad Apol. Bel­larm. cap. 1. did vntruly deny, that their men call their fayth a restored fayth. But whiles he denyeth that their men termeth it so, he clearely sheweth, what those meane who terme it so, to wit, that they meane a religion borne or framed a new, according to the very substance thereof. And in truth what els could they meane by so many termes and so often repea­ted of a religion greene in the blade, borne againe, rising a­gaine, resuscitated, renewing, reuiuing, recalled, repaired, brought backe againe, restored, but a religion substantiall produced, instituted and founded a new.

3. Thirdly this is proued, because they write, that in the tyme of Luther, of Melancthon, of Zuin­glius, of the Anabaptists and such others, was the be­ginning the very beginning, the first beginning, the originall, the entrance, the cradle, the dawning, the new rising of their Church and religion, as appeareth in the aforesayd testimonies of Luther, Melancthon, Besoldus, Kem­nicius, Musculus, Gualter, Peter Martyr, Danaeus, Vsserius, Gezler. And besides, Luther in cap. 3. Ge­nes. tom. 6. fol. 33. hath these words: In the beginning [Page 275] of the Ghopell, Carolostadius &c. Georgius Fabritius lib. 8. Orig. Saxon. pag. 13. God would that true and holesome doctrine should haue her beginning in the vniuersity of VVittem­berg. Caluin epist. ad Montis belgardenses col. 590. Protestā ­cy had its beginning in Wittē ­berg. edit. 1617: In this our age the ghospel did slow out of the church of VVittemberg. Brentius Praetat. lib. Andreae contra Hosium: Did not we all in the beginning of the reuealed ghos­ [...]ell with one mouth dispro [...]e your Popish impietyes? And in Recognit. pag. 327: They cannot deny, that, euen from the beginning of the reborne ghospell the Zuinglians &c. And I. de Maiest. Christi pag. 109: Euen from the beginning of the re­uealed ghospell, Melancthon &c. Wittē [...]ergenses in Resur. Orthodox [...] consensu: pag. 22. Luther recāted some things which in the beginning of the reborne doctrine of the ghospell he graunted to the Papists. Lobechius disput. 12. Straight af­ter the beginning of the shining truth, in the yeare 1520. &c. Pappus defens. 1 cont. Sturmium pag. 19. Thou saydst that there were no such Theses published since the beginning of re­ [...]gion. I shew thee the contrary that Luther and Philip held the [...]me. Sleidan prefat. histor: The beginning (of Protestan­ [...]y) was slender and almost contemptible, and one only (Luther) [...]re the brunt of all the world. Zanchius lib. de perseue­ [...]at. 192: Anabap­tists in the beginning of Prote­stātisme. In the beginning of the Ghospell the sect of Anabaptists [...]ose. Caluin epist. 63 If in the first beginning of the church, [...]ising againe, this example of tyranny doth now peep, what will [...] shortly? And epist. [...]78: In the beginning of the ghospell [...]rne againe. Epist. 269. The beginnings of the kingdome of Christ euery where in our ages were almost base and contemp­ [...]ble. Respons. ad Sadoset p. 133: New ry­sing. After the new rising of be ghospell. Pl [...]ssie de Eccles. cap. 11. VVhat shall we thinke [...]at the new starre anno (1572.) did signify but the new birth of [...]hrist on earth by preaching of the word. And he addeth, New birth. [...]at as Christ first borne put the Idols oracles to s [...] ­ [...]nce, so borne againe he hath made the Popish mi­racles [Page 276] to vanish. Scultete part. 1. Medullae in Irenaeo cap. 9. The dawning. In this age the dawning of the Euangelicall truth hath shined a new vnto vs. Zuinglius lib. de Prouid. tom. 2. fol 352: The Lantgraue laboureth that the infancy of Religion be piously nourished. The infā ­cy. And Gesner in Bibliotheca sayth: Luther did happily set forward the infancy of Religion. The A­logy of the Church of England part. 2. c. 2. diuis. 1. writeth, that Anabaptists, and Libertynes haue beene stirring in the world euer since the ghospell did first spring. M. Powel de Antichristo c. 32. How many wars haue beene since the light of the ghospell arose, the Heluetian, the Protestant warre &c. Vsserius I. de Success. Eccl. c. 8. At the beginning of the ghospall borne againe, Thomas Bilney &c. M. Bale cont. 8. cap. 68. speaking of the beginning of protestancy, calleth it, The rising of the new Hierusalem. Horne in his harbour, Second birth. The second birth of Christ. And Brocard in cap. 2. Apocal: the second comming of Christ. But surely if the yeare 1520. were straight after the beginning of Protestancy: If Lu­ther, Second comming Melancthon, Zuinglius, the Anabaptists, and such like were from the beginning, at the beginning, and straight after the Ri­sing of Protestancy: If the dissention amongst Protestants, wer [...] in the first beginning of their Church: If finally Protestant do­ctrine had its beginning in the Church of VVittemberge & slow­ed from thence, without doubt it is a new doctrine an [...] Church, which either had neuer been before, or wa [...] newly founded and restored. Besides what othe [...] thing can signify The new rising, the new birth, the secon [...] comming of Christ, but another substantiall beginnin [...] and repayring of Christs religion and Church afte [...] it had been quit ouerthrowne. The same also the [...] insinuate, when they say, that the light of the ghospell was in their tyme new kindled, or lightned a­gaine. Kindled againe. Luther tom. 2. fol. 305. alias 307. God in th [...] last tyme hath kindled againe the light of the ghospell. And i [...] [Page 277] cap. 17. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 210. He hath kindled againe for vs the light of the Ghospell. Melancthon in cap. 11. Dan. tom. 2. fol. 314. God hath againe kindled for vs the light of the ghospell, which againe he repeateth in his common places tit. de gratia. The same hath Vitus Theodo­rus Praefat. Comment. Luth. in Psalm. Kemnitius in locis tit. de Iustificat. pag. 109. 247. The Elector in Edicto de lib. concord. & Zuinglius Praefat. Elench. [...]om. 2. fol. 5. sayth: Christ hath lighted againe in our tyme the lanterne of his word. Wherefore falsly doth Boysseul in confutat. Spondaei pag. 25. deny, that their men say they kindle a new the doctrine of saluation. But (as before I sayd of D. Andrewes) Boysseul by deny­ing that their men say they kindle againe the doctrin sheweth vs, that those who indeed say so, do meane of a substantiall production of light, as in truth the word kindling doth signify.

4. Fourthly I proue the nouelty of the Protestant Church and religion, because they doe sometymes in plaine termes call it new, fresh, vnused, vnacustomed newly planted, altogeather new, and newly erected. Luther Praefat. formulae Missae tom. 2. fol. 384. I was alwayes slow and fearefull for the weaklings in sayth, from whome could not suddenly be taken so old and iniured, nor ingrafted so fresh & vnaccustomed manner of seruing God. In Psalm. 45. tom. 3. fol. 439. he sayth: Neither was there euer any new word re­uealed without miracles. Fresh and and vnac­custo­med. Which after he had proued by the example of Abraham, Moyses and Christ, he ad­deth: So we also haue our Miracles. And in cap. 19. Gen. tom. 6. fol. 238. he sayth, that Papists do sore vrge them saying: Your doctrine is new and vnknowne to our fore­fathers, which he answearing, denyeth not that his doctrine is new, but rather granteth it, saying: VVhat belongeth it to vs what God hath iudged of those who dyed heere­tofore. [Page 278] Now the word is preached vnto vs, we must not be In­quirers who aske God why he hath reuealed his doctrine at this tyme and not in former ages. And in cap. 12. fol. 148. he writeth in these words: Heere surely Abraham doth shew no small trouble of conscience which euen in his banishment is wounded with this dart, to thinke in this sort: Looke to it, Thou art all alon a stranger, wheresoeuer thou goest thou carryest with thee a new and strange religion. Art thou alone holy? hath God care of thee only, and hath he cast off so many people and nations? The like (sayth Luther) we also suffer when our aduersaryes with open mouth demand of vs, Are all who went before vs, and followed the Popes religion damned? Yee see how plainly he intimateth his trouble of conscience about the new­nesse and strangenes of his religion. And in Appen­dice confess. in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 188. he sayth: Because our doctrine seemed at that tyme very new and wonder­full scandalous to the whole world, Seemed very new to the whole world. it behoued me to deale mode­ratly. And in the Epitaphe of his tombe is engrauen this verse:

A new light of the Ghospell he spred throughout the world.

Melancthon Praefat. in tom. 2. [...]urther thus speaketh of him: He did so illustrate these writings, that after a long & darcke night there seemed to the iudgment of all pious and pru­dent men to arise a new light of doctrine. New in the iudge­ment of al wise men. The vniuersity of Wittembrg in Sentent. de Missa in Luthero tom. 2. fol. 349. writeth that the abolishing of priuate Cō ­munion: Is in this tyme a thing altogeather new, As Luther ibidem fol 385. sayth that Communion vnder both kinds, is a rite ouer new. Spalatine whome Protestāts account a very graue man in his relat [...]on of the Con­fession of Auspurg sayth: Neuer such a cō ­fession. Such a confession was neuer made not only a thousand yeares agoe, but not since the beginning of the world, neither in any history nor in any ancient Father or Doctor it such a Confession to be heard of. Huber in Antibellar­minum [Page 279] libro 4. capite. 3. Our Church hath a new forme not vsed at that tyme when the Pope had all. Wittembergen­les in Prefat: Refuta [...]. Orthodoxi Consensus call the Protestant Church lately planted, Lately planted. and as yet tender. George Fabritius libro 7. Orig. Saxon. pag. 858. speaking of protestancy sayth: New do­ctrine. Duke George was greatly against this new doctrine, who was deceiued by the ancienter vse of his forefathers. And lib. 8 pag. 21. wri­teth that euen the Prince Electour himselfe at the first did not much defend Luthers reformatiō as being new. And Freschelius Archdeacon of Wittemberg Preface in Comment Melancthonis in Math. calleth the Protestants company according to the age therof a Childish camp. A childish camp. In like sort doe the Sacramentaries speake, for thus Zuinglius Parenesi ad ciuitatem Sui­thensem tom. 1. fol. 110. First of all in humble manner we entreat this, that our cause doe not seeme to you absurd by reason of the newnesse therof. And in Supplicat. ad Suithenses he doth almost openly confesse that he goeth about to giue men new precepts and lawes. And those of Zurich in Slei­dan lib. 4. write that their ministers doe teach them now fiue yeares, and that at the begining this kind of doctrine seemed new, because they had neuer heard any such thing before. Sadeel de vocat. pag. 543: Seemed new. God hath brought into light the reborne Church as a yongling, and pag. 555. that he hath layd a new foundation of the Church, and erected againe the Church. Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet pag. 131. A new foundati­on. maketh a man speake thus to God in defence of his becomming a Protestant: I being offended at the nouelty, did hardly giue eare vnto it. Bastingius epist. dedicat. Catechis: Erected a new. It see­med good to God in our time to erect his Church a new. Beza in Confess cap. 4 sect. 49: God would preserue the reliques of his Church in Poperie till he had erected it againe. Erected a­gaine. The Apo­logie of the English Church part. 4. cap. 4. Diuis. 21 [Page 280] Forty yeares agoe and vpward it was an easy thing for them to deuise against vs these accursed speeches and others too, when in the midst of the darcknesse of that age it first began to spring and to giue shine some one glimmering beame of truth vnknowne at that time and vnheard of, when as yet the thing was but new & the successe therof vncertaine, and when there could be imagined against vs no fact so detestable but that the people then would soon beleiue it for the nouelty and straungenesse of the matter. Ibid. diuis. 1: How often haue they set on fire Princes houses to the end they might quench the light of the gospell in the very first ap­pearing of it. M. Fox in his Acts set forth anno 1610. pag 788. writing what passed anno 1523 speaketh thus: But in the blade. Then the doctrine of Luther first beginning to spring and being but in the blade, was not yet knowne wherto it tended, nor to what it would grow. D. Rainolds in his Confe­rence cap. 5. sect. 2. sayth that Protestants haue not had long tract of time. And a late Chronicler, thought to be M. Good win writing the life of K. Henry 8. 1521. sayth: In the meane time our king moued at the nouelty of Luthers doctrine &c. To all which I adde, that Eras­mus (whome Protestants as is before shewed doe challenge as one of theirs) writeth thus to the Bre­thren of the low coūtreis: New Ghospell. do not they bring a new Gospel, who expound it otherwise then the Church hitherto hath don? But Why I pray you should the Protestants religion seeme new to all the world, and in the iudgement of all pious and prudent men, if indeed it were not new? How should so many, so famous Protestants, so often, and in so many different kinds of writings, to wit in prose, in verse, in peaceable, in contenti­ous writings, in Historicall, in dogmaticall, in speech to men & to God himselfe haue sayd so plain­ly and so many wayes, that Protestant religion was new, fresh, vnwonted, vnused, wholy new, newly planted, & [Page 281] erected anew if they had not thought that it was in­deed new. For as Luther sayth: It is impossible but that the conscience will some time bewray it selfe.

