LEarned Reader. For the better facilitating of this my assumed taske and labour, & for the more easy playning the way to the ensu­ing discourse, I am first heere to prefixe certayne Prolegomena (as I may call them) or Prefaces: The first whereof is to shew, that the Protestants in all affirmatiue arti­cles of fayth, houlden by them at [Page 2] this day, doe agree with the Ro­mane Catholike Church. The se­cond; that in such points of fayth, wherein the Protestants do dissent from the Romane Church; all the said points so defended by the Pro­testants, are meerely Negations of the contrary affirmatiue Articles, belieued by the Catholikes. In this Chapter I will intreate of the first part; seposing the chapter fol­lowing for the second. And accor­ding to this my assertion, we find, that the Protestants do belieue af­firmatiuely with vs; that there is One God, and three Persons; that, the second Person was incarnated, and suffered death vpon the Crosse, for the expiation of the sins of the world; that there are two Sacraments, to wit, Baptisme, and the Eucharist; that there are certaine Canonicall diuine writinges, commonly called the Holy [Page 3] Scriptures: & finally they belieue with vs Catholikes, the Apostles Creed. All which points (so needy and begging is Nouelisme in faith for its own supporting) the Prote­stants do freely acknowledge, that they borrow & receaue from our Catholike and Romane Church. For thus doth D. VVhitaker con­fesse of this point: D. VVhitak. de Eccles. pag. 369. The Papists haue the Scripture and Baptisme &c. and these came to vs from them. With whome agreeth heerein D. Doue, saying: Doue in his per­suasiō to English Recusants pag. 23.. VVee should the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, and the same Bible, which we receaued from them. But Luther with full con­sent herto more amply discourseth of this point, thus acknowledging: Luth. l. contra A­nabaptist. VVe confesse, that there is vnder the Papacy most of the Christian good, yea rather all the Christian good, and [Page 4] that from thence it came to vs. Verily we confesse, there is in the Papacy true Scripture, true Baptisme, the true Sa­crament of the Altar, the true keyes to the remission of sinnes, the true office of preaching, true Catechisme &c. I say further, there is in the Papacy true Christianity, or rather the true kernell of Christianity. Thus Lu­ther. Now from these liberall (yet most true) confessions of our ad­uersaries, this ineuitable resultan­cy riseth, to wit; that the Prote­stants, though they belieue these former affirmatiue Articles, (and perhaps some few others) with the Catholikes, yet for such their be­liefe of thē, they are not, nor can be truly reputed Protestants, but on­ly Christians in generall, or rather Catholikes (& this but [...], or at most but Analogically) since they borrow their beliefe of the [Page 5] sayd affirmatiue Articles from our Catholicke Church (as is aboue confessed) and therfore Protestan­cy doth not rest in the beliefe of the sayd affirmatiue dogmaticall points. From hence then we may conclude, that the reduplicatiue for­mality, or ratio formalis, as I may say with the Shoolemen, of Pro­testancy, only consisteth in the de­nyall and reprouall of the particu­lar affirmatiue Articles, in which it differeth at this day from the Church of Rome, as heereafter wilbe proued; and that a Protestāt ( quatenus a Protestant) is not, as he belieueth these former affirmatiue Articles; but as he belieueth not other affirmatiue points, belieued heertofore, & now by the Church of Rome. And according heerto, Philosophy teacheth, that this par­ticle quatenus, or the reduplicatiue [Page 6] formality, euer falleth vpon the differentia, and not vpon the genus.

I will exemplify this point in other innouations of doctrine. Io­uinian taught (as S. Hiero­me lib. 1. & 2. con­tra Iouin. Hierome & de hae­resib. cap. 82. S. Augustine do witnesse,) That virginity was not to be preferred be­fore wedlocke; that, fasting was not meritorious; that, a man once ha­uing true fayth could not sinne (all good Protestancy at this day. Io­uinian in all other affirmatiue points agreed with the then Church of Rome, but dissented from it onely in these Negatiues. Now Iouinianis­me truly resteth only in the defen­ce of these its Negatiue Positions, and not as it agreeth with the then Church of Rome, in other affir­matiue points. And his followers were called Iouiniani, only by rea­son of their defence of the said Ne­gations, and not otherwise. Againe [Page 7] Manichaeus did only deny freewill in man (as Lib. de hoeres. cap. 46. S. Augustine recordeth) and cōparted with the then known Church of Christ in all other affir­matiue points; and accordingly his Sect was called Manichisme, not in that it agreed with the then Ca­tholike Church in other affirma­tiue positions taught by the sayd Church; but only by reason the authour thereof denyed the afore­sayd Affirmatiue Article of freewill. In like sort Brownisme resteth on­ly in the denyall of such points, wherein the Brownists dissent frō the Protestants, and not in their conformity with the Protestants, or Catholickes in any affirmatiue points. Now to apply this to our present purpose; the obiectum adae­quatum (to speake in the Philoso­phers idiome) of Protestancy, is only the denial of such affirmatiue Catho­like [Page 8] points, wherin Protestācy diffe­reth at this day frō the Church of Rome; & not in its beliefe of those few affirmatiue Articles, wherein the Protestants as yet agree with the sayd Church. According heer­to, it did fall out, that in the first infancy of the late appearing faith of Protestants, the first stampers thereof at their publike meeting volūtarily, for their better distin­guishing of themselues from the Catholikes, imposed to themsel­ues the name of Protestants, and to their fayth the title of Protestancy: implying, by that word, that they protested themselues absolutely to deny such & such affirmatiue points of fayth, which the Church of Rome at that tyme (& euer afore) maintaines and affirmes. For if we respect those few doctrines, wher­in they did agree with the Church [Page 9] of Rome, the Protestants had no reason to vse any such terme of di­stinguishment, seeing both sides did belieue the same Articles. Therefore of necessity the word Protestancy (as seruing for a chara­cter, or signature of its separation from our Catholike fayth) is to be restrayned to such points, wherin the Protestants by their denyall of them, then dissented from the Church of Rome. But by this we may see, how loath is Nouellisme in doctrine to impath it selfe in the beaten tract of Reuerend Antiqui­ty, or to runne in the accustomed known channel, wherin the stream of Christian Religiō in former ty­mes had its course. And thus far of this point; the conclusion be­ing, that Protestancy (as Protestan­cy) only consisteth in denyall of such af­firmatiue points, which the Church of [Page 10] Rome affirmes to be true; & not in be­lieuing with the sayd Church certayne chiefe points of Christianity aboue ex­pressed.

MY second Prolegomenon is, to demonstrate, by gradation, how the Protestāts, as aboue is in­timated, haue reformed (or if you will, refined) their Religion in se­uerall points of Fayth; and this only by pure Negatiues to the Ca­tholikes contrary Affirmatiue As­sertions of them.

Thus did the Protestants refor­me our supposed errors, with their owne true and reall errors; so the Luc. 18. Pharisy reproued the Publicans sinne, with farre greater sinne. But to dissect the particulers, Luther (the Prodromus of these calamitous tymes) was first an acknowledged Catholike Priest, as himselfe So witnes­seth Sley­dan in li, 16. fol. 232. writeth. This man first begun his Reformation with a mincing hesita­tion & trepidatiō of iudgment, & busied himself only with the denial of Pardons; but by litle & little ta­king greater courage, he next pro­ceedeth to the denyall of Luther in captiuit. Babilon. tom. 2. fol. 63. Papall Iurisdiction, and Luth. de votis Monasti [...]is in tom. 2. Wittem­berg. Monasticall state & professiō. And being once fleshed in his profession, he (daily more & more sharpining his censuring rasour) cut of at one blow, Luth. tom. 2. fol. 63. foure Sacraments. He finally concluded with the denyall of the Luth. de abrogā ­da missa priuata. in tom. 2. fol. 244. Masse & [Page 12] Priesthood, of seueral parts of Luth praefat. in epist. Ia­cob. & vi­de Bulling vpon the Apoca­lips en­glished, cap. 1. Ca­nonicall Scripture, Luth. de seruo arbitrio in tom. 2. fol. 424. of freewill, & of Iustification of workes. Thus far proceeded Luther. And that the denyall of these former points did not happen at one time but by de­grees, appeareth in that the further he proceeded in this his denyal of Catholicke Articles, the more he reputed himselfe reformed; and in his later writinges he intreateth pardon of his reader for his presu­med defect in his former writings, he thus excusing himselfe. The tom. 1. Wittēb. in praefat. & tom. 2. fol. 63. Reader may find how many, and how great things, I humbly granted to the Pope in my former writings, which in my later, & these times I hold for grea­test blasphemy and abomination: ther­fore, pious Reader, thou must pardon me this errour. O see, how pride of iud­gement (the Hypostasis of heresy) masketh it selfe vnder the bor­rowed [Page 13] veile of religious zeale.

From Luthers loines immediat­ly descended Zuinglius, Bullinger, Bucer, and some others. But these vngrateful and disobedient Impes did not rest satisfied with their Fa­thers reformation, but retayning it for good, as far as it went, procee­ded much further in their Negatiōs of the Articles of the Roman Re­ligion: since they denyed the Reall Zuin­glius tom. 2. fol. 375. & 416. Presence, denyed Zuing. tom. 2. fol. 378. Purgatory, and praying for the dead, denyed Vide Luth. in ep. ad Georgiū Spalati­num. praying to Saints, denyed See Whitgifts defence in the e­xamina­tion of places. fol. penul. the vse of Images, & finally denyed Lib. intituled agaynst Symbolis. part. 1. c. 2. Sect. 30 crossing of ones selfe. Thus farre these men made their progresse in their Ne­gatiue Religion; who conspired with their Father (through their desire euer of further reformation) by excepting in their later wri­tings against their former, as not being See Zuingl. to. 2. fol. 202. & vide Bucer. Script. An­glicana pag. 680. Negatiue inough: and yet [Page 14] we are taught by the abortiue A­postle, (1. Cor 5.) that, modicum fermentum totam massā corrupit. Bu [...] to proceed higher; for as yet the Scene of a Negatiue Reformatio lea­ueth not the Stage. Frō these for­mer men, did spring Caluin, Beza, the Puritans of England, Scotland, & Geneua; which men, as being pre­sumed to be wholy spiritualized, and as it were obsest with the ho­ly Ghost (such is the pride of No­uelisme) made a farre more refyned and sublimated Reformation (and all by Negatiues) then their Pre­decessours had done. For almost all the other Affirmatiue Catholi­ke Articles passed vnder the fyle of their dislike. And therewith they wholy denied the said articles▪ The chiefe articles denied by these Enthysiasts (to omit diuers of them for breuity) are these following, D. Wil­let, in his speciall booke entituled: Lymbo­mastix, & most Pu­ritanes. [Page 15] Christs descending into hell: the Head­ship of the Church to reside in one alone: Deny­ed by Be­za, Caluin Knox, in whole Treatises. vniuersality of grace, Vide the Sur­uey of the Booke of common Prayer. the power of priest-hood to remit sinnes, denied by Caluin as appea­reth by Schlussēb. in Theo­log. Cal­uinist. lib. 1. fol. 60. and by D Willet in Sy­nopsis. pag. 432. Bap­tisme by lay persons in tyme of neces­sity, Con [...]l in his e­xamen pag 63. 64. Ceremonies, and Vide Whitgifts defence, pag. 259. Church apparell &c. But the denyall of Be­za shall serue as a Chorus, to the former particuler denyalls; who ta­king (as it should seeme) a wanton complacency, in repeating the word, I deny, thus writeth. See Du­raeus in cō ­fut. respōs. VVhitaker. ad decem rationes. Camp. rat. 10. I deny that God can make Christs body to be present in the Eucharist, I deny sea­uen Sacnaments, I deny grace to be gi­uen by Sacraments, I deny freewill in man, I deny good workes, I deny praier for the dead, I deny Christ to be borne of a Virgin, I deny that he descended into hell, I deny the Communion of Saints, I deny the forgiuenesse of sins. Thus Beza. To whose denyalls, I will make bold to add one more: [Page 16] to wit: I deny, that Beza, houlding these Negations, can be saued. And thus these former Men, who as afore did Luther, Zuinglius, and Bu­cer, much vaunt of their proficiē ­cy in this their negatiue control­ling of the Romane Church: for Caluin being expostulated by some how endles he and his sect were in going out from their former pro­ceedings, thus salueth the point: Caluin. lib. de scā ­dal. extant in Tractat. Theolog. They do, as if a man should accuse vs, that at the first breaking of day, we see not yet the Sunne, shining at noone day.

But what? Is not Protestancy come yet to its [...], and perfecti­on of its negatiue Reformation by all the former Protestants? No veri­ly. For the Protestants Reformatiō, in regard it is neuer at an end, is like herein to Eternity, which is e­uer spending it selfe, and yet ne­uer [Page 17] lessens. For in this next place step in the Brownists, and the An­ti-trinitarians, both of them chal­lenging to themselues a new Refor­mation, euen in the Negatiue part. Thus do the Brownists, for exāple, deny the Bar­rowes booke in his dis­course a­gaynst V­niuersi­ties. Lords prayer, and See Halls A­pology, sect 30. agaynst the Brow­nists. Ba­ptisme of Infants, which they say, is the marke In Hals descript. to the Se­parat. be­fore the Epistle dedicato­ry. of the Beast. They also deny our Hall vbi supra. materiall Churches, & Bar­rows vbi supra. Vniuersities.

To conclude with the Anti-tri­nitarians, they yet vrging a fur­ther Negatiue Reformation, do heer­vpon deny the blessed Trinity, and diuinity of Christ; condemning the Catholike Article of the Trinity for the most notable relique, or brand of all Romish corruption: for thus M. Hooker writeth hereof: M. Hooker in his Ec­clesiasti­call poli­cy lib. 4. pag. 18 [...]. The A­rians in the reformed Churches of Po­land, thinke the very beliefe of the Trinity, to be a part of Antichristian [Page 18] corruption &c. Hitherto of the Pro­testants Reformations of the Catho­like and Romane fayth, and all this by meere Negatiues: I meane Negatiues to the Affirmatiue cōtra­ry Articles taught by the Church of Rome; from whence we may well inferre, that the fayth of a Protestant in regard of such his Ne­gatiue Religion, is a meere wast, & deuastation of all true fayth, and that his beliefe consisteth only in not belieuing.

Now that the Iudicious Reader may more fully and intensly ob­serue, how many Articles of our Catholike Religion the Protestāt denyeth, I will heere amasse the chiefest of them together, though most of them haue beene aboue expressed, that so the Reader may haue a full Synopsis or sight of them all at once. The Protestant then [Page 19] denyeth the Reall presence, the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse, the visibility of the Church, the Churches freedome from errour, the succession of Pastors, vniuersality of grace, freewill, praier to Saints, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, Pilgrimages, diuers parts of Canonicall Scripture, Papall Iurisdi­ction of Bishops, power of Priest-hood to remit sinnes, Monasticall life, vowed chastity, single life of priests, pres­cript fasting-dayes, the Grace and Ne­cessity of Baptisme, fiue Sacraments, Christs descending into Hell, besides some others. So wholly negatiue are the Protestants in all the Articles controuerted at this day, between them and the Church of Rome. Neither can our Aduersaries re­ply, that they hould diuers Affir­matiue points, ventilated at this day betweene vs and them, we re­tayning the Negatiues; as for exā ­ple: [Page 20] Parity of Ministers, Mariage of Priests, and other Votaries, Reproba­tion, Christs only Mediatorship by way of intercession, Christs suffering in soule &c. To this I answere, that these poynts are Affirmatiue in words, but meerly negatiue in sense, (like some drugs, which are plea­sant in the tast, but dangerous in the operation) since they are nega­tiues, to the Monarchy of the Churches gouernment, to vowed chastity, to V­niuersality of Grace, to the intercessi­on of Saints, and to the all-sufficiency of Christs corporall death: all which our Catholike points are Affirma­tiue. Such is the subtility of Inno­uatiō in doctrine, as to inuest their Negatiue Tenets in Affirmatiue Ti­tles, that thereby they may seeme more specious & regardable. And thus farre concerning the foresaid Prolegomena.

I Will subnect to the former Prolegomena, this passage follo­wing; which is to shew, that after our Protestants had newly moul­ded their Religion by their pure-impure negatiues; then instantly their next labour was to make new Translations of the Holy Scrip­ture, and to reforme their publike Liturgy, or booke of Common prayer, according to their afore chosen negatiue Religion. And as [Page 22] the Protestants at seuerall times more & more reformed their Re­ligion by increase of Negatiues; so they also at the said seuerall tymes made new Translations of the Bible, and set forth new bookes of Common-Prayer, euer sor­table to their last negatiue Reforma­tion. Thus we see, how this censu­ring and reforming humour is the very eye, comportment, and car­riage of Protestancy. From which course of theirs the iudicious Rea­der may obserue the preposterous method taken by the Protestants heerein. For whereas themselues do teach, that fayth and Religion is to be extracted out of the true & infallible sense of the Scripture (& consequently that their iudge­ments in the Scripture) ought to be knowne, & to precede in tyme before faith, yet with thē the faith [Page 23] was first established, and then the Scripture was after by their Trāsla­tions, squared to their fayth. Thus with them it fell out, that the Scri­pture was true in such, and such a poynt, because it confirmed by their translation, their new assu­med negatiue fayth; and not that their fayth was true, because it was consonant to the Scripture, before it was so translated by them: so making their fayth the square of the Scripture, and not the Scrip­ture the square of their fayth. But to come first to the seuerall Tran­slations of Scripture, the later euer condemning the former, as not sufficiently translated in full de­fence of their negatiue Positions. And first Luther trāslated the Scri­pture presently after his open re­uolt and Apostasy. This transla­tion was as the first much admired [Page 24] (so blazing starres at their first ap­pearance, are much gazed vpon) yet because it warranted many af­firmatiue Articles of our Catholike fayth, neuer denyed by Luther, therefore Zwinglius doth in great acerbity of words traduce him for such his Translation, thus inuei­ghing against him: Zwin­gl. tom. 2. ad Luther. lib. de Sa­cram. pag. 412. 413. Thou, Lu­ther, dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seene to be a manifest corrup­ter and peruerter of the holy Scriptu­res. Now by reason of Luthers pre­sumed false Translation, a new Translation was after set forth by the Deuines of Basill; which trās­lation was neuertheles wholly cō ­demned by Caluin & Beza (as not fauouring inough their negatiue Fayth) for thus Beza writeth ther­of: Beza in resp. ad defens. & respons. Castal. The Basill Translation is in many places wicked, and altogeather different from the mynd of the Holy [Page 25] Ghost. Heerupon a third transla­tion of the Scripture was made by Caluin and Beza, wholy presumed to be according to the holy Ghost; yet it is found so defectiue & im­pure, that Molinaeus (a learned Pro­tant) putteth vpon it this Theta, or marke of cōdemnation: Molin. in sua Trā ­slat. No­ui Testam. Part. 12. fol, 110. Cal­uin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leape vp and downe; he vseth violence to the letter of the Gos­pell; and besides, he addeth to the text. The same Protestant thus also a­uerreth of Beza; Ibid. part. 20. 30. 40. &c. Beza actually changeth the Text. And thereupon instāceth in diuers of Beza his cor­ruptions. But Castalio (the remar­keable Protestant) is not afrayd to reprehend Beza his Translation in this full manner: In de­fens. Trā ­slat pag. 170. To note the errours of that [...]ranslation, would re­quire a great volume. Finally Casta­lio himself composed a translatiō, [Page 26] yet so defectiue and impure, that Beza (by way of recrimination) condemneth it (to vse Beza his owne words) Beza in Testam in praefat. & in Annot. in Math 3. in 1. Cor. 1. &c. as Sacrilegious, wic­ked, and Ethnicall. And thus much for some tast and delibation of our forayne Protestants Translations of the Scripture; ech later transla­tion accusing the former for im­perfect and impure, as not being Negatiue inough in behalf of their Negatiue Religion: so certayne it is that the very pulse, life, and energy of Protestancy are meere Negations.

But before we end this poynt, we will cast our eye vpon our English Translations of the Bible, and see what entertaynement they find at the hands of other more refor­med and Negatiue Protestants: for though diuers English translatiōs haue beene made of the Bible (the later euer condēning the former, [Page 27] for not being reformed or negatiue inough; yet the Puritans (whose grace chiefly resteth in disgracing their Predecessours, and who are most deuoted to this negatiue faith) condemne all the sayd translati­ons, as false and impure. For Car­leile (the Puritan) thus censureth them: Car­leile, that Christ descēded. not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. & sequent. The English Translations haue depraued the sense, obscured the Truth, and deceaued the ignorant; & in many places, they do detort the Scri­pture from it right sense And other English Puritanes do vomit out their iudgement of the English translation in these wordes: Abrid g [...]ment of the booke giuen to his Maie­sty, by the Ministers of Lin­colne Diocesse. A Translation, that taketh away from the Text, that addeth to the text, and that sometymes to the changing and obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And heerupon they sollici­ted the late King for a new tran­on, which was granted to them, [Page 28] and after published by authority. But how can we rest assured, that they wil vnchangeably satisfy thē ­selues with this last translation, & will not in tyme be as earnest for another? Now, let vs descend to their often alteration of their pu­blike Prayer-booke, made by the aduice of Crammer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer; and as the Statute sayth In the statuts of 2. 3 E­dward 6. cap. 1. made by the ayde of the holy Ghost. This prayer-booke retayned di­uers Affirmatiue points of the Ro­mane and Catholike Religion: for it All these (with di­uers o­ther Ca­tholike points) are expre­sly set downe in the boo­ke of cō ­mon-prayer, printed in folio by Edward Whit-Church, cum priui­legio ad imprimen­dum so­lum anno 1549. admitted Baptisme by lay Per­sons in tyme of necessity, as also, grace giuen in that Sacrament; in like sort it retayned absolution of the sicke pe­nitent, giuen by the Priest, in these wordes: By authority committed to me, I absolue thee of all thy sinnes: & accordingly it retayned speciall cō ­fession of the sicke penitent. It further [Page 29] allowed the anointing of the sicke Penitent; It maintained the conse­cration of the water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse. It also retay­ned the vsage of Chrisme, and of the childs annointing, and of Exor­cisme. Briefly (to omit many o­ther dogmaticall and Affirmatiue points of the Romane fayth and Religion) it maintayned prayer for the dead, and intercession, and offering of prayers by the Angells.

