OF THE AUTHOR AND SUBSTANCE OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH AND RELIGION, TWO BOOKS.  
Written first in Latin by R. S. Doctor of Divinity, AND Now reviewed by the Author, and translated into English by W. Bas.  
Every thing must be reduced to its beginning.  Tertull. Prescript. cap. 20. 
Permissu Superiorum, M.DC.XXI.   

The Scope of this Worke.  
IF both Luther himself, and the famousest Protestant's of all sorts, have many ways most plainly and most freely confessed, that Luther was the Author and Beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion (as in this work doth manifestly appear) then undoubtedly he was so.  
And if Luther were the Author and Beginner thereof, assuredly, it is not the Church and Religion of Christ.  
Read therefore and judge indifferently; and thereby an end may be made of all Controversies in Religion betwixt the Catholics and Protestants.   

THE PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR TO the Reader.  
Wherein the manner and profit of this Work is declared.  
THERE are two kinds of questions (gentle Reader) which are in controversy betwixt the Catholics and Protestants; the one kind is of fact, to wit, Whether Luther was the Author, and beginner of the Protestants Church and Religion; whether before him it were visible and had Pastors; whether he and the first Protestant Preachers were sent to preach Protestancy, and the li●e: The other kind of question is of Christ's doctrine or law: For example, whether Christ taught good works do justify, be necessary to salvation, meritorious, and such others. 
Why a a question of Fact is handled rather than of doctrine  At this present I treat not of this second kind of question, but only of the former and that for three causes. First the questions of Doctrine are innumerable, but the questions of Fact, few. And many have handled them, and that most exactly, but these, few have touched, and (for aught that I know) none of purpose hath hitherto written of the Author of Protestancy, and in that manner as I intent to write. Secondly there are few questions of doctrine of that nature, that all other controversies of faith depend upon them; but the most questions of Fact are such, as if they be well decided, all other Controversies of religion are at an end. Such kind of question this especially is, which now I handle, Whether Luther were Author and beginner of the Protestant church and Religion For if it be made manifest, that he was the Author and Beginner of it, every one will straihgt see that it is not Christ's Church & Religion, but Luther's devise and invention. Thirdly in questions of doctrine, or law, Protestants want not some pretext of Scripture (as neither any Heretics wanted) and therefore diverse times they are ready to debate these kind of Questions, in which (as Tertullian saith) they pretend Scriptures, 
Prescrip. c. 15.  and with this their boldness shake some, and in the dispute weary the constant, catch the weak, & send away the midal● sort with scruple and doubts. But in questions of Fact they are destitute not only of all pretence of Scripture, unless it be some most vain, but also of all testimony of men and help of reason, and stand only upon their own sayings, & are convinced by the testimonies of the whole world, and sometime also by their own confessions, and therefore are brought to debate these kind of questions no more willingly, then is a thief to his trial. Neither do they in these disputs either weary the constant, or catch the weak; but show their own weakness and wilfulness unto all kind of men. And this is the cause why Ministers are so loath to dispute of the Church, because the Church, being a company of men, includeth many questions of fact, as of antiquity, succession, continuance, visibility, mission, ordination of Pastors, and such like; in which points there is little colour, or show on their part.  
2. Fourthly, Protestants exact more difficult poofes in questions of doctrine, than they can demand in matters of Fact. For in matters of Fact, whereof the scripture speaketh nothing, they must be content with testimonies of men, against whom no just exception can be made, or they must refuse all trial of these kind of questions. But in controversies of doctrine, they account those only to be lawful proofs, which are taken out of the scripture. Neither do these satisfy them, unless they be plain & 
(a) Melan. & Brent. in Hospin. fol. 107. Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 11.  express, and (as they say) word 
(b) Vorst. respon ad Slad.  for word contain that which is in question, or at least be so pregnant and strong, that they 
(c) Luth. de seru. arbitr. fol. 440. Lib. 6. confess. c. 4.  stop all m●ns mouths that they can gainsay nothing. For it is the common fault of Protestants, which S. Augustin saith, himself was guilty of, whiles he was an heretic, that they will be as certain of all things as that seven and three make ten. Nay they yield not always to these kind of proofs; For what can be said more expressy, more plainly, more literally, than the scripture saith, that man is justified by works, and not only by faith; that, that which our Saviour gave with his hands to his Apostles after his last supper, was his very body and blood, and such like: & yet the Protestants yield not to these kind of testimonies, but device figures and shifts to delude them. Catholics proofs in controversies of doctrine are certainly Theological demonstrations, because they are clearly drawn from the proper principles of Divinity, to wit, from clear words of God confirmed by the tradition of the Church and unanimous exposition of the Fathers; which kind of proof is as great and strong, as either Divinity or law, or any Science whatsoever which is founded in words either doth afford, or the nature of any law or science which is grounded in words (as Divinity is) can bear or afford. And as the Philosopher saith well, it were stark madness to exact any other kind of proofs of any Profession, than the nature thereof can afford. 
1. Eth. 1.  But because heretics expound what words soever as they list, and little set by the authority of the Church or Fathers, and the unlearned hardly perceive what kind of proof is a Theological demonstration, & such as Divinity can afford no greater, or which is the true sense of God's word, or how great the authority of the Church and Fathers ought to be; therefore with them, catholics proofs in points of doctrine, albeit in truth they be Theological demonstrations, take little effect Whereas on the other side Catholic proofs in matter of Fact, are not only Theological, but also (that I may so speak) Mathematical demonstrations, because they consist of one principle which is grounded not only upon the foundations of Divinity, to wit the word of God together with the exposition of the Church and Fathers but also is manifest by the light of reason: which kind of principles these are, That God's Church hath always him: that it is one: that it is the ancientest of all Churches: that it is always visible: hath always Pastors, and the like: And of another principle, which may be tried by our sense and experience, as that the foresaid properties agree neither to the Protestants nor to the Anabaptists, nor to any heretical company. And therefore these kind of demonstrations move even the most obstinate heretics, and are evident even to the most ignorant and unlearned persons.  
3. And hence ariseth a fift cause of handling rather questions of Fact then of doctrine, because the fruit of debating those questions is reaped with more facility and of far more. For whereas few but divines do themselves perceive the true meaning of the testimonies of Scripture wherewith the questions of doctrine are debated; as the true meaning of the law, few but lawyers themselues do see; all perceive the meaning of those testimonies wherewith the questions of fact are disputed, 
Epist. dedicat. exercit. count. Baron.  who will afford an attentive eye to see, or ear to hear. And here upon Casaubon wrote, that for to insinuate into the mind of the Reader any opinion now in controversy, Baronius histories are of greater force, 
D. Flavignie.  than Bellarmine's disputes. And said also sometime, as one most worthy of credit, who heard him, told me, that whiles he read Bellarmine's disputations, he began to doubt of all Religion, but whiles he perused Baronius annal, he felt himself by little & little drawn towards Papistry: which thing might well have befallen him and such others, not because Cardinal Bellarmine proveth less sound, for the nature of the matter, the truth of Catholic Religion in questions of doctrine, than Cardinal Baronius doth the same in questions of Fact, but because such is the nature of the testimonies, wherewith the truth of Catholic faith in questions of doctrine is proved, that they are less evident than the testimonies wherewith the Catholic truth in matters of Fact is proved, and also have many things which seem to be contrary and repugnant to them. Whereupon it falleth out that some hearing or reading controversies of doctrine disputed between Catholics and Heretics, and not being able of themselues to discern betwixt truth & show of truth, either follow neither party, but become uncertain or Atheists, or content with any show of truth take that part to which any affection of their will doth draw them. Whereas none by hearing or reading controversies of Fact, becometh not more confirmed in the Catholic faith or more averted from heresy. And therefore Tertullian counseleth us, 
Praescrip. cap. 1●.  not to dispute with Heretics out of Scripture, by which questions of doctrine are disputed, but adviseth us to appeal to antiquity, succession, and such like which concern questions of fact.  
4. Lastly, though the fruit of disputing both those kind of questions were equal, yet sith the Author, by order of nature, goeth before the thing whereof he is Author, according to the order of Nature we ought to entreat of the Author of Protestancy before we dispute of Protestancy itself. For (as well saith Tertullian) nothing but God alone is without beginning which how much it goeth before in the state of all things so much ought it to go before in the handling of them, 
Lib 5. cont Mar.  
Lib 3 cont Mar.  that the state may be known. And other where: Nothing is known before the beginning is known. Wherefore I will begin my first dispute concerning the Protestant Religion of the Author thereof: Yet before I do that, I must set down and determine what a Protestant, or the Protestant Church and Religion is, and what is necessary for one to be a Protestant, and discover the uncertainty of Protestants. And this much touching the matter which I have made choice of to handle in this little work and the causes thereof.  

Why proved only out of Protestants.  5. As for the manner wherewith I undertake to discuss this question of Fact, whether Luther was the first Author & beginner of the Protestant Church, and Religion, I purpose to prove it only out of the confessions of Luther himself, and of the three sorts of Protestants, to wit, Lutherans, who profess to follow Luther in all points of doctrine; Sacramentaries, who notoriously descent from him touching the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; and our English Protestants, who differ from both the former at least in discipline & government of their Church: because this kind of proof out of their own words I find to be both necessary and most effectual with Protestants. Necessary, because of this question of Fact, neither the Scripture, 
Necessary.  or the Fathers say any thing, as also, because, seeing Protestants deny part of the scripture, and interpret the rest as they please, and will not stand to the sentence of the Church, Counsels, or Fathers, account reason Sophistry, & contem me the testimonies of Catholic writers, they have left nothing but their own confessions, by which we may dispute with them. And I pray God they do give place to their own most frequent and most plain confessions, and not delude them by voluntary and frivolous interpretations; for then hope may be, that there willbe some end of these controversies. At least we shall reap this profit by this labour, that by it shall be manifest to all, that either Protestants will hear no testimony, admit no judgement, no not their own, which is a most evident argument of a most desperate cause; or that they shall be condemned by their own verdict & sentence; or lastly that there can be no form of speech so plain, no words so clear, no sentence so manifest, which they with their feigned figures & devices will not wrest, frustrate, and delude; which is in effect to disannul all kind of proof which is taken out of words or testimonies whatsoever. For I will bring so plain testimonies of theirs, as plain can scarce or not at all be devised; I will bring so many, as themselves will require no more; I will bring so weighty, as themselves will demand none more weighty; I will bring them also most freely and often iterated and repeated; lastly I will bring not only those which indirectly and by consequence prove that which I would, but those also, & that especially & oftenest, which directly testify that which they are brought to confirm. Wherefore either they will not delude these words of theirs, or they will delude all words whatsoever; And either they will not refuse these their own testimonies and confessions, or they will reject all testimonies and judgements whatsoever, which is in effect to confess that their cause is most desperate and most worthy to be rejected and condemned of all.  

Most effectual.  1. This manner also of proof is most effectual, for what can be of greater force to convince a man, than his own judgement and acknowledgement of the truth? Surely unless a man will profess himself to be en enemy of truth, 
By reason.  and of the number of them who see good and follow bad, he must needs embrace that truth which himself confesseth. Experience also showeth the same. 
By experience.  For when our Saviour could neither by infinite miracles nor evident scriptures stop the mouths of the jews, he so convinced them out of their own words, that (as the Evangelist writeth) they answered him not a word nor from that day any durst ask him a question. And the Donatists, 
Matt. 22.  when they made answer to the Catholics arguments taken out of scripture, were so entangled in their own fact touching the Maximinists as (saith S. 
(d) In collat. 3. diei c. 11.  Augustine (they ever more stood dumb at thate And now we see, that Protestants are tonguetied at no sort of books so much, as at those, which are composed of their own testimonies. This manner of dealing used the holy Fathers against the Pagans, as is to be seen in Clement, 
By the Fathers.  Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, ●actantius, Augustin, and others; and against heretics also, as appeareth in the said S. Augustin. S. Hierome, and others, most often, and the same they most highly commend. For thus writeth 
(e) In Euseb. l. 7. c. 6.  S. Denis of Alexandria: It helpeth me much, that I can disprove them out of their own words. S. 