5. Protestāts first refu­ted. If any answeare that the fore sayd Protestānts doe not meane, that their religion was absolutely new. First I aske, why then doe they absolutely say so, and that so often and in so many kind of wri­tings? Why do they so often and in so weighty a matter write otherwise then they think? Besides, it cannot be proued, that they did not meane that it was absolutely new when they spake so, otherwise then because perhappes at other times they sayd the contrary. Which kind of proofe in Heretikes is friuolous, as partly hath bin shewed before, partly shall be more hereafter. Moreouer this is like the ex­cuse of the Marcionists, who whē they had brought in a new God, yet would not haue him to be called absolutely new, but only newly knowne or discouered.

6. Fiftly I proue the nouelty of Protestant reli­gion because euen then when in words they deny it to be new, in very deed they confesse it to be new in such sort as sufficeth for me to proue that Luther was the Author therof, and that it is not the religion of Christ, to wit, that it is of new erected, built & set vp according to the very substance and essence therof in such sorr as a house fallē downe but newly raised in walls, roofe and other such substantiall, parts may be called a new house; Because Christs Church and religion cannot be new in this sort, being such as can neuer fall. For they confesse, that the antiquity of their Church was abrogated, and that it is a religion refined and reformed, and that they are refiners and reformers. D. Morton 1. part. Apol. lib 1. cap vlt writeth that Protestants Chal­lenge [Page 282] the first antiquity, but abrogated by mens fault. Iunius Cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 7 sayth: The continuance of the old and Catholike doctrine is renewed. But surely that thing whose antiquity hath bin abrogated and broken of, is new. For the kingdome in Caesars time was new in Rome although it began with the citty it selfe, because it had bin abrogated for diuers ages. Wher­upon Riuet Epitom-Cont. tract. 3 cap. 21 sayth: Things are called new, when they are renewed and vsed after interruption. Besides whether a thing once abrogated and taken away and afterward restored be to be cal­led new or no, it sufficeth to me, that the Protestant religion is in such sort new, as a house fallen downe and newly raised may be called n [...]w: because the Church & religion of Christ cannot be new in this manner, nor the antiquity therof, abrogated, and cut of. In like sort Muscle in locis tit. de noua doc­trina pag. 417: Albeit he deny that they make new doctrine yet he confesseth that they renew doctrine, And that he meaneth of a substantiall renouation wherin the very substance of a thing is renewed, it appeareth by the precedent page where he sayth that old matters abrogated & fallen down for some ages are renewed. A Church therfore and religion fallen downe they doe renew, that is, erect a new. Wherupon the French Confession, Beza, & Bastingius as is before recited say that their Church is againe, & a new erected, and others cal her a Church Reuiued, resuscitated, reborn and assigne a new birth and begining of her, which words doe manifestly signifie a new substantial pro­duction or making of her: which whether it be cal­led a nouatiō or renouatiō, maketh not much to the purpose, seing it is either a substantial production or first making of that which neuer had bin before, or [Page 283] a reproduction and second making of that, which though it had bin before, yet was fallen, and the substance therof corrupted and perished. Of which nouation or renouation Luther was the Author, Be­sides they call themselues Renewers or Refiners, Protestāts call them­selues re­formers. and their Church or religion Reformed or refined. D. Andrewes Respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. cap. 1: VVe are Renewers. VVe call our religion reformed. Caluin Epist. 341: VVe carry the name of the reformed Church. Iunius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 16: VVe hold the Reformed Christian saith. And in the same sort speaketh the Scots Confession, the Consent of Poland, D Whitaker Prefat. cont. & cont. 1. quest. 2. c. 16. & 17. & cont. 2. quest. 5. c. 2. & others commonly. I aske therfore what kind of forme of religion haue they taken away by their re­formation, and what a one haue they giuen? Surely they haue changed the very substantiall forme. For (to omit al other points) they haue taken away the former manner of obtayning remission of sinnes by the Catholike faith and good workes, and brought in a new of obtayning the same by special faith only, and vndoubtedly the way to obtaine remissiō of sins, is substantiall to a Church and religiō. But they who take away the substantiall forme and bring anew, doe make a new thing, and such a mutation ought rather to be termed a formation, then reformation. But whether it be called a formation or reformation, it skilleth little, it sufficeth (as I sayd) that it is a sub­stantiall mutation of religion the Author whereof Luther was, and such a mutation, as cannot happen to the religion and Church of Christ. Moreouer, it is the shift of old and new heretiques to bring in new religions vnder the name of Reformation. Of the Marcionists thus writeth Tertullian: They say that [Page 282] [...] [Page 283] [...] [Page 284] Marcion did not so much innouate the rule (of faith) as refor­me that which heretofore was corrupted. L. 1. cont. Mar. c. 20. And he himselfe after he was become a Montanist: This is shewed of vs, that the discipline of Monogamie is neither new nor strange, yea both anciēt and proper to Christian, L. 1. de Monogam c. 4. that you may thinck the Pa­raclete (Monta [...]us) to haue bin rather the Restorer then be­ginner therof. And of Seruetus thus write those of Zu­rick in Caluin cont S [...]ruet. pag. 626. He goeth on to thrust vpon the Church a most corrupt doctrine vnder the shew of restitution of Christianity.

7. Sixtly, because the Protestants designe the place, the occasion, the yeare, day, and hower, when Protestancie began: The place we haue heard alrea­dy out of Caluin and Fabritius was Wittemberg, & the same doth Luther insinuate in cap. 49. Isaiae tom. 4. The place where Protestā ­ [...]y began. fol. 192 saying: Now VVittenberg is blasphemed as the fountaine of all heresies, but it will come to passe some yeares hence that it shall be praised of Posterity, as Gods garden from whence the Gospell was propagated into Germanie and all parts of the world. And Mathew Index in Edicto aeterni de [...]: That clamour against Antichrist came out of the durty townes of bar­barous and base Germany. [...]rotestan­ [...]y began [...]n a durty owne of barba­ [...]ous coū ­ [...]y. A sit place no doubt from whence so durty, filthy, and barbarous an heresy should spring. For sooth Wittemberge is the Prote­stants Syon, from whence their law should come. S. Austin thought it ridiculous madnesse, that the Do­natists shold say that the Church was to be renewed out of Africa the third part of the world, [...]e vnit. c. [...]. & shall we think it wisedom to imagin that it should be renew­out of a durty and barbarous corner of Duchland? The occasion of it was Tezelius his preaching of In­dulgences, [...]he occa­ [...]on of the [...]ginning [...]f prote­ [...]ancy. for thus writteth Crusius l. 10. Anal. Sueu. pag. 5.8. Tezelius boldnesse stirred vp Luthers mind to set vp conclusions against those indulgences on the gates of the temple of All [Page 285] Saints in VVittemberg the last day of October which was satur­day. The day of the weeke & month. Hence now came the occasion & beginning (sayth he) of correcting the christian religion. Schusselburg Praef. tom. 8. Catal. haeret: Old men remember & it recorded in writing for remembrance for euer and publiquely extant, that this was the cause that the Gospell flourished againe in our age, that Iohn Tetzele carryed about pardons of sinnes to be sold in the Popes na­me. And Kemnice 4. part. Exam. tit. de Indulgentijs pag. 78: It is knowne to all the world, that the impudent, and impious sale of pardons aboue 50. yeares ago gaue entrance to the holesome repurging of heauenly doctrine. And Manlius in Calendario: On All Saints eue first of all conclusions against Indulgences were fastned by Luther vpon the gate of the Church of VVittemberg castle in the yeare 1517. at twelue of the clocke. The lame lay Melanccthon [...]fat. in tom. 2. The year & houre. Luthe­ri, S [...]e [...]dan, Carion, and others. We haue then the place where, to wit, Wittemberg, the yeare 1517. the day of the month, the last of October, the day of the weeke, Saturday, and finally the very houre, to wit, twelue of the clocke, when first Protestancy began to arise. And as Vincent. Lyrin. sayth: Cap. 34. VVhat heresy e­uer was there which sprung not vp vnder some certaine name in a certaine place, and tyme.

8. Lutherās say that the Sacra [...] doctrine is new. Seauenthly I proue the nouelty of Protestan­cy by the mutual testimony of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries, and of the Sacramētaries against the Lutherans. For of the Sacramentaries doctrine thus testifieth Luther in defens. verborū Coenae tom. 7 fol. 381. Neither doth any thing set forth this heresie more then noueltie. And tom. 2. Zu [...]nglij fol. 383. Carolstadi­us first raised his errour. Melancthon Epist. ad Mico­nium, calleth it new doctrine, and addeth that Carol­stadius first raised this tumult. Heshusius lib. de reali praesentia fol. 2: Carolstadius the vnhappy author of this dis­cord. [Page 286] Kemnice in fundamentis Coenae pag. 116: Carolstadius was the first author of this strife. And Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 68. writeth that Melancthon impugned the Sacramentaries doctrine as a thing alto­gether new, and fol. 46. that Pomeran disallowed Zuing­lius doctrine as a noueltie. And in Narrat. dissipatae Ec­cles. Belg. pag. 179. The Lutherans say to the Cal­uinists, your doctrine is new: and pag. 213. your doctrine is of late. And Confes. Mans [...]eld: The Sacramentary doctrin is iustly suspected of vs. First for the nouelty therof because it arose in our tyme. Neither ought the Sacramentaries to ac­cept against these testimōies, as if they were the testi­monies of the aduersaries. For such aduersaries they are as themselues account them their brethren in Christ, and members of the same Church. Besides, though themselues be aduersaries both to Catholiks and Lutherans, neuerthelesse they will haue their testimonies to be takē against thē in matters of fact. Moreouer, because the Sacramentaries themselues doe sometime confesse the same. For Zuinglius tom. 2. Respons. ad Struthionem fol. 303. calleth Carol­stadius: The first teather of the truth of the Eucharist. And in Subsidio fol. 244. he calleth his opinion, the exposition of the ancients brought back is it were after it was lost. Lasco Epist. ad Reg. Poloniae. Abolished by iniury of times and restored as it were after it was lost. Lauather de dissidio Euchar. fol. 2. writeth that the Senate of Zurich VVas troubled which the newnesse of the matter. And fol. 5. that when Occolampade had set forth his booke, the Senate of Basle moued with the nouelty of the matter, forbid his book to be sold, vntill it had bin examined by Censors. And fol. 1. that Zuinglius opiniō was not heard of by the com­mon people. In like sort the Sacramentaries write of the proper opinions of the Lutherans. For of their im­panation [Page 287] or mixture of Christs body and bread in the Eacharist Caluin Defens. 2. Sacramē ­taryes say the Lu­theran opinions are new. cont Westphalum pag. 786. sayth: It is a new doctrine, and till now vnheard of, that bread is substantially the body of Christ. Oecolam­padius responsione poster. ad Perkeymer pag. 18. Those new Doctours graunt to bread that it is substantially the body of Christ. And of the Lutherans vbiquity, wher­with they make Christs body to be euery wher, Cal­uin pronounceth Admonit. vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 829. that it was not borne long since. And Alcsius apud Hospi [...] part. 2. fol. 201. sayth: I know both the tyme when this opinion was first broached to the Church, and who was Au­thor thereof. Authores Admonit. de lib. concord. cap. 3. pag 95. No man taught this their opinion before Luther. Do they not bring forth new deuises and not heard of before in the Church? Beza also lib. de Omnipraesentia carnis Chri­sti pag. 509. calleth it a doctrine vnheard of in the Church. Finally Clenuitius apud Heshus. lib. cit. calleth the very Confession of Auspurg, A new and fifth Ghospell. Thus Protestants testify the newnesse of each other doctrine.