But this Liturgy, or Booke of common Prayer, was houlden du­ring the reigne of Queene Eliza­beth ouer Papisticall, as ech man knowes. And therupon the sayd Praier-booke was reformed in her tyme, and made more Negatiue, by culling out of it the former Af­firmatiue Catholike points; yet this was not done in so full a man­ner, as it gaue contentment; for [Page 30] Maister Parker thus complayneth thereof: against Symboli­zing part 2. cap. 5. sect. 2. pag. 4. The day-starre was no [...] risen so high, in their dayes, when ye [...] Queene Elizabeth reformed the defects of King Edwards Communion book [...] &c. Ibid. sect. 17. pag. 39. yet so altered as when it was proposed to be confirmed, to the Parla­ment, it was refused. To whose iud­gement Cartwright (the Puritan) thus subscribeth: Car­twright in his 2. Reply, part. 1. pag. 41. the Church of England changed the Booke of common Prayer, twice or thrice, after it had receaued the knowledge of the Gospell. And yet the last change made is so imperfect in the iudgement of the Puritanes, as that they (wishing a new Common prayer booke to be composed) thus censure of the former: In Whitgifts defence. pag. 474. The forme of the commu­nion booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist, as the reading of the Epistles and Ghospells &c. the most of the prayers, the manner of mini­string [Page 31] Sacraments &c. of Confirmation &c. Neyther are our Puritanes lesse forbearing to charge the Cō ­munion booke (as being in their iudgement ouer Affirmatiue) for thus some of them do write: In the booke in­tituled: The petitiō of twenty two Prea­chers in London. Many things in the Communion booke are repugnāt to the word of God. And agayne: In the Communion booke there be things, of which there is no sense, there is contradiction in it, euen of necessary and essentiall points of Re­ligion. And vpon this their dislike the Puritans at the Pag. 58 Conference at Hampton Court, motioned, that they might not be forced to sub­scribe to the Communion Booke.

In this last place let vs examine a litle the Liturgy of the Brownists. This their forme of Prayer is so Negatiue, as that reiecting all o­ther matters, it chiefly consisteth, of an extemporall conceaued Prayer, [Page 32] singing a Psalme, and a Sermon. And yet the singing of a Psalme was in doubt once to be taken away by some of the Brownists, as being but a humane Inuention; and thereupon some of them do style, singing of Psalmes in the Church, In the bobke called, the new age of old names cap. 2 [...]. p. 122 howling of wolues, croking of Rauens &c. By all this we may see, how variable and inconstant the Protestants haue discouered themselues to be in admitting of the Booke of com­mon Prayer: which point D. Doue (an eminent Protestant) as ma­king a recapitulation of seuerall formes of their Communion boo­ke, thus writeth: Per­suasions to En­glish Re­cusants pag. 31. Concerning the Booke of Common Prayer, when the Masse was first put downe, King Hen­ry had his English Liturgy, and that was iudged absolute, and without ex­ception: but whē King Edward came to the Crowne, that was condemned, [Page 33] and another in the place, which Peter Martyr, and Bucer did approoue, as very consonant to Gods word. VVhen Queene Elizabeth began her Raigne, the former was iudged to be full of imperfections, and a new deui­sed, and allowed by consent of the Clergy, But about the middle of her raigne, we grew weary of that Booke, and great meanes haue been made to a­bandone that, and establish another. VVhich although it was not obtayned, yet we do at the least at euery change of Prince, change our booke of Com­mon Prayers: we be so wanton, that we know not, what we would haue. Thus plainely and fully D. Doue of this point. And thus much to shew, how the Protestants and their descendants haue made seue­rall Translations of their Bible, and composed diuers formes of Liturgy, or Common-prayer; e­uery [Page 34] later Translatiō of the Scri­pture, and euery later forme o [...] Common-prayer, being more Ne­gatiue then the former. From all which we may most certainly con­clude (and so extract Truth out of falshood) that as yet the Pro­testants haue neuer enioyed a sin­cere Translation of the Scriptu­res, or an Orthodoxall Liturgy, or forme of Common-prayer.

NOW after we haue mani­fested the former poynts, which are but certaine graduall steps to the mayne question heer to be intreated of; it followeth, [Page 35] that by the applying the sayd points to certayne acknowledged and receaued Theorems, and Prin­ciples of Schoole diuinity, we are to euict the certainty of our assu­med Thesis, or Position; to wit, that Protestācy is a meer Non-entity.

Wherefore for the better illu­stration of this subiect, we are to call to mynd, that the Schoole­men do teach, that S. Tho­mas part. 1. qu. 16. Omnis res est vera, secundum quod habet propriam formam suae naturae. And againe S. Tho­mas vbi supra. Vnumquodque sicut custodit suum esse, ita custodit suam veritatem. Euery thing as it keepeth its essence or being, so it keepeth its truth. And yet more. S. Tho­mas vbi supra. vi­de Durād. lib. 1. di­stinct. 20. q. 6. and Viguerius de anima cap. 2. sect. 2. & A­ristot. in Metaphys. 9. Verum non potest apprehendi, nisi apprehēdatur sub ratione entis. Truth cannot be apprehended, but as it is ap­prehended, as a thing hauing a reall being. And hence it is, that they conclude: Res quaelibet vera est ab­solutè. [Page 36] Euery thing, in that it is a thing, is true. And agayne in more expresse tearmes: Fundamentum veritatis est entitas rerum. The foun­dation of truth is the Entity, or being of things. With whome assenteth S. Austin, thus teaching Aug. in Soliloq. l. 2. cap. 8. verum est, id quod est. From all which their last inference is, that: Ens, & Ve­rum conuertuntur. Euery thing that is, is true; and euery truth hath a reall Entity. Now the maine source, frō whence all these scholasticall sen­tences receaue their spring, is, be­cause euery Entity, or being, is frō God, Genes. 1. who wholy made all things; and that all Truth proceeded like­wise from God, who is Iohn. 14. truth it selfe.

But now touching that, which is not, but only is a priuation, or denyall of that, which is; the Schoolmen further teach; S. Tho­mas part. 1. q. 17. In­tellectus [Page 37] decipitur nō circa quid est, sed circa quid non est. The vnderstāding is deceaued, not about that, which real­ly is, but about that, which is not. And further: S. Tho­mas vbi supra. falsum est id, quod non est apprehendere, vt esse; & quod est non esse. That is false, which is not to be apprehended, as it is a thing, but as it is not. And from hence they conclude, that of such defects and priuations, as lying, falshood &c. there is no efficient, but a deficient cause: and that all such proceede only from the Diuell, Iohn. 8. the father thereof. And according heereto, your owne Peter Martyr thus tru­ly discourseth: Peter Martyr in Commō places in English. part. 1. c. 17. pag. 184. An euill thing hath no efficient but a deficient cause; if any will search out this efficient cause, it is euen like, as if he would see dark­nes with his eyes, or comprehend si­lence with his eares; which being Pri­uations, it is no need they should haue [Page 38] efficient causes. Thus farre Peter Martyr; which saying is sortable to the iudgment of Austin de ciuit. Dei lib. 12. cap 7. S. Austin himselfe: so vndenyable a truth it is, that what is in it selfe Nothing, cannot proceed from God, who is but One, yet All things; most simple, yet contayneth in himselfe, eminenter, the perfection of All things. And thus it is certaine, that he cannot make nothing, who yet of nothing made all things, since to make that, which is not, is not so much to make, as rather a not-ma­king; to the performance whereof Impotency, not Power is required. Now from these former doctrinal speculations in Schoole diuinity (acknowledged for true, euen by al learned Men, eyther Catholike or Protestant) it is vnauoydably euicted, that all truth, which is (as is aboue demonstrated) euer ap­prehended, [Page 39] subratione entis, is posi­tiue; & therefore in reality of sense, euermore affirmatiue: as on the cō ­trary side, that errour, or falshood, (which is no other thing, then a denyall of some truth) is vpon the same ground (and by force, and law of Contrarieties) alwayes Negatiue.

But to preuent the willfull or ignorant mistaking of our A duer­saries (for some men are of that liuor, and harsh morosity, as that they euen meditate how to con­tradict) my meaning heere is not that euery verball Affirmatiue Proposition doth containe in it selfe a truth of reall Entity; for it is wil­lingly acknowledged, that Mans brayne doth often fabricate many Chimera's, and aëry Imaginations, which are depriued of all reality of true existence, or entity to sup­port [Page 40] them. But this I maintaine (which is sufficiēt to my designed end) that whatsoeuer is true, hath entity, and is in this respect euer Affirmatiue; & whatsoeuer is false, is but a denyall of a truth, & ther­fore (as hauing no reall Being) is euermore negatiue. And though it is in mans power, through a vo­luntary frame, and contexture of wordes, that falshood may be mas­ked vnder affirmatiue tearmes, and truth vnder negations; yet if we looke into the reality of sense and true vnderstanding, the truth is e­uer Affirmatiue, and the falshood negatiue. To exemplify this; to say, God is not cruell, or, Man is not blynd: these Propositions, though they be in tearmes negatiue, yet they are in sense affirmatiue; onely as denying the negation of Mercy in God, and of blyndnes in man: so [Page 41] on the contrary part, to say in af­firmatiue tearmes, God is cruell, & man is blynd: though these sayings be deliuered in shew of affirmatiue termes; yet if we do vnueyle them they are found to be in sense and vnderstanding meerely negatiue; since cruelty is exclusiue to Mercy, and blyndnes to sight: and it is as much as to say in negatiue wordes, God is not mercyfull, or, man cannot see. Thus far of these speculations. Now I draw from al these former grounds this vnauoydable Con­clusion; to wit, that Protestancy (as it is Protestancy) I meane as it con­sisteth meerely of negatiue Propo­sitions and Tenets (and to consist only of such, it is aboue demon­strated) hath no true reality, or subsistency in it selfe, but is a meere vaporous, intentionall, & Imaginary Conceite, and conse­quently [Page 42] in it selfe false. For if things be only true, as they haue a reall being, and therin affirmatiue; and false, if they want such a being and therin negatiue (as the former Axiomes of schoole diuinity doe most euidently teach: (how then can Protestancy, which consists only in denyals and negations, which haue no being, be reall, or true? For what reality of being is there, in a not-being of Purgatory, or in not praying to Saints, & so of the rest? and if there be no reality in these (as infallibly there is not) how then can Protestancy haue any Reality in selfe? And if it haue no reality in it self, how then can it be really in the soule of man? For certaine it is, that what wanteth a subsistency in it selfe, must necessa­rily want an existency in any other thing. Now I will conclude this [Page 43] Chapter, in assuring the Reader, that I rest halfe amazed, to see mē (presumed to be of Iudgement) thus to suffer themselues to be be­fooled by others (and this to the irreconciliable and interminable ouerthrow of their soules) by en­tertaining certaine aëry & empty Positions in lieu of fayth, obtru­ded vpon them, which in a finall and euen libration are found to be meerely a destruction, and ani­hilation of all faith: Galat. cap. 3. O insensa­ti Galatae, quis vos fascinauit!

SVch is the nature of preiudice of iudgement, as that it is bet­ter able to see its owne defects in a third point, wherein by resem­blance it may glasse it selfe, then in that, to which it is so much de­uoted; like as the weakenes of our eyes can better endure the sight of the sun-beames reflected by the water, then in the body of the sun it selfe. He that will not acknow­ledge the irreality, and Non-entity of the fayth of the Protestant, by [Page 45] his denying almost of all positiue Articles of Christian Religion de­fended at this day by the Church of Rome; let that man (if he be a scholler) seriously peruse ouer this ensuing Chapter, which treateth by supposall of a Philosopher, who should deny most parts of Philo­sophy, acknowledged and taught for true, by the famous Philoso­phers of all times. I haue made choyce purposely to insist in Na­turall Philosophy; since nature is the subordinate Instrumēt of God, first created by himselfe; or rather nature is Gods great hand, wherwith he sternes & gouernes this whole Frame and Vniuerse; euery Cause in nature, being as it were a finger of this Hand; and euery Effect of the cause, a print of the said Finger. Now then let vs, as they say, ex hy­pothesi, imagine a mā, who would [Page 46] vsurpe to himselfe the title of a naturall Philosopher, by only de­nying most of the positiue, and Af­firmatiue Axiomes and principles in naturall Philosophy, some few of the chiefest excepted, taught by Aristotle, and all other learned Philosophers; and then let vs con­clude, in the closure of all, what a strange Philosopher would this man be: and whether his Philo­sophy could truly deserue the na­me of Philosophy, or rather that it wold proue to be a meere denyall and wast of all true Philosophy. Let this mā, then I say, agree with Aristotle, that naturall Philoso­phy intreateth of a corporeall sub­stance, animate or inanimate, with all his naturall causes, effects, and accidences: to wit, as it is subiect to mutation and change. Let him also grant, that there are Foure [Page 47] chiefe parts of this naturall Phi­losophy: of which the first part concerneth the generall and com­mon Principles of natural things. The second intreateth of the world, of the Elements, of their first and secondary qualities, of the cōposition of the bodies, through the mixture of the Elements and first qualities. The third part dis­courseth chiefly of Meteors. The fourth and last part disputeth de Anima, of the soule, and of its se­uerall kinds or degrees, and facul­ties. Let vs suppose, I say, this man to agree with Aristotle, and al other chiefe Philosophers in these and perhaps in some other few Affirmatiue head Theorems, and principles of natural Philosophy, as the Protestant doth agree with the Church of Rome in some mai­ne Affirmatiue Articles of Christiā [Page 48] Fayth. Yet withall, let vs suppose this new Philosopher do deny most of other subordinate Positions, which Aristotle holdeth affirma­tiuely in all the sayd foure parts of naturall Philosophy: as for exam­ple, touching the first part of this Philosophy, we will suppose, that he maintaines, that Materia, forma, & Priuatio, are not principia rerū na­turalium; that there is no Materia prima of the which a naturall bo­dy is first generated, and into which it is lastly corrupted: and that this Materia prima is onely a Philosophicall conceite, and fi­ction. That there is not any Mo­tus in that sense, as it is commonly defined by the Naturall Philoso­pher; to wit, to be, Actus entis, quod est in potentia, quatenus est mobile. An Act of a thing, which is in potentia, as it is moueable. That, admitting [Page 49] there were any such motus, yet that the diuision of motus, is not per­fect, to wit, that there should be six kinds of motion: viz. Gene­ration, Corruption, Augmentation, Diminution, Alteration, and Lation.

Let him also maintaine, that Locus Physicus, is not the vltima superficies concaua corporis continentis immobilis primò, but that it ought to haue some other definition gi­uen to it. Finally (to omit infi­nite other Affirmatiue Propositi­ons in the first part of Naturall Philosophy) that Tempus Physi­cum, is not, Numerus mensurans mo­tum rerum mutabilium, secundū prius & posterius: that is; that tyme is not a space, which is measured by the mo­tion of the Heauens, & the Sunne, but that this definition is most false, and to be exploded.

Now in like manner to come [Page 50] to the second part aboue specified of naturall Philosophy. Let vs further imagine, that this all-denying Philosopher maintaynes, that the motion of the heauens is not precisely Circular, and Vniforme. That, the particular motion of the spheres proceed neither, ab intel­ligentijs, nor ab interna forma of the heauens. That, nihil est extra vlti­mum Caelum. That, it cannot be proued, that a starre is densior para sui Orbis; the more thick, or gross part of its Orbe. That there are not any Excentrikes, or Epicycles in the Orbs of the Planets. That one and the same starre cannot haue two different motions at the same tyme, though these seuerall Motions be supposed to be made vpon different Poles. That the sphere of the fixed Stars, or the Sunne doe not moue at all, but in lieu hereof, the [Page 51] Earth moueth, according to Co­pernicus; and that not the Earth, but the Sun (according also to his opinion) is the Center of the world. That the starres do not borrow their light and splendour original­ly from the Sun, by meanes of their opacity, & thicknes of their substance, receauing into it the beames of the Sunne. That the foure Elements are not the Princi­ples or secondary matter of all naturall bodyes. That the forme of all the Elements is not spherical. That there is no such Symbolisme in the qualities of the Elements, as Aristotle teacheth to be. That the Elements do not consist onely ex partibus Homogeneis, but also ex par­tibus Heterogeneis. That the elemēt of fyre is not placed aboue the highest region of the Aire. That there are not three Regions of the [Page 52] Aire, or if there be, that the midle region is not cold, per antiperistasi [...]. That there is no transmutatiō o [...] the elements of one into another.

To come to the third par [...] of naturall Philosophy. As first let him maintayne, that there are not fiue distinct species of con­pounded, or mixt bodies, to wit, Meteors, Mineralls, Plants, Liuing Creatures, and Man; but that there are, eyther more, o [...] fewer. Tha [...] a Vapour, is not the matter of wa­try Meteors, and an Exhalation o [...] fiery Meteors. That Snow is no [...] euer ingendred in the lowest regiō of the Aire, and Hayle in the midle Region only. That the cause of Thunder, and raine following it, is not an exhalation set on fire, be­ing encompassed within a watery clowd. That the Moone by casting its beames vpon the Sea, and with [Page 53] its heat dilating and spreading the exhalations, mixt with the Sea­water, is not the cause of the flow­ [...]ng, and ebbing of the Sea.

To descend to the last part of naturall Philosophy, which chie­fly treateth of the Soule: And first let him iustify (among other things) that the Soule (heere we [...]peak aswel de anima vegetatiua sen­ [...]tiua, as, de anima rationali) is not [...], that is, the Act, Essence, [...]r forme, by force wherof its naturall [...]ody is moued, and performeth its ope­ [...]ations. That man hath not one [...]nly soule, but three different sou­ [...]es; to wit, the Vegetatiue, the Sen­ [...]tiue, and the Rationall soule. That [...]pecies ser sibilis is not euer required [...]hat by the help thereof, the ex­ [...]ernall and internall sense should [...]erforme their operations. That [...]he Eye (of whose artificiall na­turall [Page 54] fabrick or compacture I will speake nothing) seeth not, ei­ther, extramittendo, or intromitten­do, but by some other vnknowne way, ordayned by God. That in mans body the Diaphrama, or sep­tum transuersum, serues not as a partition-wall to diuide the Concu­piscible faculty, from the Irascible. That, that Principle in Anatomy is to be denyed, which teacheth, that the veines proceed from the liuer and giue nourishment, the Arteries from the hart and giue life; the Sy­news from the brayne, and giue mo­tion and sense. That in the Soule of man, there are not two principall faculties (to wit, the vnderstanding and the will) but that the operati­on of both these are performed by one only faculty: that the Anima spirits are not first elaborated and wrought in that connexion of the [Page 55] sinewes, towards the Cerebellum, which is called, Rete mirabile. That the diuision of Intellectus agens, & patiens, is not to be admitted for good. That anima separata cannot exercise its operations, but during the time it is organized with the body. Finally (to omit infinite o­ther Affirmatiue points maintay­ned by Aristole, and all other lear­ned Philosophers) that there are not those seuerall Naturall habits in the soule of man, which all Phi­losophers ascribe to it; to wit, Sin­deresis, dictamen Rationis, & Consci­entia; so as Synderesis should in e­uery Sillogismo practico, as it is cal­led, ponere maiorem, dictamen ratio­nis, minorem; and Conscientia out of the two former, elicere Conclusionē. Now to draw towards an end of this passage: if we suppose a man, as afore we intreated, to retaine [Page 56] some few points or Principles in Philosophy with Aristotle, and o­ther great Philosophers; but in most of the branches descending from these Principles wholy to dis­sent frō them, by maintaining euer the Negatiue part in those Conclu­sions (as heere this Philosopher doth) what should we conceaue of such a Philosopher? and how poore, barren and naked a Philo­sophy would this be? or can we truly iustify, that this Philosophy (as wholy resting in the denyals & Negations of almost all affirmatiue points, taught by Aristotle and others) hath any reality of Being in it selfe? No: for though this Philosophy intreateth Negatiuely of things, which are in rerum na­tura; yet it selfe (for want of a real being) is not in rerum natura. And yet such is the state of the Prote­stants [Page 57] herein, both being cast in one mould. Therefore to parallell them both togeather, I heer say, that the Philosopher heer suppo­sed, reiects most of the affirmatiue points of Philosophy: The Prote­stant denyes most of the Affirma­tiue Articles of Christian Fayth, The Philosopher by this his de­nyall contemnes the authority of all chiefe Philosophers, liuing within the compasse of these last two thousand yeares: The Prote­stant by his like denyalls, betram­ples the authority of al Orthodo­xall Fathers, for these last sixteen hundred yeares. The Philosopher needeth not any pregnancy of iudgement as long as his Philoso­phy resteth only in denyalls: The Protestant neither needeth any su­pernaturall light, which is requi­red to true Faith to insist in his ne­gations. [Page 58] To conclude, the Philo­sopher by these his Negatiues intro­duceth a wast, and destruction of all true and solide Philosophy: The Protestant begetteth by his Negations a deuastation, ruine, & vtter extinguishment of al reall & positiue Articles of Christiā faith and Religion.

IT will not be heer, I hope, im­pertinent, to shew in this pla­ce, how the Heathen Philosopher cō ­parteth [Page 59] in the most points (for I will not say in all) with the Protestāts, in which points the Protestants do differ by their negatiue Fayth, from the Catholike fayth. From which, being once declared, it will appeare, that if he Heathen Phi­losopher hath no true and positiue Fayth of Christian Religion, who penetrateth no further, then into the Nature impressed in thinges, which nature is the very Art, or Organ of God; then may it be de­seruedly called in question, whe­ther the Protestant Fayth hath a­any reality, or formed being in it selfe? And thus may falshood be controwled by the patrons of fal­shood. And to exemplify this assumed taske, in most of the chie­fest Articles of the Protestant Ne­gatiue Fayth: The Protestant ac­knowledgeth not any true real Sa­crifice [Page 60] to be in these dayes; the Heathē Philospher agrees with him therein. The Protestant acknow­ledgeth not Freewill in man; the Heathen teacheth the same, by maintaining of his Stoicall fatum, or destiny. The Protestant denyeth Lymbus Patrum, Purgatory, and In­uocation of Saints; The Heathen be­ing demaunded of these points, would answere, they are but meer dreames or fictions. The Protestāt denyeth all merit of workes, or Iusti­fication by workes, much more E­uangelicall Counsells; The Heathen (as not knowing what these things meane) disclaymes from the same. The Protestant taketh away Vni­uersality of grace, purchased by our Sauiours passion; The Heathen doth the like, since he is ignorant what Grace is, and reiecteth our Sauiours passion. The Protestant [Page 61] teacheth the Impossibility of keeping the Commaundements; the Heathen not acknowledging the sayd Com­mandements, but guided only by the streame of Nature, without Grace, must therefore of necessity deny the possibility of obseruing them. The Protestant maintaineth, that Christ from his Natiuity was, as man, not free from all ignorance; and full of all knowledge; the Heathen as not belieuing in Christ, must needs iustify the same. The Protestant denyeth all reuerence, and bowing to the name of IESVS; the Heathen doth the same. The Protestant de­nyeth, that the Sacraments do con­ferre Grace; the Heathen acknow­ledgeth no Sacraments, and ther­fore no grace to be deriued to man, by his participating of them. To conclude, the Protestant denyeth all Monachisme, Vowes, the necessity of [Page 62] Baptisme, and diuers other Affirma­tiue Positions, aboue recited, and taught by the Catholike Church; Will the Heathen Philosopher, think you, acknowledge as true, any of the sayd Catholike points? Thus we see, that where the ratio forma­lis of Protestancy, consisteth in ab­solutely denying the Affirmatiue positions of the Catholikes; this vnbelieuing Naturalist, or Heathen Philosopher, by his like denyall of the said points entreth into a most straite league, and intercourse of Friendship with the Protestant therein. And from this great con­formity of negatiue Fayth between the Heathen and the Protestant, it ryseth, that diuers Protestants do wholy gentilize heerein, granting Saluation, and eternall happines to Heathens, dying Heathens. Thus for example, we find no lesse an [Page 63] obscure Protestant, then Swinglius to write in this sort; Zwing. in l epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. lib. 1. pag. 39. Ethnicus si piam mentem domi fouerit, Christia­nus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret. And thereupon Swinglius concludeth particulerly, that Swing. tom. 2. fol. 118. & 559. Hercules, The­seus, Socrates, Aristides, &c. are now in heauen. A poynt so confessed by Swinglius, that Echarius, a lear­ned Protestant, thus acknowled­geth of Swinglius; quod In his Fas [...]iculus Cōtrouers. printed Lipsiae. an. 1009. cap. 19. p. 427. Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercu­les, Scipiones, Catones, & alij Genti­les comparticipes sint vitae eternae scri­bit quidem Swinglius, ad Regem Gal­liae, quem defendunt Tigurim, Bullin­gerus, Gualterus, Hardenburgius &c. That these named Protestants, I meane, I Gual­terus in his Apolog. p o Swi [...]g. fol. 27. praefix. 1. tom oper. Swingl. Gualterus, Bul­ling. in cō ­fes. Eccles. Tigurin. & Bul­lin. in his preface of allowāce to Swingl. his expo­sition fidei ad Regem fol. 559. Bullinger, Simle­rus in vita Bullingeri. Simlerus, the Tigurine Deuines did defend with Swinglius, the salua­uation of the Heathens, dying Hea­thens, appeareth further besides, [Page 64] from the testimony of the forsaid Echarius, euen from the references heer set downe.