(f) Orat. de S. Basil.  Gregory Nazianzen: It is the greatest cunning and wisdom of speech to bind (the Adversary) with his own words. And 
(g) De Trini. c. 130  Tertullian, of Novatian: It is a strong kind of proof, which is taken of the adversary that truth may be proved even by the enemies of truth. S. 
(h) Lib. 2. cap. 53.  Ireneus: We often disgrace them by their own doctrine. And 
(i) Lib. cont. Secund. c. 3.  S. Augustine: Neither will I bring against thee any other sentences for to show the error of Manichee, then out of thine own epistle: Which work of his he 
(k) Lib. 2. Retract. c. 10.  preferreth before all the other which he wrote against that heresy. Nay, the same holy Father's account this manner of dealing with heretics necessary, and prefer it before all others. For thus saith S. Ireneus 
(l) Lib. 1. cap. 35.  It is needful to disprove the Valentinians by their Mother's Fathers and Ancestors. And in another 
(m) Lib. 4. c. 14.  place: That is a true and unanswerable proof which bringeth attestation from the adversary's themselves. And 
(n) Lib. de anima c. 3.  Tertullian: The adversary's testimony is eftsoons necessary. Again: I must strike them with their own weapons. And 
(o) Atha. l. de carne Christi.  S. Athanasius, who was most tried in combats with heretics: Against wranglers we must oppose their own arguments, in which (saith he) I have the greatest hope of victory. S Chrysostome 
(p) Hom. 3. in epist. ad Tit.  also: We must convince them by this, when we turn their own ill sayings against themselves, as often as we make those who were the famousest amongst them, their accusers. And lastly 
(q) Lib. 1. cont. Petil. c. 27.  S. Augustine the most fortunate champion of the Church against heretics seeing that the Donatists could be evidently convinced by their own dealing with the Maximinists, exhorteth Catholics to let alone all other kind of arguments, and still to urge this only: Remember (saith he) this only fact of the Max minists, cast this in their faces, answer to all objections by the Maximinists alone And 
(r) Ibid. cap. 18.  again: I will not leave this only fact which God hath put before their eyes to stop their mouths, and to amend them if they be wise, or to confound them if they remain obstinate. And in like manner, when he saw, that the Donatists cause was quite overthrown by that saying of theirs: Neither one cause doth prejudice another, nor one person another, he thus speaketh unto Catholics: 
(s) Sermi 22. de verb. Apostol.  I request you, I beseech you for Christ's sake, that you remember it, speak it, and have it ever in your mouths. There could not be pronounced on our behalf, a briefer, surer, and plainer sentence Thus you see how greatly the Father's esteem of this kind of dealing with heretics, and how earnestly they urge us for to use it.  
7. And Protestants ought the more to allow this kind of proceeding with them, because they much commend it, and prefer it before all others. Luther: There 
(t) De ser. arbit. fol. 442.  is no stronger proof, than his own confession, who is accused, and his testimony against himself. And again: No 
(u) Inc. 1. 1. Pet. fol. 449.  man can convince a liar better than by his own words. He●husius: The 
(x) Lib. de Coma.  shortest way of all to convince an adversary is that whi●h is taken out of his own confession, wherewith he openly acknowledgeth that which is objected. Lucas 
(y) Epist. Euchar.  Osiander: The confession and testimony of the adversary is of greatest authority. Peter 
(z) Loc. tit. de Iudaeis fol. 3●0.  Martyr: Surely amongst other testimonies that is of greatest weight, which is given by the enemies. D Bancroft: Let 
(a) Survey c. 8. pag. 14●.  us take hold of that which they have granted. You may be bold to build upon it for a truth, that they are so constrained to yield unto. D 
(b) Cont. 292. c. 14.  Whitaker: It must needs be a strong argument, which is taken out of the confession of the Adversaries. For the testimony of the adversary's is of force against themselves. And 
(c) Praef. in Cant.  again: It is a notable matter and increaseth much the triumph for to be proved by the testimony of the adversaries. And D Morton in the Epistle dedicatory of his answer to the Protestants Apology: Which kind of assistance of learned adversary's the Apologists themselues have laid down for the greatest reason of satisfaction, & we do accordingly admit. Nay, they begin to use this kind of arguing against us, and vaunt much thereof: Who may not (saith the said. D. 
(d) Apol. l. 1 cap. 25. Differences betwixt Protest. manner of dealing & ours.  Morton) justly congratulate the Protestants happiness, whom truth itself proceeding out of their adversary's mouths doth patronise?  
8. But, by their leave, there are many and great differences between their and our kind of proceeding in this matter. First many of the Catholics, whom they produce against us, wrote before their Religion was risen, & therefore we answer that of them which S. Hierom answered of the ancient Fathers, who lived before Arius appeared: 
Lib. 2. contr. Rufin.  Before Arius (saith he) arose in Alexandria like a noon-tide Devil they spoke some things innocently and not so warily which cannot escape the obloquy of certain perverse men. And which S. Augustin answered of S. Chrysostom when the Pelagians alleged his testimony. Discoursing (saith he) in the Catholic Church, 
Lib. 1. cont Tul. c. 6.  he thought not that he was otherwise understood None was yet troubled with such a question; you not yet jangling, he spoke more securely. But the Protestant's which we produce lived all after that protestancy was both bred and hatched, & after the Catholic faith had for many ages shined through out the world, and therefore could not be ignorant what words of theirs might make for the Catholic faith, 
Cassander Erasmus-Cornelius Agrippa. Marsil of Milan.  and prejudice their own cause. Another difference is, that none of the Catholics whose testimonies Protestants allege against us, is accounted of us for a man sent extraordinarily of God, and much less for a Prophet, Evangelist, or Apostle. Nay, 
Beatus Rhenanus Faber Stapulensis, Orthuinus Gratius.  many of them are obscure writers, and of small or no reckoning among us, some of them are not held for Catholics of us, and some of them even by the judgements of Protestants themselves are our open enemies. But the confessions of faith which we cite against Protestant's contain their faith, so that they cannot be rejected of them, unless they will renounce their faith. And of the men whose testimonies we produce, one is accounted of them a 
(e) Humf. ad Rat. 4. Camp.  God, another a Prophet an 
(f) Colloq. Aldebur. Schusse●b. Catal. 13. Hunius praefat. de liber. arbit.  Evangelist, an Apostle, a third Elias, an Angel. His writings are held for inspired from heaven, for a rule of faith, and equal to the writings of the Apostles. Another is called a 
(g) ●●anae. lib. 4, de Eccles. c. 9 Beza ep. 6.  great and admirable Prophet, others are esteemed for lights, lamps, bright stars, props, founders, parents, renewers of the Protestants church and religion. Others are men extraordinarily sent and divinely raised to lighten the world; most of them for very learned, famous & well deserving of the Protestant religion; & finally all for sincere Protestants. The holy Fathers were wont to refute both the 
(h) justin. dial. cum Tryphon. August. l. de civet. Chrysost. hom. 26. in 2. Cor. Cyril. l. 6. in julian.  Pagans superstition and the 
(i) Hier. cont. Vigilant. Ambros. serm. 5. de Sanctis. Hilar. l. 1. & 6. de Trinit.  heretics errors out of the Devil's confessions. Of which kind of proof 
(k) Apol. cap. 22.  Tertullian, using it, maketh this account: What more manifest than this fact? what more sure than this proof? Believe them, they speak true of themselves, who use to credit them when they lie. No man lieth to his own disgrace. And S. 
(l) Lib. ad Demetr.  Cyprian: Who so sayest that thou worshipest the Gods believe even them whom thou worshippest. And likewise Minutius in Octavio: Neither do they lie to their own shame, especially if some of you be by. Believe themselves witnessing that they are Devils, and confessing the truth of themselves. But our proof taken out of the Protestants confessions of faith & out of Luther & such like famous Protestants testimony against Protestancy, is much more evident and stronger; both because it is more likely that men will confess the truth, though against themselves, than the Devil the father of lies and sworn enemy of truth; as also because the confessions of the Devil were extorted from him by force, as the Fathers themselves do acknowledge, but these of Luther and his mates come most freely from them. Believe therefore (O Protestant's) your chief leaders, 
Note.  your founders, Instructors Prophets, Euamgelists, & Apostles, in that which they freely & of their own accord confess of themselves & of their doctrine. Even by the testimony of your own Prophets & teachers believe, that Protestancy is newly risen, first founded by Luther, & before known to none. No man willingly lieth to his own shame; no man freely confesseth that which overthroweth his own cause, but which he cannot deny. No man knew protestancy better than they, no man favoured it more than they. Who (saith Caluin) is to be credited touching Popery, more than the Pope himself? 
De ver ● Eccles reform.  And whom shall we believe touching the author and hatching of protestancy amongst the Lutherans, rather than Luther himself, Melancthon, the Century-writers, Kemnice, Schusselburg, and the like? Or amongst the Sacramentaryes, rather than Zuinglius, Bullinger, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Caluin, Beza, Plessie, and such others? or amongst English Protestants rather than jewel, Fox, Whitaker, Fulke, Humphrey, Perkins, and the like, whose frequent and plain confessions we heerin produce. A third difference between our and the Protestants manner of proceeding in this kind of proof is, that Protestants oftentimes allege Catholics testimonies corrupted, mangled, and falsifyed; and sometimes also the objections which they make against themselues, instead of their answers, as Cardinal Peron not long since shown Plessie to have done before the French King, 
conferenrence at fountain Bel-cave.  even by the judgement of Protestant themselves. And it were easy to demonstrate that D. 
(m) Apol. part. 1. l. 1. c. 23. l. 2. c. 41. part. 2. l. c. 35. l. 2. c. 41.  Morton hath done the like in his Apology. But I produce the testimonies of Protestants certain and entiere, at least for that sense for which I allege them. For I have cited none in this work which either I have not seen with mine own eyes, and for the most part have quoted not only the books and chapters but also the leaves and pages, or if I have wanted the book, I have cited them out of some good Author. The fourth difference & that of great moment is, that the Catholics, whose testimonies Protestant's allege against is (if so be they were true Catholics) were always ready to revoke and recall whatsoever they had written contrary to the catholic faith, & to submit all their words or writings to the censure of the catholic Church, which to be the mind & disposition of all Catholics, Protestants themselves confess. For thus writeth D. 
(n) Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 8.  Whitaker: This is the condition, this the consent of the Popish Church, that all hang their salvation upon one man, and submit themselves to one man's judgement. And D. 
(o) Apol. part. 1. l. 2. cap. 31.  Morton: Is there any Papist that thinks any decree of the Pope can be contemned or broken without crime or heresy? Which sith it is so, in vain do they object any Catholics words against the Catholic faith. For either they are not contrary thereto, or if they be, they are already revoked, recalled and disannulled by himself. But the mind and proceeding of Protestant's is far otherwise, who subject not their opinions to the judgement of the Church, but as they think that she may err, so will they hold their opinions notwithstanding her sentence to the contrary; and therefore justly may we produce their testimonies against their own Church.  