9. Eightly I proue the newnesse of Protestancy by the new and before vnheard of nams, The na­mes of Protestats are new. which Pro­testants giue to themselues, and to their Church and religion. For they call themselues Protestants, or Ghos­pellers: and their Church and Religion Euangelicall and reformed. D. Andrewes respons ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 1. Protestants is our name. D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis: VVe refuse not the name of Protestants. This name agreeth fitly to our profession. Praefat. consensus Poloniae: VVe are termed Ghospellers. Iezler lib. de bello Euchar. fol. 31. VVe will be called Gospellers, and woe be to them who call vs otherwise. His maiesty in his declaration against Vorstius pag. 49: The men of our Religion doe estsoones take [Page 288] to them the name of Gospellers. D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 7: If ye aske where is the Euangelicall and reformed Church, all will straight point their finger to the Protestāts assem­bly. But surely all these names are new and neuer heard of before Luther, neither can there be any name designed, which before Luthers time was pro­per to the Protestant company. But it is incredible that there should haue bin such a company, and yet that it neuer had any proper or peculiar name giuen either by those of that company or of any others.

10. Lastly I proue the nouelty of the Protestant Church by that, that Protestants knowing well the newnesse therof, deny that the greatest antiquity among Christian Churches is a marck of the true Church of Christ, as doth Iunius lib. de Eccles. cap. 16. yea some of them are so offended at this marck of Antiquity, as they bid vs Luth. tom. 2, fol. 367. shut our eyes at it, and say that it is a Raino. Confer. c. 5. diuiss. 2. bastardly marke, and rather a mark of the Ples. l. de Eccles. c. 3. Synagogue of Antichrist, thē of the church of Christ. Neuertheles seeing it ought to be vndoub­ted amongst Christians, that since Christs Church was founded by him, it neuer failed or perished, and that it is manifest, that he founded his true Church before any false Christian in imitation of him began a false Christian Church, it ought also to be certain that she which amongst all Christian Churches is the most ancient, is the very true Church of Christ. Neither would euer Protestants deny this, if they did not too wel know, that their Church is far yon­ger then the Roman, as being (according to their saying) her daughter.

11. Out of all which hath beene recited in this chapter, I make my eight demonstration in this sort: If the Protestant Church and Religion were in Luthers [Page 289] tyme new or builded or begun a new, he was the Authour and be­ginner thereof. But so it was, as hath beene made manifest by the aforesayd confessions of Protestants. Therefore Luther was the Author thereof.

That Protestants do plainly confesse, that Luther was the Author and Beginner of their Church and Religion. CHAP. XIIII.

THE ninth demonstration, that Luther was the Author of the Protestant Church and religion, shallbe taken out of Protestants open confessions thereof. First therefore they say, that he was the first who openly preached Protestancy. Luther Praefat. in tom. 1: The Duch men did looke what would be the euent of so great a matter, which before none either Bishop or Deuine durst touch. Ibi. fol. 159. It is said, Luther first of all in our age did taxe the Popes abominations, and illustrate the ancient and pure doctrine of the Church. And Praefat. disput. fol. 370. Luther the first that prea­ched his Ghospell. I first allowed the marriage of Bishops. In cap. 3. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 333: Many gaue God thankes, that by the Ghospell, which by Gods grace we then first of all preached, &c. In cap. 4. fol. 387. God in this later tyme hath againe reuealed the truth of the Ghospell by vs vnto the vngratefull world. Epist. ad Argenti­nenses tom. 7. VVe dare boast, First pu­blished Christ. that Christ was first published by vs. Melancthon Praefat. in tom. 3: VVith what ioy did men receaue the first sparckle of light discouered by Luther. praef. in tom. 2. Lutheri: God by him restored the Ghospell to vs. Againe: He recalled the minds of men to the Sonne of God, First spark of Prote­stancy. and as the Baptist shewed the lambe that taketh away the sinnes of the world. And praefat. in tom. 3: VVhen there was great [Page 290] darcknes in the Charch, and the light of the Ghospell was oppres­sed, Luther layd open the iustice of fayth. The vniuersity of VVittemberg in Hospin. part. 2. histor. fol. 250: Out of this Church and schoole did shine the first light of pure doctrine touching God and Crist, The first light. which our new aduersaryes are forced to graunt, though they burst with enuy. Amsdorfe, Alber and o­thers write, that Luther was the first vnder heauen, who impugned externall sacrifice & Priesthood in the new testament. Schusselburg lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. fol. 130. sayth that Vtenhonius a Caluinist was impudent, when he wrote that he heard Conrad Pellican say, that many learned men in Germa­ny held the doctrine of the [...]hospell before Luther appeared, and that Pellican himselfe had reiected Purgatory before Luthers na­me was heard of. This lye (sayth Schusselburg) the later Caluinists haue refuted. And fol. 228. he affirmeth, that Luther began the refining of the doctrine of the Ghospell. This praise (sayth he) we truly and with good right giue to Luther, though the Caluinists take it in very ill part. Morgerstern tract. 145. sayth, It is ridiculous to thinke that before Luther any held the pure doctrine, and that Luther receaued it of them, and not rather they of him. Milius in explicat. confess. Au­gust. art. 17. If Luther had had orthodoxall forerunners in his office, Had no predeces­sours. there had beene no need of a Lutheran reformation. The Author of the booke entituled Prognostica or Finis mundi pag. 12. Luther (as is confessed) first brought in the gho­spell at the end of the world. The first that brought in the Ghospell. Brentius lib. de Coena in fine. God raised vp Luther to carry before vs the torch of the knowledg of Christ. And Smedensted apud Hospin. part. 2. hi­stor. fol. 232: He first in our age brought into the world the light of the Ghospell, after it had beene extinguished. Thus the Lutherans: And in like manner the Sacramentaryes. Zuinglius respons. ad Luther tom. 2. fol. 380. thus speaketh Luther: Thou first camest into the field. Ibidem in Exeges. fol. 335. VVe willingly acknowledge thee to be the [Page 291] chiefest defender of the Ghospell, the Diomedes who durst set vpon the Roman Venus, the Ionathas who durst alone assaile the campe of the Palestins. Bucer de Coena pag. 675. calleth Luther our first Apostle of the pure Ghospell, and 673. sayth, Luther first in our age did impugne superstitiō. Caluin writeth that he began to take the cause in hand, and first shewed the way. First shewed the way. Danaeus lib. de Baptismo cap. 15: Luther first gaue o­thers occasion to thinke rightly of mans iustification before God. Lauather de distid. Euchar. anno 1546. Luther first in our age did by diuers writings openly inueigh against Popish er­rours. Author Orthodoxi consensus in Praefat. Apol: Luther and Zuinglius were the first, who began to reprehend in­ueterate errours. Againe: The first teachers of Germany, Luther Melancthon, &c. Amongst English Protestants M. Iewell in defens. Apol. part. 1. cap. 7. diuis. 3: Thus I say, in this later age after your so long darcknesse, Luther was the first that preached the Ghospell of Christ. M. Fox in his Acts pag. 402: Luther opened the veine long before hid­den. M. Wotton in his examination of the title of the Roman Clergy: It might be truly sayd, that Luther was the first who in that tyme did publish Christ, especially in the chiefe points of the Ghospell, which is iustification by fayth in Christ. And in this respect it is an honour for Luther to haue been a sonne without a father, a scholler without a maister. Scholler without a maister. Yee see how plainly they say, that Luther first preached the Ghospell, first brought in the Ghospell, first shewed the way, first published Christ, discouered the first sparcle, first layd open the iustice of fayth, had no orthodoxall Predecessours, was a sonne without a Father, and a scholler without a maister, and that in the ar­ticle of iustification by only fayth, which the soule, hinges, and summe of Protestancy.

2. Secondly without Luthers help no man had knowne a iote of Protestancy. Luther cont. Regem Angliae tom. 2. fol. 497: Vnles we had opened the way, they [Page 292] were like to haue vnderstood nothing at all, either of Christ or of the Ghospell. Nothing at all. In cap. 15. 1. loc. tom. 5. fol. 134: The go­spell is by our labour and diligence brought into light, and they first learnt it of vs, without our paynes they could neuer haue learnt one word of the Ghospell. And fol. 141: God hath called vs by his holy spirit, Not one word. that by vs Christ might be manifested & known to the world. This prayse they cannot take from vs, that we were the first & carryed away the prize of bringing the Ghospell into light of which they would not haue knowne one iote, vnlesse by our paines and study it had beene brought forth. And ibidem in cap. 17. Matth. he sayth that without him the Sacra­mentaries and others would not haue knowne neuer so little of the Euangelicall truth. Not one iote. Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 358. writeth these wordes of Luther: If they had not had it of vs, Neuer so little. doubtlesse they would haue knowne nothing of. And those of Zurich in their confession write thus: Luther boasteth, that himselfe is the Prophet and Apostle of the Germans who hath learnt nothing of any, and all haue learnt of him. None knew any thing but what they haue knowne by him.

3. Thirdly they write, that Luther did kindle the Protestant light. Schusselburg tom. 13. Catal. haeret. pag. 897: Luther kindled the Pro­testant light. By Luthers ministery the cleare light of the Ghospell is kindled againe for vs: Lobechius disput. 1. pag. 6. By this mans Ministery the Lord hath kindled in Germany the light of the heauenly truth. M. Iewel defens. Apol. part. 1. cap. 7. diuis. 3. pag. 56. Luther and Zuinglius were appoin­ted of God to kindle againe the light which you had quenched. Verheiden in his Images, at the Image of Luthers Thou first didst preach the Ghospell with so great constancy. Tho [...] didst lighten the torch of the Ghospell to the world. And at the image of Zuinglius he sayth of him and Luther: Laid the foundati­on. These two Architects laying the foundation of the Euangelicall king­dome. D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 693. Luther lighted a torch which no flouds can put out. And in [Page 293] Praefat. tom. 2. Danaei, it is sayd: God raysed vp Luther for to kindle and restore to the world the light of his Ghospell. And what is it to be a kindler of light, but to be Au­thour therof.

4. Fourthly they say, that Luther was the renew­er, the Founder, the Restorer, the setler and promulgator of their Church and Religion. Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 358. writeth, that Luther challengeth to himself all the instauration of sayth. Illyricus in Schusselburg. tom. 13. Catal. haeret. fol. 850: This same religion was renewed and setled by Luther. Hamburgenses ibidem fol. 658. Renewed religion & setled it Luther truly the renewer of diuine worship. Heshusius lib. de praesentia Christi sayth of Luther: He was that no­table instrumens by which true religion was renewed. Saxo­nici in the conference at Aldburg Scripto 7. pag. 319. speake thus: Since the tyme of the Ghospel renewed by Luther. Hemingius in Schusselburg. lib. 2. Theol. Caluin Pap. 133. Luther restored the ancient worship which our first parents receaued of God, and which Christ commended to his Church. Caluin admonit. 2. pag. 147: By his endeauour principally the purity of the Ghospell was restored: And pag. 768. God raysed Luther & others, Restored purity of the Ghos­pel. by whose Ministery our Chur­ches were founded and instituted. The Protestant Princes in Germany in Schusselburg tom. 13. catal. pag. 877. write that the King of Nauarre willingly affirmeth the French Churches to acknowledge Luther to be their Father in Christ. Or as Thuanus lib. 79. histor. reporteth their wordes: That Luther is esteemed and honoured of the French Churches as their Father in Christ, and that by his ministry truth was first pulled out. Beza de Haeret. puniend. pag: 148: Luther the Renewer of Christian Religion. Renewed Religion. And in his Ima­ges: The principall instrument of Christianity renewed in Ger­many Danaeus cont. 5. pag. 1135. reckoneth Luther a­mōg those, of whom (saith he) all other men haue receaued [Page 294] what light of the Ghospell they haue. And lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. First Re­newer of the Church & truth. termeth him the Renewer of the Ghospell of Christ. And Apol. pro Eccles. Heluet: The first renewer of the Church. Hospin. part. 2. hist. fol. 134: The first renew­er of Euangelicall truth and doctrine. Bucer Resp. ad Episc. Abrincen. pag. 613. writeth that God by Luther hath mer­ueilously and happily restored the summe of the Ghospell in our a­ge. Restored the summ of the Ghospell Restored Religion. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 12. pag. 528: Luther only tooke vpon him to restore religion corrupted, and to renew the ancient and true doctrine. And ad Rat. 10. Cam­piani calleth him the Renewer of the old sayth, or as the English Apology termeth him the promulgator of this doctrine. D. Humphrey in Prolegomenis pag. 82. saith: VVe reuerence Luther as a great renewer of Religion. And what is it to be a renewer, Restorer, Setler of a thing corrupted, especially if he restore the summe thereof, as Bucer sayd that Luther restored the summe of Re­ligion, but to be an Author or maker of it according to the very substance thereof.

