The non-entity of Protestancy. Or a discourse, wherein is demonstrated, that Protestancy is not any reall thing, but in it selfe a platonicall idea; a wast of all positiue fayth; and a meere nothing. VVritten by a Catholike priest of the Society of Iesus

CERTAINE PROLEGOMENA : Of which the first is , That in all positiue and affirmatiue points of faith , the Protestants doe agree with the Catholikes ; the Protestants borrowing the said affirmatiue points from the Church of Rome . CHAP. I.

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 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 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. Whitaker confesse of this point : (a) (a) D. Whitak . 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 : (b) (b) Doue in his persuasion to English Recusants pag. 23. . Wee 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 : (c) (c) Luth. l. contra Anabaptist . We confesse , that there is vnder the Papacy most of the Christian good , yea rather all the Christian good , and 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 them , 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 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 wil be proued ; and that a Protestant ( 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 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. (d) (d) Hierome lib. 1. & 2. contra Iouin . Hierome & (e) (e) 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 Manichaeus did only deny freewill in man ( as (f) (f) Lib. de hoeres . cap. 46. S. Augustine recordeth ) and comparted 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 from 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 points , wherin Protestancy differeth at this day from 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 voluntarily , for their better distinguishing of themselues from the Catholikes , imposed to themselues the name of Protestants , and to their fayth the title of Protestancy : implying , by that word , that they protested themselues absolutely to deny such & such affirmatiue points of fayth , which the Church of Rome at that tyme ( & euer afore ) maintaines and affirmes . For if we respect those few doctrines , wherin they did agree with the Church of Rome , the Protestants had no reason to vse any such terme of distinguishment , seeing both sides did belieue the same Articles . Therefore of necessity the word Protestancy ( as seruing for a character , or signature of its separation from our Catholike fayth ) is to be restrayned to such points , wherin the Protestants by their denyall of them , then dissented from the Church of Rome . But by this we may see , how loath is Nouellisme in doctrine to impath it selfe in the beaten tract of Reuerend Antiquity , or to runne in the accustomed known channel , wherin the stream of Christian Religion in former tymes had its course . And thus far of this point ; the conclusion being , that Protestancy ( as Protestancy ) only consisteth in denyall of such affirmatiue points , which the Church of Rome affirmes to be true ; & not in belieuing with the sayd Church certayne chiefe points of Christianity aboue expressed .

THE II. PROLEGOMENON . In such points of fayth , wherein Protestancy dissenteth from the Romane Church , al the said points are meerly Negations to the contrary affirmatiue Articles , belieued by the Church of Rome . CHAP. II.

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

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

From Luthers loines immediatly descended Zuinglius , Bullinger , Bucer , and some others . But these vngrateful and disobedient Impes did not rest satisfied with their Fathers reformation , but retayning it for good , as far as it went , proceeded much further in their Negations of the Articles of the Roman Religion : since they denyed the Reall (k) (k) Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 375. & 416. Presence , denyed (l) (l) Zuing. tom. 2. fol. 378. Purgatory , and praying for the dead , denyed (m) (m) Vide Luth. in ep. ad Georgium Spalatinum . praying to Saints , denyed (n) (n) See Whitgifts defence in the examination of places . fol. penul . the vse of Images , & finally denyed (o) (o) Lib. intituled agaynst Symbolis . part. 1. c. 2. Sect. 30 crossing of ones selfe . Thus farre these men made their progresse in their Negatiue Religion ; who conspired with their Father ( through their desire euer of further reformation ) by excepting in their later writings against their former , as not being (p) (p) See Zuingl . to . 2. fol. 202. & vide Bucer . Script . Anglicana pag. 680. Negatiue inough : and yet we are taught by the abortiue Apostle , ( 1. Cor 5. ) that , modicum fermentum totam massam corrupit . Bu● to proceed higher ; for as yet the Scene of a Negatiue Reformatio leaueth not the Stage . From these former men , did spring Caluin , Beza , the Puritans of England , Scotland , & Geneua ; which men , as being presumed to be wholy spiritualized , and as it were obsest with the holy Ghost ( such is the pride of Nouelisme ) made a farre more refyned and sublimated Reformation ( and all by Negatiues ) then their Predecessours had done . For almost all the other Affirmatiue Catholike Articles passed vnder the fyle of their dislike . And therewith they wholy denied the said articles ▪ The chiefe articles denied by these Enthysiasts ( to omit diuers of them for breuity ) are these following , (q) (q) D. Willet , in his speciall booke entituled : Lymbomastix , & most Puritanes . Christs descending into hell : the Headship of the Church to reside in one alone : (r) (r) Denyed by Beza , Caluin Knox , in whole Treatises . vniuersality of grace , (s) (s) Vide the Suruey of the Booke of common Prayer . the power of priest-hood to remit sinnes , (t) (t) 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 , (u) (u) Con●l in his examen pag 63. 64. Ceremonies , and (x) (x) Vide Whitgifts defence , pag. 259. Church apparell &c. But the denyall of Beza shall serue as a Chorus , to the former particuler denyalls ; who taking ( as it should seeme ) a wanton complacency , in repeating the word , I deny , thus writeth . * * See Duraeus in confut . respons . Whitaker . ad decem rationes . Camp. rat. 10. I deny that God can make Christs body to be present in the Eucharist , I deny seauen Sacnaments , I deny grace to be giuen by Sacraments , I deny freewill in man , I deny good workes , I deny praier for the dead , I deny Christ to be borne of a Virgin , I deny that he descended into hell , I deny the Communion of Saints , I deny the forgiuenesse of sins . Thus Beza . To whose denyalls , I will make bold to add one more : to wit : I deny , that Beza , houlding these Negations , can be saued . And thus these former Men , who as afore did Luther , Zuinglius , and Bucer , much vaunt of their proficiency in this their negatiue controlling of the Romane Church : for Caluin being expostulated by some how endles he and his sect were in going out from their former proceedings , thus salueth the point : (y) (y) Caluin . lib. de scandal . 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 Reformation , in regard it is neuer at an end , is like herein to Eternity , which is euer spending it selfe , and yet neuer lessens . For in this next place step in the Brownists , and the Anti-trinitarians , both of them challenging to themselues a new Reformation , euen in the Negatiue part . Thus do the Brownists , for example , deny the (z) (z) Barrowes booke in his discourse agaynst Vniuersities . Lords prayer , and (a) (a) See Halls Apology , sect 30. agaynst the Brownists . Baptisme of Infants , which they say , is the marke * * In Hals descript . to the Separat . before the Epistle dedicatory . of the Beast . They also deny our (b) (b) Hall vbi supra . materiall Churches , & (c) (c) Barrows vbi supra . Vniuersities .

To conclude with the Anti-trinitarians , they yet vrging a further Negatiue Reformation , do heervpon deny the blessed Trinity , and diuinity of Christ ; condemning the Catholike Article of the Trinity for the most notable relique , or brand of all Romish corruption : for thus M. Hooker writeth hereof : (d) (d) M. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policy lib. 4. pag. 18● . The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland , thinke the very beliefe of the Trinity , to be a part of Antichristian corruption &c. Hitherto of the Protestants Reformations of the Catholike and Romane fayth , and all this by meere Negatiues : I meane Negatiues to the Affirmatiue contrary 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 Protestant denyeth , I will heere amasse the chiefest of them together , though most of them haue beene aboue expressed , that so the Reader may haue a full Synopsis or sight of them all at once . The Protestant then denyeth the Reall presence , the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse , the visibility of the Church , the Churches freedome from errour , the succession of Pastors , vniuersality of grace , freewill , praier to Saints , Purgatory , prayer for the dead , Pilgrimages , diuers parts of Canonicall Scripture , Papall Iurisdiction of Bishops , power of Priest-hood to remit sinnes , Monasticall life , vowed chastity , single life of priests , prescript fasting-dayes , the Grace and Necessity of Baptisme , fiue Sacraments , Christs descending into Hell , besides some others . So wholly negatiue are the Protestants in all the Articles controuerted at this day , between them and the Church of Rome . Neither can our Aduersaries reply , that they hould diuers Affirmatiue points , ventilated at this day betweene vs and them , we retayning the Negatiues ; as for example : 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 Innouation in doctrine , as to inuest their Negatiue Tenets in Affirmatiue Titles , that thereby they may seeme more specious & regardable . And thus farre concerning the foresaid Prolegomena .

That the Protestants haue often corrected and reformed their Translations of the Bible , and the Liturgy or Common-booke of prayer , in fauour of their Negatiue Religion ; euery later excepting agaynst the former , as corrupt and impure . CHAP. III.

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

But before we end this poynt , we will cast our eye vpon our English Translations of the Bible , and see what entertaynement they find at the hands of other more reformed and Negatiue Protestants : for though diuers English translations haue beene made of the Bible ( the later euer condemning the former , for not being reformed or negatiue inough ; yet the Puritans ( whose grace chiefly resteth in disgracing their Predecessours , and who are most deuoted to this negatiue faith ) condemne all the sayd translations , as false and impure . For Carleile ( the Puritan ) thus censureth them : (g) (g) Carleile , that Christ descended . not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. & sequent . The English Translations haue depraued the sense , obscured the Truth , and deceaued the ignorant ; & in many places , they do detort the Scripture from it right sense And other English Puritanes do vomit out their iudgement of the English translation in these wordes : (h) (h) 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 , and after published by authority . But how can we rest assured , that they wil vnchangeably satisfy themselues with this last translation , & will not in tyme be as earnest for another ? Now , let vs descend to their often alteration of their publike Prayer-booke , made by the aduice of Crammer , Peter Martyr , and Bucer ; and as the Statute sayth (i) (i) In the statuts of 2. 3 Edward 6. cap. 1. made by the ayde of the holy Ghost . This prayer-booke retayned diuers Affirmatiue points of the Romane and Catholike Religion : for it (k) (k) All these ( with diuers other Catholike points ) are expresly set downe in the booke of common-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 confession of the sicke penitent . It further allowed the anointing of the sicke Penitent ; It maintained the consecration of the water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse . It also retayned the vsage of Chrisme , and of the childs annointing , and of Exorcisme . Briefly ( to omit many other dogmaticall and Affirmatiue points of the Romane fayth and Religion ) it maintayned prayer for the dead , and intercession , and offering of prayers by the Angells .