Now, where the Protestant, to vindicate his profession from re­proach and contumely, may re­ply, in answere heerto; that seeing most of the poynts aboue rehear­sed do presuppose beliefe in Christ, in which beliefe the Protestāt doth differ from the Heathē Philosopher, the Heathen not belieuing in him: it therefore must of necessity fol­low, that the Heathen Philosopher, as not belieuing in Christ, must therefore not belieue the former Articles, which depend of the be­lieuing in Christ▪ I vrge, this ans­were is impertinent, for I doe not heer insist in the reason, why the Heathen Philosopher houldeth the negatiue part in the former points: but I insist onely in auerring that [Page 65] the Protestant doth agree with the Heathen Philosopher in the denyall of the sayd points, affirmed by the Catholike. Neither auaileth it any thing to say, that thogh the Prote­stant houldeth the negatiue part in the former conclusions; yet that he belieueth with the Catholike in Christ; that he houldeth with him, there is Grace, that ther are Sa­cramēts, that there is Scripture &c. though in the māner, or some o­ther circumstance accompanying them, he differeth frō the Catho­like. This solueth not the doubt. First, because we obserue that Sw­inglius, & those other Protestants aboue cited, do not exact any arti­culate beliefe in Christ at all, as ne­cessary to saluation; since we see, they are not afrayd to indenize Heathēs for good Christians. Secōd­ly in that I restraine this my Asser­tion [Page 66] of cōparing the Heathen Philosopher with the Protestant only in those poynts, wherein the Prote­stant differeth from the Catholike: But in the former poynts, it is cer­tayne, that the Heathen agreeth with the Protestant, and the Prote­stant as maintayning the Negatiue, differeth from the Catholike defē ­ding in them the Affirmatiue. A­gaine, where the Protestant agreeth with the Catholike, for example; that Christ is the Sauior of the world, that there is Scripture, Grace, Sacra­ments, Baptisme, Eucharist, &c. these Articles in general the Pro­testant houldeth not, as he is a Protestāt, but only as he is a Chri­stian (as in the front of this Trea­tise is manifested.) For quatenus he is a Protestant; that is, quatenus he is a man differing from the Catholike, he euer houldeth the Negatiue. [Page 67] And euen where he houldeth the Affirmatiue foundation in some of the sayd points; as that Christ is the Sa­uiour of the world, that there is Di­uine Scripture, Grace, Sacraments, Baptisme, Eucharist &c. these he ta­keth not from himselfe, but bor­roweth them from the Catholike Church. This is euidēt, for at the tyme of Luthers first reuolt (who was the first Protestant in these dayes, as his owne Con­rad. Sl [...]es. in Theol. Caluin. l. 2. fol 17. saith: It is im [...]udency to say, tha [...] any lear­ned men in Ger­many be­fore Lu­ther, did hould the doctrine of the Gospel. See Lu­ther of this point in loc. cōm. class. 4. p. 51. brethren do teach) from whence did Luther learne, that Christ was the Saui­our of the world, that there is di­uine Scripture, Grace, Sacramēts, or from whence receaued he his Ordination, if not from the Ca­tholike Church?

The confessed Inuisibility of the Protestāt Church, not only at the first rising of Luther, but also for many ages before (proued in this [Page 68] Treatise) doth conuince the truth of this point. And therefore D. Field had iust reason to say, D. Field in his Trea­tise of the Church lib. 3. c. pag. 72. In the known Church of the world, wher­in our Ancestors liued and dyed, Lu­ther and the rest were baptized, recea­ued their Ordinance and power of Mi­nistry. If now any other should at last expostulate and say, that the Protestant is wronged by compa­ring him to the Heathen Philoso­phers, seeing many of those Phi­lophers were Idolaters; to this I reply, and say, that the compa­rison heer made, is not with such wicked Philosophers, but only with those most learned Philosophers, who acknowledged a Deity, and neuer taught, nor formally pra­ctised Idolatry: and such were Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Seneca, and many others. Againe the cō ­formity in faith heere made is not [Page 69] touching those points, which the Philosophers affirmatiuely belie­ued or practised; but only in such negatiue Positions, which are also de­nyed by the Protestant. And with this I will heere rest, concluding nothing of my selfe; but will re­ferre it to the censure of the most iudicious Reader: whether this great affinity, and brotherly asso­ciation between the learned Hea­then Philosopher, and the symboli­zing Protestant in their both pro­miscuously denying such Articles, as are affimed by the Catholiks, do carry any blemish to the Prote­stants Gospell, or no? or whether if the Heathen haue no reall Fayth in the sayd negatiue points, it fol­loweth not, that the Protestant (as a Protestant) can haue in like sort no reall fayth in his belieuing the same Negatiue points? But by this [Page 70] we may discerne, that the cloudes of partiality and contradiction be­ing once gathered about the mās iudgment, doth make him thinke others to seeme lesse, and to erre, when indeed they doe not.

EVery definition of a thing is the Touchstone, wherewith we try, what other things can tru­ly come within the Orb or cōpasse of the thing defined, & what not. I will exemplify this in the defini­tion of fayth, deliuered by the A­postle, [Page 71] and so see, if the Fayth of a Protestant can be called fayth; or rather in respect of Faith, a Nō ­entity, & absence of fayth.

We finde that the Apostle defi­neth Fayth in these wordes: Heb. 11. Fi­des est sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium. That is: fayth is the substance of thinges to be hoped for, the argument of thinges not appearinge. This definition sheweth (by the iudgement of all learned men) that Fayth is a su­pernaturall vertue; and the obie­ctum thereof is that, which throgh its owne abstrusnes and sublimity cannot be apprehended or concea­ued by force of mans owne wit, it transcending all naturall reason. To exemplify this in the supreme Articles of the most blessed Trini­ty, and the Incarnation (the two Cardinall-mysteries of Christian [Page 72] fayth) Fayth teacheth vs, that in the Trinity, there is one peculiar Nature, in three different Persons. Now mans naturall vnderstāding cannot apprehend, how this In­diuiduality of Nature can be in three Persons, without distraction or multiplication of the nature; & the rather seeing euery one of these Persons is identifyed really & formally with this Nature; the strickest vnion, that can be con­ceaued. In like sort touching the Incarnation (by meanes whereof the Creatour of all flesh, suffered in flesh) mans reason cannot lay any true leuell to conceaue, how one Hypostasis, or person cā be in two natures; or how this Hypostasis or per­son is identifyed, & made the same really with the diuine nature, and yet is vnited most inwardly with the humane nature. Thus in regard [Page 73] of the difficulty of belieuing Ar­ticles of fayth, the conclusion a­mong all the Schoole Deuines (re­sulting out of the former definitiō of fayth) is, that S. Tho­mas part. 2 2. q. 1. quae fidei sunt, non possunt, esse scita: so certayne it is, that betweene mans Capacity, and the Nature of supernaturall Fayth, the proportion lyes onely in disproportion; and that in mat­ters of fayth, euen reason dictates to vs, to belieue against Reason. Now to apply this; if Protestancy be a supernaturall fayth (or els it is no true-sauing fayth) then the Obiect of this Protestanticall fayth, is of that difficult nature, as Man through the force of natural reason cānot giue any assent ther­to without the special concurren­cy of Gods Grace.

But heer now I demaund; that seeing the Obiect of Protestancy (as [Page 74] Protestancy) is meere negations, and denials of things to be (as aboue is proued) what supernaturality, as I may terme it, or force of Gods spe­ciall concurrency is required, that man should giue his assent to be­lieue, that such, or such a thing is not? as for example; that there is no Purgatory, no place but Heauen for children dying vnbaptized, no pray­ing to Saints, no inherent Iustice, and so of the rest denyed by them? I heer say, that mans naturall rea­son euen of it selfe (without any o­ther externall help) is propense & inclining to giue assent to these & all other negations, except the af­firmatiues to these negations, can be conuinced for true, eyther by di­uine or humane proofes and au­thorityes: so litle is any superna­turall assistance needfull heerto.

If then the obiect of Protestancy [Page 75] by reason of its Negations, be most easy to be belieued, and that the beliefe of it doth not surmoūt the force of mans naturall reason, but rather most sorting and agreable thereto; then if the Apostles defi­nition of Fayth be true, (as I trust no Protestant is of that supercili­ous and froward disposition, as to deny) it followeth, that Protestancy is not the Obiect of Supernaturall Fayth: but, in respect of true & infused sayth, is a Non-entity, and bare Intentionality

But to proceed further: The Schoole-men S. Tho. part. 2 q. 5 teach, that true, and Supernaturall Fayth hath a necessary reference to two things: the first is called, prima veritas reuelans, which is God: who reuealeth all truths & points of fayth. This first is styled by the diuines, Obiectum formale fidei. The [Page 76] second thing required to Fayth, (especially after the Church of Christ was once established) is the Authority of the Church; and this is called Amussis, regula, or the Pro­pounder. This propoundeth to her children to be belieued, all those things, which God reuealed to the Church to be belieued. Now let vs examine, whether these two points so necessary to true fayth, doe ac­cord to the fayth of Protestancy, or not. And first, touching Prima veritas reuelans, which is God; I heere say, that no reuelation of God, touching the beliefe of things meerely Negatiue, as the points of Protestancy are, as afore I intimated, is necessary; for who will say, that we cannot belieue, that there are not many worlds, without the speciall reuelation thereof by God? Seeing we per­ceaue, [Page 77] that children, Heathēs and Infidels who (while they con­tinue in that their state) are not capable of Gods supernaturall re­uelations, do not belieue, that there are many worlds? By the sa­me reason then I say, that no re­uelatiō of God is necessary to giue assent of iudgement, that there is no Purgatory, no place in Hell for Children vnbaptized, no inherent Iustice, no praying to Saints, and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatiues.

Now, as touching the second poynt, which is the Authority of the Church, propounding to her Children the things by God reuea­led; we know, that in this our age Luther was the first, who de­nyed many Articles of Catholike Religion: heer now agayne I ex­postulate, what Church did pro­pound [Page 78] to Luther, that these points were to be denyed, and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denyall of them? It cannot be sayd, the Catholike Church pro­poūded them to him to be denyed; because the Catholike Church did then, and at all tymes belieue the Affirmatiues to them, as true: as that there is a Purgatory, that we may pray to Saints &c. And to say, that the Protestant Church did propound to Luther the denyall of the sayd poynts, is most absurd. Seeing at Luthers first bursting out, and his first denying of the sayd poynts, there was no Protestant, but himselfe; and therefore no Protestant Church then, was but in being. The verity of which point (besides that it is heerafter prooued frō the acknowledged in­uisibility of the Protestāt Church in [Page 79] those dayes) is euicted euen from the ingenuous Cōfessions of lear­ned Protestants: for thus doth Be­nedictus Morgensternensis, a Prote­stant, contest of this point, saying: Tra­ctat. de Ec­cles p. 145. It is ridiculous to say, that any be­fore Luther, hath the purity of the Gospell. And vpon this ground it is, that Bucer styleth Luther, In lib. Apolog. of the Church, part. 4. c. 4. the first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine. Marke you not, how our Aduersaries do subtily make the tytles, of the Gospell, of the A­postle, of the reformed doctrine &c. to serue as certayne veyles or cur­tains, to hide their bad cause frō the eyes of the ignorant? Thus far to demonstrate both from the de­finition of Fayth set downe by S. Paul, and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true fayth, that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernaturall [Page 80] fayth, is but an absolute Nullit [...] of fayth.

EVery thing, that hath a reall Existence or Being, may haue its nature explicated by the defini­tion of it; so as euery true & reall thing is capable of being defyned. This definition consisteth of two parts: to wit, of Genus and Diffe­rentia (as Logick teacheth.) the Ge­nus doth comprehend the Essence of the thing defined, the differentia or some other Proprieties in lieu thereof, doth more particulerly constitute the thing defyned, and distinguisheth it from all o­ther [Page 81] things: for example: A man is defined to be, Animal ratio­nale; A liuing Creature, enioying Reason. Heere the word Animal, demonstrates the Essence of Man. Rationale doth constitute man in definition, and maketh him to differ from all other sublunary Creatures. Now then if Protestan­cy, or a Protestant cannot be defy­ned, for want of Genus, and diffe­rentia; then wanteth it a true Es­sence, and is but an Intentionall no­tion of the mynd.

To defyne a Protestant in these wordes; (thereby to set the best glasse vpon their Religion) A Pro­testant is a Christian, who belieueth the Articles of Fayth, according to the true sense of the Scripture. This indeed is a specious definition, ser­uing only to lay some fayre colors vpon the rugged grayne of Prote­stancy, [Page 82] and but to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant. But withall this definition is most false for seue­ral reasons. First because though a Protestant be a Christian, yet quate­nus he is a Protestant, the word Chri­stian is not genus to him, as aboue is said: for the word quatenus (imply­ing a reduplicatiue formality) hath reference not to the Genus in a defi­nition, but only to the differentia, as aboue is noted. For the word Protestant, (as is formerly decla­red) is a word only of distinction, thereby to make him differ from the Catholike: but in the word Christian, they both accord and agree. Agayne, euery different Sect or Heresy will mantaine with as great venditation & confidēcy, as the Protestant doth, that its Reli­gion or Heresy is agreable to the true sense of the Scripture: & will [Page 83] vye with the Protestant, text for text of Scripture (by detortiō of it) for the supporting of its heresy; as we find by the exāple of the Ariās, Eutichians, Pelagians, & the rest, who euer fraught their pestiferous writings with an aboūdāce of scri­pturall authorities. And the like course doe our later Heretikes also take, to wit, the Brownists, the Family of loue, and the Anti-trinitarians: so true is that sentence of old Vincen­sius Lyrinensis: Con­tra haeres. Si quis interrogat quem piam Haereticorum, vnde pro­bas, vnde doces hoc? statim ille: Scri­ptum est enim. Thus we see, that those wordes, to wit: who belieueth the Articles of fayth, according to the true sense of the Scripture, sup­plying the place of differentia in the former definition, may be ap­plyed to all sects indifferently (if their owne Interpretation of Scri­pture [Page 84] may take place) aswell as to the Protestant. And therefore as being of too great an extent, it doth not distinguish a Protestant from any other Sectary: & yet the nature of a true definition requi­reth, that the definition, and the thing defined should be of an e­qual expansion and largenes; that is, that the definition and the thing defined should conuertibly be af­firmed, the one of the other. La­stly I say, that this former definiti­on of a Protestant, or Protestancy, is but a meer Paralogisme or Sophis­me, called Petitio Principij, being but a poore and needy begging of the thing, as proued, which still remaynes in controuersy. For I e­ternally deny, that Protestancy is according to the true sense of Scri­pture. And this denyall our lear­ned Catholike deuines haue suffi­ciently [Page 85] iustifyed and made good in their writings, against the Pro­testant.

Now then, this former defini­tion being deseruedly exploded; the nearest definition, or rather des­cription is to pencill it out in these wordes: Protestancy is a Religion, which consisteth in the denyall of the Reall presence; denyall of the Sacrifice of the Masse, denyall of freewill, de­nyall of Purgatory, and so in the de­niall of the many other Articles, iointly denyed by the Protestants. But here againe this definition is most defe­ctiue: for heer also the differentia constitutiua, which should consti­tute Protestancy, and withall distin­guish it from other Religions, is wanting: first because Negations, and such is the differentia heer sup­posed, cannot cōstitute any thing: for only Entia (and Entia, bare ne­gations [Page 86] are not (giue a constituti­on and being to Entia. Agayne, the presumed differentia in this defini­tion (to wit, the denyall of the Real presence, denyall of freewil &c.) stret­cheth it selfe by way of application to other Religions, aswell as to Protestancy; for the Turkes, the Ie­wes, and the Heathens deny these former points with as strōg a bent of contradiction, as the Protestant doth: and so accordingly conspire vnanimously with the Protestant in such denyals. Thus then we see, that this Imaginary differentia, in this second definition, is ouer ge­nerall, and of too great a latitude, and doth not distinguish the Pro­testant from Turkes, Iewes, and Heathens.

Well then to contract this point, seeing euery thing, that hath any reality of being, can haue its na­ture [Page 87] and Essence truly dissected by definition, or description; And seeing Protestancy cannot be defi­ned (for how can that be called a formed and positiue fayth, which in it selfe is meer priuatiue) then followeth it, that it cannot be knowne, what Protestancy in it self truly is: and if Protestancy cannot be knowne what it is, then is it to be reputed a Non-entity. Yet to close vp this Chapter, and in some sort to be officious, & seruiceable to our Aduersaries, my definition of Protestancy shall for the tyme be this: to wit, a Religion, which in­corporates in it selfe the Negatiue do­ctrines of the Ancient stigmaticall He­retikes, as heerafter will be demō ­strated; or, if you will: A Religion, whose definition consisteth, in that it cannot be defined. And thus Prote­stancy only is, in that it is not.

IN one of the precedent Chap­ters it hath beene made euidēt, that Protestancy euen from the ti­tle of Negation, hath no reality of Being: In this place now the same shalbe euicted from the Title of Priuatiō; where for the clearer ap­prehending of this point, we are to call to mynd (as aboue is tou­ched) that euery Priuation is but a defect of that, which should be, (thus is blyndnes, of sight, & dea­fenes, of hearing) and therefore as hauing no efficient cause, but on­ly [Page 106] a deficient, proceedeth not from God, who made all things; and con­sequently, it is Non Ens. But to passe on further. Among those things, which are Priuations, we doe finde, that euery Heresy is rā ­ged or marshalled in that Classe; and this deseruedly; since Heresy is but a Priuation or denyall of the truth; but all truth proceedeth from God, Iohn 14. Ego sum veritas, and consequently Heresy is a meere Non Ens, or Nullity.

This being presumed as true and vncontroulable, if then I can proue, that Protestancy is but a col­luuies of the ancient Heresies cō ­demned in the Primitiue Church, it then followeth vnauoydably, that Protestancy (as compacted of those priuatiue and Negatiue Here­sies) is but a Non-entity.

But to effect this (and therein [Page 107] consequently to discouer frō what vnworthy Fathers, the Children of our new supposed Gospell are lineally proseminated and descen­ded, sucking from them, tanquam ex traduce, the venome of their Priuatiue and Negatiue fayth) I will appeale herein to history of for­mer ages; by meanes whereof our times hould intelligence with An­tiquity. I will exemplify this in seuerall Negatiue points of Prote­stancy. And first we find that the Protestants borrow their denyall of the Reall presence, from certayne old Heretikes in So af­firmeth Theodo­ret dialog 3. Ignatius his tyme) so early we see the Cockle grow vp with the good seed) as Theodoret witnesseth; yet the affir­matiue is houlden both by Ignatius, and the whole Church of those daies. 2. The said heretiks denied, that any Ierom. epist. ad Hebidiū. Visible Sacrifice ought [Page 106] [...] [Page 107] [...] [Page 108] to be now in the dayes of Christi­anity.

3. The denyall of Lib de haeres c. 33. Prayer for the dead, is first taken from the Here­tikes Aerians, who (as S. Au­stins words are) thought it vnlaw­full orare, vel offerre pro mortuis.

4. The denyall of freewill taken from the Manichees, of whome S. Aug. vbi supra. Austin thus writeth: Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio.

5. The denyall of fasting, and of virginity was first introduced by Iouinian, as Ierom. lib 1 & 2. contra lo­nintanum. S. Ierome, and Aug l. de haeres. cap. 8 [...]. S. Austin do witnesse.

6. The denyall of the Churches visibility, broached by the Dona­tists, who taught with Caluin, that the Church consisted only of the Iust; and thereupon as not know­ing, who were the iust, they made it Inuisible; as Aug. l. de vnit. c. 12. Austin recordeth.

7 The denyall of worshipping the Reliques of Saints, first taught by Vigilantius the Heretike, as Ierom. contra Vi­gilant. S. Ierome doth witnes.

8. The denyall of the distinction of mortall and veniall sinne, first man­tayned by the Pelagians, as l. con. Pelagium. S. Ierome testifyeth.

9. The denyall of al worship due to the Image of Christ, and his Saints, first iustified by Xenaias Persa, as lib. 16. cap. 27. Nicephorus recordeth.

10. The denyall of the possibility of keeping the Commandements, was first mantayned by certayne old Heretikes, recorded by In ex­plicat. Sim­bol, ad Da­masum. Ierome, and De tē ­pore serm. 91. Austin.

11. The denyall of all reuerence to the Crosse, was first taught by Probianus the heretike, as appea­reth in the lib. 2. cap. 19. Tripartite History.

12. The denyall of Traditions was first taught by the Arians, as ap­peareth [Page 110] out of the booke, written by lib. 1 cap. 2. S. Austin contra Maximum. The same is also taught by Nesto­rius the Heretike, as we read in Act. 1. sexto Synodo.

13. The denyall of power to recon­cile men sinning after Baptisme, by meanes of the Sacrament of Confessiō, was first taught by the Nouatians, as lib. 3. de haeret. Theodoret, and lib. [...]. c. 33. Hist. Eusebius re­late.

14. The denyall of voluntary Po­uerty, and other Euangelicall Coun­sels, iustified by Vigilantius, as l. con­tra Vigi­lantium. S. Ierome witnesseth.

15. The denyall of Originall sinne (especially in the Children of the faythfull) first taught by the Pe­lagians, as lib. 6. contra Iu­lianum. c. 2. & 3. S. Austin witnesseth.

16. The denyall of lawfulnes of vowes, of perpetuall Chastity &c. first introduced by certaine Heretikes styled Lampetiani: as lib. de centum haeres. circa sinem. S. Damas­cene [Page 111] affirmeth.