5. Finally, they plainly graunt, that Luther was the first to whom Protestancy was reuealed, that he layd the first foundation of Protestant Religion, and that he was the captaine, Luther first to whome Protestats was reue­aled: Author. and Begetter therof. Luther himselfe in sermone, Quid sit homini Christiano praestandum tom. 7. fol. 274. speaketh thus to Protestants: I was the first whome God set in these lists. I was also the first, to whome God vouchsafed to reueale these thinges which are now preached vnto you. Behould Christian Rea­der a new Theod. l. 2. c. 18. Aetius surnamed Atheist, who sayd, that those thinges were now reuealed to him by God, which hitherto he would haue to be hidden vnto all. A new Basil. l. cont. Eun. Eunomius, who sayd, that he had seund a new way to God and vnheard of which none before had perceaued. A new Vinc. c. 42. Nestorius, who gloried that he first vnderstood the Scripture. A new [Page 295] Cataphryge, Athan. de Synod. who sayd: VVe haue the first reuelation & of vs beginneth the Christian sayth. For of thee (Luther) began the Protestant fayth, and thou wert the first, to whom the God of this world (as the Apostle spea­keth) vouchsafed to reueueale those thinges which haue beene preached to Protestants: Praescrip. cap. 34. To thee alone (that I may vse Tertullians wordes) hath truth been reuealed. Forsooth thou hast found greater fauour and more plentifull grace at the Diuells hands. Againe in exposit. Papaselli tom. 2. Laid the first foun­dation of Protestā ­cy. fol. 398. Luther hath these words: VVhen I layd the first foundation of this cause, as Bullinger Praefat. Comment. in Ioan. writeth of Zuinglius saying: VVhen Zuinglius layd the first foundation of Euangelicall doctrine. Moreouer Luther tom. 1. fol. 206. writeth thus to his most in­ward fellow Melancthon: The citty is full of the noyse of my name, An Hero­stratus. and all men desire to see the man the Herostratus of so great a fire. Ye see, how in a letter to his most assured friend, he confesseth himselfe to be the Herostratus, that is, the Author of that fire wherewith not the temple of Diana, but the temple of God burneth. Melancthon also acknowledged the like, as it appea­reth by these words of Luther in a letter to him tom. 9. Wittemberg. Germ. fol. 416. Thou writest, Author & leader. that for my authorityes sake thou didst follow me as the author, and leader or captaine in this matter. Behould how Melancthon ac­counted Luther the Author. And what suspicion is there, that Melancthon should in this matter write otherwise to him then he thought. Schusselburg tom. 8. Catal. pag. 363. defineth true Lutherans or Protestants to be those, who imbrace the doctrin of the Go­spell amending Popish abuses, of which amendement (sayth he) Luther was the Author. And the same meane they, who call Luther the Author of the Protestant reformati­on. For they protest amendment or reformation is [Page 296] indeed (as hath beene shewed before) a substantiall mutation or change of religion, and therefore the Authour of such an amendment or reformation is indeed the Author of a new Church and religion. D. Sutcliue lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3. pag. 237. writeth in this manner: VVho were the first Authors of raysing the Church fallen downe, Author. as Cranmer, and other our Bishops, also Luther, Zuinglius &c. And cap. 7. pag. 328. The Princes who first followed the Authours of restoring religion. Osiander in Sleidan fol. 22. sayd that Luther & Melancthon had made a certaine diuinity which sauoured more the flesh then the spirit. Maker. Lobechius disput. 1. pag. 26. calleth Luther the first deuiser of the Confession of Auspurg. Deuiser. And Melchior Ne­ofanius Pastour of the Church of Brunswich in loc. Kemnitij part. 2. sayth: How much doth all Duch-land owe to worthy Luther for his great deserts, who was the Author of pure Religion. Authour. D. Couel also in his defens. of Hooker art. 19. pag. 130. plainely confesseth, that some Prote­stants make Luther and Caluin Authours of the religion which they hold. And M. Horne in his harbour maketh En­gland speake in this manner: Begetter. I am thy Country England, which brought forth blessed man Iohn VViclise, who begot Hus, who begot Luther, who begot truth. And heereupon it ari­seth, that (as Rescius in his Ministromachia p. 15. re­porteth) the Lutherans call Islebium (where Luther was borne) their new Bethleem. A new Bethleem. Forsooth because there was borne their new Messias, the begetter Au­thor, and founder of their religion. Mark now Rea­der how Luther, by his owne and other Protestants confession was, the first to whome Protestant doctrine was re­uealed, layd the first foundation of the Protestant cause, was the Authour of the Protestant amendment or reformation, was the deuiser of the first Protestant Confession, was the Herostratus of the Protestant fire, finally was the leader, maker, begetter, [Page 297] and Authour of the Protestant Church, and Religion. Which is in plaine termes the very same which in all this booke I endeauour to proue. Iustly therefore may Protestants sing to Luther as Lucretius did to his E­picure the Author & beginner of Epicurisme. Lib. 3. Those also of Basse were not ashamed in the Epitaph of his tombe to call Oecolampadius, the first author of Euan­gelicall doctrine in that citty, as report Hospin. and Laua­ther in their Hostories an. 1531. and Iunius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 8. Neither was it peculiar to Luther to spread deuises vnder the name of religiō For thus writeth Iezler. de bello Euchar. fol. 26. of Ministers: Matters deuised of some few, we thrust vpon the whole world. And King Henry 8. when he began to encline to Protestancie, set forth articles with this title, Articles deuised of his Maiesty.

6. And from this euidēce & acknowledgement that Luther was the Author of Protestant religi­on, it proceedeth. First, that Luther oftentimes cal­leth it his doctrine, his gospell, his word, his cause, his part. For so he speaketh tom. 1. fol. 138. tom. 2. fol. 23. Protestan­cy is Lu­thers do­ctrine. 29. 93. 238. 488. 493. 493. tom. 3. fol. 555 tom. 5. fol. 290. tom. 6. fol. 79. and other where often. Secondly it ariseth that true Protestancie is called Lutherans doctrine, the Lutheran cause, the Lutheran religion, Protestāts terme themselue Lutherās, the Lutheran businesse, and Lutheranisme. Of Luther him­selfe tom. 2. fol. 37. and 497. Of Frederick the Electour tom. 1 Lutheri fol. 237. Of his Counsai­lers tom. 2. fol. 116. Of the deuines of Mansfeld in Schusselburg tom. 8. pag. 270. Of Schusselburg himselfe Epist. dedicat. tom. 4. Of Melancthon tom. 2. Lutheri fol. 193. 197. Of Kemmice Epist. dedicat. lib. de duabus naturis. Of Hutter in Analysi Con­fess. August. pag. 595. Of Brunsfelse Respons. ad [Page 298] Spongiam Erasmi. Or Lobeen [...]us in Epist. dedicat. Disput. O [...] George Fabritius l b. 1 & 8. Orig. Saxon. and of other Lutherans. And in like manner of Sa­cramenttaries also, as of Bucer in Matth. 26. & lib. de Cura animorum pag. 261. Of Hospin. Prefat. part. 2 Histor. Of Scultere Con. saecular. Of D. Morton 1. part. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 45. and others Thirdly therof proceedeth, that the true and proper Protestants are called Lutherans, both of themselues and of others. For thus speaketh Luther in psalm. 118. tom. 7. fol. 551: I graunt my selfe to be a Lutheran. And in like manner speaketh he ibidem fol. 79. 242. 233. 361. & 400. And tom. 2. fol. 473. and in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 134. So also speaketh Me­lancthon in dominicam 8. Trinit. tom. 1. and in Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 72. and Brentius also ibid. fol. 107. So speaketh the Confession of Saxonie in the Preface, and the Saxon Ministers in the Conference of Aldburg pag. 60. Vrban. Regius in Iudicio de Conuentu Norimberg pag. 9. Amsdorse in Bucer in Scriptis Anglicis p. 635. Matheus Index in Edicto aeterni Dei. Iames Andrewes in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 179. Yea Grauer in the Preface of his Calui­nisticall absurdities dedicateth his booke Vnto the pro­per Lutherans: and pag. 61. affirmeth, that their men are called Lutherans, that they may be distinguished from Papists and Caluinists. Scusselburg tom. 17. Catal. pag. 866. sayth, The Deuines of our part call them­selues, and the Defenders of their opinion, Lutherans. Which also affirmeth Reineccius tom. 1. Armat. cap. vlt. Hutten in Expostulat cum Erasm. sayth: I acknowledge the name of Lutheran. And Hailbruner: VVe are not asha­med of the name. And Andrew Schafman in Prodromo bringeth many reasons to proue, that they did well [Page 299] in calling themselues Lutherans. And those of Berga (as Hospin reporteth in Concord. Discord. c. 20.) say that, All the sincere doctours of the Church call themselues Lutherans of Luther. The same also testifie the Sacramen­taries. For those of New stade against the booke of Concord. cap 6. pag. 213. say they account none a sincere disciple of Christ, vnlesse he wilbe called as well a Lutheran as a Christian. The author of the orthodoxe Consent in Prefat. Apologet. They take to themselues factions names vpon a preposterous and too great esteme of their masters. Parcus in cap 2. Galat. sect. 24: They doe not only call themselues Lutherans of Luther, but also will be so called of all. Beza in Conspicil. pag. 8: Ye all will be named and called Lutherās. And pag. 56: Not content with the name of Christians, they call themselues Lutherans, and reioyce to be so called. Danaeus Apol. cont. Iac. Andr [...]ae saith that, He glorieth in Luther as in another Christ, of whome euery where be thundereth, & calleth himselfe a Lutheran a Lutheran &c. And Resp. ad Selnecer he saith, that Selnecer Freely confesseth, that the Ducth Churches terme themselues Lutherans. Vrsin in Catechism. pag 494. saith: This is the opinion of them who call themselues Lutherans. Zauchius Epist. dedicat. Miscellan: Many are not ashamed euen in printed bookes to all themselues Lutherans. And Iezler de bello Euchar. fol. 115: Some haue no shame euen in pulpit to say: VVe wilbe Lu­therans constantly. And at some times euen the sacramē ­taries seeme to be desirous of the surname of Luthe­rans. For those of Newstade in Admonit. de lib Concordiae pag. 106. compliane, that some would seeme to be the only disciples of Luther. Musculus in locis tit. de haeresi pag 604. saith: No man condemneth true Lutherans, vnlesse he be ignorant of the truth or very naughty. And the Protestant Princes of Germanie in Thuan. lib. 79. Histor. pag. 595. relate, that the King of Nauarre [Page 300] wrote to them, that if the French Protestants, were to be termed of any man, they ou [...]ht most of all to be called Lutherans. Because when this name was odious in France for almost ther­score years, many by fire, by rack, be death sealed with their bloud the testimonie of that doctrin which they receiued first of Luther. Scultete also in Concion [...] saeculari cōpareth Luther with the Apostolicall men. Besides the Sacramen­taries call Luthers true follwers Lutherās, as Zuin­glius tom. 1. fol. 420. 436. 470. Oecolampadius ibidem fol. 479. and in Hospin part. 2. fol. 84. 112. 126. Tigurini ibidem fol 88. Bucer in cap Rom. & in Scriptis Angl. pag. 669. Martyr tom. 2. loc. Epist. ad Caluin. Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 91. Caluin in Zancius lib. 2. Epist. pag. 78. Daneus ibidem pag. 401. Zanchius himselfe pag. 394. Pareus lib. 5. de Amiss. grat. cap. 1. & 2. lib 4. cap. 17 lib. 6 cap. 1. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 561. D. Whitaker cont. 1. quest. 2. cap. 3. and quest. 5. c. 8. and quest. 6. cap. 9. cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. & lib. 3. de Concupisc. cap. 9. & lib. 3. de Scrip. cap. 2 sect. 3. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 321. M. Perkins in Explicat. Sym­boly col. 781. & 790. Yea Iezler loc. cit. fol. 39. & Vorstius in Collat. cum Piscatore write, that properly and vulgarly they are called Lutherās. Wherupon D. Hum­frey ad Rat. 2. Campian. pag. 128. sayth, Lutherans vulgarly called.