But this Liturgy , or Booke of common Prayer , was houlden during the reigne of Queene Elizabeth ouer Papisticall , as ech man knowes . And therupon the sayd Praier-booke was reformed in her tyme , and made more Negatiue , by culling out of it the former Affirmatiue Catholike points ; yet this was not done in so full a manner , as it gaue contentment ; for Maister Parker thus complayneth thereof : (l) (l) 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. (m) (m) Ibid. sect. 17. pag. 39. yet so altered as when it was proposed to be confirmed , to the Parlament , it was refused . To whose iudgement Cartwright ( the Puritan ) thus subscribeth : (n) (n) Cartwright in his 2. Reply , part. 1. pag. 41. the Church of England changed the Booke of common Prayer , twice or thrice , after it had receaued the knowledge of the Gospell . And yet the last change made is so imperfect in the iudgement of the Puritanes , as that they ( wishing a new Common prayer booke to be composed ) thus censure of the former : (o) (o) In Whitgifts defence . pag. 474. The forme of the communion booke is taken from the Church of Antichrist , as the reading of the Epistles and Ghospells &c. the most of the prayers , the manner of ministring Sacraments &c. of Confirmation &c. Neyther are our Puritanes lesse forbearing to charge the Communion booke ( as being in their iudgement ouer Affirmatiue ) for thus some of them do write : (p) (p) In the booke intituled : The petition of twenty two Preachers in London . Many things in the Communion booke are repugnant to the word of God . And agayne : In the Communion booke there be things , of which there is no sense , there is contradiction in it , euen of necessary and essentiall points of Religion . And vpon this their dislike the Puritans at the (q) (q) 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 , 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 , (r) (r) 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 : (s) (s) 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 when King Edward came to the Crowne , that was condemned , and another in the place , which Peter Martyr , and Bucer did approoue , as very consonant to Gods word . When 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 . Which 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 later Translation 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 .

That Protestancy is a Non-Entity , proued from the Principles of Schoole Diuinity , and Philosophy . CHAP. IIII.

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 , 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 Protestancy 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 (a) (a) S. Thomas part. 1. qu. 16. Omnis res est vera , secundum quod habet propriam formam suae naturae . And againe (b) (b) 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 . (c) (c) S. Thomas vbi supra . vide Durand . lib. 1. distinct. 20. q. 6. and Viguerius de anima cap. 2. sect. 2. & Aristot . in Metaphys . 9. Verum non potest apprehendi , nisi apprehendatur 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 . 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 (d) (d) 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 , from whence all these scholasticall sentences receaue their spring , is , because euery Entity , or being , is from God , (e) (e) Genes. 1. who wholy made all things ; and that all Truth proceeded likewise from God , who is (f) (f) 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 ; (g) (g) S. Thomas part. 1. q. 17. Intellectus decipitur non circa quid est , sed circa quid non est . The understanding is deceaued , not about that , which really is , but about that , which is not . And further : (h) (h) 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 , (i) (i) Iohn . 8. the father thereof . And according heereto , your owne Peter Martyr thus truly discourseth : (k) (k) Peter Martyr in Common 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 efficient causes . Thus farre Peter Martyr ; which saying is sortable to the iudgment of (l) (l) 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 , subratione entis , is positiue ; & therefore in reality of sense , euermore affirmatiue : as on the contrary 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 them . But this I maintaine ( which is sufficient to my designed end ) that whatsoeuer is true , hath entity , and is in this respect euer Affirmatiue ; & whatsoeuer is false , is but a denyall of a truth , & therfore ( as hauing no reall Being ) is euermore negatiue . And though it is in mans power , through a voluntary frame , and contexture of wordes , that falshood may be masked vnder affirmatiue tearmes , and truth vnder negations ; yet if we looke into the reality of sense and true vnderstanding , the truth is euer Affirmatiue , and the falshood negatiue . To exemplify this ; to say , God is not cruell , or , Man is not blynd : these Propositions , though they be in tearmes negatiue , yet they are in sense affirmatiue ; onely as denying the negation of Mercy in God , and of blyndnes in man : so on the contrary part , to say in affirmatiue tearmes , God is cruell , & man is blynd : though these sayings be deliuered in shew of affirmatiue termes ; yet if we do vnueyle them they are found to be in sense and vnderstanding meerely negatiue ; since cruelty is exclusiue to Mercy , and blyndnes to sight : and it is as much as to say in negatiue wordes , God is not mercyfull , or , man cannot see . Thus far of these speculations . Now I draw from al these former grounds this vnauoydable Conclusion ; to wit , that Protestancy ( as it is Protestancy ) I meane as it consisteth meerely of negatiue Propositions and Tenets ( and to consist only of such , it is aboue demonstrated ) hath no true reality , or subsistency in it selfe , but is a meere vaporous , intentionall , & Imaginary Conceite , and consequently in it selfe false . For if things be only true , as they haue a reall being , and therin affirmatiue ; and false , if they want such a being and therin negatiue ( as the former Axiomes of schoole diuinity doe most euidently teach : ( how then can Protestancy , which consists only in denyals and negations , which haue no being , be reall , or true ? For what reality of being is there , in a not-being of Purgatory , or in not praying to Saints , & so of the rest ? and if there be no reality in these ( as infallibly there is not ) how then can Protestancy haue any Reality in selfe ? And if it haue no reality in it self , how then can it be really in the soule of man ? For certaine it is , that what wanteth a subsistency in it selfe , must necessarily want an existency in any other thing . Now I will conclude this Chapter , in assuring the Reader , that I rest halfe amazed , to see men ( presumed to be of Iudgement ) thus to suffer themselues to be befooled by others ( and this to the irreconciliable and interminable ouerthrow of their soules ) by entertaining certaine aëry & empty Positions in lieu of fayth , obtruded vpon them , which in a finall and euen libration are found to be meerely a destruction , and anihilation of all faith : (m) (m) Galat. cap. 3. O insensati Galatae , quis vos fascinauit !

The Non-entity of Protestancy , by by reason of its negations , proued from the like supposed example of a Philosopher , denying most principles of Philosophy . CHAP. V.

SVch is the nature of preiudice of iudgement , as that it is better able to see its owne defects in a third point , wherein by resemblance it may glasse it selfe , then in that , to which it is so much deuoted ; like as the weakenes of our eyes can better endure the sight of the sun-beames reflected by the water , then in the body of the sun it selfe . He that will not acknowledge the irreality , and Non-entity of the fayth of the Protestant , by his denying almost of all positiue Articles of Christian Religion defended at this day by the Church of Rome ; let that man ( if he be a scholler ) seriously peruse ouer this ensuing Chapter , which treateth by supposall of a Philosopher , who should deny most parts of Philosophy , acknowledged and taught for true , by the famous Philosophers of all times . I haue made choyce purposely to insist in Naturall Philosophy ; since nature is the subordinate Instrument 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 man , who would vsurpe to himselfe the title of a naturall Philosopher , by only denying most of the positiue , and Affirmatiue Axiomes and principles in naturall Philosophy , some few of the chiefest excepted , taught by Aristotle , and all other learned Philosophers ; and then let vs conclude , in the closure of all , what a strange Philosopher would this man be : and whether his Philosophy could truly deserue the name of Philosophy , or rather that it wold proue to be a meere denyall and wast of all true Philosophy . Let this man , then I say , agree with Aristotle , that naturall Philosophy intreateth of a corporeall substance , animate or inanimate , with all his naturall causes , effects , and accidences : to wit , as it is subiect to mutation and change . Let him also grant , that there are Foure chiefe parts of this naturall Philosophy : of which the first part concerneth the generall and common Principles of natural things . The second intreateth of the world , of the Elements , of their first and secondary qualities , of the composition 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 Christian 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 rerum naturalium ; that there is no Materia prima of the which a naturall body is first generated , and into which it is lastly corrupted : and that this Materia prima is onely a Philosophicall conceite , and fiction . That there is not any Motus in that sense , as it is commonly defined by the Naturall Philosopher ; to wit , to be , Actus entis , quod est in potentia , quatenus est mobile . An Act of a thing , which is in potentia , as it is moueable . That , admitting there were any such motus , yet that the diuision of motus , is not perfect , to wit , that there should be six kinds of motion : viz. Generation , Corruption , Augmentation , Diminution , Alteration , and Lation .

Let him also maintaine , 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 , secundum 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 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 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 element of fyre is not placed aboue the highest region of the Aire . That there are not three Regions of the Aire , or if there be , that the midle region is not cold , per antiperistasi● . That there is no transmutation 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 region 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 its heat dilating and spreading the exhalations , mixt with the Sea-water , 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 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 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 Conclusionem . Now to draw towards an end of this passage : if we suppose a man , as afore we intreated , to retaine 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 from 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 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 . 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 Christian faith and Religion .

That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denyall of most , if not all of such points of Religion , wherin the Protestant by his like denyall of them differeth from the Catholike . CHAP. VI.