17. To conclude, that the Pri­macy of Gods Church belonged only to Ecclesiasticall Persons, was denyed by Constantius and Va­lentinian Emperours, as witnesseth Atha­n [...]san epist. ad solita­tiam vitā agentes. Athanasius, and Ep. 32. Ambrose.

Thus farre of this poynt. And now (by the way) I referre to the more retyred & sober thoughts of the iudicious and learned Reader, whether it be not an irreparable dishonour & blemish to the Pro­fessours of the new Ghospell (in whome now liuing, the former dead Heretikes yet doe liue; or rather whose bodies (by a strange Metapsychosis) seeme to be orga­nized with the soules of those old condemned men) thus to conso­ciate with certaine old branded & anathematized Heretikes, by bor­rowing their priuatiue and negatiue [Page 112] fayth and religion from them; & thereupon to dispart, and diuide themselues from all communion in fayth, with the Orthodoxall Fathers of those pure and primi­tiue tymes; who euer in the for­mer Articles set downe in this Chapter, and in all others, did hould the Affirmatiue part to the others Negatiue: so foule a scarre herby resteth vpon the face of our Aduersaries reputation, and ho­nour.

Now, that these former men were recorded for heretikes, for their denyall of the aboue cyted Catholike Articles, and their de­nyals taken for heresies; and that the such recording of them was warranted with the full consent of the whole Church of God in those tymes, appeareth from this one consideration; to wit, those [Page 113] Fathers & writers, which did re­cord the former men for heretikes, & their negations for heresies, were Epiphanius, S. Ierome, S. Austin, Theodoret, Eusebius, and some such others; diuers of which Fathers made certayne Bookes and styled them, de Haeresibus. And in these their books they registred the for­mer men for Heretikes, & their Ne­gatiue doctrines for Heresies. Now all these Fathers, and writers were learned & godly men: their lear­ning then would assure them, what opinions were Heresies in those tymes, and what were not. Their Piety and Holynes would not suffer them, to wrong any man with the hateful brand of Heretike, or his doctrine with the foule title of Heresy, except both the men and their doctrines deserued such a seuere Censure. And it cannot [Page 114] be answered in reply heerto, that the Catholike Church of God in those Primitiue tymes, did euer taxe, or reprehend any of the for­mer Fathers, for ranging that man among Heretikes, or his doctrines among Heresies, which were not taken for such by the whole and vnanimous iudgement of the then Church of God.

Thus far to demonstrate, that seeing Heresy in its owne nature, is but a Priuation; and euery Priua­tion is a Non Ens; that therefore Protestancy, as being ingendred of the ancient exploded Heresies, is a Non-entity.

IN this place we will take into our consideration diuers Arti­cles of the Protestants Fayth, in the true examining of which we shall finde, that not only (as being but meer negatiues to our affirma­tiue Catholike Articles) they haue no reall Existency, or being, but also as they are to be considered in their owne particuler natures.

And first, may occurre their Tenet of the Priuate reuealing, or in­terpreting [Page 116] Spirit; which though in termes it beareth the show of an Affirmatiue position; yet truly it is nothing els, then the denyall & negaiion of the infallibility of the whole Church of God in matters of fayth. This Spirit comprehen­deth in the amplitude & largenes of its owne Orbe most of the seue­ral passages of Protestancy. Now to examine the Essence and nature of this Spirit, exercised chiefly in interpreting of Scripture (if such an imaginary conceit could haue an Essence or nature, as indeed it cannot) we find that this Spirit is a meer Phantasy of ech particuler mans giddy head-peece. For if it were certayne and infallible (and so it must be if it proceed from the holy Ghost) how then commeth it to passe, that seuerall priuate spirits of the Protestants do interprete [Page 117] one and the same Text of Scrip­ture in different (and sometymes meere contrary) senses, and con­structions? This point is demon­strated (to pretermit infinite o­ther passages of Scripture) in the exposition of those few words, vt­tered by our Sauiour, Math. 26. Luc 22. Marc. 14. Hoc est cor­pus meum. Hic est sanguis meus. As also, in that Article of our Creed, Descendit ad inferos. We find both these passages to haue receaued se­uerall constructions by the Pro­testants; and from such their diffe­rent constructions are sprung vp different sects of Protestancy, as the Lutherans, the Caluinists, the more moderate Protestant &c.

Agayne, to omit diuers other choaking reasons, to prooue this Spirit to be a meer phantasy of the brayne (ingendred of Pride and I­gnorance) and to haue no reality or [Page 118] true Being in it selfe; how can this priuate Spirit be infallible, to which euery Heretike with equall inte­rest thereto, coueteth chiefly to repaire, as to his strongest San­ctuary; as we see by the experien­ce of ancient and moderne tymes they do? For did not the teste E­piphan. hae­res. 69. Ioan [...] & 18. Ioan. 6. Arians Ioan. 1. Ioan 2. Eutichians, the Philip. 2. Hebr. 7 Nestorians, & the rest euer labour by the help of their owne Spirits, differerently interpreting the Scripture, to mā ­tayne their different blasphemyes and heresies? And do not the An­ti-Trinitarians, the Brownists; the Family of loue, and diuers such o­thers, the like in these our tymes? So little reason therefore had D. VVhitakers to beautify this erro­neous Priuate Spirit, with his gil­ded description in these words: In con­trouers. 1. q. 5. cap. 3 & 11. An inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the secret closet of [Page 119] the belieuers heart: and repugnant, is this his delineation to the words of sacred Scripture: 2. Pet. 1. No Prophe­cy of Scripture is made by priuate in­terpretation. And agayne: 1. Iohn. cap. 4. ear­ly beloued, belieue not euery spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God.

The second may be the Luth. in art. 10.11 12. Melancth. in locis tit. de fide Caluin in Antitdot. Concil. Trident. sess. 6. Pro­testants doctrine of Imputatiue Iu­stice in vs, being but a negation and denyall of the Catholike doctrine of Inherent Iustice; vpon which do­ctrine, the Protestant more easily relyes, since his owne soule euen dead-aliue, (as being organized with a liuing body, but a dead will) is loth to practise any good workes. Now, this Imputatiue Iu­stice is in it selfe, a meer Ens rationis, as hauing (contrary to the Na­ture of all diuine Vertues, and to all reall and true qualities) no true Existency, or Inherency in our [Page 120] Soule, as the Protestants do con­fesse: it being only a naked appli­cation of Christs Iustice to vs, wher­by our sins are palliated and co­uered. Againe, if a man be iust whē he beginneth to belieue that he is iust; then is he not iustifyed by that, by the which he belieueth he is iust, seeing his fayth is later then his Iustice; And if he be vn­iust, at what tyme he belieueth he is iust; then is his fayth false, & consequently no supernaturall or diuine fayth, but a meer fiction of this supposed iust man: so vnreall imaginary a conceite (we see) is this Imputatiue Iustice: and indeed to mantaine it, is as absurd, as to mantaine, that the sonne can pre­cede in priority of being his Fa­ther, or the effect, the cause: for thogh in all other things the truth of the opinion relyeth vpon the [Page 121] truth of the matter; yet here the truth of the matter relyeth vpon the truth of the opinion.

The third poynt is the actuall fayth which Luth. in l. de captin. Babil. Kem. in 2. part. Exam. Concil. Trident ad Can. 3. Centurist. Cent. 1. c. 4. & Cet. 5. col. 5.7. Luther, and the Lutheranes ascribe to infants, at that very instant, that they are ba­ptized. Now cōmon sense and the force of reason assureth vs, that there is not, nor can be any such faith in childrē; but that this is in it self a meer Chymera & Phātasy: for first doth not the poore Infāts strugling (what they can) in time of their bodies immersion into the water, manifestly impugne this aëry conceite? Since if at that instant they did belieue, they should offend God by such their resistance; and so by this meanes they should commit sinne, rather then haue their Originall sinne re­mitted. Agayne, how can Infants [Page 122] belieue except they heare? Rom. 10 Fides ex auditu. Thus I leaue to euery one to iudge of what truth of Being or reall Existency this doctrine hath in it selfe. And thus farre of these former aëry speculations of doctrine, broached by the Pro­testants, though but briefly tou­ched by me (for how can one wel extend himselfe in discoursing of such points, which in thēselues do want al extension?) In the vnfoul­ding wherof, I labour not so much to display the falshood & absurdi­ty of thē (which neuertheles inci­dently is by this meanes partly dis­couered) as to make euident, ac­cording to my methode vnderta­ken, that not any of the sayd Pro­testants Positions or Tenets haue any Reality or Being; but that they are meerely forged in the imagi­nation, without ground or foun­dation [Page 123] of any true and Positiue sub­sistence.

The last of the Protestant Po­sitions, (omitting diuers others for greater breuity) in which I will insist, shall be touching the Protestant Church; shewing that it [...]s Nothing, in it selfe, but only a Church framed in the ayre, and accordingly the Protestants are forced couertly to discourse of it [...]n a mist of darke wordes: so pain­ters veyle that, which they cannot delineate by Art. But since this wil require a more large discourse, branching it selfe into two parts; I haue therefore purposely reser­ued the two next Chapters, for the fuller dissecting of the same.

IN our entreating of the Prote­stant Church, first we are to re­call to mynd the definition giuen thereof by the Protestants: secōd­ly, the confessed Inuisibility of the sayd Church for many hundred yeares: from both which poynts the resultācy will be, that the Pro­testant Church (and consequent­ly Protestancy, as mantained by the sayd Church) is but an vn­reall thinge. And to beginne with the definition Lib. In­stitut 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. & in mi­nori Instit. c. 8. Sect 4. Caluin de­fineth the true Church (and therefore in his owne iudgement the Protestant Church) to consist only of the number of the faythfull & [Page 125] Elect, and only to be knowe to God. Now, what other thing is this Church, then a bare Intention (as [...]he Philosophers speake) or phan­ [...]asme wrought in the shop of his owne brayne? for first, seeing no man can know, who be those o­ther men, who are of the Elect, & who truly belieue; how can it be knowne, who are the members, who make this Church, or where it is? Againe, this definition rather destroyeth, and taketh away the Church, then describes, or consti­tutes it. For if all the workes euen of the iustified, be mortall sinnes (as Luth. in Assert. art. 32. Luther, and Art. 6. & 20. Confessio Augu­stana do teach) and that if only the [...]ust do make this Church, then followeth, that no man is of the Church; and consequently, that the Protestant Church thus defi­ned, is but a meer Platonicall Idaea; [Page 126] the reason heereof being, because there are no iust men in the world since the workes of men are sins Next we will descend to the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, confessed by the learned Prote­stants, for many ages, or rathe [...] since the dayes of the Apostles. In handling of which point I will first set down the ackowledgmēts of the learned Protestants of their Churches Inuisibility; and then af­ter I will draw from thence the necessary deduction of sequence for prouing the Irreality, for aëry Intentionality of the Protestants fayth, and Religion. And first it is ouer euident, that D. Perkins thus confesseth of the inuisibility of the Protestants Church: In his expositiō of the Creed. For many hundred yeares our Church was not visible to the world: An vniuersall Apostasy ouerspeading the whole face [Page 127] of the earth. And yet more particu­ [...]erly he thus acknowledgeth: Perkins vbi supra. during the space of nine hundred yea­res, the Popish heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole earth. But Seba­stianus Francus (a learned and very markeable Protestant) confesseth more largely of this point, thus writing: In ep. de aebrog [...]n­dis in vni­uersun om­nibus sta­tutis Ec­clesiast. For certayne through the worke of Antichrist, the externall Church togeather with the fayth and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; & that, for these fourteene hundred yeares, the Church hath not beene externall and visible. To whose iudgement D. Fulke (to omit for breuity the like Confessions of diuers other Protestants) subscribeth in these wordes: D Ful [...] in his an­swere to a Coun­terfeyte Catholike pag. 35. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles tyme.

Now, to inferre, and de­duce Conclusions: first then, if [Page 128] the Protestant Church hath had no Being, since the death of the Apostles, (as we see by the ac­knowledgmēts of the learned Pro­testants themselues, it hath not had) but hath laine hid so many yeares in a vast Chaos of nothing; then followeth it, that the Prote­stant Church is only an Imagina­ry thing, hauing no substantiality (as I may terme it) or existence in it selfe. Secondly, I thus inferre: If the Protestant Church hath no reall Being or existence in it selfe, but is a poore fabrick of the imagi­nation; then followeth it vnauoi­dably, that the Protestant fayth must necessarily partake of the nature of the Protestant Church; I meane, not to be any reall, or subsisting thing. For how can that faith be positiue or reall, of which there haue beene for so many ages [Page 129] confessed (and indeed for all ages without exception) no mēbers of the Church to make profession of the sayd fayth? This I auerre, is [...]bsurd to mantaine; since we see a shadow cānot produce a shadow. Agayne, I adde heere to that (by reason of inherency) there is a necessary reference in euery Ac­ [...]ident to its Subiect; if the subiect be wanting, then followeth it, that the Accident (as loosing its Inhe­rency) is also wanting, and be­commeth Nothing; now then Pro­testancy or the fayth of a Prote­stāt, suppose it be any thing, must be a quality, and consequently an Accident, inhering in the vnder­standing of the Professour: but if since the Apostles daies there haue beene no Professours of Protestā ­cy, by reason of the Inuisibility of that Church for so many ages, [Page 130] doth it not then follow, that a least during all those ages, Prote­stancy, as wanting its proper Subiect to inhere in, hath had no real Being; but hath beene all those many series, or Centuries of yeare [...] a meere Nothing?

PHilosophy teacheth vs, that e­uery thing doth consist of somewhat, which is essentiall to it, and of other things, which are but Accidentall, and necessary. [Page 131] The Accidents serue only, ad bent esse; and by meanes of Inherency to giue (as it were) their attendan­ce for greater state and honour of the thing, the which they do in­uest; and therefore may actually (at least in thought) be separated and disioyned from such their sub­iect, without any destruction of it. But it is otherwise with that, which is essentiall to any thing; for that necessarily conduceth ad simpli­citer esse, of the thing; the which Essentiall poynt, being by sup­posall taken away, the thing wher­of it was Essentiall, instantly loo­seth its Being, & is become therby a nothing. Now, to apply this to the Protestant Church. And to pretermit what Accidentally ac­companyeth the Church, we will insist onely in that, which is by our aduersaries acknowledgemēt, [Page 132] Essentiall to the Church; to wit, the Administration of the VVord, and Sacraments. Now, if it can be proued, that the Protestāt Church wanteth this Administration of the word and Sacraments, then may we infallibly conclude, that the Pro­testant Church is no Church, nor Protestancy any Reall thing in it selfe. But seeing this Administra­tion of the word and Sacraments can­not be performed, but by the help of the true Pastors, we wil first shew the necessity of Pastours: secōdly, that the administratiō of the word & Sacraments are Essentiall to the Being of a Church; And lastly we will proue, that the Protestant Church (like a mastlesse ship) hath neuer enioyed any true Pastours; & con­sequently neuer enioyed the Ad­ministration of the word and Sacra­ments; the very Essence or being of [Page 133] a true Church.

And first, the holy Scriptures doe often inculcate, that in the Church of God there euer must be Personall Succession, and lawfull cal­ling; & cōsequently that, that socie­ty of Christians, which want these two poynts, is no Church at all. Touching the necessity of Personal Succession, thus we read: Isa. 59 My Spirit, which is vpon thee, and the words which I haue put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seede, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from hence foorth for euer. To which ac­cord those wordes of the Apostle, spoken of our Sauiour: Ephes. 4. He hath placed Pastours to the consummation of Saints, till we all meete in vnity of fayth. That is, as the Protestants do comment, So sayth Do-For Fulk agaynst the Rhe­mish Te­stament. for euer, and D Fulk agaynst Heskins, Sanders &c. pag. 539. to the end of the world. Now the rea­son, [Page 134] why Pastours must be euer in the Church, or els it is no Church but only a false vsurpation of the word Church, is, because in the Church there euer must be, the Administration of the word and Sa­craments: but there can be no Ad­ministration of the word and Sacra­ments, without Pastours, euen ac­cording to the Apostles iudgmēt, who sayth Rom. 10. How shall they belieue, whome they haue not heard? and how shall they heare, without a Preacher? which things, to wit, the Administration of the word, and Sa­crament (as D. VVhitaker contra Du­ [...]cum, lib. 3. p. 249. D. VVhitakers tea­cheth) being present do constitute a Church, being absent do subuert it. And D. VVillet in Sinops. pag. 69. further in direct words affirmeth. That the absence of the Administra­tion of the word and Sacraments doth make a Nullity of the Church. And [Page 135] sortably heerto other Protestants do write thus: Pro­position and Prin­ciples disputed of in the Church of Geneua. pag. 845. The ministery is an Essentiall marke of the true Church. Frō which true acknowledgment of the learned Protestants, we see that a Church without the due Administration of the word and Sa­craments wanteth its Essence, and is but a Nullity, or Non Ens. Now, as Personall Succession for the admi­nistration of the word and Sacramēts is deduced from the Scripture; so also is the necessity of Lawfull vo­cation, according to those wordes: Rom. 10. How shall they preach, except they be sent? And that: Heb. 5. No man ta­keth the honour of Priest-hood, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was: which calling in the Apostles times was euer conferred by Imposition of hands. But heer let vs see if the Pro­testants can make good the Perso­nall Succession, and ordinary calling [Page 136] of their Ministers for the prea­ching of the word, and Administra­tion of the Sacramēts. But this is first denyed, euen by the confessed In­uisibility of the Protestant Church: for if the Protestant Church hath beene wholly inuisible, or rather vtterly extinct for the space of thirteene, or fourteene hundred yeares at the least, as themselues haue aboue confessed: thē during that long space of tyme, the Pro­testant Church (as not being then in Being (wanted her Pastours; the stalke, which supports the vine: and eonsequently wanted the Ad­ministration of the word and Sacra­ments, and through such its want, it wanted its owne Ess [...]nce, and was but a Nullity or Nothing, during all that long Circuite of so many ages. Furthermore whereas the Protestants, seeing themselues [Page 137] thus plunged, do flie for reliefe to Extraordinary calling; for thus wri­teth Caluin: Lasciui­us a Pro­testant in his booke ac Russorū, relig. c. 23 alledgeth Caluin thus say­ing: and see Caluin lib. Instit. 4. c. 3. sest. 4. Quia Papae Tyran­nide. &c. Because through the Ty­ranny of the Pope, the true Ordi­dinary Succession of Ordination was broken of; therefore we stood in need of a new helpe, and this was the ex­traordinary guift. And D. Fulk thus writeth hereof: Fulke agaynst Stapletō, and Mar­tiall pag. 2. The Protestants, that first preached, in these last dayes, had Extraordinary Caliing.

Therefore I will show, that this poore refuge is impugned euen by the Protestants themselues; so dā ­gerous an incision their own pens haue made in the wounds of their owne Church: for first D. Bilson thus teacheth: D. Bil­son in his perpetual gouermēt of the Church. c. 9. pag. 111. They can haue no part of Apostolicall Commission, who haue no shew of Apostolicall succession. Agayne, Extraordinary Calling is euer warranted with working of [Page 138] Miracles, (as it was in the Apostles tymes) euen by the doctrine of the Protestants; for thus doth Luther expostulate others of their Calling, (and might not one by retortion expostulate Luther in his owne words) Luth. tom. 5. Ien. Germ. fol. 67. Vnde venis? quis te misit? Vbi sunt miracula quae te à Deo mis­sum esse testantur? And yet it is most certayne, that God hath neuer ho­noured any one Protestāt so much since the first appearing of Prote­stancy, as to exhibite any one true and stupendious Miracle for con­firmation of Protestancy. A point so vndenyable, that D. Fulk thus acknowledgeth; A­gainst the Rhemish Testam. in Apo­calip. 13. It is known, that Caluin and the rest, whome Papists call Arch-Heretikes, worke no miracles.

Thus farre of this poynt. Now to encircle the contents of all this Chapter within a narrow cōpasse, I thus dispute, If the Protestant [Page 139] Church hath had no true Personall Succession, and Ordinary vocation [...]f Ministers, then hath it not had any true Pastours, the euer watch­ing Centinels of Gods Church, as Isa. 162. Isay stileth them; if it hath not had true Pastours, then hath it not enioyed the true Administration of the word and Sacramēts: if it hath not enioyed the true Administra­tion of the word and Sacraments, then hath it lost its Essence, and is ther­by become a Nullity (as D. VVillet, and other Protestants in expresse words aboue cyted, doe auer) but if the Protestant Church hath by this meanes wāted its owne Essen­ce, and became a Nullity; then euen [...], and demonstratiuely it followeth, that Protestancy (which is the supposed faith, prea-by the Protestant Church, & be­lieued by her children) hath in it [Page 140] selfe no Essence or being, but is a meere Nullity, or Non Ens.

ABoue we haue discouered, that Protestancy is depriued of all reality of being: both in re­gard that its whole Systema or fra­me consisteth of meere Negations, (which are nothing els, but an o­uerthrowe of Positiue Articles of faith) as also (besides from seueral other heads) in that diuers parti­culer Negatiue Tenets of their pro­fession, are, if they be truely vn­foulded, foūd to be only vaporous imaginations without al subsistēce or being. Now, we will demon­strate the like Irreality of Prote­stancy, [Page 141] by taking into our consi­deration, what that Religion pro­duceth in the belieuers thereof, in regard of the Will, & of Morality in conuersation & māners. Where first we are to note, that Sinne (I meane the deformity, which is in euery sinnefull act) is in its owne nature, Non ens, and therfore can­not proceed from God, VVho Gen. 1 Iohn 1. made only thinges, and all thinges. The reason heerof is, in that Sinne being a deuiation, & erring from the rule of reason, and a priuatiō of goodnes, hath (as De ci­uit Dei l. 12. c. 7. S. Austin & all learned men teach) no effi­cient, but a deficient cause, & con­sequently, is Non-ens. And there­fore Peter Martyr, as aboue is sayd (for authorities pertinent, may well be iterated) very fully dis­courseth of the nature of Sinne in these wordes: An In Cōmon places in English. part. 1. cap. 17. euill thing (& [Page 142] such is Sinne) hath no efficient, but a deficient cause. If any will search out this efficient cause, it is euen like, as he would see the Darknes with his eyes, or comprehend Silence with his eares, which being priuations, it is no need, that they should haue efficient causes. Now, to apply this to our matter in hand. Heere I auouch, that diuers Negatiue Articles of pro­testancy doe of their owne nature incline mans Will to sinne, and al turpitude in manners: and there­fore as those protestantical Theses or Tenets in the vnderstāding (be­ing but Negations, or Priuations of the contrary positiue Articles of the Catholikes) are depriued of al Entity of Being; so also is that, which they produce and beget in the Wil (I meane Sinne & wicked­nes in the belieuers of them) de­priued of al Entity or Being, thogh [Page 143] otherwise most displeasing & hate­full in the sight of God. And so that Axiome of Philosophy may heere by allusion take place, Ex nihilo, nihil fit. That Sinne is the fruit and effect of Protestancy, I will exemplify it in those few Ar­ticles ensuing, maintayned by the Protestants. And first; the Pro­testants Denyall of Free-will (we Catholikes houlding the Affirma­tiue heereto) impelleth man most forcibly to the satisfying of his vnlawfull and voluptuous desires in all kindes of Sinne. For who is persuaded truly, that he hath not Free-will in his actions, but that he is forced to doe that he doth, why should he labour to scale the craggy tower of vertue, or auoyd the pleasing bayte of Sinne, seeing it is not in his power, through want of Free-will, to performe ey­ther? [Page 144] And vpon this ground it is, that the Protestants teach, that Luther serm. de Moyse. the ten Cōmandements appertayne not vnto Christians. D. VVillet Sy­nops. Pa­pism pag. 504. And that, the law remaineth stil impossible to be kept through the weakenes of our flesh: nei­ther doth God giue vs ability to keepe it &c. Now doth not this doctri­ne open the passage to the breach of all the ten Commandements, and this without controwle or condē ­ning the party so offending, since it is not in his power to doe other­wyse?