7. Hereby we see, first that the Lutherans glory of the name of Luther, as the Donatists (which S. Augustin reporteth) did of the name of Donatus. Secondly, that they glory of a schismaticall name: for such is the name of Lutherans, as Luther him­selfe confesseth in D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 8. And Hospin Praefat. part. 2. Histor. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 149 Yea D. Whitaker cont. [Page 301] 2. quest. 5. cap. 2. sayth, that to take the name of any man at all, is Hereticall and schismaticall, and that heretikes carry the names of their masters, and willingly acknowledge such names. Thirdly it appeareth, that the English Apo­logie vntruly sayd, that Luthers disciples are called Lutherans in disgtace or derision. For Grauer lib. cit. sayth, they are termed so for distinction sake. Laua­therus and Hospin. Praefat. Histor. say, they call them so for doctrine sake; that it may be knowne whome they meāe. And Scul eie so termeth them for honours sake. And surely sith both Sacramentaries, the common people, and themselues also terme them Lutherans, and glory also in that name, it cannot be sayd, that they are called so in disgrace or contemp. Fourthly it appeareth to be false, that D. Morton lib. cit. and D. Sutliue lib. de Eccles. cap. 2. say: It is rather to be attributed to a lye then to Luthers desert, that Protestants call themselues Lutherans. For (as we see) Luther him­selfe called them so, and therin they follow his ex­ample. Neither skilleth it, that Luther did once dis­like this name, because he did oftentimes vse it, & it was vsuall to Luther to allow and disallow the same thing. Fiftly we see it to be false, which D. Whitaker writeth cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 2 pag. 494: None of vs euer called himselfe a Lutheran: we acknowledge not these na­mes, nor are we delighted with them. This name our aduersaries haue fastened vpon vs, only vpon malice and enuie: Neither are we called Lutherans but of the Papists. False also is that, which D. Fulke sayth de Success. pag. 188. that they acknowledge no other name proper to their religion, but the name of Christians and Catholiques. These I say are false; for Luther (whome D. Whitaker accounteth his father) and the Lutherans (whome he termeth his brethren in Christ) doe call themselues so, and are [Page 302] well pleased with that name. Besides, they are so termed of the Sacramentaries and common people, and therfore not of Papists only, nor vpon malice and enuie, but (as Grauer sayd) truly for distinction sake, and that most iustly. For as S. Athanase sayth, VVho deriue the origen of their saith from other then Christ, iustly carry the surnames of their Authors. But Protestants (as we haue shewed) confesse that they deriue the origen of their faith from Luther. Therfore iustly they beare his name.

8. Out of all which hath bin rehearsed in this chapter, I thus frame my ninth demonstration of this Matter: If Luther and many other famous Protestants sometimes indeed, some times in plaine words do confesse, that Luther was the Author of their Church and religion, he ought to be so taken and esteemed. But they do soe confesse. Ergo. The Minor is euident by all that is sayd in this Chapter: And the Maior, by what we sayd in the Preface. For so many and such principall Protestants knew well the origen of their religion, and willingly would not lye to the disgrace and ouerthrow therof.

That Protestants cannot proue their Church to haue bin before Luthers time, by any probable argument or sufficent testimonie. CHAP. XV.

THE tenth and last demonstration for to proue that Luther was the first Author of the Pro­testants Church and religiō I will take from hence, that albeit Protestants doe sometimes boldly affirme their Church and religiō to haue bin before Luthers [Page 303] time, Yet they can neuer proue it by any reasonable argument or sufficent testimony. Which thing alone would suffice to shew, that (as I sayd before) it is a fable vainely feigned, falsely affirmed, and fondly beleiued. It hath bin alwayes the fashion of hereti­ques boldly to auouch any thing, but few things to proue euen in shew. This S. Augustin doth often obserue in the Manichees and Donatists, and some of his sayings we haue alleadged before. Of Euno­mius S. Lib. 2. cont. Eu­nom. Basil noteth the same, and S. Serm. 6. in psal. 118. Am­brose of all heretikes saying, Heretiques are wolues, they can howle, but proue nothing. And this doe Protestants confesse. For thus D. Whitaker cont. 2 quest. 5. cap 18: Heretikes are wont to boast and promise truth, In Diatrib. but not to proue it. Of Luther thus writeth Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 473. and 509: One argument he hath in all these mat­ters, He sayd it. And fol. 447: Luther relyeth only vpon his [...]oyes and deuises. Fol. 395: Thou puttest forth whatsoeuer the mo­tion of thy affections do appoint, and when a reason of thy saying is exacted of thee, thou standest naked, vnarmed. And of the Lutherans thus writeth Erasmus: They say it, and for that alone they will be belieued. Of the Sacramentaryes in like manner Luther writeth in defens. verb. Coenae tom. 7. fol. 384. One word not easily ouerturneth all these thinges: for if you deny them, then as butter melteth in the sun so they quaile. And the same is euident to all that read the bookes either of Lutherans or Sacramentaryes. In the meane tyme they cry to vs, that that Pytha­goricall word: He sayd it, hath no other place but in VVhit lib. 2. de script. cap. 10. sect. 5. Bullenger in comp. l. 1. c. 3. Christ and the Scripture: that in other it is the proper argument of Vorsti­us Anti­bel. p. 468. fooles: that to affirme any thing beside scripture, is to Powel. l. 1. de An­tic. c. 19. trifle: that til we pro­ue our affirmatiue, they will stand in their Luth. tom. 2. fol. 437. nega­tiue, and exact Vor­stius l. cit. Fulke de success. p. 74. demonstrations, that is, either ex­presse [Page 304] testimonies of scripture, or forcible reason deduced from thence. Now we say the same to them. They affirme their Church to haue bin before Lu­thers time. We deny it vntil they proue it. Neither let them affirme it only, which is the proofe of fooles & wilfull men, but if they cannot bring demonstra­tions therof, at least let them produce some credible testimonie, or some effectuall reason and argument. Otherwise their beliefe in this matter, Scorp. c. 11. is (as sayth Tertullian) a peruerse beliefe which will not belieue thinges proued, and belieueth thinges which cannot be proued.

2. That in this matter they be destitute of all credible testimonie, appeareth sufficently by what hath heretofore bin rehearsed of their owne con­fessions, and now we will shew, that they want also all probable reason or argument. For all their ar­guments herein be reduced to this one: Our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ: Therfore our Church was alwayes since Christ. For thus agreeth D. Whitaker cont. 2. q. 5. c. 3. p. 498: I vse this argument: VVhat Church soeuer keepeth the doctrine & preaching of the Apostls, she is the Apostolical Church. But our Church doth so, Therefore &c. Of the Maior (sayth he) no controuersy can be made. And cap. 5. p. 505: It was our Church which was in the tyme of the Apostles and afterward vnto the Apostasie. But how doe we proue this? By this reason, that our Church keepeth the same faith and doctrine which the Church in the Apostles time and afterward kept. And cont. Dureum sect. 1: If thou holdest Christs doctrine thou art a Catholike. And sect. 2: It must needs be the true Church of Christ which keepeth & conserueth Christs doctrine deliuered in his word. Dancus cont. 3. pag. 388. VVith vs is the true Church of God, because we restore the true doctrine of Christ. Lubbertus lib. 5 de Eccles cap. 1: If the doctrine which our Church professeth, be the same which Christ deliuered, then [Page 305] our Church is that which Christ instituted. D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 27: Seeing we are ready to proue out of the scri­pture, that we professe the same doctrine of fayth, and manners, which Christ would haue to be perpetuall by euident reason, our succession is manifest, althogh all Historyes were silent of the na­mes of the Persons and continuation of succession. And the like he hath pag. 154. and 331. D. White in his way pag. 403. sayth he knoweth his Church was alwayes, be­cause it holdeth the fayth of the Scripture, which cannot be extinguished. The like he sayth pag. 320. & 326. Likewise Luther de notis Eccles. tom. 7. fol. 149. Caluin in Matth. cap. 24. vers. 28. and generally al of them whiles they make the truth of doctrin the infallible marke of the Church. Lib. 2. contra A­rian. O proofe (that I may cry out in S. Augustins words) O errour, o dotage. And with S. Athanase: A worthy heresy which wanteth proba­ble reasons to vnder proppe it. For this argument on which all their belief, that their Church was before Luther doth rely, is a most fond sophisme, and most coun­terfait syllogisme, as manifestly appeareth, whether it be framed in that forme wherein D. Whitaker hath proposed it, or whether it be reduced to this forme: That Church which holdeth the true doctrine of Christ hath al­wayes beene, and consequently before Luther. The Protestant Church holdeth the true doctrin, holdeth the true doctrin of Christ as (say they) we will proue by scripture. Therefore it hath bin alway.

3. I answere that this argument is a manifest sophime for many causes. For if the Maior be parti­culer, so that the sense thereof be, Some Church which holdeth the true doctrine of Christ hath alwayes beene, it is true because the catholik church, which holdeth Christs true doctrine, hath alwayes been: but then the Syl­logisme is sophism for want of due forme, inferring [Page 306] a conclusion out of particuler propositiōs. But if the Maior be vniuersall, according as it is made of D. Whitaker, then so farre is it from being out of con­trouersy (as he affirmeth) that it is manifestly false, and no way true, but only apparant, and therefore vnfit to make a true syllogisme, but only a counter­fait and a sophisme. Protestāts assume a manifest falsity. That it is manifestly false, is eui­dent, because that Church or company of Christiās which is strictly and properly termed schismatical, holdeth the true doctrine of Christ as both the Fa­thers teach, and the Protestants themselues doe also most plainely affirme, & yet it is not the true church of Christ. Wherefore sith (as the Philosopher tea­cheth) those thinges are probable, which seem true to all, or to most, or to wise men, and those either al or most, or most approued, and such as are not pro­bable serue only to make sophismes; The foresayd Maior, not seeming true to all, or most, or the wisest Christians, yea not euen to the Protestants themsel­ues, it is manifest, that it is no probable propositiō, but only apparent, and therefore not fit to make a true syllogisme, but only an apparent and counter­fait.