IT will not be heer , I hope , impertinent , to shew in this place , how the Heathen Philosopher comparteth in the most points ( for I will not say in all ) with the Protestants , 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 a-any 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 to be in these dayes ; the Heathen 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 Protestant 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 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 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 obscure Protestant , then Swinglius to write in this sort ; (a) (a) 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 (b) (b) 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 (c) (c) In his Fas●iculus Controuers . 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 (d) (d) Gualterus in his Apolog. p o Swi●g . fol. 27. praefix . 1. tom oper. Swingl . Gualterus , (e) (e) Bulling . in confes . Eccles . Tigurin . & Bullin . in his preface of allowance to Swingl . his exposition fidei ad Regem fol. 559. Bullinger , (f) (f) Simlerus in vita Bullingeri . Simlerus , the Tigurine Deuines did defend with Swinglius , the saluauation of the Heathens , dying Heathens , appeareth further besides , 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 Protestant doth differ from the Heathen 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 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 Sacraments , that there is Scripture &c. though in the manner , or some other circumstance accompanying them , he differeth from 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 Heathens for good Christians . Secondly in that I restraine this my Assertion of comparing 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 defending 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 Protestant , 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 . 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 euident , for at the tyme of Luthers first reuolt ( who was the first Protestant in these dayes , as his owne (g) (g) 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. comm . 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 , Sacraments , or from whence receaued he his Ordination , if not from the Catholike Church ?

The confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church , not only at the first rising of Luther , but also for many ages before ( proued in this Treatise ) doth conuince the truth of this point . And therefore D. Field had iust reason to say , (h) (h) 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 conformity in faith heere made is not 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 we may discerne , that the cloudes of partiality and contradiction being once gathered about the mans iudgment , doth make him thinke others to seeme lesse , and to erre , when indeed they doe not .

That Protestancy is but a Nullity of fayth , and consequently , with reference to fayth , a Non-entity ; proued from the definition of faith , and other Conditions necessarily annexed to Fayth . CHAP. VII .

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

We finde that the Apostle defineth Fayth in these wordes : (a) (a) 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 fayth ) Fayth teacheth vs , that in the Trinity , there is one peculiar Nature , in three different Persons . Now mans naturall understanding 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 can 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 of the difficulty of belieuing Articles of fayth , the conclusion among all the Schoole Deuines ( resulting out of the former definition of fayth ) is , that (b) (b) 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 cannot giue any assent therto without the special concurrency of Gods Grace .

But heer now I demaund ; that seeing the Obiect of Protestancy ( as 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 by reason of its Negations , be most easy to be belieued , and that the beliefe of it doth not surmount 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 (c) (c) 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 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 , that children , Heathens 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 reuelation of God is necessary to giue assent of iudgement , that there is no Purgatory , no place in Hell for Children vnbaptized , no inherent Iustice , no praying to Saints , and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatiues .

Now , as touching the second poynt , which is the Authority of the Church , propounding to her Children the things by God reuealed ; we know , that in this our age Luther was the first , who denyed many Articles of Catholike Religion : heer now agayne I expostulate , what Church did propound to Luther , that these points were to be denyed , and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denyall of them ? It cannot be sayd , the Catholike Church propounded 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 from the acknowledged inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those dayes ) is euicted euen from the ingenuous Confessions of learned Protestants : for thus doth Benedictus Morgensternensis , a Protestant , contest of this point , saying : (d) (d) Tractat . de Eccles p. 145. It is ridiculous to say , that any before Luther , hath the purity of the Gospell . And vpon this ground it is , that Bucer styleth Luther , (e) (e) In lib. Apolog. of the Church , part. 4. c. 4. the first Apostle to vs of the reformed doctrine . Marke you not , how our Aduersaries do subtily make the tytles , of the Gospell , of the Apostle , of the reformed doctrine &c. to serue as certayne veyles or curtains , to hide their bad cause from the eyes of the ignorant ? Thus far to demonstrate both from the definition of Fayth set downe by S. Paul , and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true fayth , that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernaturall fayth , is but an absolute Nullit● of fayth .

That Protestancy cannot be defined and that therefore it is a Non-entity . CHAP. VIII .

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

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

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

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

That Protestancy consisteth of doctrines meerely contradictory in themselues : and that therefore Protestancy is a Non-entity . CHAP. IX .

PHilosophy instructeth vs , that what truly implyeth in it self an absolute contradiction , the same hath no Entity or being . The reason whereof is this : what implyeth a Contradiction , supposeth a Being , and a Not-being of a thing , and all at one and the same tyme : from whence then this absurdity would follow ; to wit that if such a thing could be , then could a thing be , whose being should consist in a Not-being : and consequently should be an Irreality and nothing . An vnwarrantable errour , since God , to whome it is more easy to doe then not to doe , cannot effect or make any such thing ; for euery thing that is , ought in some sort to beare a likenes to him , from whome it proceedeth . But that which hath no Being , and in it selfe is nothing , cannot beare any resemblance to him , who giueth life , & Being to euery thing ; (a) (a) Act. 17. In ipso viuimus , mouemur , & sumus .

This Philosophicall Axiome extendeth it selfe not only to the existence , or want of existence in things corporeall or material , but also to the Being , or not-being in things speculatiue & immateriall ; I meane in doctrines , and other su●h Theories of the understanding . Since then it wil easily be proued , that Protestancy in many poynts is compounded of seuerall contradictory , and opposite doctrines & Tenets ; & such , that though all may be false , & consequently haue no reall Being , yet that of necessity the one part must want all reality of being for its owne supporting ; then vnauoydably it may be concluded , that Protestancy ( as consisting of such irreconciliable doctrines ) wanteth all reality , is in it selfe , and is but a Non-entity .

I will exemplify this in a poynt or two , wherein the Protestants agree only in disagreeing . The first shal be touching the Nature of the Sacraments . All , or most of the Protestants do conspiringly deny our Catholike doctrine therein , in teaching , that they conferre grace ; but after their vnanimous denyall thereof , then they presently by imbracing of contrary doctrines , dissent amongst themselues ( like lines , which once meeting in one common Center , instantly breake of , and runne seuerall wayes : ) for ●winglius teacheth , that the Sacraments in generall , are bare and naked externall signes ; and is therefore condemned by (b) (b) Lib. de Caena Do. & lib. 4. Instit. cap. 15. sect. 1. Caluin : but Caluin by ascribing more to the Sacraments , then to externall signes , is ( by way of retaliation ) condemned by (c) (c) Epist. ad quandam Germania ciuitatem . fol. 196. Swinglius .

In like sort , The Protestants do disauow all iustification by workes , yet most of them hould , that good workes ought necessarily to accompany a iustifying fayth . But to crosse this , Luther ( after he once became setled in the lees of sensuality ) thus writeth : (d) (d) So saith Luther vpon the Galat. Englished in cap. 1. It is impiety to affirme , that fayth , except it be adorned with Charity , iustifyeth not . Yea further he sayth , (e) (e) Luther tom 1. pro. pos . 3. fides nisi sit sine &c. except fayth be without good workes , it iustifyeth not &c. O the calamity of these Canicula● and vnlucky dayes , in which eue● doctrinally , and religiously ( as may say ) is exiled all practise o● Religion , and good workes . Againe touching the Real presence in the Eucharist ; all the Sacramentaries disclayme from our doctrine therein : neuertheles diuers eminent Protestants , as (f) (f) lib. 5. Eccles. Polic. sect. 67. M. Hooker , (g) (g) Contra Duraeum pag. 168. D. Whitakers , and (h) (h) Caluin lib. 4. Inctit cap. 17 sect. 7. Caluin himselfe do teach , the Manducation of Christs true and Reall body in the Eucharist by the mouth of fayth . Yet is this doctrine who ▪ by disallowed by (i) (i) In his Epistles annexed to his Common places , englished epist. 25. ? Peter Martyr , though Peter Martyr be therefore reciprocally controuled by Bucer in his Scrip. Anglic. pag. 548. as inclining ( to vse his owne wordes ) too much to Popery . It is in like sort condemned for the most part , by our (k) (k) In their Christian letter to M. Hooker . English Puritanes . Now to turne our Pen a litle backe v●on these three former points : in ●he first we find these two contra●ictory positions : The Sacraments ●re only bare externall signes : And , ●he Sacraments are more then externall signes . In the second : Good workes are necessary to accompany fayth : And , Good workes are not necessary to accompany faith . In the third : the true and reall body of Christ is taken in the Eucharist , with the mouth of fayth : And , the true and reall body of Christ is not taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of fayth . Now what more true Contradiction can there be in Positions & Tenets of fayth then these are ? seeing ( as the Nature of Contradictions require ) they all haue a true reference ad Idem . From whence it then followeth , that the one side at least , if not both , in these former contradictions hath no reality or tru● subsistence of Being . And heereupon then I conclude , that since all these former alledged men are accepted by the Church of England , as good Protestants ; and all their meere contrary doctrines in the former poynts are taught for good Protestancy ; that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines ( whose nature requires a Not-being of one poynt ) is no reall , and truly subsisting fayth , but a meere Chymera , and Non-entity .

The points of Protestancy , touching which the Professours of Protestancy , and especially the Caluinists amongst themselues , do so diametrically differ , are ( among others ) these following : Whether God doth decree and will sinne , or but only permit sinne ? Whether the Ciuill Magistrate may be head of the Church ? whether ( as aboue is intimated ) the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of fayth , or , but Sacramentally only present ? whether in case of Adultery , the innocent party may marry againe ! whether the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme , and the vse of the Surplisse be lawfull ? whether Bishops be Antichristian , or lawfull ? whether Christ suffered in soule the paines of Hell ? besides many others . The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another ( & yet all is good Protestancy as before is sayd , and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants , and Professours of the Gospell ) that euen by the law and nature of Contradictories , the one syde must euer want a reall & subsisting Being ; and thereupon it followeth , that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine , must be in it selfe a very nothing . This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our aduersaries in Articles of Protestancy , is made more manifest by recalling to mynd , what is aboue set down touching the great & violent dissentions of the Protestants , concerning their translations of Scripture , & their booke of Common praier .

But leauing that ( as aboue touched ) the same will likewise be made euident , by remembring in what acerbity of style , the Protestants haue writ one against another ; euer intimating thereby , that the different doctrines differently maintained by them , were truly Contradictories ; and therefore the Tenets of the one syde at least , meere irreall , as wanting all true Being .