9 The fift difference, & which is much to be noted, is, that Protestants allege Catholic witnesses in matters of doctrine, in which some times by reason of the obscurity of the matter a man may chance to err & slip; 
August. l. 11. cont. Faust. c. 5.  or else in such matters of fact, as were in times or places far distant from them, so that themselves could not search the truth, but believed the reports of others. Such a question is that of Pope joane, in which Protestants cite no Catholic author which lived not some ages after that time, wherein Pope joan is said to have been. Or if they produce any Catholic Author in any matter of fact, the truth whereof he might have tried, either he is of no credit, or the matter is such, as it turneth to no prejudice of the Catholic faith. But we here produce Protestants in a matter of fact, & such a matter as they could most easily know. For what was more easy, then for Luther and his fellows to try either then or ever since, whether, when he first began, there was in the world any Protestant company, whether it were visible, whether it had Pastors, and the like? For who can think, that only the Protestant company could lie so close hid, that neither in all Luther's time or ever since, either the being, or the estate or condition, or place or Pastors, or any thing at all thereof could be espied out of so many Arguses, which now in one whole age have sifted all corners of the world to find it out? And beside, this is such a question of Fact, as upon the decision thereof an end may be made of all controversies between Catholics and Protestants. For (as I said before) if Luther be the Author and beginner of the Protestant Church, it is certain, that it is not the Church of Christ, nor to be followed of Christians, 
Note.  but to be forsaken & detested. To which I add now, that if Luther himself & such & so many learned & famous Protestant's as I have cited, do by many ways, & so plainly confess, that Luther was the Author thereof, it cannot be doubted, but that he was in truth the Author of it. For I allege not men of small credit among Protestants, but such as are of greatest authority with them; nor a few, but many; nor of one nation alone, but of diverse, to wit, Germans, Italians, French, English, Scots, Flemings and others; nor Protestants of one sort or sect, but of all three namely Lutherans, Sacramentaries and English Protestants. So that they could not bear false witness in this matter either for want of knowledge, because they were many and learned & of different countries, and most diligent in searching the matter, and the matter itself most easy; nor for want of good will towards the cause, because they were all most earnest Protestants. And to refuse the testimonies of such witnesses in a matter of fact, in their own time, so easy to be known, and so diligently searched of them, what other thing is it, then obstinately to refuse to know the truth of this matter so important to be known, and whereby may be made an end of all contentions in Religion? Wherefore let Protestants say as they please, 
Note.  that in questions of doctrine they will not depend upon Luther, Caluin, or any one, or all their doctors together, but upon the scripture alone: Nevertheless in matter of fact, whereof the scripture saith nothing, such as this is (for the Scripture telleth not what was the state and condition of the Protestant Church when Luther began, in what place it was, what Pastors it had, who saw it, and the like) either they must confess, that they refuse all trial & knowledge of so important a truth, or they must give credit to the deposition of sufficient witnesses. And if ever men were or can be sufficient witnesses of any matter of Fact, Luther and those Protestants which here I produce, are sufficient witnesses of that which I bring them for to testify. And thus much touching the cause why I prove Luther to have been the founder of Protestant Religion only by the testimonies of Protestants.  

Why so many Protestant's testimonies are alleged.  10. As for the reason why I allege so many Protestants, that is, that it many appear, that it is not the private testimony of some one or few, but the general consent of them all, or at least the common sentence of many of them. And if I seem to any Catholic over tedious in heaping up so many testimonies of Protestants, I pray him to consider, that I writ not this book to Catholics to confirm them in the Catholic faith, who I know to that end do not need the testimonies of Protestants; but that I writ it partly to Catholics, for to furnish them with store of Protestants testimonies to stop their mouths, and to show them that they are right Heretics, that is, condemned (as the Apostle speaketh) by their own judgement, to which end a few testimonies of theirs would not suffice. And therefore to such as intent this end the multitude of testimonies will not be troublesome. For who, that indeauoureth to vanquish most obstinate enemies, will complain of the abundance of good soldiers whereof he may make choice? And if I had rehearsed only some few testimonies, and named the places where the rest may be found, some would have cavilled, as M. jewel did against D. Harding, that I had cited dumb witnesses. Besides, seeing the judgements of men are diverse, it may fall out, that what kind of testimonies seem strong & forcible to some, others acount but weak and little to the purpose; and therefore it was beautiful, that there should be as it were a store-house of Protestants testimonies, that every one might take what weapon he thinketh fittest for him, & use it against them. But especially I gathered these testimonies of Protestants for the Protestants themselves, that by their own men's judgement I might withdraw them from their error. And therefore I was not so fearful to bring too many for Catholics, as careful to provide enough for Protestants. In which I could hardly offend by multitude. For as S. 
(p) Lib. 1.  Vigil saith, Man's mind possessed with the error of a false opinion, is hard and slow to perceive truth, with how many witnesses so ever it be urged thereto. 
(s) De gestis cum Emerit.  Or as 
(q) Lib. de Patient.  Tertullian writeth: much talk in matter of edification is not foul if at any time it be foul. And 
(r) Lib. 1. cont. jou.  S. Hierom: delay is no loss, when by delay the victory is more assured. Whereupon S. Augustin counseleth us, not to regard and delay whatsoever, so we bring good proof of what we say. Besides, 
(t) Whi. cont. 295. c. 17. l. 1. de script. c. 11. sect. Sadeel. in Refut. Posnan. c. 12.  Protestants deny that we ought to judge of them by one or few; though they be Pastors, and 
(u) White in defence of his way. c. 7.  write that M. Brierly in his Protestants Apology, although it be stuffed with all kind of Protestants testimonies, hath brought but a few testimonies. And as S. 
(x) Lib. 3. cont. Cres. c. 6.  Augustin saith of the Donatists, they are ready to deny what they can. Or as S 
(y) 3 Epist. ad C●esipb.  Hierome speaketh: Shutting their eyes deny what they would were not. For what could be more inpudently denied, then that which D. 
(z) Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 6.8.49.  Field denieth that when Luther began, the public and general face of Religion in the Western Church was Papistical? These men need have their mouths shut, and their ears stopped with multitude of testimonies. For as 
(a) Instit. 3. c. 25. §. 3.  Caluin saith) it is the part of wicked & furious obstinacy, to discredit so many and so authentical testimonies. Or as an 
(b) Praefa. Synt. conf.  other saith: If in a matter of great importance one only witness were alleged, what place would his testimony find? But under so many and so great witnesses as are here produced, all pretext of not receiving the truth is taken away. In so great certainty of so many witnesses, how is there so great love of darkness, that they open not their eyes to see the light? To which I add that saying of Varius in 
(c) Lib. 2. de finibus.  Cicero: Either these witnesses will suffice, or nothing will suffice Nevertheless, that I might both somewhat ease the weariness of Catholics in reading so many testimonies, and better set before the eyes of Protestants the force of their testimonies, I do for the most part mark in the margin those testimonies which are most forcible, & after I have recited them all, I gather the force and sum of them together which he may read, who loatheth to run over so many. 
Why many testimonies of the same man.   
11. I bring also diverse testimonies of the same Protestants, especially of Luther, that it may appear, that that confession slipped not from him unawares and unadvisedly, but that it was his constant judgement, if there can be any constancy in heretics. For I remember that 
(d) Praefa. opusc. Cal.  Beza, for to cover Caluins foul contradictions of himself, wrote; 
Lobechius praefat. disput. Whitakad Demonstrat. 1. Sanderi.  As if of that which one hath written briefly in some place, ●t were to be gathered what he thought of every point of doctrine. I grant notwithstanding, that I have brought some testimonies which are not so clear, as of themselves they would convince the matter; Yet such they are as strengthen those that are clear, and of them receive light. For as in gathering an army not only stout men but also some other are chosen, who may increase the strength of those that are stout, and likewise may be encouraged by them; so it fareth also in gathering testimonies. Neither yet did I gather all that occurred: but only such as seemed more to the purpose. It will also delight the reader to see how some Protestants plainly and roundly confess the truth, others deal more craftily & closely, and in them he shall espy that difference which S. Austin 
(e) Lib. de peccat. origin. c. 12.  noted between Celestius, and Pelagius, of whom he writeth, that he was more open this more close; he more obstinate this more false, he more free, this more wily. If any ask how it fell out, that Protestant's should give such plain testimonies against their own cause; I answer, that there were many causes hereof. First the evidence of truth, which maketh its enemies, yea the devils themselves sometimes to confess it: The very coiners of lies (saith 
(f) Lib. 2. cont. Eun.  S. Basil) oftentyms catcht with the evidence of truth, as with a snare, even against their wills do witness it. Again, It is the nature of lies to bewray themselves, like 
(g) Lib. 5. cont. Mar.  as Tertullian writeth: Thiefs commonly leave something behind them, which bewrayeth them. For as S. Augustine 
(h) In sentenc. Prof.  saith: It is incredible, that he should not be taken by lies, who lieth to take others. Or as S. Basil 
(i) Lib. 1. cont. Eun.  hath: So it is, that evil is not only contrary to good but also to itself. And Luther 
(k) In cap. 12. Mat. in cap. 4. & 37. Genes.  himself: There is no heretic, who is not found of spiritual men to speak against himself in his lies. And else where: This happeneth to the wicked, that by lying they cannot beware not to bewray themselues by their words. They lie some while an sometimes, but continually they cannot. At last lies bewray themselves especially with them who mark and observe. For there escapeth some word from them with which they are taken. The same confess 
(l) Resp. ad Nebul. & admon. vlt.  Caluin, 
(m) Cont. castle. p. 421.  Beza, 
(n) Cont. 1. q. 2. c. 3. & q. 5. c. 8.  Whitaker, and others. Another cause is, because Protestants (as heretics are wont to do, and 
(o) Zuin. ●. de relig. c. de Euch. Hospin. part. 2. fol 90. colloq. Aldeb. fol. 154. Schusselb. tom. 7. cattle. p. 126.  themselves confess that they practise it) accommodate their sayings and doctrine to time, place, and occasions, & therefore utter those sayings which we here allege, before whom and when they think they will make to their purpose; but where they see they will hurt their cause, either they deny them, or seek by frivolous and fond expositions to avoid and delude them. So the Donatists (as 
(p) Lib. ad Donat. past collat.  Augu●● in noteth) would not confess that, which would have confounded them, when the Catholics urged it, but after when an other point was in handling. A fourth cause may be given, that as the Scorpion affordeth a remedy for her sting, and of the viper's flesh is made the counter poison; so God hath ordained, that heretics afford sufficient means to refute their errors: Neither yet therefore (as S. 
(q) Supr. c. 33.  Augustin writeth) give we any thanks to them, but to God alone. For that they should for our cause produce & discover all these things by speaking or writing, truth enforced them, not charity invited them. And 
(r) Cont. R. Angl. fol. 343.  Luther himself: So must the enemies of truth confound and mock themselves for a reward of their blasphemies. And 
(s) In cap. 4. Genes.  again: Since God ordaineth that folly is always joined with malice, Cain bewrayeth himself And for this cause the defence of truth is easy against the adversaries thereof. Whereupon 
(t) Hospi. part. 2. histor. fol. ●9.  Hospinian thus writeth of the Lutherans: They are become grievous enemies and adversary's, not so much of others, as of themselves; surely by a most evident testimony of God's judgement, and a worthy punishment and confusion for these kind of ambitious and contentious men. Which I would God Protestants would observe, not in Lutherans only, but also in other Protestants. For they should find, that they have no heavier adversaries than themselves, & that Protestants (as 
(u) Lib. 2. c. 9  Lactantius wrote of Cicero) cannot be more sorely confuted, than they are by Protestants themselves.   

Faults escaped in the printing.  
Page Line Fault Correction 8●. 11. himself himself 82. 27. unless he unless he be 96. 6. numb. 66. numb. 96. 107. 19 The There 109. 23. light of deal of 120. 4. credible incredible 127. 7. the these 23●. 6. deal have been 237. 2. be be by 140. 6. fourth third 147. 33. way wax 154. 7. in is 168. 23. sonde sponge 169. 3. one our 170. 33. 1525. 1535. 181. 14. should only should only say 184. 27. predigious prodigious 205. 31. boasteth boasteth that ●19. vlt. Taye Say 211. 33. of faith faith of 222. 21. first fifth.  
If any other faults have escaped, it is desired of the Gentle Reader, to correct them of his courtesy, the Author being far absent from the Print.   

THE FIRST BOOK.  

Of the substance of the Protestants Church and Religion, and of their uncertainty therein. CHAP. I.  