4. That the Fathers teach that a Schismatical Church holdeth the true doctrine of Christ, is ma­nifest by S. Augustine who lib. quest. Euang. pag. 28. tom. 4. sayth: It vseth to be enquired, wherein Schisma­tickes differ from heret [...]kes, That Schisma­tikes hold true do­ctrine. and this found, that no difference in faytht but breach of society in communion maketh Schismatikes. And lib. de fide & Symbolo cap. 10: Heretikes by be­lieuing wrong of God violate the fayth: but Schismatickes by wicked diuisions leape from fraternall charity, albeit they belieue aright those thinges which we belieue. And lib. cont. Gaud. cap. 9. refuteth him, because he had sayd, that Schis­matikes [Page 307] and Heretikes are the same; against which he sayth: Thou art a Schismatike by sacrilegious diuision, and an heretike by sacrilegious opinion. And lib. 1. cont. Cresc. cap. 29. and de gest is cum Emerito affirmeth that the same fayth is had out of the Church. S. Hierome in Tit. 3. VVe iudge this difference to be between heresy and schism that heresy holdeth a naughty opinion, schisme separateth from the Church by dissention of Bishops. S. Gregory lib. 18. Mo­ral. cap. 14. Some doe belieue false thinges of God, others by Gods help belieue rightly of God, but keep not vnity with their brethren, these are diuided by schisme. S. Isidor. lib. 8. Ori­gin cap 3. Schisme tooke its name of breach, for it beleeueth the same religion and rites that others do, only is pleased to keep com­pany a part. The same teach S. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 62. S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in 1. Cor. S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. & 5. cont. Parmen. and others. And it is manifest by reason. For if Schismatikes did erre also in Fayth, they should not differ from heretikes. And it is graū ­ted both of old and new Heretikes. For thus sayth Faustus in S. Augustine lib. 20. cont. Faustum cap. 3. Schisme if I be not deceaued, is to belieue the same & to wor­ship God in the same manner that others do, only to be delighted with diuision of assemblyes. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 5. Austin putteth this difference betwixt heretikes and schismatiks, that they corrupt the sincerity of the fayth with false doctrines, these sometymes euen hauing the like saith breake asunder the band of society. And in. 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers. 19. It is known in what sense the ancient vsed both these nams (schisme heresy,) they put heresy in difference of doctrine, but schisme rather in alienation of minds, to wit, when any either vpon enuy, or hatred of the Pastours or of frowardnesse departed from the Church. Beza libro de puniendis Haereticis pag. 89: Shism properly is the diuision of those who belieue the same things And pag. 150. Let them remember that we terme them not [Page 308] heretikes, who are properly called Schismatiques. The same he hath in 1. Cor. 1. v. 10. and other where. Plessie lib. de Eccles. cap. 1. pag. 16: VVe call erroneous Churches either heretikes, or schismatikes according as they erre either in fayth or in charity. And pag. 32. VVhat pertaineth to schisma­ticall Churches, either they are simply schismaticall or when he­resy also is adioyned as it vseth after schisme, as an ague after a wound. And cap. 10. pag. 340. True and pure Schismatiks are those, who holding the same doctrine yet make meetinges a part. Peter Martyr in locis tit. de Schism. pag. 618. I thinke it more plaine to define Schisme to be a cutting a sunder of the Ecclesiasticall peace & vnity. And pag. 619: There may be schisme in the Church without heresy. Aretius also in locis part. 2. fol. 10: Schisme sometymes in the same doctrin brea­keth society. Bucan in loc. quest. 33. de Eccl. affirmeth, that shismatiks differ from heretiks because heresy pro­perly is dissention in doctrine. Pol [...]n. part. 2. Thes. de notis Eccl. Albeit schismatical Churches agree in the doctrine of truth &c. Zanchius tract. de Eccles. cap.: There may be breach in the symboles of Charity, that is in participation of Sacraments communication of publike prayer, and such like other Ecclesiasti­call exercises, to wit when one thought he agree with the rest of the Church of Christ in the principall heades of Christian fayth, yet I know not for what light causes withdraweth himselfe from the rest of the Church and communicateth not with her in the sa­craments. Such (sayth he) are properly called schismatikes, M. Perkins in cap. 5. Galat. vers. 21. Heresy is in doctrin, Schisme in manners, order, and gouernement. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 165: There may be schisme in the Church, where the same doctrine is held on both partyes, & the one wanteth law­full succession. D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 7: Some professe the whole sauing fayth but not in vnity, as schisma­tiks. Dancus in August. de haeres. cap. 3. He is a schisma­tike, who retayning the same doctrine of fayth and that entire, yet [Page 309] without probable and better reason followeth not the decent rites of the Church. The same he hath Apol. pro Heluet. Ec­cles. pag. 1485. Bullinger tom. 1. Decad. 5. serm. 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 190. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 10. D. Rainolds Praelect. 1. col. 2. Heshusius in 1. Cor. 1. and others.

5. Now that proper Schismatikes, to wit, such as willfully separate themselues from the Commu­nion of the Church, be not members or parts of the Church, is cleare by the testimony of the Fathers, That Schisma­tikes are out of the Church. the confessions of Protestants, and manifest reason. S. Augustin lib. de fide & symbolo cap. 10. sayth: Nei­ther doth an heretike belong to the Catholike Church, nor a schis­matike. Tract. 3. in 1. Ioan. All heretikes, all schismatikes are gone out of the Church. Lib. 3. de Baptism. cap. 19. All heretikes and schismatikes are false Christians. And lib 2. cont. Crescon. cap. 29: I thinke not that any so doteth to be­lieue him to belong to the vnity of the Church, who hath not cha­rity. The like he hath in many places S. Ambrose lib. 7. in Luc. cap. 11. Vnderstand that all heretikes and schismatikes are separated from the kingdome of God and from the Church. S. Optatus lib. 2. The Church cannot be with any heretikes or schismatikes. S. Fulgentius de fide ad Pe­trum cap. 38: Belieue most stedfastly and doubt nothing; that not only all Pagans, but also all Iewes, Heretiks, & schismatiks, which end this life out of the church, are to go into euerlasting fire The same teach S. Hierome, & S. Chrysostome loc. cit. S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrnens. S. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 62. S. Cyprian lib. de vnit. & epist. 42.51.55. S. Prosper de vocat. Gentium cap. 4. and the rest. The protestants confessions of this matter we related heeretofore, amongst whome say, Lib. 1. c. [...] num. [...]. that this is an vn­doubted truth. Reason also conuinceth the same: for as Caluin confesseth 4. Institut. loc. cit. The cō ­munion [Page 310] of the Church is held with two bandes, to wit consent of doctrine and fraternall charity: But Schismatikes breake the band of fraternall charity: therefore they are not within the Church. Againe Danaeus lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 5. sayth: This is the marke that thou art of the visible Church, that outwardly thou professe the fayth & communicate with the rest of the Church in the same Sacramēts: but schis­matikes doe not communicate in Sacramentes with the rest of the Church. And D. Feild lib. 2. of the Church cap. 2. sayth: Communion in Sacramentes vnder lawful Pastours is an essential note of the true Catholike Church: but Shismatiks want this com­munion. And Casaubon epist. ad Card. Peron. pag. 9. The true Churches of Christ are vnited in the vnity of fayth, and doctrine, and coniunction of minds and in true charity and offices of charity, especially of mutuall prayer. But Schisma­tikes are not vnited in charity and offices of mutuall prayer. Finally only Catholikes are members of the Catholike Church, as is euident and VVhi. conc. 2. q. 5. cap. 3. Protestants confesse: But Schismatikes are not Catholiks, as the very name doth declare, the Fathers doc teach, and Gesner loc. 24. Field l. de Eccles c. 7. Protestants acknowledge.

6. By this it appeareth that the foresayd Maior which is the foundation of Protestants in this mat­ter, is not only false, but also so manifestly false, as out of this question, it is commonly denyed of Pro­testants themselues. Besides it is not only false, but also so improbable, that neither it is proued of Pro­testants, nor can be any other wayes, then by proofe of fooles or willfull men, that is, by their owne saying. For D. Whitaker (as we haue seene) proueth it no other wayes, then by saying, it is out of con­trouersy. D. Fulke, that it is manifest. But Luther [Page 311] more boastingly sayth l. de Missa priu. tom. 7. f. 247. This is our solid foundation and most stedfast rocke: VVhersoe­uer true doctrine of Christ or the Ghospell is preached, there is necessarily the true holy Church of God. And who doubteth of this (sayth he) may in like manner doubt, whether the Ghospel be the word of God. A notable proofe surely, and fit for Pythagoras schoole, and a sound foundation, on which to fayned a Church should rely, and a fit rock for them to build vpon, who haue left the rocke vp­on which Christ built his Church. Wherefore that I may imitate S. Augustine in the like matter. Lib. 1. cont Gaudent. cap. 33. I aske whether God or man hath told them, that whereso­euer true doctrine is, there is the true Church? If God, let them read it out of the Scripture, where in­deed we read, that where the true Church is, there true doctrine is: but contrarywise, that where true doctrine is, there the true Church is, there we neuer read. If men haue told you this: Behold a fiction of man, behold what you belieue, behold what ye ser­ue, behold for what ye rebell, ye run mad, ye burne. Againe, what kind of men were they, surely no o­ther then your selues. And what is your authority, I say not with vs, but euen with your selues? Is (as one of your part sayd) the iudgement of Lutherans or Sacra­mentaryes, the square of truth? Moreouer, Pareus l 3. ce [...]stifie. cap. 13. seeing that three things are essential or substantial to the true church, to wit, true doctrine, lawfull Pastours, and people following their Pastours, nor any thing can be, vn­les all the essentiall parts be, it is sophistry and mad­nesse to inferre, that that company is the true Church wherin one only of these parts is to be found. If they say, that by the true Church they meane not her which is true in nature, or essence of the Church, but only her which is true in doctrine, of whose essence [Page 312] is only truth of doctrin. First they deceaue the Rea­der. For we speak only of the Church true in essence, not of that which is only true in doctrin [...] as a schis­maticall Church may be. Besides, if they meane such a true Church and vnderstand their foresayd Maior vniuersally, it is false; for not euery true Church in that sense is Apostolicall or hath euer beene. For a schismaticall Church is true in doctrine, and yet is neither Apostolicall, nor hath euer beene. And if they vnderstand their Maior particulerly the con­clusion followeth not, because it is deduced out of pure particuler propositions. And thus much of the Maior.

7. Secondly the foresayd argument is a sophism because of the Minor, by which one vnknown thing is proued by another, one false thing by another, not only false, Protestāts proofe out of a thing more vn­knowne. but also impossible. For it is more vncer­certaine, that the Protestant Church holdeth the do­ctrin of Christ, then that she was before Luther. For albeit she were not before, notwithstanding it was not impossible that she should haue beene, but that she holdeth the doctrine of Christ, is both false and impossible also. And as Luther sayth in defens. verb. Coenae tom. 7. fol. 385. It is a mad mans part to proue vn­certaine things by others as vncertaine. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. All proofe is by thinges that are more knowne. Which also he hath cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 18. Sadcel praefat. lib. cont. Traditiones. Daneus l. 4. de Eccles. cap. 2. D. Morton part. 2. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 37. Pareus lib. 3. de Iustificat. cap. 1. Wherupon Luther tom. 2. Praefat. assert. Antic. fol. 95. writeth Aristotle and all sense of nature sheweth, that vnknowne thinges must be proued by thinges more knowne, and obscure thinges by manifest. If therefore, (as Pareus sayth lib. 1. de Iusti­ficat. [Page 313] c. 20.) when the Aduersarie is brought to that, that eitheir he gainesayth himselfe, or beggs that which he is to proue, assuming that in his proofe which is in debate, or trifleth by repeating now and then the same thing, he is vanquished; surely then Protestants are vanquished, whom in this smal work we haue shewed oftentymes to gaine say themselues, now including these within the Church, now ex­cluding them, now affirming the Church to be in­uisible, now denying it, now to haue alwayes Pa­stours, now denying it, and the like: And in this ar­gumment, with which alone they proue the existēce of their Church before Luther, they assume in the Minor, that which most of all is in debate: Caluin. 4. Insticut. c. 1. § 12. Narrat. de Eccles. Belg. p. 196. And the Maior they can proue no otherwise, then by trifling by repeating it, and saying that it is out of all doubt. I add also, that the sacramentaryes say, that the Lu­theran Church erreth euen in the fundamentall points, and the like say the Lutherans of the Sacra­mentaries, and scarce there is any Protestant, who doth not thinke that the Church whereof he is doth erre in some points. What reason then haue they, out of the truenesse of the doctrin of their Churches to inferre their perpetuall existence?

8. Thirdly I adde, that the manner wherwith Protestants doe proue the Minor of their foresayd syllogisme, is sophisticall and not such as they exact of vs for proofe of our doctrine. For commonly they exact of vs to shew, that our doctrine is contained in expresse words in Scripture, or (as Luther sayth lib. de seru. arbit. tom. 2. fol. 440) inso manifest testimonies as are able so to stop all mēs mouths as they are not able to say any thing against it. But manifest it is, that such be not the proofes wher with Protestants proue their doctrine. [Page 314] For to omit other points, where is in expresse words in scripture that fundamentall point of their doctrin that we are iustified by only faith? Say the contrary is so expresly in S. Iames epistle, Tom. 6. in c. 12. Gen. as therfore Luther blasphemously sayth S. Iames doted. And the Lutherans for that very cause deny his epistle to be canonicall. Besides, VVhitak cont. 1. q. 4. cap. 3. Protestants doe now confesse, that the scrip­ture is not of it selfe sufficient to end all questions of faith, and that Schismatikes cannot be conuinced by scripture. How then can they sufficiently proue al the points of their doctrine by scripture? VVhitak. loc. cit. p. 490. Plessy l. de Eccles. c. 9. Againe, themselues acknowledge, that they need certaine meanes to attaine to the right sense of the Scripture and that their meanes are humane and not infallible, as knowledge of tongues, conference of places, and such like, and with all, that such as the meanes be, such is the exposition of Scripture. If therfore their meanes be not infallible, how can their vnderstan­ding of the scripture be infallible? Moreouer, they scarce euer proue any thing by both principles out of scripture, but almost euermore adioyne one hu­man principles, as easily will appeare if their proofs be brought to a syllogisticall forme, as well obserue the most learned Bishop of Luçon in his defence of the Principall articles of faith cap. 3. & 5. And how can they be infallibly certaine of the conclusion, which they cannot know but by one human princi­ple, whereof they can haue no such certainty? Furthermore, because many of their proofes doe not only consist of one humane principle, Protestats conclude against sense. which is not at al in the scripture, but also they inferre a conclusiō directly contradictory to that which the scripture in most expresse words teacheth of that matter. As for example, when they proue that the Eucharist is of [Page 315] not the very body and bloud of Christ, alwayes one of their principles is humane; and besides their con­clusiō is flat contrary to expresse words of scripture, which affirmeth that it is Christs very body and bloud. And who is he in his wittes, that will per­swade himselfe, either that the scripture meaneth, that the Eucharist is not the body & bloud of Christ, which directly it neuer sayth, rather, then that it is his body and bloud, which it as expresly sayth, as euer it sayth any thing, or that that proofe is not sophisticall, which out of one humane principle at least, inferreth the contrary of that, which the scrip­ture most expresly teacheth? Lastly, they neuer pro­ued any one point of their doctrine any otherwise, then euer Heretiks do, that is in their own iudgmēt neuer before any iudge or general Councell, which Luther himselfe confesseth in c. 27. Gen. tom 6. fol. 368. in the words: In the affaire of the Gospell we haue de­cided the matter against al the impiety of the Pope without form of law. VVe accused not the Pope, neither could we, for there was no iudge. Yea their doctrin hath bin cōdemned accor­ding to all forme of law in the Generall Councel of Trent & of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whō they appealed, and of al other kinds of Christians.