But to contract this poynt , I will particulerly insist ( as most conducing to the subiect in hand ) first in setting downe the expresse words ( in their owne dialect ) of the English Protestants , and the English Puritanes ; and after I will put downe some few tytles of Protestants Bookes , written one against another ; from which the Reader may euen depose , that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different bookes , against other Protestants defending the contrary , must of necessity be in themselues contradictory , and incompatible one with another .

But to begin with our English Protestants . And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritanes : (l) (l) In his booke dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory . They are headstrong , and hardened in Errour ; they strike at the mayne points of fayth , shaking the foundation it selfe , and calling to question Heauen and Hel , the diuinity and Humanity , yea the very Soule , and Saluation of our Sauiour himselfe . And yet more in the same place : The Puritanes haue pestilent Heresies &c. They are Hereticall and sacrilegious . M. Powell thus styleth the Puritanes : (m) (m) Powel in his considerations . They are notorious & manifest Schismatikes , cut of from the Church of God . The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them . (n) (n) In the Suruey of pretended discipline cap. 5. & 2. & 4. The Puritanes do peruert the true meaning of certaine places both of Scriture and Fathers , to serue their owne turne . Now the Puritanes on the other syde are ready to repay the Protestants former curtesy in their owne language ; for thus they write : (o) (o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplication to the high court of Parlament . Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures ? Nay rather many of them ( meaning the Bishops & their adherents ) do much swarue from the same &c. And agayne (p) (p) This appeareth in the booke of Constitutions , and C●nons Ecclesiassticall , printed . anno 1604 The worship in the Church of England corrupt , superstitious , vnlawfull , ●epugnant to the Scriptures . The Ar●icles of the Bishops Religion are erro●eous , their rites Antichristian .

By this we may discerne , what mutuall recrimination , and what ●reconciliable repugnancy there betweene the English moderate ●rotestant , and the English Pu●itan ; and this euen in great mat●ers , and of highest consequence : ●nd therefore the former M. Parks ●onfesseth sincerely and ingenu●usly of this point , thus saying : (q) (q) M. Parks vbi supra p. 3. The Protestants deceaue the world , ●nd make men belieue there is agree●ent in all substantiall points : They ●ffirme , there is no question among them of the truth . And this much touching our domesticall Protestants and Puritanes .

In the next place I will descend to forrayne Protestants , and for greater breuity , among many hundred of bookes , written by Protestants against Protestants ( see heer the (r) (r) Isa. 19. Aegyptian set against the Aegyptian , ech one fighting against his brother ; ) I will content my selfe with setting downe the titles only of ten of them . From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude , that the Controuersies ( being the subiect of those bookes ) are not of that adiaphorous , and indifferent nature , as that the Tenets of both sydes might be true ; but that the Patrones of both sides did hould cotradictory doctrines ; and such ( as that granted ( by supposall ) the truth and Being of the one part , the other of necessity wanteth all reality of Being . And to begin .

1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus Iudaizans : Hoc est , Iudaicae glossae & corruptelae , quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia , de gloriosa Trinitate , deitate Christi , & Spiritus sancti &c. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit . Wittenberg . anno 1593.

2. Alberti Graueri Bellum Ioannis Caluini , & Iesu Christi . braptae . 1598.

3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei , contra impios & blaspemos errores Swinglianorum , & Caluiuistarū . Tubingae anno 1586.

4. Anti-paraeus ; Hoc est refu●atio venenati Scripti à Dauide Pa●aeo editi , in defensione stropharum & ●orruptelarum , quibus Ioannes Calui●us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia , de mysterio Trinitatis , nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo , detestandum in modum corrupit . Francofurti . 1●98 .

5. Denominatio Imposturarum & fraudum , quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit . Bremae 1592.

6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio , de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus , quae inter Euangelicos in controuersiam vocantur Hanouiae 1596.

7. Veritatis victoria , & ruina Papatus Saxonici . Losannae 1563

8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graues & perniciosi error es Swinglianorum , in doctrina de peccatis & Baptismo : ex proprijs ipsorum libris collecti , & refutati . Magdeburg . 1562.

9. Pia defensio aduersus Ioannis Caluini , Petri Boquini , Theodori Bezae , Guillielmi Clebitij , & similium calumnias &c. Erfordiae 1583

10. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas , quae sub Zwingliani & Caluiniani nominis inuidia , vim & iniuriam patiuntur . Tiguri . 1578. And thus farre heereof , whereby we may see , that Protestancy is deadly wounded by the Pen of Protestancy .

Heere now I close vp this chapter , referring to the iudgement of the learned Reader , that seeing Protestancy is compounded of seuerall Contradictory Doctrines , ( wherof the one side must of necessity be depriued of al reall Being ) and seeing the nature of true faith exacteth , that it should be complete , entire , and perfect in it selfe ; like therein vnto an action morally vertuous , which is accomplished by the accesse of all due conducing Circumstances , but vitiated through the absence but of any one : and finally seeing that all the former repugnant doctrines of the Protestants ( besides many others of like nature by them mantained , for breuity heer pretermitted ) are accounted Euangelical , and true Protestancy ; whether it doth not indisputably , and irrepliably follow , that Protestancy in it selfe is no true fayth , but in respect thereof an absolute Irreality , and but an Intentionall Name , or word ?

That Heresy , as being a Priuation , is Non Ens ; and consequently , that Protestancy ( as consisting of the old condemned Heresies ) is a Non-Entity . CHAP. X.

IN one of the precedent Chapters it hath beene made euident , that Protestancy euen from the title of Negation , hath no reality of Being : In this place now the same shal be euicted from the Title of Priuation ; 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 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 ranged 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 , (a) (a) 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 condemned 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 consequently to discouer from 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 (a) (a) 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 (b) (b) Ierom. epist. ad Hebidiū . Visible Sacrifice ought to be now in the dayes of Christianity .

3. The denyall of (c) (c) 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 (d) (d) Ierom. lib 1 & 2. contra lonintanum . S. Ierome , and (e) (e) 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 (f) (f) Aug. l. de vnit . c. 12. Austin recordeth .

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

8. The denyall of the distinction of mortall and veniall sinne , first mantayned by the Pelagians , as (h) (h) 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 (i) (i) 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 (k) (k) In explicat . Simbol , ad Damasum . Ierome , and (l) (l) De tempore serm. 91. Austin .

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

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

13. The denyall of power to reconcile men sinning after Baptisme , by meanes of the Sacrament of Confession , was first taught by the Nouatians , as (p) (p) lib. 3. de haeret . Theodoret , and (q) (q) lib. ● . c. 33. Hist. Eusebius relate .

14. The denyall of voluntary Pouerty , and other Euangelicall Counsels , iustified by Vigilantius , as (r) (r) 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 (s) (s) 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 (t) (t) lib. de centum haeres . circa sinem . S. Damascene affirmeth .

17. To conclude , that the Primacy of Gods Church belonged only to Ecclesiasticall Persons , was denyed by Constantius and Valentinian Emperours , as witnesseth (u) (u) Athan●san epist. ad solitatiam vitam agentes . Athanasius , and (x) (x) 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 fayth and religion from them ; & thereupon to dispart , and diuide themselues from all communion in fayth , with the Orthodoxall Fathers of those pure and primitiue tymes ; who euer in the former Articles set downe in this Chapter , and in all others , did hould the Affirmatiue part to the others Negatiue : so foule a scarre herby resteth vpon the face of our Aduersaries reputation , and honour .

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

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

That there are diuers positions of Protestancy , which ( besides that they are implicitely but negations of the Catholikes contrary Affirmatiue doctrines ) are in their owne nature meerly voyde of all reality of Being . CHAP. XI .

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

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

Agayne , to omit diuers other choaking reasons , to prooue this Spirit to be a meer phantasy of the brayne ( ingendred of Pride and Ignorance ) and to haue no reality or true Being in it selfe ; how can this priuate Spirit be infallible , to which euery Heretike with equall interest thereto , coueteth chiefly to repaire , as to his strongest Sanctuary ; as we see by the experience of ancient and moderne tymes they do ? For did not the (a) (a) teste Epiphan. haeres . 69. Ioan ●● & 18. Ioan. 6. Arians (b) (b) Ioan. 1. Ioan 2. Eutichians , the (c) (c) Philip. 2. Hebr. 7 Nestorians , & the rest euer labour by the help of their owne Spirits , differerently interpreting the Scripture , to mantayne 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. Whitakers to beautify this erroneous Priuate Spirit , with his gilded description in these words : (d) (d) In controuers . 1. q. 5. cap. 3 & 11. An inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the secret closet of the belieuers heart : and repugnant , is this his delineation to the words of sacred Scripture : (e) (e) 2. Pet. 1. No Prophecy of Scripture is made by priuate interpretation . And agayne : (f) (f) 1. Iohn . cap. 4. early beloued , belieue not euery spirit , but try the spirits , if they be of God .

The second may be the (g) (g) Luth. in art. 10.11 12. Melancth. in locis tit . de fide Caluin in Antitdot . Concil. Trident. sess. 6. Protestants doctrine of Imputatiue Iustice in vs , being but a negation and denyall of the Catholike doctrine of Inherent Iustice ; vpon which doctrine , the Protestant more easily relyes , since his owne soule euen dead-aliue , ( as being organized with a liuing body , but a dead will ) is loth to practise any good workes . Now , this Imputatiue Iustice is in it selfe , a meer Ens rationis , as hauing ( contrary to the Nature of all diuine Vertues , and to all reall and true qualities ) no true Existency , or Inherency in our Soule , as the Protestants do confesse : it being only a naked application of Christs Iustice to vs , wherby our sins are palliated and couered . Againe , if a man be iust when 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 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 (h) (h) 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 common sense and the force of reason assureth vs , that there is not , nor can be any such faith in children ; but that this is in it self a meer Chymera & Phantasy : for first doth not the poore Infants 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 belieue except they heare ? (i) (i) 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 themselues do want al extension ? ) In the vnfoulding wherof , I labour not so much to display the falshood & absurdity of them ( 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 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 .