BECAUSE, as after Plato and Aristotle, Tully saith very truly: Whosoever will according to the order of reason treat of any thing, 
Lib. 4.  must first define or explicate the nature thereof, that it may be known what it is whereof he speaketh; and Protestants agree, that the definition is the very ground of all disputation; before I do show, 
Caluin. 3. Institut. cap. 4. §. 1. Sadeel. in Refut. Thes. ●osnan. cap. 2.  who was the first author of the Protestant Church and Religion (which I will do in the second book) I will in this first define and determine what is a Protestant, and what is the Protestant Church and Religion. And because Protestants in this matter (as in all others) are variable and inconstant, sometimes requiring many things to the making and constitution of a Protestant, & sometimes being content with very few things, sometyms stretching the bounds of their Church most largely, otherwhiles drawing them very straight, according as it serveth to their present purpose; I will first discover this their uncertainty about so weighty a matter, & afterward out of their own principles and confessions of faith, set down what is indeed necessary to the very substance and being of a Protestant, and of their Church and Religion. And in this Chapter I will show, how few they sometimes do admit to be of the Church, and how many things they require to the making of a Protestant; and in some chapters following, how many they at other times do grant to be of their Church, and how few things they account necessary for to be a member thereof. That done I will make manifest, what is indeed necessary thereto.  

They exclude Papists.  2. First of all therefore they sometimes exclude Catholics, (whom they term Papists) out of the Church, as is manifest by all their writings, in so much that the French Protestants in the 28. article of their confession say: We openly affirm that where the word of God is not received, nor there is any profession of obedience due thereto, nor any use of Sacraments, there, properly speaking, we cannot judge to be any Church. Wherefore we condemn the Popish Conventicles. And D. Whitaker in his second book against Dureus & 2. section, is so earnest that he saith: I will not allow the very name of a lawful Church unto the Roman Church, because it hath nothing, which a true Church ought to have And both he in his 2. Controversy 6. question 3. Chapter, D. Sutlive in his first book of the Church 3. cap. and lib. 2. cap. 9 M. Perkins in his reformed Catholic towards the end, Caluin in his book against the chanter of Lions, Beza in his of the notes of the Church, the Confession of Saxony in the Chapter of the Church, and many others do reckon diverse articles, or every one whereof they pronounce Papists to be ●ut of the Church. And because their opinion here●n is well enough known, and hereafter also we ●hall have occasion to show how heinous they con●emne the Popedom or Papistry, I will here rehearse no more of their sayings touching this point. The like sentence they sometimes pronounce of the ●nabaptists 
Anabaptists.  and Atians. For thus speaketh the con●ession of Auspurg Cap. 9 They condemn the Anabap●●sts, who disallow the baptism of infants, and think them to ●●e faned without baptism. And the Confession of Swit●erland cap. 20. We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny ●at infants ought to be baptised. The same is manifest by ●he English Confession c. 38. & by the Confession of ●asse c. 24. & others. Of Arians 
Arrians.  they give this ver●ct in the foresaid Confession of Auspurg in the first article: They condemn all heresies risen against this article of the Trinity) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunomians & c. ●nd in like sort the French Confession art. 6. the ●nglish art. 1. the consent of Poland, and others; in 〈◊〉 much as in England the Protestants have burnt me Arians.  
3. Sometimes also they thrust out all here●ckes. 
Heretics  For thus writeth Luther in his explication of ●e Creed. Neither Gentile, jew, Heretic, 
Lutherans.  or any sinner is ●ued, unless he make atonement with the Church, and in all ●ings, think, do, and teach the same. And the Magde●●rgians in the preface of their 6. Century: Neither heretics, nor devisers or patrons of sanaticall opinions, are of ●●rist, but they are of Antichrist, and of the devil, and apper●●ne to Antichrist and the devil: they are the imposthume and ●●e plague of the people of God. The ministers of the Prince Elector of Saxony in the Conference held at Aldburg, in the 3. writ, cast out of the Church all, Who (say they) wittingly and willingly defend such corruptions of doctrine, as have been condemned by the lawful judgement and consent of the Catholic Church. And the Ministers of the Duke of Saxony in the 4. writ of the said Conference, pronounce this sentence: Whosoever they are, that do cloak and defend corruptions of the word of God, that is, of the articles of faith, after they have been admonished; we judge not to be true members of Christ, unless they repent. And Vrbanus Regius, one of the first and chiefest scholars of Luther, in his Catechism saith: All Heretics are out of the Church. The same teacheth Schusselburg, a principal superintendent amongst the Lutherans in his Catalogue of heresies, and many others. As for the Sacramentaries, 
Sacramentaries.  thus professeth the French Confession in the 6. article: We detest all Sects and heresies which have been rejected by the holy Fathers as S. Hilary, S. Athanasc, S. Ambrose, S. Cyrill. Whereupon Sadeel in his preface of his answer to the abjured articles, saith: Our Confession of faith condemneth all Heretics. Likewise the Confession of Basle in 24. article writeth in thi● sort: We drive away all, whosoever dissenting from the society of the holy Church, do either bring in, or follow strange & wicked doctrines. And Peter Martyr in his Commo● places, in the title of heretics: This in sum I will say heretics are not otherwise to be dealt with all, than Infidels 〈◊〉 jews. Caluin also in his 2. book of Institution cap. 15. number. 1. Rightly Augustin denyeth Heretics have the same foundation with the godly albeit they preach t●● name of Christ. And in his instruction against the Libertines: That we may speak properly, Heretics are not o●ly like to wolves or thiefs, but much worse. Beza in his boo● of punishing Heretics: If one term Heretics saithle● apostatas, he shall give them their due title. And again: Heretics affirm Christ in word, and deny him indeed. Danaeus in his 5. Controversy and 691. pag. An heretic, condemned by lawful judgement, and actually cast out of the Church, is not of the visible Church, nor of the invisible neither, actually or apparently, so long as he remaineth in that state. Polanus in his 7. book which he termeth Syntagma, cap. 5. Heretics, whiles they remain such are not members of the Catholic Church. And Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 79. The Ghospellers do esteem Antichrist in common to be every heretic who opposeth himself either openly and plainly, or closely and indirectly to Christ and his doctrine. And in the 121. pag. There is no controversy between us and our adversaries touching heretics, Schismatics and Apostatas properly and truly so called, that they are altogether out of the Church of Christ. Thus foreign Protestants. In England, 
English Protestants.  his Majesty in his epistle to Cardinal Peron written by Casaubon: The King damneth and detesteth those, who either have departed from the saith of the Catholic Church, and are become heretics, or from the Communion, and are become Schismatics. The Apology of the Church of England part. 3. divis. 3. We condemn all sorts of the old heretics, as the Arians, the Eutichians &c. and shortly, all them that have a wicked opinion either of God the Father, or of Christ, or of the holy Ghost, or of any other point of Christian Religion: for so much as they be confuted by the Gospel of Christ we plainly pronounce them for damnable and detestable persons, and defy them even to the devil. D. Whitaker in the preface of his Controversies: If we be heretics, it is reason they should warn all theirs to fly from us. And Controuer. 2. question. 1. cap. 4. That he proveth heretics and Apostatas and Schismatics not to be members of the true Church maketh nothing against us. None of our men ever taught that. The like he hath question 5. cap. 1. and 18. D. Sutlive in his first book of the Church cap. 1. Heretics are not of the Church. D. Morton in his Apology 1. part. 1. book cap. 3 affirmeth, that Heretics are not to be accounted of the church in truth but in name, not indeed but equivocally. Finally D. White in his way to the Church pag 110. All heretics teach the truth in some things, and yet we deny them to be the Church of God. And in the defence of the same way cap. 8. sect. 1. There is little or no difference between the Devil and an Apostata, or Heretic.  
4. The same censure they sometimes give of Schismatics, 
They exclude Schismatiks.  as appeareth by the words of his Majesty, D. Whitaker, and Vorstius already rehearsed. Besides, Luther in his great Catechism tom. 5. pag. 628. affirmeth the sense of that article, The Communion of Saints, to be this: I believe that there is on earth a little Congregation of Saints, agreeing in all things without sects or Schisms. And Melancthon in his book against Swenfeild tom. 2. 
Lutherans.  pag. 201. Neither is there more than one Church, the Spouse of Christ, neither doth this company consist of diverse Sects. Solomon Gesnerus in his Common places the 24. place of the Church: catholics are opposite to Schismatics & heretics. The same teacheth Schusselburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretics, pag. 726. 727. Amongst the Sacramentaries, the Swissers in their Confession, 
Sacramentaries.  article 17. do thus profess; We so much esteem the Communion with the true Church of Christ, as that we teach, that those cannot live before God, who communicate not with his true Church. And the French Protestants in theirs, article 26. We believe, that none can lawfully withdraw themselves from the assemblies. Bullinger in his Epitome or Compendium of faith 6. book, 11. cap: They be out of this Church, wh● upon envy or contention separate themselves from her, & without cause will have some thing peculiar to themselves. Musculus also in his common places, in the title of the church: The unity of Heretics and Schismatics is bastard and divided. True, entire, and Catholic unity is not among Schismatics. And in the title of Schismatics: A Schismatic putteth himself in danger of loss of his salvation, in departing from the Communion of the flock of the Lord. For by that departure, he is not only separated and divided from that Ecclesiastical and external society of the faithful, but also from participation of the blood and spirit of Christ. Caluin likewise in his treatise of the necessity of reforming the Church: We do profess the unity of the Church, such as is described by S. Paul, to be most dear unto us; and we accurse all them, that shall any way violate it. And in his fourth book of Institutions chap. 1. numb. 2: Unless under Christ our head, we be united to all the rest of his members, there is no hope for us of the everlasting inheritance. For we cannot have two or three (Churches) unless Christ be torn in pieces. And num. 4. Out of the lap the Church there is no salvation: departure from thence is always pernicious. Again num. 10: God maketh so great account of the Communion with his Church as he holdeth him for a renagate and fugitive, whosoever obstinately separateth himself from any Christian society, which retaineth the true use of the word and Sacraments. And he addeth, that the forsaking of the Church, Is the denial of God and Christ. The like doctrine he delivereth in his Catechism, upon the 1. Cor. cap. 1. and other where Polanus in his Theses part. 2. saith: Schismatical Churches are to be forsaken. And Bucanus in his places, loc. 41. of the Church, quest. 33. avoucheth Schismatiks to be out of the Church, and quest. 5. that they are not univocally a Church, that is, they have not the true nature of a Church. The same saith Danaeus in his treatise of Antichrist cap. 17. And in his 3. book of the Church cap. 5. writeth thus: Schismatics actually excommunicated and cast out of the Church by lawful sentence, are no more of the visible Church. For (saith he) the mark that you be of the visible Church, is this, that you outwardly profess the faith, and communicate in Sacraments with the rest of the Church. And he addeth, that such are neither actually of the invisible Church, but only in possibility, and that the holy Fathers liken suc● to Heathens. Pagans, and infidels. And in his Apology for the Swissers Churches he defineth Schism to be a separation from the rest of the body of the Catholic Church. Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 7. reacheth, that Schismatics are not in the Church. And su●us in his 3. book of the Church c. 5. approveth the fame of such Schismatics, as separate themselves from the whole Church. The strangers in England writing to Beza in the 24 epistle have these words in their 13. article: Whosoever is lawfully excommunicated of a particular Church, or cutteth himself of upon unlawful causes, and with scandal, in that doth lose all privilege of the Catholic Church. And Beza answereth them in the name of the Church of Geneva in this manner: Your thirteenth article we wholly receive at most orthodoxal. Casaubon in his 15. exercitation against Baronius num. 6. It is an undoubted truth, that how often soever a pious flock is joined to a true Bishop, there is a Church of God; in so much that if any forsake that Church, it cannot be doubted, but that he is out of the Church. Finally, Chamier in his epistle to Armand, excludeth Schismatics out of the Church, because (saith he) they want the sincerity of the Sacraments. 