9. Fourthly I say, that the foresayd argument is a sophisme, in that in a sēsible matter (as the Church is) it concludeth against the sense of all men. For ne­ther did any see the Protestant Church before Luther, neither did any mā feele or perceiue himselfe to haue bin a member of such a Church before that time. Wherfore, as he should manifestly play the Sophister who would goe about to proue by scripture that the sunne appeareth at midnight: so likewise doth he, who out of scripture endeuoreth to proue, that there [Page 316] was a protestant Church before Luther, because all mens sense conuince the one as well as the other. Be­sides Protestants write, that though faith commaund vs to beleiue things which we see not, yet it doth not commaund vs, not to beleiue that which we see, for otherwise faith should be contrary to sense, and none should become faithfull, but he should first be senselesse. But surely wonderfull is the blindnes or wilfulnesse of Sacramentaries, who in the matter of the Eucharist, against the most expresse words of Scripture, will endeuour to proue by sense, that there is not the body of Christ, when as the body of Christ there is not sensible. And here in the matter of existence of their Church before Luther, out of some apparent shew of scripture, against the most manifest sense of all men, will proue, that it was before Luthers time. When as a Church is a sensible thing, and can be felt either of others, or at least of them who are of it. How much better and more rea­sonably should they proceed, if in the Eucharist where Christs body is not sensible, they would ra­ther giue eare to the most expresse words of scripture then to the suspicions of their sēses, which can iudge of nothing but of sensible accidents; and in the mat­ter of the Church, whose being is sēsible, they would submit their vncertaine (if not false) expositions of scripture, not only to the sense of all men, but also the most certaine expositions of the Church and Fa­thers. But this sheweth, that in their beleife they are guided neither by sēse nor scripture but out of them both borrow a shew of proofe for that which of their mere wilfulnes or fancy they choose to beleiue.

10. Thus thou seest (Christian Reader) for how vaine a sophisme, whose Maior is manifestly false & [Page 317] so false, as that out of this matter it is generally deny­ed of Protestants themselues, and so improbable also, as that it cannot be proued in no shew or colour, and whose Minor is more doubtfull, then the conclusiō it selfe, and the manner of prouing sophisticall, and no other then the proofes of al Heretikes be: for how vaine a sophisme (I say) then the which scarce any can be more vaine, Protestants beleiue, or rather will seeme to beleiue, a thing wholy incredible, and in a thing sensible, against the sense of al mākind, to wit, that before Luther there was a Church which held the whose substance or all the substantiall and fun­damentall points of Protestancy; nor in so weighty a matter respect either their o [...]e consciences, or the iudgements of men, or tribunal of God, or danger of their eternall damnation. Surely, Homil. cont. Sabel. that I may end with S. Basils words, I moane and bewayle them that for a meane sophisme and counterfait paralogisme they cast them­selues into hel.

11. Out of all which hath bin sayd in this chap­ter, I thus frame my tenth and last demonstration: If no sufficent testimonie, nor any probable argument, but only one sond sophisme, can be brought to proue that the Protestant Church was before Luther, this is not to be beleiued of any wise and prudent man: But no other proofe can be brought. Therfore &c. And if it were not before Luther, surely he is the Author of it. The Maior is euident by it selfe, and the Minor by what hath bin brought in this chapter. Certainely if euery one of the demōstrations which we haue brought, doe not conuince that the Pro­testant Church and religion was not before Luther, at least all of them together manifestly conuince it. For by the first fiue demonstrations was shewed that before Luther it was not at all, it was in no place, [Page 318] was vnknowne of all the world, was not seene of any, nor had any Pastors: And with the rest hath bin demonstrated, that after Luther arose no anci­enter Protestant did euer appeare and adioyne him­selfe to Luther, that all the first knowne Protestant had bin Papists afore times, that the Protestant company and religion is new, that Luther and other plainly confesse, that he was autho of that religion, and finally that no proofe besides one friuolous fal­lacie can be brought to shew, that such a Church or religion had bin in former times. And if yet any Pro­testant doubt hereof, let him at least compare al the foresayd demōstrations, wherwith so many wayes out of the very testimonies of Protestants we haue shewed, that no such Church was before Luther, with their vaine sophisme, wherewith they make shew to proue the contrary, and he will easily per­ceiue on whose side this so important truth is like to stand. And if he make any account of truth, of Gods seruice, of his owne reputation, or eternall saluation he will forsake the Protestants Church, & put him­selfe in the lappe of the Catholike Church. Which (as S. Augustine speaketh) euen in the testimony of all mankind hath not only beene in all ages since Christ, De vtil. credendi cap. 17. but also hath had Pastors, nor hath been vi­sible only to her owne, but to others also, and to the whole world, and hath most valiantly fought, o­uercome, and triumphed ouer Iewes, Pagans, Here­tikes, Schismatiks, and all the gates of hell. To pre­ferre before this most ancient, most glorious church, another newly start vp, many ages lurking, knowne to none not to her owne, and destitute of Pastours, flocke, seat, and appearance, and in truth feigned, and deuised, and (to omit all other proofes) woun­ded [Page 319] deadly with so many confessions of her owne champions, and proued by one only vaine fallacie; what other thing were it, then to preferre lyes before truth, darcknesse before light, death before life, the synagogue of Satan before the Church of Christ, and finally wilfully to cast himselfe headlong into hell?

VVhat he must obserue who will answere the foresayd demonstration. CHAP. XVI.

SEEING I haue yielded so much to Protestants, & condescended to so vnequall conditions, as that I haue vndertaken to proue that Luther was the au­thor of their Church and religion by the only Con­fessions of Luther and other Protestants, it is reason, that if any one of them goe about to answeare my foresayd demōstrations, he hould obserue these most iust lawes, which I will here set downe, and which themselues haue prescribed to others.

2. See Iuel. defens. A­pol. par. 2. c. d. 5. Kemnice Exam. tit. de script. Epist. Mo­nit. p. 145. Calu. cont. Seruet. p. 643. First therfore touching the words of Pro­testants which I haue alleadged, let him either con­fesse that they are truely cited by me, or if he denye that, let him not say it only, but let him shew, that they are supposed, falsifyed, or so changed, as that the sense which I alledge and vrge to my purpose, be either quite altered, or else obscured. For if in any place for breuities sake the words be so litle chāged, as the sense which I presse, remayne whole and cle­are, it skilleth not. Because I argue not out of the meere titles or letters, but only out of their sense and [Page 320] signification. Besides, if at any tyme there be some colour of cauiling about the alteratiō of the sense of one or other place (for iust cause I hope there will not be, though in so many places as are here cited it were no meruaile if some were mistakē) let him not therfore cry, that all the testimonies are falsified, or think that therby he hath satisfied all the rest.

3. Secondly touching the testimonyes them­selues, let him obserue, that either he answere them all, or at least those, which are the stronger, as for the most part those are, which are noted in the m [...]r­gent, otherwise by the iudgment of the Fathers and Protestants also, he will shew in effect, that though he could not hold his peace, yet could he not an­swere sufficiently. For as S. Augustine Lib. 1. cont. Gau­dent. sayth: Surely that he held his peace, not his tongue, but his cause sailed him. And in an other place Lib. 2. cont. Ma­xim.: I take your silence for con­sent. S. Epi. 61. Hierome: You confesse more by silence then you denie by dispute. And againe Epi. 83: It skilleth litle, whether I binde mine aduersary sleeping or waking, only it is easier to binde one that is quiet, then one that resisteth. Tom. 7. fol. 384. 388. Luther also: Euill consciences speake much besides the matter, but litle to the purpose, and seldome come to it. And he noteth that it is the art and nimblenes of Heretikes, to skip ouer the matter and difficulty. Whitaker pronounceth it to be a signe of a most desperate cause not to touch the Matter. And D Defens. of serm. p. 243. Bilson: To this thou answearest nothing and therfore all wise men conclude that thou canst not maintaine that which I then did disproue. D, Sucliue lib. 2 de Eccles. cap. 1: The rest because they say nothing to it, I will take for graunted. For if there had bin any hope of r [...]futing it, or any place of cal­muniating without doubt they would not haue bin silent. And M Pro Tortura forti c. 1. Burhill: Amongst the wiser both of our side and yours a [...]tergiuersatour doth no lesse hurt his cause then a bewrayer. For [Page 321] he seemeth to consent & graunt, who then holdeth his peace when silence is suspicious.

4. Thirdly touching the exposition of the te­stimonies, let him obserue, that when the words are cleare and their sense manifest, he doe not expound them or wrest them to another meaning. For first, if cleare words must be expounded, there would be no end of expounding. Againe, to what purpose should he expound those words which need no exposition? This were, as Serm. 14. de verb Apost. S. Augustin sayth, no other then to goe about to bring darknesse into open light. Besides, Protestants themselues say, that cleare words ought not to be ex­pounded. For thus Luther co. 2. ep. ad Carolstad. Luther: This rule (that one place is to be expounded by another) without doubt is particuler, to wit a doubtfull or obscure place must be expounded by another that is certaine and cleare. For to expound certaine and cleare places by conference of other places is wickedly to mock truth, and to bring clouds into light. The Ministers of Saxony in Pa. 303. Colloq. Aldeburg. say to their fellowes: Let them remember that exposition is not to be admitted in cleare places. And those of Hospin. fol. 161. Zurich: Then there is need of declaration, when the words & sense thereof is obscure. And Melancthon: Nothing can be sayd so properly, so plainly, aduisedly, which may not be depraued by some cauillation. Beza Ep. 41 also: It is easy to wrest other mens writings. And M. Dominis: l. 1. c. 3. Let those words which are cleare be kept in their proper and plaine sense.