That the Protestant Church is a meer● Non-Entity , or Idea ; proued from the confessed Inuisibility thereof . CHAP. XII .

IN our entreating of the Protestant Church , first we are to recall to mynd the definition giuen thereof by the Protestants : secondly , the confessed Inuisibility of the sayd Church for many hundred yeares : from both which poynts the resultancy 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 (a) (a) 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 & 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 (b) (b) Luth. in Assert . art. 32. Luther , and (c) (c) 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 ; 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 : (d) (d) In his exposition of the Creed . For many hundred yeares our Church was not visible to the world : An vniuersall Apostasy ouerspeading the whole face of the earth . And yet more particu●erly he thus acknowledgeth : (e) (e) 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 : (f) (f) 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 : (g) (g) 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 the Protestant Church hath had no Being , since the death of the Apostles , ( as we see by the acknowledgments 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 confessed ( and indeed for all ages without exception ) no members of the Church to make profession of the sayd fayth ? This I auerre , is ●bsurd to mantaine ; since we see a shadow cannot 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 Protestant , 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 Protestancy , by reason of the Inuisibility of that Church for so many ages , 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 ?

That the confessed want of Personal● Succession , and lawfull calling in the Protestant Church , proueth their Church to be no reall thing , but a meer fiction ; and consequently , that Protestancy is but an Intentionality , or bare Notion of the mynd . CHAP. XIII .

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 . 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 acknowledgement , Essentiall to the Church ; to wit , the Administration of the Word , and Sacraments . Now , if it can be proued , that the Protestant 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 : secondly , that the administration 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 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 ; & consequently that , that society of Christians , which want these two poynts , is no Church at all . Touching the necessity of Personal Succession , thus we read : (a) (a) 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 : (b) (b) 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 , (c) (c) So sayth Do-For Fulk agaynst the Rhemish Testament . for euer , and (d) (d) D Fulk agaynst Heskins , Sanders &c. pag. 539. to the end of the world . Now the reason , 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 iudgment , 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 (e) (e) D. Whitaker contra Du●●cum , lib. 3. p. 249. D. Whitakers teacheth ) being present do constitute a Church , being absent do subuert it . And D. Willet 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 sortably heerto other Protestants do write thus : (f) (f) Proposition and Principles disputed of in the Church of Geneua . pag. 845. The ministery is an Essentiall marke of the true Church . From 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 Sacraments is deduced from the Scripture ; so also is the necessity of Lawfull vocation , according to those wordes : (g) (g) Rom. 10. How shall they preach , except they be sent ? And that : (h) (h) 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 of their Ministers for the preaching of the word , and Administration of the Sacraments . 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 : them 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 thus plunged , do flie for reliefe to Extraordinary calling ; for thus writeth Caluin : (i) (i) Lasciuius a Protestant in his booke ac Russorum , 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 : (k) (k) Fulke agaynst Stapleton , 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 dangerous an incision their own pens haue made in the wounds of their owne Church : for first D. Bilson thus teacheth : (l) (l) D. Bilson in his perpetual gouerment 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 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 ) (m) (m) 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 Protestant 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 ; (n) (n) 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 compasse , I thus dispute , If the Protestant 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 (o) (o) Isa. 162. Isay stileth them ; if it hath not had true Pastours , then hath it not enioyed the true Administration of the word and Sacraments : 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. Willet , and other Protestants in expresse words aboue cyted , doe auer ) but if the Protestant Church hath by this meanes wanted 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 selfe no Essence or being , but is a meere Nullity , or Non Ens.

The Non-Entity of Protestancy , proued from that , which it worketh in the Wills of its Professours . CHAP. XIV .

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 , found to be only vaporous imaginations without al subsistence or being . Now , we will demonstrate the like Irreality of Protestancy , by taking into our consideration , what that Religion produceth in the belieuers thereof , in regard of the Will , & of Morality in conuersation & manners . 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 , Who (a) (a) 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 priuation of goodnes , hath ( as (b) (b) 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 (c) (c) In Common places in English . part. 1. cap. 17. euill thing ( & 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 understanding ( 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 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 ? And vpon this ground it is , that the Protestants teach , that (d) (d) Luther serm. de Moyse . the ten Commandements appertayne not vnto Christians . (e) (e) D. Willet 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 condemning 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 from 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 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 from 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 notwithstanding 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 (f) (f) In praefat. ad Rom. Illiricus ●hus traduce all good workes ? To 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 : (g) (g) 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 : (h) (h) Contra Camp. rat. 8. Virginity is not simply good , but after a certayne manner . And of fasting D. Willet thus teacheth : (i) (i) 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● 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 manners , & 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 more obscure Protestants ; for we read , that If the eye be wicked , then all the body shal be darke . Matth. 1.5 . Now in the displaying heerof I will forbeare all testimonies of Catholikes agaynst them ( since they would be presumed as ouer partiall in their Censures ) but will rest eyther in their owne writings or confessions of their learned Protestants their acknowledged brethren 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 . (k) (k) Luth. tom. 1. propè finem Faith vnlesse it be without the least good workes , doth not iustify , it is not faith . Which very saying D. Couel acknowledgeth as spoken by Luther , & tearmeth it , Harsh , & (l) (l) D. Couel in his defence of Hooker printed 1603. pag. 41. iustly called in question by the Church of Rome . Concerning mariage or diuorce , Luth●r thus writeth : Si (m) (m) Luth. serm. de Matrins . This sentence as spoken by Luther is acknoledged by D. Whit. cont. Camp . 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 (n) (n) 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 woman if a man can obtayn it . And againe : As (o) (o) 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 (p) (p) Luther tom . episto . latinar . fol. 334. ad Philippum . am burned with the great flame of my vntamed flesh &c. Eight dayes are now past , wherin I neyther did wryte , pray , nor study ; being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh , partly with other trouble . And finally : (q) (q) 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 among themselues : Hodie (r) (r) 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 Protestant 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 them in Scripture , are only (s) (s) Swingl . tom . 1. printed 1581. de prouident . Dei f. 137. Hyperbolical , or transcending the truth . Touching God being the Authour of sin , Swinglius thus writeth (t) (t) Swingl . tom. 1. de de prouid . fol. 3●6 . That , the theefe is enforced to sinne : That (u) (u) Swing . vbi supra . God mooueth the Theefe to kill : (x) (x) Swingl . vbi supra . That , the Theefe killeth , God procuring him : That , (y) (y) Vbi supra fol. 366 Dauids adultery pertayned to God , as Authour . (x) (x) 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 (a) (a) In his Absurda absurdorum &c. printed 1606 cap. 5. de praedest . fo ▪ 3. 4. Grawerus ( Rector of the Protestant Vniuersity of Islebium ) condemneth Swinglius of this most blasphemous doctrine , of God being the Authour of sinne .

Now to come to Swinglius his deportment and cariage in manners . (b) (b) The title of Swinglius & other eyght Ministers supplication for wyues is this : Pietate & prudentia insigni Heluetiorum Reipublicae Huldericus Swinglius alijque Euangelica 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 : (c) (c) Vbi supra fo. 115 We 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 coram 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 : (d) (d) Vbi upra . We desire to marry , least the Soules committed to our charge ( diutius offendantur ) should be any longer offended . And yet more (e) (e) Vbi supra fol. 119 We haue proued , that the weakenes of our flesh hath been the cause ( proh dolor ! ) O for griefe ! of our often falling . And finally . (f) (f) 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 Protestancy 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 to this day , where he was punished ; and also by (g) (g) 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 : (h) (h) Slujselburg . vbi supra . Deus manu sua potenti &c. God so strucke Caluin with his mighty hand , 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 Protestant wryteth . This manner of Caluins death is further witnessed by (i) (i) Herennius in his lib. de vita Calu. Ioannes Herennius ( 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 ; for thus he wryteth : (k) (k) 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 yong boy called Andebertus , and his fornication 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 .

Abest Candida Beza quid moraris ? Andebertus abest , quid hic moraris ? Tenent Parisij tuos amores , Habent Aurelij tuos lepores . Et tu Veselijs manere pergis ? Procul Candidula , amoribusque : Immo Veselij procul valete , Et vale Pater , & valete fratres ; Nam Veselijs carere possum , Et carere parente , & his & illis ; At non Candidula , Andebertoque &c.

Then followeth .

Sed vtrum , rogo , praeferam duorum ? Vtrum inuisere me decet priorem ? An quenquam tibi Candida anteponam ? An quenquam tibi praeferam Andeberte ? Quid si me in geminas secem ipse partes , Harum vt altera Candidam reuisat , Currat altera versus Andebertum ? At est Candida sic auara , noui , Vt totum cupiat tenere Bezam ; Sic Bezae est cupidus sui Andebertus , Beza vt gestiat integro potiri , Amplector quoque sic hunc , & illam , ●t totus cupiam videre vtrumque , ●ntegris frui integer duobus .

Then he thus concludeth .

Preferre artamen alterum necesse est . O duram nimiùm necessitatem ! Sed postquam tamen alterum necesse est , Priores tibi defero Andeberte ; Quod si Candida forte conqueratur , Quid tum ? basiolo tacebit vno .

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 (l) (l) 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 : (m) (m) Tilmanus Heshusius in his booke entituled Verae & sanae Confessionis . Beza nefandos amores , illicitos concubitus , scort● iones , foeda adulteria sacrilego carmine decantauit orbi . As also by (n) (n) D. Sparks in his answere to D. Albin printed 1591. pa. 400. M. Sparkes , (o) (o) D. Sutcl ff in Turca-papismo printed 1599. lib. 3. cap. 10. pag. 204. D. Succliffe , and (p) (p) 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 . Notwithstanding 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 Protestant Religion . And therefore though the iudicious Reader may perhaps 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 .

The Non-entity of Protestancy proued , from that our Aduersaries cannot agree , what doctrines be Protestancy ; & what Professours or sorts of men be members of the Protestant Church . CHAP. XV.