In like sort the Protestants do­ctrine of Reprobation (which is but the Negatiue to the Catholike do­ctrine of Vniuersality of Grace) much discourageth men frō ver­tue, and inuiteth them to vice; since that man, who is a reprobate let him labour neuer so much to please God with walking in a most [Page 145] vertuous and paynefull lyfe, yet by this doctrine, certaine it is, that he shall be damned.

Againe, the Protestants denyal of Purgatory, as it freeth a man frō making any restitution or satisfa­ction for wrongs done to a third person; so it much emboldeneth him to sinne, assuring himselfe by this doctrine, that notwithstāding any enormous sinnes whatsoeuer committed by him, he once dying [...]n a true fayth, there are no tem­porall punishments reserued for him after this lyfe.

I heere but briefly touch, how [...]he Protestants by their defence of [...]heir Iustifying fayth, excluding workes both from iustification & merit, do speake and write most [...]asely and vnworthily of good workes. For doth not In prae­fat. ad Rom. Illiricus [...]hus traduce all good workes? To [Page 146] hould that good workes are, in respect but of presence, necessary to saluation (as some Protestants do hould) is a pa­pisticall errour. Yea he further most impiously enlargeth himselfe, say­ing: Vide Art. colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 120. sest. 11. Good workes are not only not necessary to saluation, but hurtfull to it. And D. Whitakers speaking particulerly of Virginity, doth thus disualew it: Contra Camp. rat. 8. Virginity is not simply good, but after a certayne man­ner. And of fasting D. Willet thus teacheth: Synops. pag. 241. Neyther is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. Thus farre to shew, that these for­mer doctrines of the Protestants animate mans will most forcibly to all Sardanapalisme, and sensuali­ty; and beget a certayne incuriou [...] and negligent torpour & slowne [...] in the soule eyther for practising vertue, or auoyding of sinne. Fo [...] who obserueth not, that the will i [...] [Page 147] faster or slower mooued to good or euil, by how much it is peyzed more heauily or lightly with the pullies or weights of the hope of a future good, or feare of a future euill?

But to proced further. As these former negatiue Theses of Prote­stants do incline the will to all tur­pitude in māners, & consequent­ [...]y worke in the will, that, which in [...]ts owne Nature is nothing but meerely negatiue; so vpon iust exa­mination we shall finde, that the first broachers and inuentours of them were men of most flagitious and wicked conuersation; so suc­king their owne venome out of [...]heir owne doctrine. For greater contracting of which poynt, I will [...]nsist in the foure Cardinall (as I may terme them) and prime Pro­testants of this age; by whome we may well coniecture the like in o­ther [Page 148] more obscure Protestāts; for we read, that If the eye be wicked, then all the body shalbe darke. Matth. 1.5. Now in the displaying heerof I will for­beare all testimonies of Catholi­kes agaynst thē (since they would be presumed as ouer partiall in their Censures) but will rest ey­ther in their owne writings or cō ­fessions of their learned Protestāts their acknowledged brethrē of the Gospel. These foure chiefe Prote­stants shall be: Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, & Beza, men, who (aboue all others) haue much spread and dilated this negatiue faith of Prote­stancy; & in whome (concerning morality) you shal find litle of the Gospell, though they vanted much of their professing the Gospell.

And first to begin with Luther. Touching faith, Luther thus tea­cheth. Luth. tom. 1. propè finem Faith vnlesse it be without [Page 149] the least good workes, doth not iustify, it is not faith. Which very saying D. Couel acknowledgeth as spoken by Luther, & tearmeth it, Harsh, & D. Co­uel in his defence of Hoo­ker prin­ted 1603. pag. 41. iustly called in questiō by the Church of Rome. Cōcerning mariage or diuor­ce, Luth [...]r thus writeth: Si Luth. serm. de Matrins. This sen­tence as spoken by Luther is ackno­ledged by D. Whit. cont. Cāp. rat. 8. nolit vxor, aut non possit, veniat ancilla. If the wife will not, or cannot (perform the act of mariage) let the mayd come. And as touching Luthers own licentious and goatish conuersati­on in manners, & want of chasti­ty, heare his owne wordes deliue­red of himselfe: Nothing Luth. in prouerb. 31. Ad­deth this amo [...]ous ryme in Dutch, si­gnifying as it is he [...]r set downe in the text. is more sweet, or louing vpon earth, then is the loue of a womā if a man can obtayn it. And againe: As Luth. tom 5. Wittenb. serm de Matrim. fol. 119. it is not in my power, that I should be no man; so it is not in my power, I should be with­out a woman. And yet more: I Luther tom. episto. latinar. fol. 334. ad Philippum. am burned with the great flame of my vntamed flesh &c. Eight dayes are [Page 150] now past, wherin I neyther did wryte, pray, nor study; being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. And finally: Luther in Colloq. Mensal. fol. 526. & vide fol. 400. I am almost madd through the rage of lust, and desire of women. But I will cease to stirre further in this filthy puddle of Luthers sensuality & lust and will end with him in setting down the saying of Benedictus Mor­gensternensis (a Protestant Writer) who reports of the Caluinists, that when they at any tyme would giue assent to prouocation of Nature & satisfy their lust; they were not ashamed to say amōg themselues: Hodie In tract. de Eccles p. 221. Lutheranice viuemus: To day we will liue Lutheran-like. Thus they vsing the name of Luther (as a Motto) the more fully to expresse the sensuall deportment of Luther.

To come in this next place to Swinglius the second Arch of the [Page 151] Protestāt Church, in her first ere­cting in the dayes of Luther. First touching his doctrine concerning good workes & a vertuous life; for the more depressing and vnderua­lewing therof, Swinglius teacheth, that the promises of eternall lyfe made to thē in Scripture, are only Swingl. tom. 1. printed 1581. de prouident. Dei f. 137. Hyperbolical, or trāscending the truth. Touching God being the Au­thour of sin, Swinglius thus writeth Swingl. tom. 1. de de prouid. fol. 3 [...]6. That, the theefe is enforced to sinne: That Swing. vbi supra. God mooueth the Theefe to kill: Swingl. vbi supra. That, the Theefe killeth, God procuring him: That, Vbi su­pra fol. 366 Dauids a­dultery pertayned to God, as Authour. Swingl. vbi supra. fol. 365. Finally, that ( ^z) sinning agaynst the law, we are not Authours, but Gods Instruments. A point so euident, & confessed, that In his Absurda absurdorum &c. prin­ted 1606 cap. 5. de praedest. fo▪ 3. 4. Grawerus (Re­ctor of the Protestant Vniuersity of Islebium) cōdemneth Swinglius of this most blasphemous doctri­ne, [Page 152] of God being the Authour of sinne.

Now to come to Swinglius his deportment and cariage in man­ners. The title of Swinglius & other eyght Ministers supplica­tion for wyues is this: Pietate & prudentia insigni Hel­uetiorum Reipublicae Huldericus Swinglius alij (que) Euā ­gelica do­ctrinae Mi­nistri gra­tiam & pa [...]em à Deo. Ex­tat in tom. 1. fol. 110 Swinglius with some other Ministers in Switzerland (wher­in they then liued) maketh sup­plication to that State, that they may be suffered to marry, & take wyues, in these wordes following: Vbi su­pra fo. 115 VVe earnestly request, that the vse of Mariage be not denyed vs, who feeling the infirmity of the flesh, per­ceaue, that the gift of Chastity is not giuen vs by God &c. libidinis aestum in nobis feruere negare non possumus, cum huius ipsius opera nos corā Ecclesijs infames reddiderunt, we cannot deny, but the heate of lust boyleth in vs, in so much that our actios in that kind haue made vs infamous among the Profes­sours of our owne Churches. And fur­ther: Vbi upra. VVe desire to marry, least the Soules committed to our charge (diu­tius [Page 153] offendātur) should be any longer offended. And yet more Vbi su­pra fol. 119 VVe haue proued, that the weakenes of our flesh hath been the cause (proh dolor!) O for griefe! of our often falling. And fi­nally. Vbi su­pra fol. 12 [...] we haue burned (pro pudor!) O for shame! that we haue committed many things vnseemely. By this heer set downe, the Reader may take a scantling of Swinglius (who was the chiefe of these supplicating Ministers for wiues) and how he was wholy deuoted to lust & sen­suality.

In this next place occurreth Caluin (from whose pen Protestā ­cy receaued a more pure sublima­tion.) Touching Caluins lyfe: that he was truly accused and pu­nished for Sodomy, & his shoul­der seared with a burning iron for that sinne, is witnessed by the pu­blike records of Noyon in France ex­tant [Page 154] to this day, where he was pu­nished; and also by In Theolog. Caluinist. printed 1594. lib. 2. fol. 72. Conradus Slusselburg (the Protestant) which sayd Protestant relateth the man­ner of Caluins death in these words: Sluj­selburg. vbi supra. Deus manu sua potenti &c. God so strucke Caluin with his mighty hād, that being in despayre, and calling v­pon the Diuell, he gaue vp his wicked soule, swearing, cursing, and blasphe­ming: he dyed of the disease of lice & wormes, increasing in a most loathsome vlcer, about his priuy parts, so as none could endure the stench.

Thus this forsaid Protestāt wry­teth. This manner of Caluins death is further witnessed by Heren­nius in his lib. de vita Calu. Ioannes Herēnius (a Caluinist Minister) who was present at Caluins death.

Now in this last place to des­cend to Beza; who in teaching God to be the Authour of Sinne, wholy comparted with Swinglius; [Page 155] for thus he wryteth: Beza in his dis­play of popish pra­ctises po­englished and prin-1578. pa. 202. God exci­ [...]th the wicked will of one Theefe to ill another; guideth his hand and [...]eapon, iustly enforcing the will of the Theefe. But to leaue many of his o­ [...]her confessed erroneous doctri­nes, and to rippe a little into his course of life; I will only rest vpon one poynt (and heere I may say with the Poet, ex vno discite omnes) to wit, his Sodomiticall sinne with a yōg boy called Andebertus, and his fornicatiō with his woman Candi­da, whome he kept diuers yeares as so saith Conradus Slusselb. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 1. fol. 92. Concubine, before he maryed her: who comparing the one Sin with the other in certayne verses, at last preferred the sinne with his Ganymede the boy, before his sinne with Candida. His verses I will heer set downe in latin, though for very shame▪ I forbeare to English them. These then they are.

Then followeth.

Then he thus concludeth.

This Epigram is extant in Beza his Epigrams, and beareth this tit­le; Theodorus Beza de sua in Candi­da & Andebertum beneuolentia. That Beza did write this Epigram, is a­uerred by the former Slusselburge, the famous Protestant; who thus writeth heerof Sluss. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. [...] fol. 9 [...]. Constat & hoc, Be­zam obscoenissimos versus scripsisse ad germanum Andebertum Aureliae ele­ctum, & eumdem tanquam Adonidem a Beza factum esse. As also by He­shusius (the Protestant) saying: Til­manus He­shusius in his booke entituled Verae & sanae Con­fessionis. [Page 158] Beza nefandos amores, illicitos concu­bitus, scort [...] iones, foeda adulteria sa­crilego carmine decantauit orbi. As also by D. Sparks in his ans­were to D. Albin printed 1591. pa. 400. M. Sparkes, D. Sutcl ff in Turca-pa­pismo printed 1599. lib. 3. cap. 10. pag. 204. D. Suc­cliffe, and D. Morton in his Apo­log. Ca­thol. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 21. pag. 355. D. Morton; though but weakly excused by these three last.

And thus farre of these foure chiefe Pillars of Protestancy: of whome I acknowledge, that I haue not set downe the tenth part, of what is confessed (euen by other Protestants) of their sensuality, and most wicked carriage. Not­withstāding what is heer set down, I hope it is not impertinently al­ledged, considering how highly most Protestants of these dayes do prise (through a forestalled pre­iudice of iudgment) the sayd foure chiefe broachers of the Protestāt Religion. And therefore though the iudicious Reader may perhaps [Page 159] censure part of this Chapter, as [...]n Apostrophe, or digression; yet he may withal well esteeme it (the tymes wherein we liue considered) as a conducing, & progressiue di­gression.

ANother Medium which af­fordeth sufficient proofe for the Irreality of Protestancy, may be taken from this ensuing consi­deration: to wit, in that the Pro­testants amongst themselues are not resolued, what doctrines ne­cessarily [Page 160] concurre to the making vp of Protestancy, or of what se­uerall sorts of Belieuers the Pro­testant Church consisteth. Now if the Obiectum, circa quod, or Mate­ria, circa quam (as the Logicians speake) of any science or know­ledge, be not agreed vpon before hand, what in particuler it is: thē doubtlesly it from thence riseth, that such a presumed Science or Knowledge is but an Imaginary knowledge, wholy depriued of all Reality and Entity. For not onely Philosophy, but euen the force of Naturall reason teacheth vs, that of all things, the subiect, or mat­ter in euery Science or kind of knowledge, is first to be enquired after, and with a mutuall consent on all sydes to be acknowledged. The lyke we may confidently af­firme of Protestancy, and the Pro­testant [Page 161] Church That our aduer­saryes cannot be brought to any atonement, touching what is the subiect of Protestancy, or who be the Members of the Protestant Church, is proued; in that seuerall Protestants exclude such persons to be of the Protestant Church, (& consequently do exclude their fayth from Protestancy) which themselues at other tymes (at least other Protestants) doe imbrace for good Protestants▪ and perfect mēbers of their Church, and their fayth & doctrine for perfect Pro­testaney. For such men, who are admitted, or excluded from the Church of the Protestants, are ad­mitted or excluded only by reason of their fayth and doctrine, being the same, or different from the Protestants fayth and doctrine.

Heere then I will first shew, [Page 162] within what narrow limits our ad­uersaries confine Protestancy, and the members of the Protestant Church; and then after I will set downe (such is the fluctuating and wauering iudgmēt of our aduer­ries herein) how they are content at other tymes to extend and en­large those bounds, by affording Protestancy, and the members therof a greater space or compasse, as I may say, to expatiate, and walke in.

And to begin. We first fynd, that the poore Papist Papists reiected. is wholy ex­terminated from this holy So­ciety of Protestants: in proofe whereof to be luxuriant in autho­rityes, were but lost labour, it being a thing so well knowne and generally confessed: therefore the testimony only of D. VVhitakers shall serue, who thus writeth: D. Whitak. lib. contra Duraeum. [...]. sect. 2. I [Page 163] will not allow the very name of a law­ful Church, vnto the Romane Church, because it hath nothing, which a true Church ought to haue.

To proceed. The Protestants [...]xile the Anabaptists Anabap­tists. out of their Church, as being no members [...]hereof; nor their doctrine, Pro­ [...]estancy. This is euident out of [...]he Confession of Ausburg, thus [...]eaching: Cap. 9. VVe condemne the A­ [...]abaptists who disallow the baptis­ [...]e of Infants, and thinke them to be [...]aued without Baptisme. To which Confession, the Confession of Switzerland in these like wordes [...]ubscribeth: Cap. 20 VVe condemne A­ [...]abaptists, who deny Infants to be [...]aptized. In like manner they ex­ [...]lude from their fayth and Reli­gion, the doctrine of the Arians, Arians. [...]ccording to the Confession of Ausburg in this poynt, saying: [Page 164] Act. 1. VVe condemne all Heresies, ri­sing agaynst this Article (mea­ning the Article of the Trinity) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunonians &c.

To come to Heretikes Heretiks. in gene­rall; they also by reason of their particuler Heresyes, houlden se­uerally by them, are exempted out of the members of the Prote­stants Church, and this euen by the iudgement of the Sacramen­taries, and the Lutheranes: And first touching the iudgement of the Sacramentaries passed on this poynt.

We find the Confession of Ba­sill, thus to teach: Art. 24 VVe dryue a­way all, whosoeuer dissenting from the society of the Holy Church, do ey­ther bring in, or follow strange and wicked doctrines. And Caluin in lyke manner sayth: Instit. l. 2. cap. 15. num. 1. Rightly [Page 165] Austin denyeth Heretikes to haue the same foundation with the godly, al­beit they preach the name of Christ. D. Sucliffe: In his first boo­ke of the Church. cap. 1. Heretykes are not of the Church. Finally D. VVhite: In his way to the Church pag. 10. All Heretikes teach the truth in somethinges; yet we deny them to be of the Church of God.

The same doctrine is fully maintayned by the Lutherans. For thus teach the Centurists: Cent. 6. in the praeface. Ney­ther Heretykes, nor deuysers of fana­ticall opinions are of Christ; but they are of Antichrist, and of the Diuell. &c.

VVhich point is also fully taught by Luther himselfe, in these wor­des: Lurh. in his ex­explica­tion of the Cree­de. Neither Gentill, Iew, Here­tyke, or any sinner is saued, vnles he make atonement with the Church, and in all things thinke, do, and teach the same. But the Protestants rest not heerewith, Schisma­tikes. but also doe banish [Page 166] Schismatikes frō the Church. And to begin with the Lutherans, Me­lancthon his iudgement heerein is this: In his booke a­gaynst Suenkfeld tom. 2. p. 301. Neither is there more then one Church, the spouse of Christ; neyther doth this compamy consist of diuers sects. Which doctrine he borrowed from Luther thus writing: Luth. in his great Ca­techism. tom. 5. p. 628. I be­lieue, that there is on earth a litle Cō ­gregation of Saintes, agreeing in all things, without sects, or Schismes.

To come to the Sacramentaries herein. Caluins wordes are these: Cal­uin in his Treatise of the ne­cessity of refor­ming the Church. VVe do professe the vnity of the Church (such as is described by S. Paul) to be most deare vnto vs: and we accurse all them, that shal any way violate it. D. Field: Of the Church. 1. cap. 7. The name of the Catholike Church (he meaning his owne Protestant Church) is applyed to distinguish men, houlding the fayth in vnity, from Schismati­kes. D. VVhitaker: Contro­uers. 2. q. [...]. cap. 9. It is false, that [Page 167] Hereticall and Schismaticall Churches are true Churches. Finally to omit infinit others for breuity, D. Fulk thus discourseth: D. Fulke of the Suc­cession of the Church. VVhat skilleth it, whether one (being drawne by He­resy or Schisme frō the body of Christ) be subiect to eternall damnation?

Thus farre to shew how our Aduersaries do coarct and straiten (and in some sense rightly) the true fayth and Church of God; & consequently in their iudgments, their owne Protestant fayth and Church; seeing they admit not in these former testimonies, any o­ther fayth and Church to be true, but onely Protestancy, and their Protestant Church.

Now, in this next place shall appeare the wonderfull Protean-like mutability of the Protestants (who are only constant in Incon­stancy) in crossing their former [Page 168] Iudgements, by affording a farre greater Circumference to the Pro­fessours of Protestancy & to their Church, then in the former pas­sage they haue done; so true it is, that Innouatours are caryed spiri­tu vertiginis, now affirming one thing, presently after (and al with one breath) recalling and contra­dicting the poynt afore affirmed or maintayned.

For now you shall finde, that the Protestants most courteously grant, that almost all the former kinds of men (and some others more bad) are members of the Protestant Church, and conse­quently their doctrines true Pro­testancy; since a man is stiled a member of a Church, in regard that his faith and doctrine is con­sonant and sorting to the fayth & doctrine of the sayd Church, and [Page 169] not in any other respect.

And to begin. The Protestants (out of their bounty) include the Papists, as mēbers of their Church: Papists admitted for thus doth Luther say: Luther▪ in epist. cont. Ana­baptist. In the Popery there is true Christianity, yea the kernell of Christianity, and many pious, and great Saints. And the Confession of Ausburg, confesse thus of themselues, & the Papists: In prae­fat. VVe are all Souldiers vnder one Christ.

To descend to others confessing no lesse: His Maiesty deceased thus speaketh of this poynt: In his speach to the Parlamēt. An. 1605 Nouem. 9. being put forth in print. VVe doe iustly confesse, that Papists, especial­ly our forefathers, laying their only trust vpon Christ, and his merits, may be, and are somtymes saued. And M. Hooker thus acknowledgeth the Papists for his brethren: Lib. Eccles. pol. 3. c. 128. we gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of IESVS- Christ. [Page 170] M. Bunny: In his Treatise of Paci­fic. sect. 18. VVe are no seuerall Church from them (meaning the Pa­pists) nor they from vs. And the foresayd M. Hooker particulerly touching the fayth of the Papists, thus further pronounceth: Eccles. Pol. p. 128 Tou­ching the maine poynts of Christian fayth, wherein they constantly persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Iesus-Christ. D. VVhit­gift: In his Answere to the Admoni­tion p. 40 The Papists belieue the same Articles of fayth, which we do. For breuity D. VVhite shall conclude this poynt, saying: In de­fence of the way. cap. 38. In the substā ­tiall Articles of fayth we agree with the Papists. Now by these Testimo­nies and confessions we see (most differently from their former wri­tings) that Papists are members of the true Church, and consequent­ly (in our aduersaries censure) of the Protestant Church: and that the articles of Papistry, are but the [Page 171] fayth and doctrine of Protestancy.

In the next place (according to the Methode aboue) come in the Anabaptists, Anabap­tists. whom the Prote­stāts admit to be of their Church, and their doctrine no way preiu­diciall to their owne doctrine of Protestancy. For first of this point Oecolampadius thus writeth: Lib. 2. Epist. pag. 363. Bap­tisme is an externall thing, which by the law of Charity may be dispenced withall. And Con­trou. 4 9. cap. 2. p. 716. VVhitakers iudg­ment is, that we may abstaine from Baptisme, so there be no contempt or scandall following.

Finally, D. Morton thus bro­therly acknowledgeth the Ana­baptists: In his Answere to the Protestāts Apology. lib. 4. ca. 2. sect. 10 VVe Protestants iudge the state of the Anabaptists, not to be vtterly desperate. Touching the Arians, M. Hooker telleth vs in these wordes: Eccles. Pol. lib. 4. pag. 181. The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland &c. [Page 172] he heerby insinuating, that those Protestant Churches in Poland did acknowledge the Arians, Arians. as mēbers of their Church: though I fully presume, that M. Hooker himselfe was of a far different o­pinion. And M. Morton perem­ptorily maintaineth, that his Pro­testant Church is one, and the same with the Church of the A­rians, and giueth his reason there­of in these words, In his booke of the King­dome of Israel, & the Church. pag. 94. Because the A­riās hold the foundation of the Gospell.