English Protestant's  Amongst our English Protestants, his Majesty in his foresaid epistle to Cardinal Peron. All those testimonies of Augustin, prove only this, that there is no hope of salvation for those, who leave the Communion of the Catholic Church; which the King willingly granteth. D. Whitaker in his 2. controuer. 5. quest. 6. cap. saith: It is false, that heretical and Schismatical Churches be true Churches. Again: The Catholic Church consisteth not of divided, but of united members. And cap. 2: The true and Catholic Church is that, which consisteth of catholics. D. Fulke in his book of the succession of the Church: What availed it them to eternal salvation, to have been sound in Religion and doctrine, seeing they were cut of from the Communion of the true Church, in which alone salvation is, and from her true head? What skilleth it whether one, being drawn by heresy or Schism, from the body of Christ, be subject to everlasting damnation? D. Humphrey in his answer to the 3. reason of F. Campian: We confess, that he is undone, who is separated from the followship of the Church. And D. Feild in his first book of the Church, cap. 7: The name of the Catholic Church is applied to distinguish men holding the saith in unity, from Schismatiks. And in his 2. book c. 2. he saith, that Schismatics are not Catholic Christians. Thus we see how Protestants sometimes do teach, that the true Church consisteth of catholics, & of members united not divided, that it hath no Schisms or Sects: That Schismatiks are not catholics, that their unity is not true, nor Catholic, that their Churches ought to be forsaken, that they are not univocally Churches, nor true Churches, that they are not members of the true Church, but out of the Church, altogether out of the Church, and actually neither of the visible nor invisible Church, and that this is an undoubted truth: which confession of theirs must be well noted and kept in mind, for thereby is overthrown (as we shall see in the 2. book) their only argument wherewith they endeavour to prove, that their Church was before Luther, and also is defaced their only essential mark of finding the true Church, by the truth of doctrine. For Schismatics (as we shall hear them confess in the 2. book) hold true doctrine, and nevertheless (as here they acknowledge) are not of the true Church.  

They exclude those that deny any fundamental article.  5. In like manner they do commonly debar from their Church, all such as deny any principal or fundamental point of faith; Melancthon in his book of common places in the title of the Church: They are not members of the Church who pertinaciously maintain errors opposite to the foundation. And in his answer to the Bavarian articles: Saints may have errors, but not such as overthrew the foundation. In his examen of those that are to take orders: Agreement in the foundation, 
Lutherans.  is a thing necessary to the unity of the Church. And upon the 3. cap. of the 1. epistle to Timothy: The foundation is held in the Church, otherwise there should be no Church at all. And in his 79. proposition, tom. 4: It is most certain, that those companies are not the Church of God, who either are altogether ignorant of the Gospel, or impugn some article of the foundation, that is, some article of faith or doctrine of the decalogue, or maintain open idols. Chemnitius in his common places pa. 3. title of the Church: Neither can these be acknowledged for the true Church, who embrace fundamental errors. And the Lutherans in the conference at Ratisbon, Sesse. 14. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg, Gesner in his 24. place, Adam Francis in his 11. place, and other Lutherans commonly agree, that the Church cannot err Fundamentally, or in the Foundation. And the Confession of Saxony giveth this note, to know who are in the Church: 
Sacramentaries.  Those who hold the Foundation. As for Sacramentaries, Caluin in his 4. book of Institutions cap. 2. num 1: So soon as a lie hath broken into the castle of Religion, the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, the use of Sacraments is fallen, certainly the destruction of the Church ensueth, even as a man's life is lost, when his throat is cut, or his vital parts deadly wounded. And soon after: It is certain, that there is no Church, where lies and error have gotten to the top. And cap. 19 num. 17: Without doubt the Church of the faithful must agree in all the heads of our Religion. Sadeel in his answer to the Theses held at Posna cap. 12: I think the matter is thus to be defined by the word of God, that if any in what Church soever descent in the foundation of saith, and be obstinate in their errors: such appertain not to the unity of the Church. The like he hath in his answer to Arthure, cap. 12. Vesinu● in his Catechism quest. 54. cap. 4: The whole Church erreth not, nor wholly, nor in the foundation. Polanus in his Thesis of the Church saith: The Church erreth not in the foundation. The same teacheth Zanchius in his treatise of the Church c. 7. Lubbertus in his 2. book of the Church c 3. Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 139. Bucanus in his 41. place, and other Sacramentaries commonly. And with them herein agree our English Protestants. 
English Protestant's  For thus saith his Majesty in his epistle to Cardinal Peron: The Churches are united in unity of saith and doctrine, in those heads which are necessary to salvation. And D. Whitaker in the preface of his Controversies: The foundations of saith are of that nature, that one being shaken, nothing in all religion remaineth sound. And Contr. 2. quest. 4. cap. 1: We say, that the Church cannot err in things simply necessary. Which he often repeateth in the 2. cap. And quest. 5. cap. 17: If any fundamental doctrine be taken away, the Church strait way falleth. And cap. 18: The fundamental articles are those, on which our faith relieth, as the house upon the foundation. Again: If any fundamental and essential principle of faith be overturned or shaken, it cannot be truly called a Church. And quest. 6. cap. 3: That is no true Church which taketh away one only foundation. The same he teacheth in his 1. book of the scripture cap. 7. sect. 8. and cap. 12. sect. 3. M. Perkins in his explication of the Creed: If any man or Church, retain, or defend, obstinately, or of wilful ignorance, a fundamental error, we must not account them anymore Christians or Churches. D. Sutlive in his first book of the Church cap. 1: Those blemishes take away the name of the true Church, which are against the grounds of faith. D. Field in his 2. book of the Church cap. 3: Purity free from fundamental and essential error, is necessarily required in the Church. D. Morton in the 1. part o● his Apology, book 2. cap 38: Purity of doctrine in fundamental principles of faith, is required to the being and constitution of the Church. And in his answer to the Protestants Apology l. 4. c. 3. Sect. 5: The denial of fundamental doctrines, doth exclude men from salvation, and disannulleth the name of the Church in the gainsayers. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 110: We do not think every company to be the true Church, that holdeth only some points of the true faith: but it is requisite that the foundation be holden. And in his defence of the way cap. 17: A fundamental point is that which belongs to the substance of faith, and is so necessary that there can be no salvation without the knowledge and explicit faith thereof. And surely they all, and at all times, aught to affirm this, seeing they deliver truth of doctrine, as an essential mark of the Church, which they must needs understand (and so Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 148. expresseth it) of true doctrine in fundamental points. And this their doctrine touching this matter, I earnestly commend to the memory of the Reader, because it is necessary to find out, what a Protestant is, and also is one of the grounds, whereby it may appear, that there was no Protestant Church before Luther, because before him there was no company which held all the same fundamental points of doctrine which Protestants do hold.  
6. Finally; 
They exclude all that deny any article of faith.  they sometyms shut out of their Church all those, who deny any one point of faith, be it fundamental or other. For thus writeth the Apology of the Confession of Auspurge: The Church of Christ is not among them, who defend naughty opinions, contrary to the Gospel. And Luther in his epistle to Count Albert: It is not enough, if in other things he confess Christ and his Gospel. For who denieth Christ in one article or word, denieth him, who is denied in all, because there is but one Christ, 
Lutherans.  the same in all his words. And upon the 17. cap. of Deuteronomy: Faith suffereth nothing, and the word tolerateth nothing, but the word must be perfectly pure, and the doctrine always sound throughout. And upon the 17. cap. of S. Matthew: Faith must be round, that is, believing all articles, though small ones. For who believeth not one article rightly, believeth nothing rightly, as james saith, Who offendeth in one, is guilty of all: and so who in one article doubteth or believeth not (at least obstinately) dissolveth the roundness of the grain, and so can do no good. And upon the 5. cap. to the Galathians: In divinity a small error overthroweth all the doctrine. Doctrine is like to a Mathematical point, it cannot be divided, that is, it cannot suffer either addition or detraction. And when Zuinglius and his followers desired of the Lutherans to be esteemed as their brethren, Melancthon (as Hospinian reporteth in his Sacramentarian history fol. 81.) roughly said unto them: We marvel with what conscience they can account us for brethren, whom they judge to err in doctrine. And again fol. 82. Luther gravely spoke unto them, saying: he greatly marveled how they could hold him for a brother, if they thought his doctrine to be untrue. And the same Melancthon together with Brentius writeth thus to the Landgrave: Perhaps Christians, who are entangled in some error, which they do not obstinately defend, may be tolerated as brethren, but they which not only bring false doctrine into the Church, but also maintain it, are not to be acknowledged for brethren. And again Melancthon in his examen of those who are to take orders, tom. 3. There are in that company (of the Church) many who are not Saints, but yet agreeing in doctrine. The Divines of Wittenberg in their refutation of the orthodoxal consent pag. 73: Like as he who keepeth the whole law and offendeth in one (as james the Apostle witnesseth) is guilty of all: so who believeth not one word of Christ, albeit he seem to believe the other articles of the Creed, yet believeth nothing, and is to be damned as incredulous. For every heretic did not impugn every article of faith, but commonly each of them of purpose impugned some one or other, whom nevertheless the Church justly condemned as heretics, if they pertinaciously stood in their errors. Schusselburg also in his 3. tom. of the Catalogue of Heretics, pag. 85. Christian faith is one copulative, and who denieth one article of faith, calleth in doubt the whole body of the heavenly doctrine. Which he repeateth again in the next pag. And tome 8. pag. 361: The Lutherans do fly him, who depraveth the doctrine of truth in any article whatsoever. And in his 2. book of Caluinisticall divinity, article 1: We are certain by the testimony of God's word, that an error in one false doctrine, obstinately defended, maketh an heretic. For S. Chrysostome upon the epistle to the Galathians said most truly, that he corrupteth the whole doctrine who overthroweth it in the least article. And Ambrose wrote rightly to the Virgin Demetrias, That he is out of the number of the faithful, and hath no part in the inheritance of Saints, who disagreeth in any thing from the Catholic truth. 
Sacramentaries.  Thus the Lutherans. Peter Martyr in his epistle to the strangers in England tom. 2. loc. col. 136: We answer, all the words of God, as fare forth as they proceeded from him, are of equal weight and authority, and therefore none may receive this, and reject that as false. james saith boldly, who sinneth in one, becometh guilty of all. That, if it have place in keeping of the commandments, is also true in points of faith. Sadeel in his index of Turrians Repetitions pag. 806: I said, that it was no true Church, which teacheth doctrine repugnant to the written word of God. And his Majesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 97. 
English Protestant's  in Latin: I call God to witness, that I hold him not for a Christian who in this learned age believeth that. (to wit, that Enoch and Elias are to come.) And D. Morton in his answer to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. c. 2. sect. 3. after he had said, that in a Church, albeit corrupted with error and superstition, yet if it do not ruinated the foundation, the erroneous & superstitious professors may be saved, adddeth: Which notwithstanding we must so understand, as that the error and superstition do not proceed from knowledge but from ignorance, which ignorance is not affected but simple. Thus we see that Protestants sometimes confess that true faith is like a grain, or Mathematical point, which cannot be parted; that the articles of faith are one copulative, and cannot be divided, that who so obstinately denieth one article, believeth, truly, none; that the obstinate denial of any one point of faith is sufficient to damn, or to make an heretic, and no brother of the faithful, or member of the Church. And finally, that she is no true Church, who wilfully maintaineth any one thing repugnant to the Gospel or word of God. Which indeed is most true, and is the doctrine of the holy Fathers and catholics, and I would to God Protestants would constantly stand unto it.  