5. Fourthly let him obserue, that in expoun­ding the Protestants testimonies he deuise not hy­perboles or figures at his pleasure, but let him bring good reason why he expoundeth them figuratiuely. Eyther deny (sayth Cont. Prax. c. 13. Tertullian) that these are written, or who art thou that thou deniest that they ought to be taken as they are written. And the Protestants in Admonit. de lib. Concord. cap. 3. say: If they would not that these should be [Page 322] vnderstood as they sound, why speake they so? And Brentius in Recognit. pag. 148. VVhat liberty what temerity is this of abusing words and deuising a new Grammar? For first the rule of vnderstanding mens words is, that they be taken according to their proper and common signifi­cation, vnlesse the writer or speaker do by some way declare the contrary. Whereupon Tom. 2. fol. 473. Luther sayth: VVe haue ouercome, that words are to be taken in their naturall sense except the contrary be demonstrated. And Colloq. c. 8. Diu. 4. D. Rai­nolds: That is the sense of words, in which they are commonly taken. Besides, otherwise all force of prouing any thing by any words of God or man is quite gone. Note. For sith all the force of such proofe standeth in the sense, if this be vncertaine, and must be proper or figura­tiue according as the hearers or readers will, all the force of the proofe shall depend vpon the will of the hearer or Reader. And hence it proceedeth, that the proofes which Catholikes make out of Scripture a­gainst Heretikes seeme to some not to conuince thē, which falleth out, not for defect in the proofes them­selues, but for the manner of thē, to wit because they be taken from words, which Heretiks will expound at their pleasure. And if there be no rule obserued in expounding words, but they be wrested at euery ones fancy, what meruaile is there, if Heretikes cannot be conuinced either by the words of Scripture or any other whatsoeuer. Moreouer, if at the will of the Reader or hearer wordes may be expounded eyther properly or figuratiuely, he that telleth the greatest vntruths, may be thought to tel the greatest truths, & contrariwyse, be that speaketh most piously, may be iudged to speake most impiously. Hereupon sayd Tom. 2. fol. 489. Luther: If this licence raigne, I may interpret all things fitly, whatsoeuer either Heretiks or the diuell himselfe hath done or [Page 323] sayd, or can do or say for euer. VVhere then shall be the meanes to refell an heretik or the diuell? And Ib fol. 220. againe: If it be lawful to play with figures at pleasure without yelding any reason, what hindereth but that all words haue new senses? Furthermore, it was the custome or heretiks to deuise figure of their pleasure. Thus Epist. ad Serap. S. Athanasius: Heretiks rashly deuise fi­gures And Cont. Hermog. c. 27. Tertullian: These are the subtilties & sleights of Heretiks to call in question the simplicity of common wordes. And this namely he noteth of the Praesc. Valentinians, as l. de Haeres. S. Austin doth of the Priscillianists. And the same condemneth Luther in the Sacramentaries, and the Sacramentaries in the Anabaptists. Finally Protestāts themselues condemne this wresting of wordes from their proper signification without iust cause. Luther li cont. Ecchium tom. 1. fol. 354: If words do serue thee as another Mercury at thy pleasure. And fol. 55: To say that Au­gustin speaketh excessiuely against Heretiks, is to say, that Augu­stin almost euery where lyed. And Praefat. in Artic. Smal­cald. he bitterly inueigheth against some who expoū ­ded his words against his meaning. The Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg pag. 343. greatly com­plaine of the Electorall Ministers, that they misera­bly crucify Luther with their glosses, and pag. 337. say: It is vnciuill to feigne a sense, which the wordes beare not. And pag. 304: VVhosoeuer goeth about to cloak opinions which by themselues as the words sound are false, he is guilty of them, especially if he be a Doctour of the Church and Minister of the word of God. And in like sort the Ministers of the Ele­ctour say to those of Saxony pag. 252. that they auoyd Luthers words by sophisticall interpretation, and by opposing other places. And pag. 447: Let power be giuen to expound & wrest Luthers writings according to pleasure and fancy, like the Sybills oracles or Sphinx his ridles Besoldus also Praefat. in Com­ment. Luther in Genes. tom. 6. fol. 497. thus writeth [Page 324] of some: If they fall vpon any such places in Luthers interpre­tations by the clearnesse of which they may be refuted, they feigne that they are figuratiuely spoken, they deuise tropes and figures. And whē the Sacramentaries expounded the words of the Confession of Auspurge commodiously and dextrously, as they speake, according to their opini­on, Lobechius Disput. 1. the Lutherans sayd: May not any in this manner sub­scribe to the Turkish Alcaron, and make the canons of Trent or other sentences howsoeuer contrary, Suruey. ca. 17. to be orthodoxall? M. Ba [...] ­croft thus writeth of Puritans: You must bring strang dis­cords of which these men will not make some harmony. Againe: To their profit they can make Quodlibet ex Quolibet. Pareus lib. 2. de Iustificat. cap. 13. sayth that it riseth of a naugh­ty cause to depraue the nature of words. And lib. 4. cap. 1. cal­leth it a haynous slaunder in Bellarmine, when he sayd that many protestants speak one thing & meane another. The Ministers also of Zurich in Hosp. part. 2. fol. 161. affirme, That he may iustly be condemned of mad­nesse of all who giueth credit not to sound and cleare words but to some explication not of him whose the words are but of some other whose they are not. Yee see how mad they are to be ac­counted, who should belieue not the plaine and eui­dent testimonies of Protestants rehearsed of vs, but some other mans exposition of them. Luther to. 2. Colloq. Aldeb. fol. 303. Schuss. to. 4. Catal. To which I add, that Luther and other Protestants do command, that according to the ciuill law, words be expoun­ded against him, who could speake more clearly, and did not. Seing therefore Protestants could haue vtte­red their meaning more clearly, if they had meant o­therwise then in the forsayd testimonies their words do signify, iustly we may interprete their wordes a­gainst them. Lastly Luther according to his own & other mens verdicts did vtter his mind plainly, and did condemne all doubtfull manner of speach in [Page 325] matters of religion. For thus writeth D. Whitaker of him: He was an open and plaine man. D. White: Praefat. ad Demonstr. Sanderi. Defēs. c. 33. Tom. 2 fol 114 215. Epist. ad Amsdorf. They speake not alwayes so plainly as Luther doth. And Luther himselfe: I will be plaine. Againe: I had neuer this dissimulation to pre­tend to dispute that which I meant to determine. And in ano­ther place: I will not abide to be suspected of such hypocrisy, to think otherwise then I write. And yet more: To what is this double-tongued and hatefull kind of speach, but vnder words and letters to sow the seed of all heresies? The Confession of Sa­xony cap. 3: In the Church we must auoyd ambiguities. And Caluin de vera Eccl. reform. pag. 335: VVhen in all mat­ters plainesse is to be vsed especially when religion is handled it is not lawfull to vse craft and dissimulations. And the Sacra­mentaries in Admonit. de lib. Concordiae cap. 3. pag. 62: VVe endeuour nothing lesse then to seeme to be of one opinion with them with whome we are not. To conclude howso­euer it may be, that one or other Protestant, in some one kind of writing, had written hyberbolically or figuratiuely when he declared it not; yet that so ma­ny, and so princ [...]p [...]ll Protestants, so often, and in so many kind of writings as we haue cited, & in a mat­ter of so great moment, should speake hyperbolically or figuratiuely, and yet not declare that they meant so, is altogeather incredible. Wherefore vnlesse Pro­testants will ouerthrow the very rule of vnderstan­ding mens speaches or words, Note. and make the fancy of the hearer or reader the rule of vnderstanding them, take a way al force of proofes out of any words what soeuer, imitate both old and new heretikes, follow that manner of expounding words which themsel­ues haue condemned, expound Luther contrary to his owne protestation, and confesse that Protestants in so great a matter spak one thing and thought ano­ther, and finally affirme a thing so incredible, as one [...] [Page 326] now we shewed this to be, they cannot interprete the foresayd testimonies of Protestants hyperboli­cally or figuratiuely, vnlesse they yield a sufficient reason or proofe thereof. Besides, if in this question of fact they not only reiect the testimonies of Catho­likes and of all other men besides their owne, but al­so expound their owne mens testimonies as they list, they manifestly shew, that in this matter they will heare no testimony nor abide any iudgement whatsoeuer, which is the most euident argument that can be of a naughty cause. For to admit testi­monies, not according to the proper sense of the wordes, but to your owne liking, is only to admit the sound or figures of the words, and to reiect the sense or signification, which is the soule and forme of them, and in which alone the force of the testimony or iudgement doth consist.

6. Fiftly touching the reason or argument wherewith he will proue, that Protestants in their testimonies by me alleadged meant hyperbolically or figuratiuely, let him not account it sufficient to shew, that the same Protestants in other places haue sayd the contrary. First, because this will not shew, that they sayd not that which in the places which I cite they most plainly and euidently did say, but on­ly, that according to the manner of Heretikes and lyers they gainesayd themselues. May a man accused of crime expound figuratiuely his open Confession of that crime, because at other tymes he denyed it? Againe Protestants themselues reiect this kind of proofe. For (as we did see) the Ministers of the Prince Electour did reprehend those of the Duke of Saxo­ny, because they auoyded Luthers testimonies by op­posing other places of his. And the Ministers of [Page 327] Saxony pag. 303. say: It is a friuolous kind of argument; He sayd well sometymes, therefore heere. Besides, it will be as equall for me to inferre, that Protestants in those te­stimonies which he produceth, did speake figurati­uely, because in those which I alleage they manifest­ly sayd the contrary. For to vse Luthers wordes: Tom. 2. fol. 220. By this rashnes and licence ye giue your aduersary leaue to turne it against you. Certainly if they clearly haue sayd both, we cannot deny, but they thought both, or ye must confesse, that your pleasure shall be the rule and square to know what they speake properly & what figuratiuely. Moreouer, Protestants crie, that the holy Fathers contradicted themselues. How often (sayth Luther) doe the Fathers fight with themselues. Tom. 2. Assert. Art. 2. & cont. Cochleum. Praefat. Institut. They are men that fight against themselues. VVe find the Fathers to haue taught contraryes, to haue slumbered. And Caluin: The Fathers doe often skirmish amongst themselues, and sometymes fight with themselues. The like sayth Melancthon com. 1. Lutheri fol. 341. Iacobus Andreae cont. Hosium pag. 282. Beza Praefat. in nouum Testamentum and in Schusselburg lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 32, Pareus lib. 2 de Grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 14. & lib. 4. cap. 4. Po­lanus part. 1. Thes. de Notis Eccles. Apologia An­glica. And D. Whitaker lib. 5. cont. Dureum. Where­fore, either they must shew some priuiledge where­by Protestants be more excepted from contradicting themselues, then the holy Fathers in their opinion were, or they must not inferre, that they sayd not that which they did in places by me alleaged, because other where they sayd the contrary. Furthermore, Hosp. to. 2. fo. 12. Beza in Cōspicil. Zuing to. 2. fol. 412. 458. 460. be­cause both the Fathers and Protestants also (as I shewed in the Preface) doe teach, that Heretikes are wont to contradict them selues. And the Sacramen­taries both say and shew by many examples, that [Page 328] Luther oftentymes hath gainsayd himselfe. And of Sacramentaries Schusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 20. writeth: That it is their property to contradict them­selues.

7. Lastly, touching the weight of the Pro­testant Confessions which we produce, let him not think, that it is any way impaired in that they haue at other tymes sayd the contrary, as if in this matter they were not to be belieued, because they haue byn taken in two tales. For the Confessions of those that are accused be of greatest force against themselues, because (as I sayd) no man willingly lyeth against himselfe, neither can these be discredited by any words of theirs spoken in their owne behalfe. For what will it auayle a criminall person, if he deny an hundred tymes the cryme, which he once openly cō ­fessed. And protestants haue not once, but oftentyms, most plainly, most openly, most freely confessed those things which I alleage. Againe, though no cre­dit be to be giuen to a lyer who gainsayth himself in matters for his owne behalfe or against any others, neuerthelesse in a matter against himselfe, the great­est yea euen the diuels open & free Confession ought more to be credited then any other mans testimony whatsoeuer. Wherfore we alleage Protestants sayings not as testimonies, but as Confessions, neither pro­duce them as witnesses, but as Criminels confessing the truth against themselues. And as Saint Ambrose sayd: Serm. 5. de [...]uctis. I admit not the diuels testimony but his Confession: so I accept not the Protestants testimonies, but their con­fessions. Let their testimony be of no credit, either for themselues, or for others, or against others, vn­doubtedly it is of great force against themselues. As the Latin Oratour sayd: Thy testimony which in another [Page 329] mans matter would be light, is in thine owne matter, because it is against thg selfe, most weighty. Besides Protestants cric, that it is found to produce the Criminels as witnesses in their owne cause, and that any witnesse in his owne cause is to be reiected. Vorstius Antibel. pag. 44 [...]. 456. Iu [...]. Def. part. 2. c. 3. D. 5. VVhitak. cont. 4. q. 6. c. 2. & q. 4. c. 2. Whereupon in the que­stion of Supremacy they refuse the testimonies of all Popes though neuer so ancient, neuer so learned, ne­uer so holy. How much better may we reiect the te­stimonies of Protestants, when they speak in behalfe of their religion, and yet admit their Confessions, when they speake against it. These therfore lawes of answearing so iust, so equall, and approued of the Protestāts themselues, if he will not keep, who goeth about to answeare my foresayd arguments, it will ea­sily appeare, that in very deed he could not answeare them. And if none endeauour to answeare them, it will yet more appeare, that they can no way an­sweate them, & that this kind of dealing with Pro­testants out of their owne Confessions, is the fittest of all to stop their mouthes.