They further proceede, & in­corporate within the Protestant Church euen Idolaters. Idolaters For M. Hooker thus affirmeth: Eccles. Polic. l. 3. pag. 126. Christians by externall profession they are all, whose marke of recognizance hath in it those thinges, which we haue men­tioned; yea although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Heretykes, persons excommunicable.

And this poynt receaueth its further proofe from the Protestāts comportement toward the Catho­likes. For we well know, that the Protestants at other tymes both by writing and in their Sermons, with most tragicall Exclamations charge the Catholikes with Idola­try cōmitted in their adoring our Sauiour Christ in the most blessed Eucharist, and in their worship ex­bited to Images and Relikes. And yet aboue we see, the Protestants teach, that the Protestant and Catholike Church are but one, & the same Church. Now if the Pa­pists be members of the Protestant Church, & that they be Idolaters, (as the Protestāts do dreame) thē are Idolaters members of the Pro­testant Church.

But the Protestant doth not limit his Church with in these for­mer [Page 174] Cancells or bounds; for he also comparteth and interleageth euen with the Infidels, Infidels. admitting them to be members of his owne Church, & teaching that they be capable of saluation. For Act. Mon. pag. 495. M. Fox relateth of a Protestāt Martyr (by him for learning and vertue much magnified) who thus taught A Turke, Saracene, or any Maho­metan whatsoeuer may be saued, if he trust in one God, and keep his law. And Bale Cent. 6. p. 404. Bale warnes vs to be wa­ry, that we condemne not rashly any Turke. But this poynt is fur­ther most amply taught by Swin­glius and other Protestāt deuines, as aboue in the sixt chapter of this Treatise, is manifested; to which passage for greater expedition, I referre the studious Reader.

But what? hath Protestācy yet receaued its due circumscription, as [Page 175] I may say, and confinement? No: for the Protestants charity is so great and immense, Antichrist as that they are content to admit and indenize euen him, whome they mantaine (by their own writings) to be the true Antichrist, for a member of the Protestant Church. O most strange Church, cōsisting of such Heterogeneous members! That this is so, I thus prooue: The Prote­stants (I meane the greatest part of them) confidently teach, that the Pope is the true Antichrist, de­ciphered in the holy Scripture. Now marke, what Protestants ne­uertheles confesse in this poynt D. Whitakers thus writeth: D. Whit. in his Ans­were to the first demon­stration. of D. Sā ­ders. I will not say, that from the tyme, that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all dāned. And yet the sayd D. Whita­kers elswhere D. Whit. in his an­swere to the last demon­stration. of D. Sā ­ders. auerreth most cō ­fidently, [Page 176] the Pope to be Antichrist▪ I will adioyne heerto the like cha­ritable censure of M. Powell: who taught the Pope to be Antichrist, and yet thus writeth: M. Powel de Antichri­sto cap. 33. p. 338. I will in no wise say, that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was first re­uealed to be Antichristianity, are dam­ned. Thus far of what persons are truly acknowledged by the iudge­ment of the Protestants for mem­bers of their owne Church. But Musculus, the Protestant, is more lauish herein, and proceedeth yet one step further, by enlarging the Protestant Church; his wordes are these: Muscu­lus in loco com. de coena p. 552. I imbrace all for brethren in the Lord, howsoeuer they disagree frō me, or amongst themselues; as long as they mantayne not the Popish Impiety. O most Serpentine and diuelish rancour and malice! Thus far of this Subiect in generall. But now [Page 177] to reflect vpon the premises, and to draw from thence an vnauoy­dable deduction.

If so then on the one syde, eue­ry Fayth, Religion, and Church are to haue knowne & explayned (as their chiefe and first Theoreme) what doctrines concurre to the making vp of the same fayth and Religion, and what kind of men are the mēbers of the said Church; and if this be not first known, that then it followeth, that such a faith or Church is but meerely Inten­tionall: and Irreall: And if on the other part, Protestancy, and the Protestant Church be so irresolu­te, deuided and distracted in iudg­ment (a necessary Attendant of Errour and falshood) that at one tyme, they will wholy extermi­nate from their fayth and Church the Papists, the Anabaptists, the [Page 178] Arians, Heretikes in generall, and Schismatikes; and at another tyme (or perhaps at the same time, & by the same Protestants) wil incorpo­rate and admit into the fellowship of their Religion and Church, not only the sayd Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, Heretikes, & Schismatikes, but also supposed Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist, and euery one, who in any sort impugne the Church of Rome; if all this I say be true (as is prooued to be in this Chapter) what other inferēce can be made, but that Protestancy and the Pro­testant Church (for want of know­ing and acknowledging what do­ctrines are Protestancy, and what sorts of men are Protestants) are in themselues but meer empty & aëry conceyts; and for want of all true and reall subsistence, but a Non-Entity.

AN other Medium, to proue that Protestancy is a meer Irreality, or Non-Entity, may be this. Yf it can be proued, that Protestancy is more late, & yong then the Catholike Religion is; then followeth it, that Protestan­cy cannot haue any true and reall Subsistence. Fot if our Catholike & Roman Religion had a being be­fore Protestancy; and that Prote­stancy did appeare long after, and consisteth only in the denyall of most of the Articles of the Catho­like Religion; then followeth it [Page 180] vnauoydably, that Protestancy is but an imaginary Conceyte, or Fabricke of the imagination with­out any foundation of Being: for seing the Catholike Fayth, & the Protestant Faith are directly con­tradictory & oppositly repugnāt, both of them cannot enioy a reall Being: for if they could, thē meer Contradictories (& this is denyed, that it can be performed euen by Gods Power) should enioy a true and Reall Being togeather.

Now that Protestancy is more late, or of a newer date, then the Roman Religion, I thus proue? There cannot any one Protestāt be alledged (speaking of such Pro­testants, as are out of Cōtrouersy, and acknowledged for such both by Protestant and Catholike) who was not eyther in himselfe; or in his Forefathers, first a Catholike; & [Page 181] who by dogmatizing some Prote­stant Opinions afore neuer gene­rally taught, did separate himselfe & depart from the Cath. Church then afore in Being. Of which sort of men these wordes in S. Iohn are vnderstood, Exierūt ex nobis. 1. Ioan. 2. The very stampe or signature of Innouatours in doctrine.

Let vs exemplify this in the first and chiefest Protestants. I will begin with Ochinus & so ascend hi­gher. This Ochinus (who was a chiefe mā in disseminating of Pro­testancy in England in King Ed­wards dayes) was first a So saith Slei­dan l. 9. at anno 1547. fol. 297. Monke, and forsaking his Monastical life, began to preach Protestancy. Osian­der Cent. 16. l. 1. c. 33. Bucer was at the first also a Moke, & vpon his reading of Luthers booke of Vowes, forsooke his Monastery & married a womā. Swinglius So saith Hospiniā in hystor. Sacram. fol. 22. was first a Catholike Priest, & publike [Page 182] Preacher at Tigure in Switzerlād. Luther was a Priest, & an In his Epist. to his Father extat tom. 2. Wittē ­berg. printed 1568. fol. 269. Austin Friar; & vpō his first reuolt from the Papacy, tooke to wife Caterine Bore, as the whole world knoweth.

Now that there was no other Church in Being before Luthers Apostacy, then the Roman Ca­tholike Church, appeareth from the liberal acknowledgmēt of the learned Protestāts. For M. Perkins thus writes: In his Expositiō vpon the Creed. p. 400. VVe say, that before the dayes of Luther, for the space of many hundred yeares, an Vniuersall Apostasy so ouerspread the face, of the Church, that is was not then visible to the world. And Doctour Iewell, confesseth no lesse, saying: In his Apolog. of the Church. pant. 4. c. 34. The truth was vnknowne at that tyme, & vnheard of, when Martin Luther & Hulderick Swinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gos­pell. Yea Luther himself euen Thra­sonically [Page 183] contesteth this poynt in these his words: Luther in epist. ad Argenti­nens. anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari: so cleare it is, that Luther was origi­nally a Catholike, and that at his first rising there was no Protestant Church in the world. But to pro­ceed further. Husse was a Catho­like Priest before his reuolt, and wholy till that tyme imbraced the Catholike Fayth, as In Col­loq. de An­tichristo. Luther and In A­pocalip. c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox do testify. Ierome of Pra­gue was first a Catholike, and after became an Heretike; who being at the Councell of Constance, re­nounced openly his heresies; but after apostating the second tyme, he lost his lyfe. VVicleff was first a Catholike Priest, and Parson of Lut­terworth in Licestershyre, and first abandoned his Religion, because he was depriued of a Benefice by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, as [Page 184] In his Annals of England. printed 1591. pa. 425. Stow recordeth.

VValdo was a rich man of Lyons in France, and originally a Catho­like, of whome D. Humfrey thus writeth: In Iesu­itism. part 2. rat. 3. pag. 270 he did forsake all things, that being poore, he might better fol­low Christ, and the Euangelicall per­fections. The VValdensis (who were deriued of VValdo, and thereupon so called) were an Order of begging Fryars, and did professe (as the said D. Hunfrey writeth) vbi su­pra. a kind of Monasticall lyfe. And of the VVal­denses doctrine in particular Caluin thus writeth: Epist. 244. The forme of the Confession of the VValdenses doth in­uolue all those in eternall damnation, who do not confesse, that the bread is truly become the body of Christ. They also euer taught seauen Sa­craments, Vowes, single lyfe, and Pur­gatory, In tra­ctat. de Eccles pag. 124. as (u) Morgensternensis (a Lutheran) writeth.

The Albigenses were the same men with the Waldenses, and ther­fore were originally Catholikes; for thus D. Abbots writeth thereof: In his second part of the defence. printed 1607. pog. 55. Thus Lyonists, or poore men of Lyons, and Waldenses, or Albigenses were the same men; but diuersly, and vpon diuers occasions tearmed by the Romish Synagogue.

Berengarius was Archdeacon of Angiers in France, and therefore it followeth, that he was Catholicke till his denyall of the doctrine of Transubstantiation: and yet after he abandoning his Heresy, dyed As witnes­seth Fox in Act. Mon. pag. 13. Catholyke.

Now to rise to higher tymes The like may be sayd of the aun­cient Nouelists, broaching some poynts of Protestancy: As Aerius, denying prayer for the dead; Ma­nicheus freewill; Iouinian, teaching Virginity to be no better thē ma­riage; [Page 186] Donatus, denying the Vi­sibility of the Church, and all o­thers of those tymes without ex­ception. From which men are des­cended the Aerians, Manicheans, Io­uinians &c. taking their denomi­nation from the former men, ac­cording to that, Chrpsost. Homil. 3. in act. A­polog. Prout Haeresiar­chae Nomen, ita Secta vocatur. All which men were originally Catholi­kes, and most of them Priests, and vpō their broaching of these their particular opinions of Protestan­cy, did depart from their knowne common Mother, then in Being.

That these men, and all such others of those tymes, were origi­nally Catholykes, and departed frō a more auncient Church, by for­ging these their Innouations, thus appeares: First, because euery one of them taught but one, or two points (for the most part) of Pro­testancy, [Page 187] belieuing al other points of fayth with the then Roman Catholik Church: for if they had maintained any other Positions of Protestancy, then those with which they are charged at this day; then would S. Austin, Epiphanius, Ierome, and other orthodoxall Fa­thers of those tymes (all which Fathers, Luth. lib. de ser­uo arbitrio printed anno 1551 pag. 454. Luther, and other The Archbi­shop of Canter­bury in his de­fence of the An­swere to the ad­monition pag. 472. 473. D. Hun­frey invi­ta Iew [...]lli printed at London, pag. 212. D. Whi­takers contra Du­raum lib. 6. p. 413. most eminent Protestants hould for absolute and grosse Papists, as they terme them) haue as well registred their other supposed Ar­ticles of Protestancy for Heresies, as well as they haue recorded these few, of which, all sides confesse they stand rightly charged. But no such Relation of any other points of Protestancy in thē do we find in the Fathers writings, or o­therwise recorded in any Ecclesia­sticall History of those tymes. Se­condly [Page 188] the same is euident, euen from the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those dayes: and sortably heerto it is, that Sebastianus Francus (an emi­nent Protestant) thus writeth: In Ep. de abrogā ­dis in vni­uersū om­nibus sta­tutis Ec­clesiast. For certayne, through the worke of Antichrist, the externall Church, to­gether with the fayth and sacraments, vanished away presently after the A­postles departure; and that for these fourteene hundred yeares, the Church hath not beene externall, and visible. To whose iudgement agreeth D. Fulke, saying: In his answere to a coū ­tefaite Catholik pag. 35. The true Church de­cayed immediatly after the Apostles dayes. Within which circuite of tyme of the Protestant Churches Inuisibility, Aerius, Manicheus, Iouinian, and the rest did liue Thus we see, that not any one Protestāt before the reuolt of Luther can be instāced; but that it may be shew­ed, [Page 189] that the same man was prima­tiuely a Catholike eyther in him­selfe, or in his Predecessours. But the case is farre otherwise with the Catholike Church: for it is con­fessed by our learned Protestants, that our Catholike Church neuer departed, or came out of any other more auncient Church afore in Being: A truth so vndenyable, that D. Sutcliffe confesseth so much (though sleighting the force ther­of) in these wordes: In his answere to the supplica­tion fol. 2 It is not ma­teriall, that the Romanists neuer went out of any knowne Christian Society. But M. Bunny dealeth more inge­nuously and plainely heerin, who thus writeth, touching the depar­ting of the Protestant Church from out the Catholike: In his pacifica­cion pag. 119. & p. 26. It was euill done of them, who first vrged such a separation; for that it is great probability for them (meaning the [Page 190] Catholiks) that so we make our sel [...] answerable to find out a distinct & seuerall Church from them, which hat [...] continued from the Apostles age t [...] this present; or els must acknowledge [...] that our Church hath sprung vp o [...] late, or since theirs: so fully this Protestant granteth, that the Roman Church did neuer depart, or go out from a more ancient Church

But now to wind vp the contēts of this Chapter in few wordes thus I inferre. If on the one syde it be proued, that euery Protestan [...] did originally come out, and de­part (by his venting of Prote­stanticall Positions) from our Ca­tholike Church, afore enioying a Priority of Being: and that on the other side it be confessed, that our Roman Church neuer departed frō out any more ancient Church afore in Being (both which points [Page 191] are in this Chapter aboue proued) what other Inference then can be made, but that Protestancy (as being later in tyme, and meerely contradictory to our Catholicke fayth) wanteth all true Entity and Subsistence? for seeing the Catho­like fayth (for many hundred of yeares confessedly) had its being a­fore; and seeing the Protestant Fayth is but a meere Contradiction of the Catholike fayth: the Pro­testant fayth therefore hath no Reality of Being, since Contradicto­ries cannot subsist together, or en­ioy seuerall Beings. Thus farre of this poynt: where (besides, that the Non-Entity of Protestancy is from hence necessarily euicted) the Contents of this Chapter mi­nister a must choaking demon­stration, for the proofe of the Ca­tholike Religion in generall; see­ing [Page 192] God is more ancient then the Diuell, and Truth then falshood.

THough this Chapter doth not immediatly conduce to the prouing, that Protestancy is a Non-Entity: yet I hold it not al­together to be Parergon, or imper­tinent; since in it, it is layd open, how the Protestant still continewes the Protestant, that is, how he is wholy deuoted, and (as it were) become thrall to Negations. [...]n di­uers of the former passages it is shewed, that the Protestant in re­ference [Page 193] to his fayth, resteth onely vpon Negations; Now heer it shall appeare, that whereas the Catho­like drawes out his proofes in defēce of his Religion (as so many great pieces of Artillery, to batter downe the walles of Nouelisme) from certaine Affirmatiue reall, & Positiue heads; the Protestant in lieu of withstanding these forces by dispute, is constrayned to re­tire himselfe to his accustomed sanctuary of Negations: so fugitiue and fleeting he is in answers; thus betrampling (with a bare denying) the weight & strength of all those Affirmatiue Classes, or kinds of proofes.

1. For example; if the Catho­like insist in the Authority of Mi­racles (and so to descend by de­grees to other Proofes) for defen­ce of his Religion; in the patratiō [Page 194] wherof God for his approbatiō of the sayd Religion, euen disiointeth the setled frame of Nature: The Protestants in answere heerto, deny the force of miracles, tearming thē, but So the Centu­rists call them. Cent 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5. Col. 1486. And O­siander. Cent. 10. 11. 12. &c. Antichristian wonders, & lying signes: and further saying, that they deny So sayth D. Morton in his A­polog Ca­thol part. 1 l. 2 c. 25. and D. Suc­cliffe in his Exa­minat. of the Suruey of D. Kellison. that any miracles were wrought, since the Apostles dayes.

2. If the Catholike alledge di­uers passages of Scripture, as out of Toby, the booke of wisedome, Eccle­siasticus, the Machabees, &c. The Protestāts with full voyce & cry, deny these bookes to be This appea­reth in that in the En­glish Transla­tions of their Bi­bles, they vsually in the be­ginning of a leafe, contay­ning the names of the bookes of Scri­pture, do call these bookes, and some other, A­pocrypha. Canoni­call Scripture, & stile them only Apocryphall.

3. If healledge such parts of Scri­pture, which are acknowledged for Scripture, on all sydes; the Prote­stāt denyes the Trāslation of the said Scripture to be true and sincere; auerring, that it is adulterated & [Page 195] corrupted by false versions of it. This appeareth frō that, which is aboue deliuered, touching the Pro­testants reprehension both of the translations of Scripture made by forrayne Protestants, as also of our English Translations. But if the Protestants doe reiect their owne brethrens Translations, thē much lesse will they stād vnappea­lably to our Catholike Translati­ons of the Scripture.

4. If the Catholike proceed fur­ther in insisting in the Originals of both the Testaments. The Prote­stants deny, that the originalls of them are the same in all passages, as they were first penned by the Prophets, the Euangelists, and the Apostles. Thus for example in the new Testament, where in Matth c. 10. S. Matthew, it is sayd, [...], the first Peter; Beza in his Annotat. vpon the new Te­stament, set foorth anno 1556 Beza denyeth the [Page 196] Originall herin; iustifiing (though it be thus read in all Greeke co­pyes extant at this day) that the word [...] primus, was added by some one, enclining to the de­fence of the Popes Primacy. In li­ke sort Beza vbi supra. Beza denyeth, that the Greeke Originall in Luke 22. is at this present, the same as it was first penned by the Euangelist; man­tayning that it is corrupted in fa­uour of the Reall presence.

5. If he insist in such passages of Scripture, whose Originalls and Translations therin are on all parts accepted for true; and tell his Ad­uersary, that the whole Church of God in her Primitiue, and pu­rer tymes euer interpreted the said passages of Scripture in that sense, in which they are at this present by the Catholikes alledged; The Protestāt absolutly So doth D. Whita­kers l de Eceles. contra Bellarm. contro­uers. 2. q. 4. p. 223. Perkins in his Exposi­tion of the Creed. p. 400. Iewell in his Apo­logy of the Church of En­gland. part. 4. cap. 4. and most other Prote­stants. denyes that [Page 197] infallible authority of the Church of God, in interpreting the holy Scripture but disclayming from it appeales to his owne Priuate spirit interpreting the same.

6. If forbearing the written word of God, he alledge in war­ranting of his fayth, the vnwritten word of God, I meane Apostolicall Traditions; the Protestant denyes peremptorily the Authority of all such Traditions. Thus for exam­ple, where S. Chrysostome sayth: Chry­sost in 2. Thessal. hom. 4. The Apostles did not deliuer all things by writinge, but many thinges without, and these be as worthy of credit; as the other. D. VVhitakers reiects this authority touching Traditions, in these wordes: D. Whitak. de sacra scri­ptura pag. 678. I answere, That this is an inconsiderate speach, and vnworthy so great a Fa­ther. And Cartwright in depressing the weight of Traditions maintay­ned [Page 198] by S. Augustine, thus writeth: See Cart­wright in whit­gifts de­fence, p. 103. To allow S. Austins saying, is to bring in Popery agayne

7. If leauing the word of God, he descend to humane authorities, (yet so humane, as that they haue the peculiar promise of Matt. 18. Christs assistance therein,) I meane to the graue authority of Generall Coun­cells: the Protestants deny all au­thority of them. For D. VVhita­kers openly professeth, that Gene­rall Councels L. de Concil. contra Bellar. q. 6. may and haue erred. But Peter Martyr more fully dis­masketh himselfe, in denying the authority of Generall Councells, for he thus plainely writeth: Pet. Martyr. lib. de vo­tis. pag. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councells, so long we shall continue in the Popish Errours.

8. If he produce the Testimo­nies of particuler Fathers of the Pri­mitiue Church: Marke with what [Page 199] contempt and indignity the Pro­testant denyes them: for Luther thus depresseth them: Luth. de seruo arbitrio, printed 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures; they haue erred all their lyfe tyme, & vnles they were amended before their deaths, they were neyther Saints, nor pertayning to the Church. And ano­ther (though no Lutherane, yet of Luthers descent) in this his scur­rilous Pasquill thus traduceth the Fathers: D. W [...]itak. con [...]r con­tra Du­raeum. l. 6. pag. 413. Ex Patrum erroribus il­le Pontificiae Religionis cento consequu­tus est. The Popish Religion is a pat­ched cloath of the Fathers Errours sowed togeather: see how impudent and petulant Nouelisme in fayth is, in expecting precedency, and ta­king the wall of Reuerend, & hoa­ry Antiquity.

9. If in such poynts, which cōcerne matter of fact, as touching [Page 200] the supposed change of fayth in the visibility of the Church, the vocation and mission of Pastours, & the vninterrupted Administra­tion of the word and Sacraments, all which are to receaue their proofe (or els not to be proued at all) frō the Authority of auncient & most authenticall Histories; If (I say) the Catholike do in proofe heerof produce the auncient Histories of those Primitiue tymes, D. VVhi­takers thus by denyall aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories; D. D. Whi­tak. contra Duraeum. l. 7. pag. 478. Sufficit nobis &c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Po­pish opinions with the Scripture, to discouer the disparity of faith between them and vs: And as for Historio­graphers, we giue them liberty to write what they will. And accordingly, touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her fayth, he thus cō ­cludeth: [Page 201] Whi­tak. vbi supra. pag. 277. It is not needfull to vs, to search out in Histories the beginning of this change.

10. To conclude, if in the last place for most demonstratiue and Affirmatiue Notes & markes of the true Church, the Catholike do rest (as in nube Testium, to vse the A­postles phrase) in vniuersality, Vi­sibility, vninterrupted continuance, vnity, Succession of Pastours, Holy­nes of doctrine, Conuersion of Kings and Nations, of the Gentils &c. The Protestants (besides, that they will not admit any Historyes in proofe of them) deny and discarde the testimonies of all these Positiue Heads of proofes, by erecting the Preaching of the word, and Admini­stration of the Sacraments, for notes; & by this meanes, they reduce to their owne iudgements, which is the true Church; seeing they will [Page 202] not acknowledge the word to be purely preached, or the Sacrament [...] to be rightly administred, but when and where their Priuate spirit out of its Pythagorean and controwling Chaire vouchsafes so to pronoūce.