7. By all, which hath been rehearsed in this chapter out of Protestants, it appeareth how many sorts of Christians, Protestants do sometimes exclude out of the Church, namely Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, all Heretics, all Schismatiks, all those, who deny any fundamental point of faith, and finally all who obstinately deny any point whatsoever of faith, or of the word of God. And how many things they sometimes require to the making and being of a Protestant, to wit, that he believe all and every point of their faith, and obstinately descent in none. To which their doctrine, if they would (as I have said) always constantly stand, it would easily appear, first how small a company the Protestants Church is, and how little it is spread through the world, and much less Catholic or universal, seeing there is no Province, nor scarce any city, in which all Protestants agree amongst themselves in all points of their doctrine. Secondly it would easily appear that the Protestant Church was never before Luther, seeing there is no appearance, that before him there was any company of Christians who in all points of doctrine agreed with Protestants. But Protestant's (as I said in the Preface) accommodate their doctrine and opinions to times and occasions. And the times, when they deny Papists to be of the Church, are when they exhort them to leave the Roman Church, or excuse their own revolting from her, or when they dehort others from returning to her. For at all these times, it serveth to their purpose to deny that Papists are of the Church, or in the way of salvation; which at other times, as we shall see in the next chapter, they are content to grant. And the times when they exclude Anabaptists, Arians, Heretics, Schismatiks, and all that deny either fundamental or other articles of faith, out of the Church, are, when either the evidence of truth enforceth them thereto, or when they are ashamed to acknowledge such ugly monsters for brethren and members of their Church, or would exhort such as have left their company to return unto them, and keep others from forsaking them: or finally would brag of the agreement and purity in doctrine of their company. For at those times it serveth their turn to renounce all the foresaid kind of men, whom at other times, especially when we demand of them, who were of their Church before Luther, they are most willing to receive, as their kind brethren; diligently scraping & gathering such shreds and clouts, when they perceive their own nakedness and beggary, which themselves, when they thought they were rich and had no need thereof, most disdainfully cast on the dunghills, as shall appear in the chapters following.   

CHAP. II. That Protestants sometimes account Papists for members of their Church.  
IN the former chapter we have seen how sparing Protestant's sometyms be in admitting others into their Church, now we shall see how liberal they be at other times, in so much that they grant, not only all those, whom in the former chapter they rejected, but also their professed enemies, idolaters, Infidels, Atheists, Antichrist himself, and all, whosoever under the name of Christians, impugn the deeds or doctrine of the Pope, to be their brethren, their fellows, and members of their Church. This we will show concerning the Papists in this chapter, and of the others afterward.  
1. That Protestants sometimes do acknowledge Papists to be in the Church is manifest. First by their open confession thereof. 
Lutherans.  For in the preface of their Confession of Auspurg, speaking of themselves and Papists, 
Papists serve under christ.  they say: We are all soldiers under one Christ. And Luther in his epistle against the Anabaptists (as Caluin in his book against the chanter of Lions, and D. Whitaker in the place hereafter cited do confess) writeth: 
The kernel of Christianity in Popery.  That in Popery is true Christianity, yea the kernel of Christianity, and many pious and great Saints. Again: If Christianity be under the Pope, than it must be the body and member of Christ. And upon the 28. chapter of Genesis: We confess, that there is a Church among the Papists, because they have Baptism, absolution, the text of the Gospel, and many godly men are among them. Caluin in his 140. epistle to Sozi●: I think I have sufficiently proved, that in Popery there remaineth some Church, albeit half destroyed, and if you will, broken and deformed. And upon the 2. c●ap. of the 2 epistle to the Thessalonians: 
The Body of Christ  I confess it is the temple of God, in which the Pope ruleth, and he calleth it the very sanctuary of God And, de vera reform. pag. 332. 
Sacramentaries.  ●ayth, that S Paul affirmeth that Antichrist (whom he will have to be the Pope) shall sit in the temple of God. And lib. de scandalis pag. 103: In the midst of God's temple. And lib. cont. Precentorem pag. 372: In the very sanctuary of God. And Respons. ad Sadolet: In the midst of God's sanctuary. Surely this is to grant, that the Roman Church, in which the Pope sitteth, is the very temple and very sanctuary of God. And in his answer to Sadolet: We deny not those to be Churches of Christ, which you govern. In his 4. book of Institutions, chap. 2. num. 11. he saith, that among Papists Gods covenant remained inviolable. 
Not yet killed.  And num. 12 We deny not, that there are Churches among them. Neither deny we, but there remain Churches under his (the Pope he meaneth) tyranny, but which he hath almost killed. junius in his book of the Church, cap. 17. writeth that the Popish Church, as fare as it hath that which belongeth to the definition of a Church, is a Church; that it hath not given up the ghost, that it hath all divine things, 
Not yet dead  and of God's part is yet the Church. Zanchius in the preface of his book of the nature of God: Satan even in the very Roman Church could not bring all things to that pass, that it should no more have t●e form of a Christian Church. And soon after: Wherhfore the Roman Church is yet the Church of Christ. 
Yet the Church of Christ.  P●essy in his book of the Church 2. chap. avoucheth, that the Roman Church is the Spouse of Christ, 
Spouse of Christ.  is not yet forsaken of him, that as a Mother, she beareth children to God (which he repeateth again in the 10. chap.) that she retaineth life, and that the name of the Church ought no more to be denied to her, than the name of a man unto a living man. Bucan in his 41. place of the Church, quest. 5: The assemblies of Papists are Churches, as a man infected with leprosy or besides his wits, doth not leave to be a man. Polanus in his first part and Thesis of the Church: The Roman Church truly is a Church; because Antichrist sitteth in the Church. And in his Syntagme of divinity lib. 7. c. 8: The present Roman Church is yet the Church of Christ. Seravia in his defence of the degrees of ministers, pag. 30: The Roman Church, is a Church, and mark what I say more, she is our mother, in whom and by whom, God did regenerate us. And pag. 31: The covenant of God remaineth this day in the Latin Church. Boysseul in his confutation of Spondé pag. 6: I exclude not the Roman Church out of the universal Church. I acknowledge her to be yet in the covenant of God; which he repeateth oftentimes. And pag. 12: The Roman Church, is the Church of God. Pag. 19: It is a member of the universal Church. p. 283: It is yet the Church, Spouse and temple of God. 
Yet the Church Spouse & temple of God.  And pag. 822: We deny not, that the Roman Church is the Church of jesus Christ, redeemed by him. Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin p. 188: The vulgar Roman church hath not yet lost all spiritual life, is not yet openly divorced from Christ. And Peter Martyr in his epistle to Bullinger, writeth, 
Yet alive.  that he gave counsel, that the Papists & they should not call one the other Heretics, but account themselves for brethren. As for English Protestants, 
Engli h Protestant's  his Majesty in his speech to the Parliament, anno 1605. 9 of November, and put forth in print, speaketh thus: We do justly confess, that many Papists, especially our forefathers laying their only trust upon Christ and his merits, may be, and oftentimes are saved; detesting in that point, and thinking the cruelty of Puritans worthy of fire, 
Papists may be saved.  that will admit no salvation to any Papist. And in his epistle to Cardinal Peron: The Roman, the Greek etc. Churches, are members of the Catholic Church. 
Members of the Catholic Church.  And D. Andrews in his Tortura Torti towards the end, speaketh thus to the Papists: We are content to call you members of the Catholic Church, though not sound members. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical policy pag. 128: We gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of jesus Christ. 
Of the family of Christ.  And lib. 5. pag. 188: They should acknowledge so much nevertheless still due to the same Church (of Rome) as to be held and reputed a part of the house of God, a limb of the visible Church of Christ. D. Covel in his defence of Hooker pag. 68 
May be saved. Note.  saith: We affirm them of the Church of Rome, to be parts of the Church of Christ, and that those that live and dye in that Church, may notwithstanding be saved. D. Barlow in his 3. sermon ad Clerum: The learneder writers do acknowledge the Church of Rome, to be the Church of God. M. Bunny in his treatise of Pacification, sect. 18: Neither of us (Papists & Protestants) may justly account the other to be none of the Church of God. We are no several Church from them, nor they from us. D. Some against Penry in diverse places avouceth, That Papists are not altogether aliens from God's covenant. That in the judgement of all learned men, and all reformed Churches, there is in Popery a Church, a Ministry, a true Christ: If you think that all the Popish sect which died in the Popish Church, are damned, you think absurdly, and descent from the judgement of the learned Protestants. D. Whitaker in his fourth controversy quest. 5. cap. 3. calleth the Papists Church, the temple of God, more than half dead, and almost decayed. And that temple, wherein the Apostle saith, that Antichrist shall sit, and which he affirmeth to be the Roman Church, he termeth the very Church of God, the true Church of God, the society of the faithful, the lively temple composed of lively stones; such as are the faithful & the elect. And he addeth: There is among them (Papists) some Ministry and some preaching of the word, which doubtless affordeth salvation unto some. And as the gifts of God are without repentance; so the covenant which God made with Christian people, is not quite broken. And cont. 2. quest. 5. 
God's covenant with Papists.  cap. 15. after he had confessed, that Luther had said, that in Popery are all the goods belonging to Christians, the keys, the office of preaching, true Christianity, and the very kernel of Christianity; he addeth: These things are indeed among them. M. powel in his 2. book of Antichrist, cap. 2. granteth the Roman Church to be the true Church, albeit with a new kind of distinction he deny the Popish church. And D. Rainolds in his 5. Thesis', albeit he say that the Roman Church be more than sickly and weak, yet he dares not say that she is quite dead. And D. White in his way, p. 352. saith, That Popery in as much as it differeth from us, is not to be imagined by us to be another Church distinct in place and countries from the true Church of Christ: but we affirm it to be a contagion, raging in the midst of the Church of Christ itself. And in his defence c. 37. pag. 355: I never denied the Church of Rome to be the visible Church of God, wherein our ancestors professed the truth, and were saved. And cap. 41. pag. 408: Professing the Church of Rome itself in all ages, to have been the visible Church of God. Lastly D. Hall in his Rome Irreconciliable sect. 1. saith, that the Roman Church is a true visible Church, but not sound, and that it differeth from the Protestant Church, At the sick from the whole. Hereto I add, that oftentimes they call the Roman Church their Mother, which hath borne them to Christ, as we shall rehearse hereafter, & that before Luther's time they seek their Church in Popery, and amongst the Papists.  
2. Secondly I prove this same out of that which diverse times they grant, that the Roman Church holdeth all the fundamental articles of faith, 
That Papists hold the foundation of faith.  which themselves commonly teach (as hereafter shall be showed) to suffice to make a Church. Their Confession of Auspurg in the 21. chapter hath these wonders: This is almost the sum of doctrine among us, in which as it may seem, there is nothing which differeth from scripture, or from the Catholic Church, or from the Roman Church, 
Lutherans  so fare as it appeareth by writers. All the dissension is about some few abuses, which have crept into Churches without certain authority. Whereby we see that the first and ancientest Protestants, 
The sum of faith in Pope●y.  publicly professed, that they differed not from the Roman Church in the sum of doctrine; but that all their disagreement was about some few abuses. And albeit the words be somewhat altered in the printed copies; yet that they were in the original copy which was presented to Charles 5. Emperor, is manifest by Fabritius, who repeateth them so out of that copy; by Pappus, in his 3, defence against Sturmius, who so also reporteth them; by Zanchius in his dispute between two Divines, where he repeateth these words out of the said Confession: There is nothing in our doctrine which differeth from the church of Rome, as far as it is known by writers: and finally by Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his censure upon the said Confession, it being sent unto him by the Protestants, where he thus writeth to them: Ye say, ye agree in all things with the Latins, 
Cocleus anno 1●28 Vsemberg. causa 17.  and that the difference betwixt you and them, is only touching some abuses: likewise Luther in his foresaid epist. count. Anabap: We confess that in Popery is much good belonging to Christians, yea all Christian good, 
All Christian good.  to wit, that in Popery is the true Scripture, true baptism, the true Sacrament of the altar, the true keys for remission of sins, the true office of preaching, the true Catechism, as the Lords prayer, the ten commandments, and the articles of faith. Whereupon Schusselburg in his 8. tome of the Catalogue of heretics pag. 439. saith: We deny not but that Luther said that all Christian goods are in Popery, 
What was needful to salvation.  and came from thence unto us john Regius in his consideration of the censure &c: Albeit the Ministry of Papists be corrupted with many traditions and inventions of men, yet it had that which was necessary to salvation, to wit the Canonical scripture, the Creed etc. Leonard Cren●zen: The bishop of Rome holdeth the same foundation of the Catholic faith 1. Cor. 3. 