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 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 : them 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 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 members 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 , 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 iudgment 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. Whitakers shall serue , who thus writeth : (a) (a) D. Whitak . lib. contra Duraeum . ● . sect. 2. I will not allow the very name of a lawful Church , vnto the Romane Church , because it hath nothing , which a true Church ought to haue .

To proceed . The Protestants ●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 : (b) (b) Cap. 9. We 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 : (c) (c) Cap. 20 We 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 : (d) (d) Act. 1. We condemne all Heresies , rising agaynst this Article ( meaning the Article of the Trinity ) as the Manichees , Arians , Eunonians &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this poynt receaueth its further proofe from the Protestants 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 committed 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 Protestants do dreame ) then are Idolaters members of the Protestant Church .

But the Protestant doth not limit his Church with in these former Cancells or bounds ; for he also comparteth and interleageth euen with the Infidels , Infidels . admitting them to be members of his owne Church , & teaching that they be capable of saluation . For (h) (h) Act. Mon. pag. 495. M. Fox relateth of a Protestant Martyr ( by him for learning and vertue much magnified ) who thus taught A Turke , Saracene , or any Mahometan whatsoeuer may be saued , if he trust in one God , and keep his law . And (i) (i) Bale Cent. 6. p. 404. Bale warnes vs to be wary , that we condemne not rashly any Turke . But this poynt is further most amply taught by Swinglius and other Protestant 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 Protestancy yet receaued its due circumscription , as I may say , and confinement ? No : for the Protestants charity is so great and immense , Antichrist as that they are content to admit and indenize euen him , whome they mantaine ( by their own writings ) to be the true Antichrist , for a member of the Protestant Church . O most strange Church , consisting of such Heterogeneous members ! That this is so , I thus prooue : The Protestants ( I meane the greatest part of them ) confidently teach , that the Pope is the true Antichrist , deciphered in the holy Scripture . Now marke , what Protestants neuertheles confesse in this poynt D. Whitakers thus writeth : (k) (k) D. Whit. in his Answere to the first demonstration . of D. Sanders . I will not say , that from the tyme , that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselues haue beene all damned . And yet the sayd D. Whitakers elswhere (l) (l) D. Whit. in his answere to the last demonstration . of D. Sanders . auerreth most confidently , the Pope to be Antichrist ▪ I will adioyne heerto the like charitable censure of M. Powell : who taught the Pope to be Antichrist , and yet thus writeth : (m) (m) M. Powel de Antichristo cap. 33. p. 338. I will in no wise say , that all the Popes from the tyme wherein Papistry was first reuealed to be Antichristianity , are damned . Thus far of what persons are truly acknowledged by the iudgement of the Protestants for members of their owne Church . But Musculus , the Protestant , is more lauish herein , and proceedeth yet one step further , by enlarging the Protestant Church ; his wordes are these : (n) (n) Musculus in loco com . de coena p. 552. I imbrace all for brethren in the Lord , howsoeuer they disagree from me , or amongst themselues ; as long as they mantayne not the Popish Impiety . O most Serpentine and diuelish rancour and malice ! Thus far of this Subiect in generall . But now to reflect vpon the premises , and to draw from thence an vnauoydable deduction .

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

The Non-Entity of Protestancy demonstrated , from that , euery Protestant eyther in himselfe , or in his Predecessours , originally departed , and came out , from the Roman Catholike Church . CHAP. XVI .

AN other Medium , to proue that Protestancy is a meer Irreality , or Non-Entity , may be this . Yf it can be proued , that Protestancy is more late , & yong then the Catholike Religion is ; then followeth it , that Protestancy cannot haue any true and reall Subsistence . Fot if our Catholike & Roman Religion had a being before Protestancy ; and that Protestancy did appeare long after , and consisteth only in the denyall of most of the Articles of the Catholike Religion ; then followeth it vnauoydably , that Protestancy is but an imaginary Conceyte , or Fabricke of the imagination without any foundation of Being : for seing the Catholike Fayth , & the Protestant Faith are directly contradictory & oppositly repugnant , both of them cannot enioy a reall Being : for if they could , them 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 Protestant be alledged ( speaking of such Protestants , as are out of Controuersy , and acknowledged for such both by Protestant and Catholike ) who was not eyther in himselfe ; or in his Forefathers , first a Catholike ; & who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions afore neuer generally taught , did separate himselfe & depart from the Cath. Church then afore in Being . Of which sort of men these wordes in S. Iohn are vnderstood , Exierunt 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 man in disseminating of Protestancy in England in King Edwards dayes ) was first a (a) (a) So saith Sleidan l. 9. at anno 1547. fol. 297. Monke , and forsaking his Monastical life , began to preach Protestancy . (b) (b) Osiander Cent. 16. l. 1. c. 33. Bucer was at the first also a Moke , & vpon his reading of Luthers booke of Vowes , forsooke his Monastery & married a woman . Swinglius * * So saith Hospinian in hystor . Sacram. fol. 22. was first a Catholike Priest , & publike Preacher at Tigure in Switzerland . Luther was a Priest , & an (c) (c) In his Epist. to his Father extat tom . 2. Wittemberg . printed 1568. fol. 269. Austin Friar ; & vpon 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 acknowledgment of the learned Protestants . For M. Perkins thus writes : (d) (d) In his Exposition vpon the Creed . p. 400. We say , that before the dayes of Luther , for the space of many hundred yeares , an Vniuersall Apostasy so ouerspread the face , of the Church , that is was not then visible to the world . And Doctour Iewell , confesseth no lesse , saying : (e) (e) In his Apolog. of the Church . pant . 4. c. 34. The truth was vnknowne at that tyme , & vnheard of , when Martin Luther & Hulderick Swinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell . Yea Luther himself euen Thrasonically contesteth this poynt in these his words : (f) (f) Luther in epist. ad Argentinens . anno 1525. Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari : so cleare it is , that Luther was originally a Catholike , and that at his first rising there was no Protestant Church in the world . But to proceed further . Husse was a Catholike Priest before his reuolt , and wholy till that tyme imbraced the Catholike Fayth , as (g) (g) In Colloq . de Antichristo . Luther and (h) (h) In Apocalip . c. 11. p. 290. M. Fox do testify . Ierome of Prague was first a Catholike , and after became an Heretike ; who being at the Councell of Constance , renounced openly his heresies ; but after apostating the second tyme , he lost his lyfe . Wicleff was first a Catholike Priest , and Parson of Lutterworth in Licestershyre , and first abandoned his Religion , because he was depriued of a Benefice by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury , as (i) (i) In his Annals of England . printed 1591. pa. 425. Stow recordeth .

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

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

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

Now to rise to higher tymes The like may be sayd of the auncient Nouelists , broaching some poynts of Protestancy : As Aerius , denying prayer for the dead ; Manicheus freewill ; Iouinian , teaching Virginity to be no better than mariage ; Donatus , denying the Visibility of the Church , and all others of those tymes without exception . From which men are descended the Aerians , Manicheans , Iouinians &c. taking their denomination from the former men , according to that , Chrpsost . Homil. 3. in act . Apolog. Prout Haeresiarchae Nomen , ita Secta vocatur . All which men were originally Catholikes , and most of them Priests , and vpon 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 from 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 , 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 , (q) (q) Luth. lib. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 1551 pag. 454. Luther , and other (r) (r) 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 them do we find in the Fathers writings , or otherwise recorded in any Ecclesiasticall History of those tymes . Secondly 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 : (s) (s) In Ep. de abrogandis in vniuersum 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 : (t) (t) In his answere to a countefaite 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 Protestant before the reuolt of Luther can be instanced ; but that it may be shewed , 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 : (u) (u) 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 : (x) (x) 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 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 contents 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 from out any more ancient Church afore in Being ( both which points 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 God is more ancient then the Diuell , and Truth then falshood .

That the Protestant denyes the Authorities of all those Affirmatiue , and Positiue Heads , from whence the Catholikes draw their proofes . CHAP. XVII .

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 to his fayth , resteth onely vpon Negations ; Now heer it shall appeare , that whereas the Catholike drawes out his proofes in defence 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 patration wherof God for his approbation of the sayd Religion , euen disiointeth the setled frame of Nature : The Protestants in answere heerto , deny the force of miracles , tearming them , but (a) (a) 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 (b) (b) 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 Protestants with full voyce & cry , deny these bookes to be (c) (c) 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 Protestant denyes the Translation of the said Scripture to be true and sincere ; auerring , that it is adulterated & corrupted by false versions of it . This appeareth from 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 , them much lesse will they stand vnappealably to our Catholike Translations of the Scripture .

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

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

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

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

8. If he produce the Testimonies of particuler Fathers of the Primitiue Church : Marke with what contempt and indignity the Protestant denyes them : for Luther thus depresseth them : (o) (o) Luth. de seruo arbitrio , printed 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures ; they haue erred all their lyfe tyme , & vnles they were amended before their deaths , they were neyther Saints , nor pertayning to the Church . And another ( though no Lutherane , yet of Luthers descent ) in this his scurrilous Pasquill thus traduceth the Fathers : (p) (p) 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 concerne matter of fact , as touching the supposed change of fayth in the visibility of the Church , the vocation and mission of Pastours , & the vninterrupted Administration of the word and Sacraments , all which are to receaue their proofe ( or els not to be proued at all ) from 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. Whitakers thus by denyall aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories ; (q) (q) D. D. Whitak . contra Duraeum . l. 7. pag. 478. Sufficit nobis &c. To vs it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture , to discouer the disparity of faith between them and vs : And as for Historiographers , we giue them liberty to write what they will . And accordingly , touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her fayth , he thus concludeth : (r) (r) Whitak . vbi supra . pag. 277. It is not needfull to vs , to search out in Histories the beginning of this change .

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

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

That Sundry of the most learned Protestants ( as not houlding a Negatiue fayth , to be any reall fayth at all ) agree with the Catholikes , in belieuing the Affirmatiue Articles of the Catholike fayth . CHAP. XVIII .