By all this now we may see, how wholy Negatiue, the Protestant is (& indeed so Negatiue in al points, as that it may be feared, he in the end will deny his owne being:) for as heer aboue we haue shewed, that his Religion consisteth in pure de­nyall of our Positiue and Affirmatiue Articles; so in this Chapter, we haue layd downe how he labours to o­throw (by his like denyalls) the au­thority of all such Affirmatiue and Positiue Heads & principles, from whence the Catholikes for the for­tifiyng of their owne faith and Re­ligion, do drawe their proofes. In which kind of proceeding, the [Page 203] Protestant deales no otherwise with the Catholike; then if a man, not being content, to seeke to depriue another of his state and liuing; should no lesse labour with all sedulity and care, to preclude and forstaule the true owner, of all meanes for his re­gayning, and recouering his sayd state.

[...] Id est Secundae cogitatio­nes, pru­dentiores. sayth the greek sentēce; to which may well seeme to allude in sense, [Page 204] (though not in wordes) that o­ther saying: Prae­stat re­trosum currere, quam ma­le currere. [...]. The meaning of which two sentences diuers of our learned Aduersaries haue thought good to incorporate in their owne writings. Who vpon their later & more retired thoughts; and houl­ding it a greater honour, rather to returne well backe in their iudge­ments, then to proceed badly for­ward, haue wholy disclaimed from this their Negatiue fayth: For ma­ny of thē there are, who well wei­ghing the emptines of their owne Religion, as consisting onely of Positions, which is (as is aboue made cleare) but an annihilation of all Positiue and true Fayth, & coun­ting it altogether vnworthy, that such a nakednes of Religiō should for euer haue a working influence ouer their iudgments, haue ther­fore [Page 205] at the length (vpon their la­ [...]er, & more mature deliberation) [...]n diuers weighty points wholy re­ [...]ected this Negatiue Religion, and [...]n place thereof haue fully imbra­ [...]ed and entertayned the contrary Affirmatiue Articles of fayth, euer mātained by the Church of Rome. [...] will insist in twenty principall Articles of our Catholike Religiō, (and consequently almost in the whole body of the Catholik faith) [...]o which the more graue, impar­ [...]iall, and dispassionate Protestants doe giue their full assent, belie­uing them be most true and com­ [...]onant to Gods sacred word. To [...]et downe the Protestants owne wordes in proofe heerof, it would be needlesse, and ouer-laboursome in regard both of the multiplicity of the Protestant Authours affir­ming so much; as also of the great [Page 206] variety of the Affirmatiue Catholik [...] Articles mantayned by thē. Ther­fore to take a shorter cut, I will se [...] downe (only by way of Referen­ce) the places in the Protestants bookes, in which the sayd Catho­like doctrines are by them fully taught, and defended.

1. And to beginne. The doctrine of the Reall presence, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to the bodily mouth, is affirmed not only by Luther, but by all the Lu­theranes without exception; they taking their name of Luthera­nes from him, in regard of such their defence, and beliefe of the sayd doctrine; therefore it is boo­teles eyther to set downe the par­ticular names of them, or to make reference to such places of their writings, wherein they teach and iustify the sayd doctrine; they [Page 207] chiefly differing from the Catho­like in the manner of the Pre­sence.

2. The Reall Presence, not only of the efficacy & vertue of Christs body, but also of the body it selfe, after a wonderfull and incompre­hensible manner to the mouth of fayth, is iustifyed by In [...]tit. lib. 4 d 18. sect. 7. & 32. Caluin, by In his Eccesiast. policy l. 5. sect. 67 pag. 174. & 177. M. Hooker, by Contra Duraeum pag. 169. D. VVhitakers, by In Scri­pt. Angli­can. pag. 548. & 549. Bucer, by In his [...]riedly ca­ueat in the third leaf. M. Ryder, and finally by the In the English Harmony pag. 431. Confessiō of Belgia: but contradicted for Popish do­ctrine by Swinglius, and almost all other Sacramentaries, and parti­culerly by Ludouicus Alemannus, who thus writeth: Neque etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, vt vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo.

3. That Sacraments doe not only signify, but conferre Grace, where a true disposition is in the [Page 208] Receauers, is mantayned by In epi-tom. Colloq Montis-Beigar. p. 5 [...]. & pag. 42. Ia­cobus Andreas, Contaa Duraeum l. 8. p. 662. D. VVhitakers, In his true diffe­rence, part 4. p. 539. D. Bilson, by In En­chirid. Cō ­trouers. quas Aug. Confes [...]hu­ [...]e [...] cum Caluinia­nis. p. 272. Osiander, In his Ecclesiast. policy l. 5 sect. 57. p. 127. & 128. M. Hooker, and finally by In ca. 4. epist ad Romanos. Melan­cthon, who thus writeth of this poynt. Repudiandaest Swinglij opi­nio, qui tantùm ciuili modo iudicat de signis: scilicet Sacramenta tantùm no­tas esse professionis &c.

4. That Christ after his passi­on descended in soule into Hell, is af­firmed by In his speciall Treatise of that title printed 1592. D. Hill, by Alledged by D. Hill vbi supra. Are­tius, Melancthon, and M. Nowell; they being alledged by D. Hill to the same purpose. Add heerto that Lymbus Patrum (whereunto we Catholikes belieue, that Christ did descend in soule after his death) is affirmed by In Lib. Epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. l. 1. p. 19. Oecolampadius, In lib. ep. Swingl & Oecolamp. l. 3. p. 590. & 561. Swinglius, In his com. places in Engl. part▪ 2. cap. 18. pag. 221. Peter Martyr, and In his Decads fol. [Page 290] Bullinger.

5. Purgatory is taught by Tom. 1. VVittenb. in resolut. de Indulg. Conclus. 15. fol. 112. Lu­ther, in disputat. Lypsicacum Eckio, and by M. Fox. Acts Mon. p. 1313. Latimer. That tempo­rall punishment is reserued by God, to satisfy his Iustice for sinne already cōmitted (which is the ground of Purgatory) is taught by diuers Pro­testants; to wit, by the Publike pag. 229. Confessios in the Harmony, by In Symbolum p 8. Ias­par Oleuianus, & by In his Answere against the Ad­uersaries of Gods praedesti­nation. pa. 215. 216. 217. Iohn Knox.

6. The visibility of the Church at al tymes, is affirmed by In l [...]c. [...]m. [...]dit. 1561 C. [...]el [...]e [...]s Melan­cthon, by In Ie­suit. sin. part. 2. [...]a. 3 p. 240. D. Humfrey, [...]. of the Church c. 10 pag. 5. D. Field [...] his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Engl [...] p 15 [...] Peter Martyr, & In his so­ [...]eraigne Remedy against Schi [...]me. p. [...]. Enoch Clap­ham, and diuers other learned Pro­testants for breuity heer omitted; though contradicted for Popish by In the tower d [...] ­putat. with Edmund Cāpian, the secōd dayes Conscience. D. Fulke, In his Synops. p. 4 [...]. D. VVillet, and many others.

7. Inuocation of Saints, main­tayned by Luth. n purgat. quorun­dam Art. Luther, who thus wri­teth hereof: De intercessione San­ctorum, cum tota Ecclesia sentio; & iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse at (que) inuocandos: vy certayne Prote­stants Of this see Haffe­renferus, in locis Theo­log. l. 3. stat. 4. loc. 5. p 463. in Polonia, by Vide Fox Act. Mon. 462. Thomas Bilney, by Act. Mon. pa. 1312. & 1315. Latimer, and by Orat. in Chryso. de Iuuen­tio & Maximo. Oecolampadius. And (as the ground heerof) Intercession of Saints is a­uerred by Oecol. vbi sup. Oecolampadius, and Fox Act. Mon. p. 1312. Latimer.

8. Freewill, taught by Snecanus, & Hemingius, as In his Synops. printed 1600. p. 808. D. VVillet acknow­ledgeth; and belieued by diuers Protestants, mentioned in Act. Mon. p. 1533. Fox his history.

9. The power of Priests not on­ly to pronounce, but to giue Re­mission of sinnes (and consequently, that Confession of sinnes is allowed; seeing how can the Priest know, what sinnes are to be remitted, & [Page 211] what sinnes to be retayned, accor­ding to the wordes of the Scrip­ture, whose sinnes you remit &c. and whose sinnes you retayne &c. except he know particulerly the sinnes of the penitēt?) is taught by the En­glish Communion booke, in the visi­tation of the sicke, where the Priest sayth: And by his Authority committed to me, I absolue thee from thy sinnes &c. In his disp. Theo. p. 301. Lobechius Doctour and Professor in the Vniuersity of Rostock, by In Con­cil. loco rum scripturae repugnan­tium. lin. 194. fol. 218. Andreas Althamerus, by In loc. com. tom. 1. de pote­state Ec­cles. f. 305. Sarcerius, by In his Margarita Theol pa. 116. & 117. Spandeb urge, & finally by In Swenck­fildio Cal­uinis. p. 55. Iacobus Helbrunerus. And hence it is, that Absolution is affirmed by Melācthon, to be (as his words are) Me­lancth. in Apol. Con­fess. Aug. Art. 13. de numero & vsu Sa­cramento­rum, fol. 161. properly a Sacrament.

10. The Indifferency of Commu­nion vnder one, or both kinds, main­tayned by Luth. in Ep. ad Bohemos, & l. de v­traque specie Sacram. Luther, by Melancth. in Cent. Ept. Theol ep. 74. p. 252. Me­lancthon, and Bucer in the Confession of Ratisbon. Bucer. Luthers [Page 212] wordes are these: Luth in cap. [...]. ab [...]. c. a [...] Eu­charistia. They sinne not agaynst Christ, who vse one kind, seeing Christ hath not commaunded to vse both, but hath left it to the will of euery one &c.

11. That there are certaine vn­written Traditions to be obserued, is confessed by In his treatise of the Church. p. 2 [...]9. D. Field; of the Ba­ptisme of Infants, by l. epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. p. 301. Oecolam­padius, and by to. 2 l. ac Baptis. fol. 90. Swinglius, and in like manner by our In his defence. p. 539. Doctour Whitgift: of the Tradition of Ea­ster, by D. Couel in his An­swere to Iohn Burges. p. 139. D. Couell: of the Tradi­tion of the vse of the Crosse, and the name D. Co­uel in his exami­nation of the Plea of the In­nocents. pag. 104. Archbishop, by Hooker Eccles. Pol. l 2. sect. 7. pag. 118. M. Hooker, who answereth diuers Au­thorities out of certaine Fathers vsually alledged by other Prote­stants in behalfe of only Scripture. And finally by the Archbishop of Canterbury, touching Apostoli­call Ordination, in the Conference before the King. pag. 11.

12. That the Commandements may be kept, and are not impossi­ble; taught by M. Eccles. Pol. lib. 2. pag 113. Hooker, by D. Lib. de perfest. o­bedient. le­gis Dei. Castal [...]o, by M. In his reformed Catholike pag. 26. & 51. Perkins, & In his defence of M Ho­ker art. 7. pag. 54. D. Couell.

13. That there are Euangelicall Counsells, which are such as that a man in performing them doth more then he is by God commā ­ded; is taught by In as­sert. art [...]0 Luther, Eccles. Pol. lib. 3. sect. 8. pa. 140. M. Hooker, and In his defence of M. Hoo­ker art. 8. pag. 50.51.52. D. Couell. Ad heer­to, that our good workes procee­ding from fayth, and in regard of Christs passion and promise, are Meritorious, & deseruing, is main­tayned by In loc. com. de bo­nis operib. circa me­ [...]um. Melancthon, by the Publike Pag. 495. & 27 [...] Confessions in the Harmo­ny, by In Margar. Theol. p. 48. & 50. Spandeburge, by Eccles. Pol. l▪ [...]. sect 72. pag. 208. M. Hoo­ker.

14. Peters Primacy, maintay­ned by As he is alledged by D. Whitgift in his defence, pag. [...]73. & 469. Caluin, by VVhitgift vbisupra. D. VVhit­gift, [Page 114] by Muscu­lus so al­ledged by D. VVhit­gift vbi su­pra. Musculus, and by D. Bridg. In his defē ­ce of the gouerne­mēt &c. pag. 445.446: D. Bridges Bishop of Oxford.

15. Prayer for the dead, defen­ded by as wit­nesseth Vrbanus Rhegius in prima parte ope­rum in formula cautè lo­quēdi cap. de Sancto­rum cultu. Luther, & Vrbanus Rhe­gius, by In his scrip [...]a An­glicana. p. 450. Martin Bucer, by Fox Act. Mon. pag. 149. Williā Torpe, and Prin­ted 1549. fol. 116. & 140. by the Communion booke in King Edwards reigne.

16. Touching vniuersality of grace, and that Christ dyed for all with intention on his part to haue all men saued, if so they will ac­cept of his grace, which doctrine ouerthroweth the Protestants do­ctrine of Reprobation, being but a meer Negation to the doctrine of the Vniuersality of Grace: Now this doctrine of Vniuersality of gra­ce, is taught by In lib. Epist. Oecol. & Swingl 1. pag. 274. Swinglius, by In his treatise of prayer in generall for all man­kind. M. Smith, by In method. descript pag. 430. Snecanus, by In his Questions v­pon Genesis pag. 118. M. Gibbons, by Enchiridion clas. 3. pag. 220. & 221. Hemingius, by In method. Theol. lib. 2. p. 431. 435. 436. Hi­perius, [Page 115] by Eccles. policy l. 5. pag. 104. M. Hooker, by Vpon the Apo­cal. in En­glish f. 79 Bul­linger: and finally, by most of the learned Lutheranes, and diuers o­ther learned Caluinists, as witnes­seth In his Theses, p. 159. 163. 194. 166. & 167. & sequent. Huberus: as also by diuers learned Bishops of England, and other English Doctours; all who are thetefore at this tyme styled Armanians by their Aduersaries.

17. VVorshipping of Images, de­fended by certayne Protestants of Germany (as In his respons. ad acta col­loq Mon­tis-Belgar. part altera pag 23. Beza witnesseth) by Bilney a Protestant, as Act. Mo p. 462 & 464. M. Fox confesseth. And answerably heer­to, the bowing and reuerence giuen at the name of Iesus (seeing this is the same to the eare, which the I­mage is to the Eye) is taught by Queene Elizabeths Art. 25 Iniuncti­ons, by In epist. Pauli ad Philippens. Coloss. Thessal. in Philip. ca. 2. v. 10 f. 12 [...]. col. 2. Zāchius, by In his defence, pag. 742. D. VVhit­gift, by In his summons for slee­pers p. 30. M. Leonard VVright, by In loc. co n p 59. Musculus.

18. That Christ was from his [Page 216] Natiuity full of knowledge, & free from Ignorance, taught by Alled­ged by Beza, in respons, ad Act colloq. Mon [...]is­belgar. part. 1. p. 147. & 148. Iaco­bus Andreas, In En­chirid Cō ­trouers. printed Tubi [...]ge, 1630. p. 146. 147 by Osiander, and finally by most Lutheran Prote­stants, whose names and Referen­ces were ouer-laboursome to set downe; Yet is this doctrine con­tradicted by In resp. ad Act. colloq. Montisb. part. 1. p. 147. Beza, by In his reuiew of D Kelli-Suruey printed 1606 p. 55 D. Suc­cliffe, and by In his Synops. p. 599. & 600. As also gainsaid by most of the Puritanes. D. VVillet.

19. That Christ is God of God, and hath his Substance of his Fa­ther, as the whole Catholicke Church holdeth; maintained by In Apoc. p. 474. M. Fox, by In disp. [...]0. Theol. p. 49 Lobechius, by In his Confut of Atheisme p. 37. D. Doue, by In loc. com. an. 1561. p. 24. Melancthon, by Eccl. pol l. 5 p. 113 M. Hooker, by In his defence of M. Hooker p. 16. & 17. D Couell, and fi­nally by the pag 34. Confession of Belgia, in the Harmony. But contradicted by In his explicat. persidiae Valent. Gentilis. extant in his tract. Theol p. 771 Caluin, Contra Heshuti [...]. Beza, Contra Camp [...]ra [...]. [...]. D. VVhita­kers, and many others.

20. Lastly, that Antichrist is yet to come (and consequently that the Bishop of Rome is not Anti­christ (which position of the Pro­testants is but a Negation of the Bishop of Rome being Christ his Vicar vpon earth) is taught by In epi. Pauli ad Philip. Co­loss. Thes­salon pag. 216. Zanchius, See the booke entituled An [...]ichri­stus, siue Prognosti­ca sinis mundi, pag 74. 75 79. See also Fran. Lā ­bertus vpō this point in his Cōment. vpon the Reuelat. Franciscus Lambertus, and according to D. Doue in his ser­mon of the secōd comming of Christ, thus sayth. Some Pro­testants make a doubt whether Antichrist he yet reuealed or no. D. Doue his iudgement, by diuers other Pro­testants: yet contradicted by most Protestants & Puritanes of these dayes.

Hitherto of these twenty Affir­matiue Cath. points, taught by lear­ned Protestāts; in teaching & be­lieuing of which, it followeth, that of necessity, the sayd Protestants must disauow and reiect the con­trary Negatiue Tenets mantained by other Protestants.

IN the precedent Chapters and passages of this Treatise, my vndertaken taske in prouing Pro­testancy to be an Irreality & Non-entity, is (I hope) fully accompli­shed: I will in this place extract from the same passages certayne Resultancies, by inferentiall dedu­ctions.

1. The first of these shalbe, that since Protestancy is in it selfe, but a priuation or denyall, of fayth, and a meere Nothing; that there­fore God, who is not the Authour of Priuations and defects, did neuer make or institute Protestancy, nor [Page 219] will be worshipped with such an empty, and imaginary Religion. For how can it enter into any braine, but to weene, that he, frō whome streame the different wel­springs and sources of all things, for he is Psal. 55 fons vitae, Eccl. 1. fons sapi­pientiae, Hier. 2 fons aquae viuae: he who being immutable, altereth all things; euer worketh, yet euer quiet; often changeth his actions, yet neuer changeth his determi­nations; Malac. Ego sum Dominus & non mutor: he, who is more ancient then all Eternity; more large and diffuse, then any magnitude; more strong, then all Power: He that is aboue all, yet lower then all, so becomming to the whole vniuerse both the Circumference and Center: He, who is the origen of al things, being the Efficient cause of All, the Forme of All, and the End of [Page 220] All: He, who as a Sunne (placed in the middest of the whole world) casteth forth on ech side innume­rable beams of his vneclypsed ra­diancy and power, by the which beames he createth, produceth & conserueth all things: To con­clude, he, whome truly to descri­be, all tongues are but dumbe: Tertul. de Trinit. A deloquendam Dei Maiestatem, omnis eloquentia muta est. Now, heer I first demaund: can it enter into I say, any braine to imagine, that this most potēt, & most wise God, should institute a fayth and Reli­gion, by the which only he will be truly honoured, and by meanes whereof the soule of Man shall ar­riue to its eternall beatitude, the Terminus ad quem, for which it was created; which Religion is (as a­boue is proued) but a Chimera, & Irreality?

Secondly, I demand, whether this wise, potent, and Iust God, who in infinite places of his sacred As in Psal. 9. & 10. God shall rayne snares vpō sinners, fire and brin­stone, and blasts of stormes, the portio [...] of their Cup. And agayne Ecclesiasti­cus 40. de­ath, bloud, contention, edge of sword, op­pression hunger, contrition &c. all al these are created for sinners. And yet more. Psal. 91. All they that worke iniquity shall be cō ­founded. Besids in­numera­ble oth [...] places. Word, hath thundred out his most dreadfull Comminations & threats agaynst Sinne, and the commiters thereof, will take de­light in that Religion and fayth, whose many Articles, Principles, or Tenets do euen exhale & breath forth (as an ordure or stench out of a filthy and pudled Chānell) in­to the belieuers will, improbity, sensuality, Iniustice, and all disso­lution whatsoeuer in conuersation & māners? But such are the Pro­testants Articles of denying Free­will, denying the possibility of kee­ping the Comandements, denying of Purgatory, denying Iustificatiō by works, depressing of Virginity, Pouerty, and Obedience, & such other Protestanticall Tenets aboue [Page 222] discoursed of; so true it is, that Fayth is of a specular nature, euer in its operation, reflecting backe vpon the vnderstanding and will.

2. The second Porisma, issuing out of this discourse, may be this. We all know, that the Protestants doe in their pulpits and els where with great clamour and noyse vo­ciferate, and cry out, that the Pope is Antichrist: Now, heer I aske, whether in a solide, and not preoccupated iudgment, it is not more probable, that the Prote­stants are the Precursours & fore­runners of Antichrist, (as play­ning and cauening the way against his comming) then that the Pope is Antichrist. My reason is this: In this Treatise it is abundantly pro­ued, that the Protestant denyeth most points of our Christian and Catholike Religion; so as Prote­stancy [Page 223] essentially resteth in such Negations. This being so, how fit­ly doth this kind of denyalls and Negations sort to Antichrist, who at his comming shall by his deny­ing of Christian Religion, and all the Articles therof, seeke (what in him lyeth) to annihilate & o­uerthrow the sayd Christian Reli­gion; and for such his proceeding some so wri­teth Hyp­polytus Martyr, in orat de consum­ma [...]ione munde. Fathers doe coniecture, that his name shalbe [...], signi­fying Nego: and this both by rea­sō, that this greeke word maketh: vp the number, to wit Apocal. 13. 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to An­tichrist, as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shal at his com­ming, both in their denyalls and workes, labour mightily to euert Christian Religion. And if S. Iohn sayth truly, that euery one, who in any sort denieth Iesus to be Christ, [Page 224] may figuratiuely be tearmed An­tichrist; Ioan. 1. Quis est mendax, nisi qui negat Iesum esse Christum? & hic est Antichristus &c. how fully, sim­ply, and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his comming deny Iesus to be Christ? And conse­quently shall deny all the particu­lar mysteries of Christianity.

3. My third Resultancy respe­cteth the Protestants seuerall dif­ferent Translations of the Scrip­ture, and their seuerall different settings forth of their Comon Boo­ke of Prayer (as is aboue shewed;) and yet euen at this day, they are neither content with the last Trā ­slation of the Bible, or last publi­shing of the Booke of Common Prayer, though all corrected and reformed by way of Negatiues; but charging thē with many vntruths, corruptions, and blasphemyes; & [Page 225] most earnestly thirsting after a new Translation, and a new composition of the Communion Booke if so they could obtayne it. From whence we conclude, from their owne pens, that hitherto the Protestāts neuer enioyed the true and vncorrupted Scripture, and a forme or cōmon Booke of Praier, free from Errours.