The foundation of Faith.  which I and the Catholic Apostolic Church do acknowledge, although there be some difference of opinions in certain circumstances Thus the Lutherans. Of the Sacramentaries, 
Sacramentaries.  junius in his 5. controversy lib. 3. cap. 19 writeth thus of Papists, Lutherans, and Caluinists: We agree in the essential foundation. 
Essential foundation.  Zanchius in his foresaid preface: In despite of the Devil that Church (of Rome) hath kept the principal grounds of faith. 
Principal grounds of faith.  Boysseul also in his forenamed confutation pag. 79: We acknowledge that it is pure in the chief articles of Christian Religion. And Vorstius in his Anti-bellarmin pag. 188. It is manifest that there are many in that company (of Papists) who rightly hold the fundamental points 
The fundamental points.  of our Religion. And of the English Protestants, his Majesty in his monitory epistle pag. 148. plainly intimateth that Papists do stick unto the ancient foundations of the old true Catholic and Apostolic faith M. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical policy pag. 128. saith: Touching those main points of Christian truth, wherein they constantly still persist, 
English Protestant's  we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of jesus Christ. D. Whitaker in his 2. cont. quest. 5. cap. 14: Papists have the Scripture, Baptism, Catechism, the articles of faith, the ten commandments, the Lords prayer; 
The main points.  and those things came to us from them. D. Whitgift in his answer to the admonition pag. 40: Papistry confesseth the same articles of faith that we do, although not sincerely. And pag. 62: Papists believe the same articles of faith that we do. M. Perkins in the preface of his reformed Catholic: By a reformed Catholic I understand any one that holds the same necessary heads of Religion, with the Roman Church, 
The necessary heads.  yet so as he pares of, and rejects all errors in doctrine, whereby the said religion is corrupted. D. Morton in his answer to the Protestants Apology lib. 3. cap. 18. sect. 1: We may grant, that God may cooperate with them to the conversion of Infidels, 
The gospel of salvation.  so far as the Gospel of Christ, which is the power of God to salvation, is preached by them. D. White in defence of his way cap. 38: In the substantial articles of faith, we agree with them. Lastly D. Hall in his foresaid book saith, 
The substantial articles.  that the Roman Church is one touching the common principles of faith. Those things which she holdeth together with us, make a Church. As fare as she holdeth the foundation, she is a church.  
3. Thirdly, the same point is proved, 
The articles which make a Church.  by that they grant some to be saints, whom they acknowledge also to have lived and died Papists. For of S. Bernard's holiness thus writeth Luther upon the 4. cap. to the Galathians: Bernard a man so holy, pious, chaste, etc. The Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the chapter of answer to the Arguments: Antony, Bernard, 
That they say some Papists be saints.  Francis, Dominicke, and other holy Fathers. Brentius in his Apology for the Confession of Wirtenberg pag. 297: I judge Bernard to have been a man endued with great piety, and to live now happily with Christ. Caluin in his 4. book of institutions c. 7. num. 22: Gregory and Bernard holy men. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 181: We grant Bernard indeed to have been pious. Lubbert in his 6. book of the church c. 7: We think Bernard to have been truly holy. D. Whitaker cont. 3. quest. 5. c. 14: I take Bernard to have been holy indeed. And D. Morton in his Apology part. 2. lib. 2. c. 23: I confess Bernard was a Saint. And as plainly do they confess that he was a Papist. For thus Luther in the place now cited: Let us imagine that Religion and discipline of the ancient Popery to flourish now, and to be observed with that rigour, with which the eremites, Hierome, Augustin, Bernard, Francis, and many others observed it. And in his book of abrogating Mass: Bernard, Bonaventure, Francis, Dominicke, with their followers, not knowing the Pope, did honour his Kingdom; believing all things thereof to be good and just, and of God. The Magdeburgians in their 12. Century col. 1637. speak thus of him: He worshipped the God of Ma●zim (they mean the mass) till the last moment of his life. And in the next column: He was a most eager defender of the seat of Antichrist. Melancthon in his book of the Church, and upon the 14. cap. to the Romans: He yielded to many errors, as to the Abuses of the Mass, to the Pope's power, to vows, to the worship of Saints. Danaeus in his controversies, pag. 313. saith: He approved the Popery. M. jewel in his defence of the Apology 21. art. diuis. 8. pag. 450: Bernard was a monk, and living in a time of such corruption, and being carried with the tempest and violence of the same, must &c. Bale in his 2. century of writers pag. 177: He increased the authority of the bishop of Rome, as much as he could. D. Field upon the 14. of S. Matthew: Bernard was deceived with the error of Peter's superiority. And D. Whitaker in his answer to the 7. reason of Father Campian: Bernard, whom alone your church in many years hath brought forth a holy man. And in his 4. controversy quest. 2. c. 17. he affirmeth that he endeavoureth to confirm the Pope's superiority. Seeing therefore by the confession of Protestants, he was both an earnest Papist unto his dying day, for all his life time he honoured mass, believed the Pope's superiority (in which two points Protestants say the essence and soul of a Papist doth consist) and briefly believed all things belonging to the Pope to come from God: and also was a very holy man, in his life time, and now a blessed Saint in heaven; they must needs confess, that even the most vehement Papist may be of the church; because neither true sanctity, nor salvation can be found out of the church. Whereunto the Protestants in the late Conference at Ratisbon Sess. 13. say: If they were truly saints, than their error was not of that kind which overturneth the foundation. For it implieth contradiction, that one should be a true Saint, and yet foster error which overturneth the ground of salvation. In like sort they grant diverse others to be true saints, and yet withal Papists, but for brevity's sake I will content myself with this example of S. Bernard. But I will not omit to say, that they confess our Christian forefathers before Luther's time to have been Papists, from the top to the toe, from the first to the last, as shall be showed in the 2. book cap. 3. and notwithstanding dare not say, that they be damned, yea confess them to be saved. Luther in his book of private mass enquireth, what is to be thought of our ancestors who have founded innumerable Masses; and answereth: I cannot tell certainly. But upon the 41. cap. of Genesis, he saith: Doubtless many have been saved under Popery. And upon the 5. of S. Matthew: 
Our Popish forefathers saved.  Neither do we condemn the Christians who lived under the Pope. Brentius in the preface of his Recognition: We doubt not, but that many have obtained true salvation in Popery. Osiander in his Manual englished: We do not condemn our godly ancestors who lived in time of Popery. Zuinglius in his acts of disputation fol. 638: It is impious to pronounce our ancestors to be damned. D. Morton in his Apology part. 1. l. 1. c. 90: Be this impiety far from us, to adjudge our ancestors, to damnation. And D. White in his defence pag. 356: I never denied the church of Rome to be the visible church of God, wherein our ancestors possessed the true faith and were saved. But how could our Popish ancestors be not damned, how could they be saved, unless they were in the true church, out of which even Protestants themselves confess, that there is no salvation, 
That they confess true mission and Pastors in Popery.  but only damnation.  
4. Fourthly I prove that Protestants cannot deny Papists to be of the true Church, because they oftentimes both by word and deed acknowledge the vocation and Mission of Popish Pastors, to be lawful and sufficient to make a true Pastor of the Church. Luther upon the 5. cap. of S. Matthew: We confess that amongst Papists are pulpits, Baptism, Sacraments, and all other things belonging to Apostolical vocation and function. And in his book or private mass: There remaineth in Popery, Vocation, Ordination, Ministry of the word, and keys to bind and lose. Again: Christ hath conserved his Ministry under Popery. And as is before cited: There is all Christian good in Popery, the keys, the charge of preaching etc. john Regius in considerate. Censurae pag. 93: Although it be true that the Popish ministry was depraved with sundry traditions and devices of men, yet had it those things which were necessary to salvation. Bucer in Rom. 8. pag. 427. telling us by what authority and right he preached Protestantisme, saith: I had by lawful means already attained the charge to preach Christ, and to teach those things which he commanded. junius lib. singulari de eccles. cap. 17: God calleth the church wherein Popery reigneth, by his spirit, by his word, by the public instrument of that holy marriage by the ministry, by sacred affairs & actions. On God's part these things are apparently in that church. Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 11. p. 361. The vocation (of our men) is the same that they (the Papists) boast of. Pag. 362: Our adversaries and our first ministers had the same Ecclesiastical calling. Boysseul in confutat. Spondaei pag. 486: It is no reproach for our Pastors to have issued out of yours; or, as you say, to have had their vocation from yours. Moulins lib. 1. de vocat. cap. 5. pag. 20. endeavouring to uphold the calling of their first Reformers, saith: They have that calling which is ordinary in the church of Rome Pa. 21: They had their calling of the Pope. cap. 9 pag. 36: They have the same ordinary calling which our adversaries have. And lib. 2. tract. 1. cap. 1. pag. 172: The calling they had in the church of Rome, sufficed to bind them to preach. And pag. 173: Their commission was no other than the ordinary charge. Seravia in defen. Grad. minist. cap. 2. pag. 31. We ought not to think, that in the church of Rome ecclesiastical ministry is decayed. And pag. 33: I like not their forwardness, who acknowledge no ministry in the church of Rome, but deem all that is there, devilish. Ibid: Beza doth exagitate Popish orders over much, wherein I fear lest he prejudice a good cause. D. Whitaker contr. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682: The Papists have some sort of ministry, and some preaching of the word, which doubtless availeth many to salvation. And other where (as is before cited) Among the Papists there are the keys, the office of preaching, etc. M. Bell in his first book of the Pope's funeral cap. 5. affirmeth that he had rejected only the accidents of his Popish orders, but retained the substance still. M. Mason in his 5. book of the ordination of ministers, cap. 12. saith, that Popish ordination consists of two parts, to wit, of power to offer sacrifice, & of power to administer the word and Sacraments, and albeit he rejecteth the former, yet the later he approves, as that wherein true ministry consisteth. Sadeel respon. ad artic. abiurat. 61. And Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin pag. 177. teach the same; and so must all others do, who hold the mission of Luther and their first ministers to have been ordinary, and received from the Papists: which opinion most Protestants do now follow, retracting, upon better advice their former assertion, & confessing that the mission of their new Reformers, was not in substance extraordinary. And their deeds and actions do no less declare their approbation and esteem of the mission and Pastoral charge which is in the church of Rome. For as Turrian reporteth lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3. and Luther intimateth tom. 2. epist. ad Bohemos, when the Catholic Bishops give orders, the Hussites of Bohemia steal in privily among the rest. The Lutherans also made suit to the estates of the Empire, that their ministers might receive orders from the bishops of Misnia and Numburg. And in artic. 10. Smalcald, they profess thus: If the bishops (of the church of Rome) would truly execute their office, and look carefully to the church and word of God, it might be permitted them to give orders unto us and our preachers. You may add hereunto, that neither Luther nor any Reformer else ever sought other ordination, than what they had received of Papists; and that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the supposed Prelates earnestly be sought a Catholic Bishop to consecrate them. And even to this day, if any renegade Priest join himself to the Protestants, they order him not anew, but deem him fit for their ministerial function, by virtue of the orders he received of Papists. Now if Papists have true Mission, true pastoral charge, and true Pastors, 
True mission and Pastors inseparable from the Church.  surely they have also the true church; it being impossible, that the church should be severed from the true Pastors; or that the keys of heaven which are in the true Pastors' hands, should be out of the church, or that the power to remit sins, the prerogative of true Pastors, should be where the church is not. Nay, the Protestants themselves confess as much. Luther tom. 4. in cap. 4. Oseae fol. 295: True it is, that the Ministry is only in the Church. Melancthon tom. 1. Lutheri disput de Eccles. Polit. fol. 483: The ordination of Ministers is one of the peculiar gifts of the Church. Caluin lib. de neces. reform. Eccles. pag. 57: This one reason is as good as thousands, that who so hath showed himself an enemy to true doctrine, hath lost all authority in the Church. D. Whitaker add demonstrat 18. Sanderi: Out of the Church there is no other seat but the seat of error, of pestilence, and everlasting destruction. The same teacheth Sadeel ad Sophism. Turrian loc. 10. D. Field in his 1. book of the church cap. 14. and others.  