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 (1) (1) Id est Secundae cogitationes , prudentiores . sayth the greek sentence ; to which may well seeme to allude in sense , ( though not in wordes ) that other saying : (2) (2) Praestat retrosum currere , quam male currere . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The meaning of which two sentences diuers of our learned Aduersaries haue thought good to incorporate in their owne writings . Who vpon their later & more retired thoughts ; and houlding it a greater honour , rather to returne well backe in their iudgements , then to proceed badly forward , haue wholy disclaimed from this their Negatiue fayth : For many of them 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 Religion should for euer haue a working influence ouer their iudgments , haue therfore 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 mantained by the Church of Rome . ● will insist in twenty principall Articles of our Catholike Religion , ( 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 variety of the Affirmatiue Catholik● Articles mantayned by them . 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 chiefly differing from the Catholike in the manner of the Presence .

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

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

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

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

6. The visibility of the Church at al tymes , is affirmed by (a) (a) In l●c . ●●m . ●dit . 1561 C. ●el ●e●●s Melancthon , by (b) (b) In Iesuit . sin . part. 2 . ●a . 3 p. 240. D. Humfrey , (c) (c) 〈◊〉 . of the Church c. 10 pag. 5. D. Field (d) (d) 〈◊〉 his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Engl● p 15● Peter Martyr , & (e) (e) 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 (f) (f) In the tower d●●putat . with Edmund Campian , the second dayes Conscience . D. Fulke , (g) (g) In his Synops. p. 4● . D. Willet , and many others .

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

8. Freewill , taught by Snecanus , & Hemingius , as (p) (p) In his Synops. printed 1600. p. 808. D. Willet acknowledgeth ; and belieued by diuers Protestants , mentioned in (q) (q) 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 , & 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 penitent ? ) 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. (r) (r) In his disp. Theo. p. 301. Lobechius Doctour and Professor in the Vniuersity of Rostock , by (s) (s) In Concil. loco rum scripturae repugnantium . lin. 194. fol. 218. Andreas Althamerus , by (t) (t) In loc. com . tom. 1. de potestate Eccles. f. 305. Sarcerius , by (u) (u) In his Margarita Theol pa. 116. & 117. Spandeb urge , & finally by (x) (x) In Swenckfildio Caluinis . p. 55. Iacobus Helbrunerus . And hence it is , that Absolution is affirmed by Melancthon , to be ( as his words are ) (y) (y) 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 (z) (z) Luth. in Ep. ad Bohemos , & l. de vtraque specie Sacram. Luther , by (a) (a) Melancth. in Cent. Ept. Theol ep. 74. p. 252. Melancthon , and (b) (b) Bucer in the Confession of Ratisbon . Bucer . Luthers wordes are these : (c) (c) 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 (d) (d) In his treatise of the Church . p. 2●9 . D. Field ; of the Baptisme of Infants , by (e) (e) l. epist. Swingl . & Oecolamp . p. 301. Oecolampadius , and by (f) (f) to . 2 l. ac Baptis . fol. 90. Swinglius , and in like manner by our (g) (g) In his defence . p. 539. Doctour Whitgift : of the Tradition of Easter , by (h) (h) D. Couel in his Answere to Iohn Burges . p. 139. D. Couell : of the Tradition of the vse of the Crosse , and the name (i) (i) D. Couel in his examination of the Plea of the Innocents . pag. 104. Archbishop , by (k) (k) 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. (l) (l) Eccles. Pol. lib. 2. pag 113. Hooker , by D. (m) (m) Lib. de perfest . obedient . legis Dei . Castal●o , by M. (n) (n) In his reformed Catholike pag. 26. & 51. Perkins , & (o) (o) 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 commanded ; is taught by (p) (p) In assert . art ●0 Luther , (q) (q) Eccles. Pol. lib. 3. sect. 8. pa. 140. M. Hooker , and (r) (r) 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 (s) (s) In loc. com . de bonis operib . circa me●●um . Melancthon , by the Publike (t) (t) Pag. 495. & 27● Confessions in the Harmony , by (u) (u) In Margar. Theol. p. 48. & 50. Spandeburge , by (x) (x) Eccles. Pol. l ▪ ● . sect 72. pag. 208. M. Hooker .

14. Peters Primacy , maintayned by (y) (y) As he is alledged by D. Whitgift in his defence , pag. ●73 . & 469. Caluin , by (z) (z) Whitgift vbisupra . D. Whitgift , by (a) (a) Musculus so alledged by D. Whitgift vbi supra . Musculus , and by (b) (b) D. Bridg. In his defence of the gouernement &c. pag. 445.446 : D. Bridges Bishop of Oxford .

15. Prayer for the dead , defended by (c) (c) as witnesseth Vrbanus Rhegius in prima parte operum in formula cautè loquendi cap. de Sanctorum cultu . Luther , & Vrbanus Rhegius , by (d) (d) In his scrip●a Anglicana . p. 450. Martin Bucer , by (e) (e) Fox Act. Mon. pag. 149. William Torpe , and (f) (f) 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 (g) (g) In lib. Epist. Oecol . & Swingl 1. pag. 274. Swinglius , by (h) (h) In his treatise of prayer in generall for all mankind . M. Smith , by (i) (i) In method . descript pag. 430. Snecanus , by (k) (k) In his Questions vpon Genesis pag. 118. M. Gibbons , by (l) (l) Enchiridion clas. 3. pag. 220. & 221. Hemingius , by (m) (m) In method . Theol. lib. 2. p. 431. 435. 436. Hiperius , by (n) (n) Eccles. policy l. 5. pag. 104. M. Hooker , by (o) (o) Vpon the Apocal. in English f. 79 Bullinger : and finally , by most of the learned Lutheranes , and diuers other learned Caluinists , as witnesseth (p) (p) 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. Worshipping of Images , defended by certayne Protestants of Germany ( as (q) (q) In his respons . ad acta colloq Montis-Belgar . part altera pag 23. Beza witnesseth ) by Bilney a Protestant , as (r) (r) 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 (s) (s) Art. 25 Iniunctions , by (t) (t) In epist. Pauli ad Philippens . Coloss. Thessal . in Philip. ca. 2. v. 10 f. 12● . col. 2. Zanchius , by (u) (u) In his defence , pag. 742. D. Whitgift , by (x) (x) In his summons for sleepers p. 30. M. Leonard Wright , by (y) (y) In loc. co n p 59. Musculus .

18. That Christ was from his Natiuity full of knowledge , & free from Ignorance , taught by (z) (z) Alledged by Beza , in respons , ad Act colloq . Mon●isbelgar . part. 1. p. 147. & 148. Iacobus Andreas , (a) (a) In Enchirid Controuers . 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 (b) (b) In resp. ad Act. colloq . Montisb . part. 1. p. 147. Beza , by (c) (c) In his reuiew of D Kelli-Suruey printed 1606 p. 55 D. Succliffe , and by (d) (d) In his Synops. p. 599. & 600. As also gainsaid by most of the Puritanes . D. Willet .

19. That Christ is God of God , and hath his Substance of his Father , as the whole Catholicke Church holdeth ; maintained by (e) (e) In Apoc. p. 474. M. Fox , by (f) (f) In disp. ●0 . Theol. p. 49 Lobechius , by (g) (g) In his Confut of Atheisme p. 37. D. Doue , by (h) (h) In loc. com . an. 1561. p. 24. Melancthon , by (i) (i) Eccl. pol l. 5 p. 113 M. Hooker , by (k) (k) In his defence of M. Hooker p. 16. & 17. D Couell , and finally by the (l) (l) pag 34. Confession of Belgia , in the Harmony . But contradicted by m m In his explicat . persidiae Valent. Gentilis . extant in his tract . Theol p. 771 Caluin , (n) (n) Contra Heshuti● . Beza , (o) (o) Contra Camp●ra● . ● . D. Whitakers , 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 (p) (p) In epi. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss. Thessalon pag. 216. Zanchius , (q) (q) See the booke entituled An●ichristus , siue Prognostica sinis mundi , pag 74. 75 79. See also Fran. Lambertus vpon this point in his Comment. vpon the Reuelat. Franciscus Lambertus , and according to (r) (r) D. Doue in his sermon of the second 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 Protestants ; 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 .

Certayne Porismata , or Resultancies , rising out of the seuerall passages of this Treatise . CHAP. XIX .

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 shal be , 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 will be worshipped with such an empty , and imaginary Religion . For how can it enter into any braine , but to weene , that he , from whome streame the different welsprings and sources of all things , for he is (a (a Psal. 55 fons vitae , (b) (b) Eccl. 1. fons sapipientiae , (c) (c) 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 ; (d) (d) 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 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 : (e) (e) 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 potent , & 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 (f) (f) As in Psal. 9. & 10. God shall rayne snares vpon 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 confounded . 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 Channell ) into the belieuers will , improbity , sensuality , Iniustice , and all dissolution whatsoeuer in conuersation & manners ? But such are the Protestants Articles of denying Free-will , denying the possibility of keeping the Comandements , denying of Purgatory , denying Iustification by works , depressing of Virginity , Pouerty , and Obedience , & such other Protestanticall Tenets aboue 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 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 (g) (g) so writeth Hyppolytus Martyr , in orat de consumma●ione munde . Fathers doe coniecture , that his name shal be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , signifying Nego : and this both by reason , that this greeke word maketh : vp the number , to wit b b Apocal. 13. 666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist , as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shal at his comming , both in their denyalls and workes , labour mightily to euert Christian Religion . And if S. Iohn sayth truly , that euery one , who in any sort denieth Iesus to be Christ , may figuratiuely be tearmed Antichrist ; (i) (i) Ioan. 1. Quis est mendax , nisi qui negat Iesum esse Christum ? & hic est Antichristus &c. how fully , simply , and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his comming deny Iesus to be Christ ? And consequently shall deny all the particular mysteries of Christianity .