Now this being granted by thē, how mightily are the Protestants foyled thereby? For first whereas their owne doctrine is, that the Luth. so tea­cheth prae­fat. Asser­tionis suae. Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. c. 9. Kemnit. in Examen. Concil. Trident. sess. 4. Me­lancthon lo­cis. de Ec­clesia. Scripture is the sole Iudge of Con­trouersies in Religion, they are heer­by, by their owne implicite con­fessions, euen as yet depriued of this Iudge: seeing themselues do grant, that the pure and vncor­rupted Scripture, and not as it is abastarded with deprauations, ought to be this Iudge. Agayne, [Page 226] to be depriued of the true Scrip­ture) as themselues by acknowled­ging all former Translations to be impure, & false, must consequēt­ly grant they are) is to be depri­ued of one of Gods chiefest pled­ges of mans saluation; the Scrip­ture of God, and the necessary de­ductions out of it, being the spi­rituall meates, wherwith (with refe­rence to his saluation) the vnder­standing of mans soule is chiefly fed & nourished: Ioan 6. Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, Spiritus & vita sunt.

And as touching the want of a true Communion Booke of Praier (the which the Protestāts by their former excepting against al Com­muniō Books hitherto published, do acknowledg to want) the Prote­stants do heerin potentially grant, that hitherto they haue not known [Page 227] how, and in what manner they ought to pray; which how great a spiritual detrimēt it is, who seeth not? since by Praier we ouercome him, who is inuincible; praier in­deed being the mother & daughter of teares; by which teares (secon­ded with the help of the Sacra­ments) the blemishes and spots of our soules are washed out: Psal. 50. La­uabis me, & super niuem dealbabor.

4. The fourth. It is in the for­mer passages proued, euen from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants; that the Pro­testant Church hath for many a­ges beene Inuisible, or rather du­ring those tymes vtterly extinct. Now this confessed disparition & vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men, doth necessarily inuolue in it selfe, that the Protestant Church is not, nor [Page 228] can be the true Church of God, since the true Church of God must at all tymes enioy a conti­nual & vneclipsed splendour of its owne visibility. I will enleauen this my Assertiō, both with the autho­rity of holy Scripture, & the volū ­tary acknowledgmēts of our lear­ned aduersaries. And not to ouer­charge the Reader, with a needles surplusage of many testimonies; some few (and those pertinent) shall serue. And first we thus read to be prophecyed of the Church of God: Isa. 60 The Iles shall waite for thee, their Kings shall minister vnto thee, and thy gates shall be continual­ly open; neyther day, nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils. And in the new Testament, it is sayd of our Sauiour. Ephes. 4. He gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of [Page 229] Saints &c. till we all meete in the v­nity of faith: that is (as is els where in this Treatise shewed) euen by the Protestants scholia, D. Fulke a­gainst the Rhemish Testamēt in Ephes. 4 for euer. Now, these former diuine Oracles prouing an vninterupted visibili­ty of the Church of God, are attē ­ded on with the like acknowledg­ments euen of the Protestants: for Melancthon (after he had alledged certaine places of Scripture, in proofe of the Churches euer visi­bility) doth thus write: Melan­cthon in lo­tis com. edit. anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia. Hi & si­miles loci &c. These, and such lyke places of Scripture, non de Idaea Pla­tonica, sed de Ecclesia visibili loquun­tur. And D. Field accordeth ther­to, thus saying: D. Field lib. 1. of the Church. cap. 10. It is true that Bel­larmine laboureth in vaine, in prouing that there is, & alwayes hath beene a visible Church &c. for all this we most willingly yield vnto. Finally D. Humfrey thus sealeth vp the [Page 230] truth hereof: D. Humfrey in Iesuitis. part. 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam, Conclusio est clarissi­ma. It is a manifest Conclusion, that the Church is to be conspicuous, or vi­sible. Now heer aboue is deliuered; first, that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Inuisible: Secondly, (as proued both from the Scriptures, and from our Ad­uersaries doctrine) that the true Church of God must at all tymes be visible, and conspicuous. If thē you will mingle these two Ingre­dients togeather, you shall finde, that the Compound made of them, will be this: That the Protestants Church for want of a continuall visi­bility at all tymes, is not the true Church of God. The same deductiō of prouing the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God, may be made from the confessed want of administring the word & [Page 231] Sacraments in the sayd Church. For seeing the Administration of the word & Sacramēts are the es­sentiall Notes of the true Church in the Protestants iudgments; & seeing withall by their owne Con­fessions aboue expressed, their Church hath wanted for more thē a thousand yeares togeather, this so necessary Administration of the word and Sacraments; it then in­euitably followeth, that the Pro­testant Church (for want of these Essētial notes of the true Church) is not the true Church of God, e­uen by their owne doctrine.

5. The fifth is to obserue, the aboue confessed Truth of our Ca­tholike Religion in all the chiefest Articles euē from the Aduersaries pens. This is the greatest & most conuincing proofe that can be de­sired; for heere marke, what both [Page 232] the Fathers and the Protestants speake of this kind of proofe.

First then ( Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14.) thus writeth heerof: It is an vnans­werable proofe, which bringeth attesta­tion from the Aduersaries themselues. With whome conspires S. Austin (lib. contra Donatistas cap. 24.) say­ing, the truth is more forcible to wring out Confession, then any racke or tor­ment. To both which Fathers D. VVhitaker (contra Bellar. l. de Ec­cles controuers. 2. q. 5. c. 14) subscri­bes in these wordes: The Argumēt must be strong and efficacious, which is taken from the Confession of the Ad­uersaries: And I doe freely acknow­ledge, that the truth is able to extort testimonies euen frō its enemyes. Thus D. VVhitaker. Now, that these Protestants (maintaining our for­mer Catholike Articles) were per­suaded, that the sayd Catholike [Page 233] points receaued their warranted proofe from the sacred Scripture, appeareth euidētly from this one Consideration; to wit, because all the former alledged Protestants (some foure or fiue only excepted) do wholy reiect the doctrine of Traditions; confidently & vnani­mously teaching, that nothing is to be belieued, as an Article of Fayth, but what hath its expresse warrant and authority from the written word of God.

6. The last resultancy is, that the many Negatiue Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in Iu­daisme, Turcisme, and an vtter abne­gation of Christian Religion. The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my As­sertion: for diuers of them neuer stayed in the endles progresse of [Page 234] refyning their Religion by Nega­tions, till at the close of all, they de­nyed all Articles of Christian Reli­gion, and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity; & ther­upon apostating from Christiani­ty, they became most blasphe­mous Iewes, or Turkes; so true it is, that Turcisme, and Iudaisme is the last colour, dye, or tincture, that Protestancy taketh. Some few E­xamples heereof among many, I will in this place retaile; And first Dauid George, who was a marka­ble Protestant, and once Profes­sour at Osīad. Cont. 1 [...]. part. 2. p 641. saith of Dauid Geo [...]ge vtebatur publi [...]o verbi Mi­nister [...]o Ba­siliensi. Basill; did (after many Negations) wholy deny the Chri­stian Faith, & became a diuellish See Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Ant­werp. 1568. pu­blished by the Diuines of Basill. Apostata. Againe Andreas Vola­nus (an eminent Caluinist) not only became a Turke, but corrup­ted diuers others with his pestilēt writings In Pa­ [...]anesi. agaynst the B. Trinity.

Ochinus also, who with Peter Mar­tyr, first planted Protestancy (by his denying of many Articles of our Catholike Religion) heer in En­gland in King Edward the sixt his dayes, did finally become a Iew. This is witnessed by In his booke de tribus Elo­him. Zanchius, In The­olog. Cal­uinist. lib. 1. fol. 9. Conradus Slusselburge, two Prote­stants, and Beza in Poliga [...]. pag. 4. Beza who tearmeth Ochinus, impurus Apostata.

Laelius Socinus (once brought vp in the schoole of Geneua) forsook his Christianity, and did write a booke against the B. Trinity; of whome Beza thus speaketh: Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81. Mi­hi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse. In like sort Alamā ­nus, a Swinglian, and once deare to So witnes­seth Con­rad. Slus­selb. in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art. 2. Beza, in the end denyed the Christian faith, & became a Iew; of whome Beza thus cōplaineth: A lamannum affirmant ad Iudaismū defecisse. Lastly Neuserus, who was [Page 236] chiefe Pastour of Heidelberge in the Palatinate, in the end abnegated all Christian Religion, and becom­ming a Turke, caused himselfe to be circumcised at Constantinople, as Osiāder Cent. 16. part. 2. p. 818. Osiander the Protestāt doth wit­nesse, thus writing of him: Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis &c. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantino­poli circumcisus. But I will close vp this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus, who thus writeth of himselfe, and of other Caluinists, denying the Blessed Trinity: Osiāder relateth, that Neu­serus did write these words frō Constanti­nople (be­ing there circum­cised) to one Gerlachius, a Protestat Preacher at Tubin­ga. vid. O­siander in epitom. Cent. 16. pag. 209. None is known in our times to be made an Arian (but an Arian is not much inferiour to a Turke, or Iew) who was not a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blā ­drata, Paulus Alchiamus, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Siluanus, and others; there­fore who feareth to fall into Arianis­me, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus Neuserus.

And thus farre of these former Porismata; and concerning this last, we heere see, how the many small riuers (as I may terme thē) of our Negatiue Reformations ne­uer cease running, till in the end they all disgorge themselues into the mayne Ocean of Apostasy, and Infidelity: So certayne it is, that a Caluinist, being lastly subli­mated and refyned by Negations, becommeth an Arian, Turke, or Iew.

SVch is the refractory cōtuma­cy of Innouation of fayth, that when it is driuen to the greatest straytes by way of dispute, yet be­fore it will acknowledge its owne Errours, it will labour to take sā ­ctuary, though in the middest of its own enemies. According heer­to we finde, that when the Prote­stants are irrepliably, and most dangerously pressed with the Inui­sibility, or want of succession of Pa­stours in their Church: & that for [Page 239] such want their Church cannot be true Church of God; They then as being depriued of all other eua­ding meanes, are content, out of the immensenesse, forsooth, of their owne good will, (but indeed for the better supporting of their Church) to acknowledg, that the Protestant Church, and the Ca­tholikes are both but one, and the same Church. But do the Catho­likes accept of this their kindnes? No, Virg. Aenead. Timeo Danaos, & dona feren­tes. Their Calumny heer resteth, in that without such their Tenet, their own Church euidētly appea­reth to come to vtter ruine & dis­solution. The truth of this poynt is so cleare, as that M. Hooker thus writeth hereof: lib. 3. Eccles. Pol. p. 130 VVe gladly ac­knowledge them of Rome to be of the family of Iesus-Christ. And D. Co­uell: D. Co­uell in de­fence of Hooker I cannot but wonder, that they [Page 240] of Rome will aske, where our Church was before Luther? As if any were of opinion, that Luther did erect a new Church. But M. Bunny (no vul­gar Protestant) dismasketh him­selfe more openly, touching this point; & withall sheweth the rea­son, why himselfe and his brethrē so greedily begge this so much de­sired reconciliation; for thus he writeth: Bunny an his Treatise VVe are no seueral Church from them, nor they from vs &c. All the diffirence betweene vs, is concer­ning the truer members. And againe, Ibid. pag. 109. It was euill done of them, who first vrged such a separation. And then after he giueth his reason in these playne wordes: Ibid. p. [...]60 It is great proba­bility with them (meaning with the Catholikes) that so we make our sel­ues answerable to fynd out a distinct and seuerall Church from the Apo­stles age till this present; els needs we [Page 241] must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung of late, or since theirs. Thus these Protestants, for the vphoul­ding of their own Church, are for­ced to teach, that the Catholike Church & the Protestant, are but one and the same Church.

Now if any Protestant seeking to redeeme his Church from such dangers, as are in this Treatise threatned to fall vpon it; as (be­sides Inuisibility, and want of Succes­sion of Pastours) the blemish of be­ing an Irreality, and Non-entity &c. should for his last despairing re­fuge, answere with the former Au­thours, that the Protestant Church and the Roman Church are but one, & that seeing the Roman Church hath euer beene in being, and Vi­sible; that therefore the Protestant Church (as being the same Church with the Roman) is heerby freed [Page 242] from all those spots and blemishes of Inuisibility, want of Succession, Ir­reality, want of true subsistence &c. heer in this Treatise aboue infor­ced:

Therefore to preuent all such poore and needy tergiuersatiō (for falshood would gladly shroud it selfe vnder the wings of truth) I will heer discouer the absurdity of this their supposall, by demōstra­ting, that the Catholike Church and the Protestant Church cannot be one and the same Church: so certaine it is, that there is no Cōmu­nion betweene Christ, and Beliall.

And first: If we take into our consideration, what it is, which maketh the true Church (for speaking of the Church of God, we must needs vnderstand thereby the true Church; seeing God hath no false Church) for [Page 243] that sentence of S. Cyprian Cyprian lib. de V [...]i­ta. [...] Eccles. is true: adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est, & pudica.

To this is replyed, that men professing the truth of Christian Religion, make this Church. Well then, if so it can be proued, that the Catholikes and the Protestāts do maintaine such contrary Arti­cles of fayth, as that of necessity the one part must be false, & con­sequētly not to be belieued by the Members of Christs Church; thē followeth it, that these different Professours of them (I meane the Catholikes and the Protestants) cannot make One, and the same Church. And to come to this point▪ (though such disparity of fayth hath beene proued to be euē among the Protestants themselues aboue in this Treatise;) But if one Protestant thinke another [Page 244] Protestant to be (for his supposed false fayth) no member of Christs Church, but an Heretike; then with much more reason we may pronounce the same betweene the Catholike and the Protestant.

Now, this poynt taketh its more euident demonstration of proofe from this one consideration; to wit, that the Catholike and the Protestant doe not belieue one & the same Creed. If then they both do not belieue one and the same Creed (and yet the Creed is but an abstract or Compendium of the true fayth of christ) can it be possibly cōceaued, that the Catholicke and Protestant doe make one and the same Church? But to descend to the Creed. It is true, that the Pro­testant & Catholike doe in words recite one and the same Creed; but seeing it is the intended sense of [Page 245] the holy Ghost in euery Article thereof, and not the words, which make the Creed; it followeth that if the Catholike, and Protestant doe belieue the sayd Articles of the Creed in a different, or rather contrary sense, that then they doe not belieue the Creed; for to be­lieue the Creed in a false sense, is not to belieue it all: The Creed in this respect iustly challenging to it selfe that priuiledge, which the holy Scripture doth; of which S. Ierome thus writeth: S. Ie­rome in epist. ad Paulin [...]e [...]a. Scripturae non in legendo, sed in intelligendo con­sistunt.

That this they doe, I wil exem­plify in some Articles threof: And to beginne with that first Article I belieue in God. The Catholike be­lieues, that his God no way for­mally cooperates with man to sin; the Protestant belieues, that his [Page 246] God Beza in his display of Popish Prea­chers. pag. [...]02. Swingl. tom 1 de prouident. c. 6. fol. 365. Cal­uin. In­stit. l. 1. c. 18. cooperateth, forceth, and impelleth a man to sinne, as is a­boue in this Treatise shewed. The Catholike belieues that God wil not punish man for the not obseruing of such precepts, which are not in mans power to obserue; the Prote­stant belieues, that it is not in our power to keepe the Ten Comman­dements; and yet withall belieues, that D. Reynolds in his se­cond Conclu­sion, an­nexed to his Con­ference. p. 697. God will punish man with euerlasting Torments, for his not keeping of the sayd Ten Comman­dements.

Briefly, the Catholike belieues, that his God giues sufficient grace to all men, that they may be saued; The Protestants God decreeth di­uers men, without any respect or preuision of their workes, to eter­nall damnation: for thus Caluin writeth: Cal­uin Instit. l. 3. c. [...]2. See Wil­let Sy­nops. p. 554. affirming the same. God doth ordayne by his Counsell, that amōg men some be borne [Page 247] to eternall damnation from their no­thers wombe. Touching the Arti­cle, of Iudging the quicke and the dead; The Catholike belieues, that Christ at his comming to Iudg­mēt will so iudge man, as that his good workes (receauing their for­ce and vertue from Christs passi­on) shal be rewarded: The Prote­stant belieues, that Calu. in Antid. Concil. Trident. Kemni­tius in Exam. Concil. Trident. Christ will reward only a bare & naked faith.

Touching that, I belieue the Ca­tholike Church; The Catholike belie­ues this Church to be a society of men, professing the present Ro­mane fayth, of which some are predestinated, others reprobated: The Con­fess. Au­gust. art. 7. Luth l. de Concil. & Eccles. Calu. l 4. Instit. Protestant belieues, that his Church consisteth only of the Elect and faythfull, and not of o­ther sorts of men.

Touching the Article of the Communion of Saints; The Catholi­ke [Page 248] doth belieue such a Communi­on to be between the soules in hea­uen, the soules in Purgatory, and men liuing in this world; as that the soules in Purgatory may be holpen by the praiers of the liuing & the liuing may be holpen by the intercessiō of the Saints in heauen; The Protestant denyeth Bren­nus in Confess. VVittenb. c. de Pur­gat. Calu. l. 3. Instit. c. 5. sect. 6. al such Communion betweene these se­uerall parts of the Church.

Concerning the Article of for­giuenes of sinnes; The Catholike be­lieues, that actuall sinnes are for­giuen by the Sacrament of Pen­nance, and that thereby the soule of man becommeth truly Iust in the sight of God; obtayning by this meanes a true and Inherent Iu­stice: The Protestant acknowled­geth not any Sacrament of Pen­nance; neyther doth he acknow­ledge any reall and Calu. l. 3. Instit. c 12. Kemnit. [...]n Exam. Concil. Trident. Inherent Iu­stice [Page 249] in man, but only an imputa­tiue Iustice, which is the Iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs.

Thus farre to shew that the Catholike and Protestant doe not belieue one and the same Creed; and consequently, that one & the same Church cannot consist of Catholikes and Protestants.

Secondly, the authority of Ge­nerall Councells condemning seue­rall particuler doctrines for Here­sies, and the like authority of par­ticuler Orthodoxall Fathers of the Primitiue Church, touching their like cōdemnation of many Prote­stanticall Tenets for Heresies, do sufficiently euict, that the Prote­stant Church and the Catholicke Church, cannot be one and the same Church; for if they could, then would it follow, that the for­mer old Heresies aboue displayed [Page 250] in the tenth Chapter, and now houlden by the Protestāts, should be no heresies; for if the Profes­sours of the Roman fayth, & the maintainers of the sayd strange doctrines, could be members of one Church; then great wrong was offered by the Fathers and Councells, to brand such men in those former tymes for Heretiks, and their doctrines for Heresies.

We may add heerto, that if the ancient learned Fathers did teach that a man by holding onely one errour or heresy did cease therby to be a mēber of Christs Church: as for example, Iouinian for tea­ching that Virginity and Matrimo­ny were equall: the Manichees for taking away Freewill &c. what would the said Fathers conceaue, (if they had liued in our dayes) & should obserue the Protestants to [Page 251] incorporate and ingrosse in their fayth and religion, almost twenty distinct heresies, condemned in those ancient times (as is aboue shewed:) would these Fathers (thinke you) be persuaded, that the Romane Church, and these men could make one and the same Church? From this then it follow­eth, that eyther Generall Councels and particuler Ancient Fathers did erre, & commit great ouersight in condēning of strange opinions for heresies which were not heresies; or that the Protestāts & the Catho­likes cannot be mēbers of one & the same Church; since certayne it is, that the true Church of Christ cannot professe any one Heresy.

Now, that heretikes are not Mē ­bers of Christs Church, & therfore that the doctrines and innouations mantayned by such men, cannot [Page 252] be taught & belieued by the Mē ­bers of Christs Church) shall ap­peare from the great dislike, and auersion, which both Christs A­postles, and the ancient Ortho­doxall Fathers did euer beare a­gaynst such men. And first may occurre that diuine sentence: ad Ti­tum c. 3. A man that is an Heretike after the first, or second admonition; auoyde, knowing that he, who is such, is sub­uerted and sinneth, being condemned by his owne iudgment. And agayne the same Apostle: epist. ad Galat. c. 5. The workes of the flesh be manifest, which are fornica­tion, vncleanes, impurity, dissention, So it is tran­slated in the En­glish Bi­ble of the yeare 1576. Heresies &c. They which do these things, shall not obtayne the Kingdom of God. To come to the Fathers, S. Austin sayth, Aust. in [...]. 11. in Mar­chaun. He is an Heretike, who belieueth falsly touching any part of Christian doctrine. Which Father in another place thus fearefully [Page 253] censureth of an Heretike; Aust. l. 4. contr. Donatist. c. 8. If a man be an Heretike, certainely no mā doubteth, but for this alone, that he is an Heretike, he shall not possesse the Kingdome of God.

Cyprian: Dominus noster &c. Cypr. l. 1. ad Mag. when our Lord Iesus-Christ did testi­fy in the ghospell, that those were his Enemies, who were not with him, he noted not any one Heresy; but he ma­nifestly sheweth, that all Heretikes whosoeuer are his Enemies &c. I will conclude with Ambrose thus say­ing: Am­brose l 6. in Luc. c. [...]. Heretikes seeme to challenge Christ to them: for no man will deny the name of Christ; neuertheles he in­deed denyeth Christ, who doth not cō ­fesse all points of fayth instituted by Christ. Now from these testimo­nies I conclude, that both the Ca­tholikes and Protestants cannot make one and the same Church of God, seeing their disagreements [Page 254] in matters of Religion are so great, & irreconciliable, as that the one part (as houlding meer contrary doctrines in fayth to the other) must needs therefore be taken for Heretikes in the iudgement of the other party; & consequently not taken as the Members of Christ his Church.

My last argument, which heer I vse, shalbe ad hominem (as the Logitian calls it.) The Protestants (we know) do call, in the foam of their impure language, the Pope Antichrist, and Catholikes the Members of Antichrist. Now if Pro­testants and Catholikes be in one and the same Church, then fol­loweth it (if for the tyme we ad­mit the former dreame for true) that Antichrist and the Members of Antichrist do make the head & the members of Christs Church.

How absurd this is, & incom­patible with common reason, I re­ferre to any iudicious man to cen­sure; and the rather, considering the Protestants themselues doe thus teach: Pro­positions and Prin­ciples disputed in Gene­ua. p. 245. In Babylon (mea­ning therby the Church of Rome) there is no holy Order, or Ministery in­deed, but a meere vsurpation. Thus farre to demonstrate, that for the freeing and clearing of Protestan­cy from the former scars of being Inuisible, an Irreality, a Non-Entity &c. it cannot be iustly replyed, (if any such reply should be sug­gested) that seeing the Protestant Church & the Catholike Church are both but one Church; and seeing the Catholike Church can­not be charged with the spots Inuisibility, or being a Non-Entity &c. that therfore neyther can the Protestant Church be so charged. [Page 256] Thus our Aduersaries, we see, la­bour to make the splendour of the truth of Christian fayth to cast its beames indifferently vpon Pro­testancy, and the Catholike Ro­man fayth: notwithstanding the great dissentions touching fayth betweene these two Religions, which is as difficult to iustify, as to mantayne, that the sunne can at one and the same tyme, shine v­pon vs, and our Antipodes.