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

Now this being granted by them , how mightily are the Protestants foyled thereby ? For first whereas their owne doctrine is , that the (k) (k) Luth. so teacheth praefat. Assertionis suae . Caluin . lib. 4. Instit. c. 9. Kemnit . in Examen . Concil. Trident. sess. 4. Melancthon locis . de Ecclesia . Scripture is the sole Iudge of Controuersies in Religion , they are heerby , by their owne implicite confessions , euen as yet depriued of this Iudge : seeing themselues do grant , that the pure and vncorrupted Scripture , and not as it is abastarded with deprauations , ought to be this Iudge . Agayne , to be depriued of the true Scripture ) as themselues by acknowledging all former Translations to be impure , & false , must consequently 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 Protestants by their former excepting against al Communion Books hitherto published , do acknowledg to want ) the Protestants do heerin potentially grant , that hitherto they haue not known how , and in what manner they ought to pray ; which how great a spiritual detriment it is , who seeth not ? since by Praier we ouercome him , who is inuincible ; praier indeed being the mother & daughter of teares ; by which teares ( seconded with the help of the Sacraments ) the blemishes and spots of our soules are washed out : (l) (l) Psal. 50. Lauabis me , & super niuem dealbabor .

4. The fourth . It is in the former passages proued , euen from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants ; that the Protestant Church hath for many ages beene Inuisible , or rather during those tymes vtterly extinct . Now this confessed disparition & vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men , doth necessarily inuolue in it selfe , that the Protestant Church is not , nor can be the true Church of God , since the true Church of God must at all tymes enioy a continual & vneclipsed splendour of its owne visibility . I will enleauen this my Assertion , both with the authority of holy Scripture , & the voluntary acknowledgments of our learned aduersaries . And not to ouercharge the Reader , with a needles surplusage of many testimonies ; some few ( and those pertinent ) shall serue . And first we thus read to be prophecyed of the Church of God : (m) (m) Isa. 60 The Iles shall waite for thee , their Kings shall minister vnto thee , and thy gates shall be continually open ; neyther day , nor night shall they be shut , that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentils . And in the new Testament , it is sayd of our Sauiour . (n) (n) Ephes. 4. He gaue Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of Saints &c. till we all meete in the vnity of faith : that is ( as is els where in this Treatise shewed ) euen by the Protestants scholia , (o) (o) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testament in Ephes . 4 for euer . Now , these former diuine Oracles prouing an vninterupted visibility of the Church of God , are attended on with the like acknowledgments euen of the Protestants : for Melancthon ( after he had alledged certaine places of Scripture , in proofe of the Churches euer visibility ) doth thus write : (p) (p) Melancthon in lotis com . edit . anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia . Hi & similes loci &c. These , and such lyke places of Scripture , non de Idaea Platonica , sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur . And D. Field accordeth therto , thus saying : (q) (q) D. Field lib. 1. of the Church . cap. 10. It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vaine , in prouing that there is , & alwayes hath beene a visible Church &c. for all this we most willingly yield vnto . Finally D. Humfrey thus sealeth vp the truth hereof : (r) (r) D. Humfrey in Iesuitis . part. 2. c. 3. Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam , Conclusio est clarissima . It is a manifest Conclusion , that the Church is to be conspicuous , or visible . Now heer aboue is deliuered ; first , that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Inuisible : Secondly , ( as proued both from the Scriptures , and from our Aduersaries doctrine ) that the true Church of God must at all tymes be visible , and conspicuous . If then 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 deduction of prouing the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God , may be made from the confessed want of administring the word & Sacraments in the sayd Church . For seeing the Administration of the word & Sacraments 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 than 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 Essential 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 euen from the Aduersaries pens . This is the greatest & most conuincing proofe that can be desired ; for heere marke , what both 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. Whitaker ( contra Bellar. l. de Eccles controuers . 2. q. 5. c. 14 ) subscribes in these wordes : The Argument 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 from its enemyes . Thus D. Whitaker . Now , that these Protestants ( maintaining our former Catholike Articles ) were persuaded , that the sayd Catholike points receaued their warranted proofe from the sacred Scripture , appeareth euidently from this one Consideration ; to wit , because all the former alledged Protestants ( some foure or fiue only excepted ) do wholy reiect the doctrine of Traditions ; confidently & vnanimously teaching , that nothing is to be belieued , as an Article of Fayth , but what hath its expresse warrant and authority from the written word of God .

6. The last resultancy is , that the many Negatiue Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in Iudaisme , Turcisme , and an vtter abnegation of Christian Religion . The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my Assertion : for diuers of them neuer stayed in the endles progresse of refyning their Religion by Negations , till at the close of all , they denyed all Articles of Christian Religion , and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity ; & therupon apostating from Christianity , they became most blasphemous Iewes , or Turkes ; so true it is , that Turcisme , and Iudaisme is the last colour , dye , or tincture , that Protestancy taketh . Some few Examples heereof among many , I will in this place retaile ; And first Dauid George , who was a markable Protestant , and once Professour at (s) (s) 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 (t) (t) See Historia Dauidis Georgij printed at Antwerp . 1568. published by the Diuines of Basill . Apostata . Againe Andreas Volanus ( an eminent Caluinist ) not only became a Turke , but corrupted diuers others with his pestilent writings (u) (u) 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 (x) (x) In his booke de tribus Elohim . Zanchius , (y) (y) In Theolog. Caluinist . lib. 1. fol. 9. Conradus Slusselburge , two Protestants , and (z) (z) 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 : (a) (a) Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81. Mihi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse . In like sort Alamannus , a Swinglian , and once deare to (b) (b) So witnesseth Conrad . Slusselb . in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art. 2. Beza , in the end denyed the Christian faith , & became a Iew ; of whome Beza thus complaineth : A lamannum affirmant ad Iudaismum defecisse . Lastly Neuserus , who was chiefe Pastour of Heidelberge in the Palatinate , in the end abnegated all Christian Religion , and becomming a Turke , caused himselfe to be circumcised at Constantinople , as (d) (d) Osiander Cent. 16. part. 2. p. 818. Osiander the Protestant doth witnesse , thus writing of him : Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis &c. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantinopoli circumcisus . But I will close vp this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus , who thus writeth of himselfe , and of other Caluinists , denying the Blessed Trinity : (e) (e) Osiander relateth , that Neuserus did write these words from 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 , Blandrata , 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 them ) of our Negatiue Reformations neuer cease running , till in the end they all disgorge themselues into the mayne Ocean of Apostasy , and Infidelity : So certayne it is , that a Caluinist , being lastly sublimated and refyned by Negations , becommeth an Arian , Turke , or Iew.

That the Catholike Church , and the Protestant Church , are not one and the same Church : though some Protestants teach the Contrary , for the supporting of their owne Church . CHAP. XX.

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

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

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

And first : If we take into our consideration , what it is , which maketh the true Church ( for speaking of the Church of God , we must needs vnderstand thereby the true Church ; seeing God hath no false Church ) for that sentence of S. Cyprian Cyprian lib. de 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 Protestants do maintaine such contrary Articles of fayth , as that of necessity the one part must be false , & consequently not to be belieued by the Members of Christs Church ; then 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 euen among the Protestants themselues aboue in this Treatise ; ) But if one Protestant thinke another Protestant to be ( for his supposed false fayth ) no member of Christs Church , but an Heretike ; then with much more reason we may pronounce the same betweene the Catholike and the Protestant .

Now , this poynt taketh its more euident demonstration of proofe from this one consideration ; to wit , that the Catholike and the Protestant doe not belieue one & the same Creed . If then they both do not belieue one and the same Creed ( and yet the Creed is but an abstract or Compendium of the true fayth of christ ) can it be possibly conceaued , that the Catholicke and Protestant doe make one and the same Church ? But to descend to the Creed . It is true , that the Protestant & Catholike doe in words recite one and the same Creed ; but seeing it is the intended sense of the holy Ghost in euery Article thereof , and not the words , which make the Creed ; it followeth that if the Catholike , and Protestant doe belieue the sayd Articles of the Creed in a different , or rather contrary sense , that then they doe not belieue the Creed ; for to belieue the Creed in a false sense , is not to belieue it all : The Creed in this respect iustly challenging to it selfe that priuiledge , which the holy Scripture doth ; of which S. Ierome thus writeth : g g 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 God (h) (h) 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 (i) (i) D. Reynolds in his second Conclusion , annexed to his Conference . p. 697. God will punish man with euerlasting Torments , for his not keeping of the sayd Ten Commandements .

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

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

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

Concerning the Article of forgiuenes of sinnes ; The Catholike belieues , that actuall sinnes are forgiuen by the Sacrament of Pennance , and that thereby the soule of man becommeth truly Iust in the sight of God ; obtayning by this meanes a true and Inherent Iustice : The Protestant acknowledgeth not any Sacrament of Pennance ; neyther doth he acknowledge any reall and (o) (o) Calu. l. 3. Instit. c 12. Kemnit . ●n Exam. Concil. Trident. Inherent Iustice 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 condemnation 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 in the tenth Chapter , and now houlden by the Protestants , 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 member 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 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 condemning of strange opinions for heresies which were not heresies ; or that the Protestants & the Catholikes cannot be members 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 Members of Christs Church , & therfore that the doctrines and innouations mantayned by such men , cannot be taught & belieued by the Members 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 : (p) (p) 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 : (q) (q) epist. ad Galat. c. 5. The workes of the flesh be manifest , which are fornication , vncleanes , impurity , dissention , (r) (r) 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 , (s) (s) 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 censureth of an Heretike ; (t) (t) Aust . l. 4. contr. Donatist . c. 8. If a man be an Heretike , certainely no man doubteth , but for this alone , that he is an Heretike , he shall not possesse the Kingdome of God .

Cyprian : Dominus noster &c. (u) (u) 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 : (x) (x) 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 confesse 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 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 , shal be 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 : (y) (y) 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 . 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 .