5. Fiftly it is evident by the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, who hold that the children of Papists are in the covenant of God, and estate of salvation, through the faith of their parents; 
Papist● children saved by the faith of their parents.  and may therefore be baptised: much more than must they teach, that the parents themselves are for their own faith in the covenant of God and estate of salvation; which could not be, were they not in the Church. The antecedent is manifest by the saying of many Protestants. For thus writeth Luther lib. de captain. Babylon. tom. 2. fol. 77: Here I say that which all say, that infants are helped by the faith of them which offer them. Caluin in his Catechism cap. de lege: God extendeth his bounty so fare unto the faithful, that for their sake he is good to their children not only blessing their affairs in this world, but also sanctifying their souls, that they may be accounted of his flock. Contr. Seruetum. pag. 601: We think, that there will be no use of Baptism until this promise, I will be thy God and of thy seed be apprehended by faith; but every one apprehendeth it not only to himself, but also to his issue. Beza part. 2. Respon. ad acta Montisbel. pag. 118: Parents through God's grace do apprehended grace by true faith, according to the form of the Covenant, as well to their posterity as to themselves. Which he oftentimes repeateth. And likewise in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 48. and cap. 5. sect. 9 and pag. 126 M. Perkins de Sacramento Baptismi tom. 1. col. 846: Others say, that the faith of the Parents is also the faith of their children, all the time of their infancy or childhood, and that because parents do by their faith apprehend the promise both for themselves and for their children: Which opinion seemeeh to me the fittest of all. The like he saith in cap. 3. Galat. The sequel likewise is undoubted. For if the faith of Popish parents be of force to establish their very children in the Covenant of God and estate of salvation, though it reside not in them, nor be their act; much more doth it establish the parents themselves, who have that faith in them, and whose act it is. Nor do the instances D. Morton brings against it in his answer to the Protestants Apology, lib. 4. cap. 6. make any thing to the purpose; as that in case of necessity an heretical Priest or Schismatic may absolve from sins; and an Infidel administer Baptism. Again: That if such as were free of a city and are arraigned of treason, should have issue after their condemnation, their children nevertheless shall enjoy the title and right of citizens, whereof their parents were destitute. These examples (I say) are not to the purpose; because he, who is either baptised by an Infidel, or absolved by an heretical Priest, enters not into the covenant of God and estate of salvation for aught that is in the person which baptizeth or absolveth him, but for the Sacrament of Baptism or Penance, which he receiveth indeed by the others administration, but hath it in himself. And the son of a traitor is not made a Citizen, in regard of any thing that is in the father alone, but for his own birth which appertains to himself, though his Father be author thereof. But the Sacramentaries teach, that the child of a Papist is in the covenant of God and estate of salvation, not for his own faith (for they say he hath none) but for the belief of his father; which is no way possible, if the same faith be not of force to work the like effect in the father himself; seeing it belongs fare more to him, then to his child, and therefore must sooner give him interest in the covenant, than the child that is descended of him. For how can the father's belief lay hold on the promises and covenant of God for his children, and cannot do it for himself?  
6. These allegations demonstrate, 
The sūm● of Protestants Confession touching Papists.  that by the Confession of the Protestants, the starkest Papists (such as are of belief that the mass, the Pope's primacy, and all things else of his are good, upright and of God) are soldiers under Christ, may attain to salvation, may be Saints; yea that there are among them both many and great Saints. That there is in the Church of Rome what so is necessary to salvation, the sum of faith, the groundworks the essential groundworks, the principal grounds of faith, the chief articles, the fundamental heads, the necessary heads, the chief parts, the Gospel of salvation, the kernel of Christianity, and all Christian good. Lastly that the Church of Rome, Is a limb and member of the universal Church, of the Catholic Church, a member of the true Church, and is of the family of jesus Christ; that it is mother to the children of God, that it is the Church of God, the temple of God, the body of Christ, the Spouse of Christ, that it abides yet in the covenant, is not yet cast of, or put away, is not yet killed, but is yet alive. Which words plainly import that the Roman or Popish Church is a true Church in the sight of God.  
7. But is it credible, 
Note.  that such as make profession of Christian religion, should mount to that height of impiety, as dare to reject & divorce themselves, from that Church which they confess remains yet in the covenant of God, & which Christ hath not yet rejected? Is it credible, that they fear not to impugn, to make bitter invectives, to disgorge curses and execrations against her, whom they acknowledge to be their Mother, which bore them to Christ, to be the Church of God, to be the body and Espouse of Christ? What can be more lewd and impious, then to rage and rail against their own mother, against the Church of God, against the very body and Espouse of Christ? What strange and monstrous blindness is it, not to perceive, that whiles they confess the church of Rome to be the church of God & Espouse of Christ, they acknowledge their own to be the Synagogue of Antichrist and strumpet of the Devil? For Christ cannot have two Espouses, repugnant each to other. Now the Protestant church and church of Rome are parts so opposite, as can never make one. For they jar and disagree mainly in diverse weighty points, as namely touching the canon and exposition of the Scripture, touching sacrifice and the Sacraments, touching the worship of God, & his Saints; touching the means to obtain remission of sins, and many the like. Whereupon Beza in Confess. cap. 7. pag. 56: We descent (saith he) from the Papist, about they very sum of salvation. And others say no less, as shall be showed hereafter in the 2. book and 6. cap: If ours be true Religion (saith S. Augustin to the Donatists which yet came nearer to catholics then Protestants do) yours is superstition. 
Lib. 2. cont. Gaud. c. 11.  Again: If our communion be the Church of Christ, yours is not Christ's Church; 
Lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 11.  for that is but one, which so ever it be. And in another place: When they approve that Church, which (as is manifest) we communicate with all, and they do not; by that their testimony they acknowledge themselves convinced, 
Lib. ad Donat. post. codat.  and give you plain notice (if you be wise) what you ought to forgo, and what it behoves you to cleave to and retain. And S. Cyprian epistle 76: If the Church were on Novatus side, it was not with Cornelius.  

Num. 4.  8. The Protestants now and then perceive as much, when they acertaine us (as hath been showed in the first chapter) that who so severeth himself from any particular congregation, which is a true Church, excludes himself wholly from the church. Caluin saw it, when 4. Insti. c. 2. §. 10. he wrote thus: We cannot grant them (Papists) that they are the church, but the necessity of subjection & obedience will befall us. If they be churches, the power of the keys is in their possession. If they be churches, that promise of Christ: Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, takes effect in them. M. Perkins perceived it to, when in his explication of the Creed col. 794. he said: 
Zanchiu● lib. 1. de E●cl. c. 7.  As long as any church forsakes not Christ, we may not withdraw ourselves from it. The reason is apparent, because in so doing we should departed from Christ, or Christ should be parted, even as we are rend and disjointed from the church wherein he is. And in his Reformed Catholic tract. 22. col. 470. Wh●re he saith: We ought not to divide ourselves from any nation or people, which hath not before cut itself of from Christ. D. Feild likewise saw it in his 3. book of the Church c. 47. Where he makes this acknowledgement: Surely if he can prove that we confess it (the Church of Rome) to be the true Church, he needeth not use any other argument. But we have clearly proved it by sundry plain confessions of many famous Protestants. And hitherto we have discovered how they sometime harbour and receive Papists into their church: now we will show that they use the like courtesy towards the rest.   

CHAP. III.  
That Protestants acknowledge for members of their Church, sometime those that deny as well fundamental as other articles of their faith; sometimes Heretics, Schismatiks, yea their professed and sworn enemies.  
THAT they esteem all such to be members of their Church, as swerve from the Christian faith only in points not fundamental, themselves in the preface of the Swissers Confession declare in these words: Mutual consent and agreement in the principal points of doctrine, in orthodox sense, and brotherly charity, was of religious antiquity thought abundantly sufficient. And D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 1. c. 2. pag. 527: God forbidden that they should be no longer of the number of the faithful, who are in some points of a contrary opinion, so they assent in the chief and principal and necessary matters. And for as much as the Protestants opinion herein is well known (for wh●̄ it is objected unto them, that their churches disagree in points of faith, this serves them for excuse) I think it needless to allege any more of their sayings. He that will may look the Confession of Saxony cap. de Eccles. Luther tom. 7. lib. de not. Eccles. fol. 149. Melancthon tom. 4. in ca 3. 1. Cor. Kemnitius 1. part. Examinis tit. de bonis operibus pag. 332. Zuinglius tom. 1. in Prefat. lib, de Provident. Caluin. 4. Institut. cap. 1. §. 12. and cap. 2. §. 1. Beza epist. 2. Zanchius in prefat. lib. de natura Dei. Hospin, part. 1. Histor. lib. 1. cap. 2. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmin. pag. 116. and others more. And as their judgements are different touching the fundamental articles of faith, so in determining, who are to be accounted members of their Church their opinions are unlike. Some of them say, that the sum, the chief and principal heads of faith, and all things necessary to be believed are comprised in the Apostles Creed. 
The Apostles Creed.  The principal heads of faith (saith Caluin 2. Institut. c. 16. §. 8) are set down in the Creed. And it is (as D. Whitaker saith lib. 3. de Scriptura cap. 3. sect. 1.) a list of the chief heads of faith. It contains (saith M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholik col. 476.) all points of Religion which we are necessarily to believe. Hemingius in Syntagmate pag. 196: It contains the groundwork of the whole frame of Religion. Vrsinus in Cathechesi: The sum of those things which the Gospel proposeth unto us to believe, that we may be partakers of God's covenant, is comprehended in the Apostles Creed. Pareus lib. 1. de justificat. cap. 9 hath these words: In the Creed is laid open the sum of that doctrine, which we must believe to salvation. The same teacheth Luther tom. 7. in 3. symbol. fol. 138. Confessio Pasatina in initio, prefat. Syntagmat. Confess. the French Catechism, Brentius in Prolegomenis, pag. 244. The Catechism of Heidelberg part. 2. Bullinger in compendio fidei lib. 6. cap. 2. and tom. 1. decad. 5. serm. 2. Polanus in Analysi. Catechismi Basse. Boysseul in confutat. Spondei p. 10. Raynolds in Apol. Thes. pag. 241. Carleton in Consensu tract. de Eccles. c. 9 The same is intimated by Zanchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 219. and by Musculus in locis tit. de Eccles. pag. 309. These men then, if the sequel of their doctrine be correspondent to the premises, must needs acknowledge, that the profession of the Apostles Creed, though joined with the denial of whatsoever other articles of faith, sufficeth to make a Protestant, and a limb of their Church. And some of them there be who confess it. For Bullinger lib. cit. cap. 11. fol. 83. saith: All that we comprise in the 12. 
Belief of the Apostles C●e●d sufficient to salvation.  articles, is the true and Christian faith, unto which whosoever cleavech, he beliueth right, is approved of God, is justified, and made partner of everlasting life. Caluin cont. Gentil. pag. 659: The confession of faith contained in the Apostles Creed, aught to be enough for all modest Christians. And Musculus in the place last quoted. They are wonderful unreasonable and unadvised, who not content with this belief, exact of the faithful, that they believe yet other things which are neither mentioned in the Apostles Creed, nor in baptism. Aretius' in locis part 3. fol. 67: The articles necessary to salvation are those, which the Creed hath set us down. As for the rest, since the matter cannot be decided, variety of judgements must be borne with all. Polanus also in the place before cited: These articles (of the Creed,) if they be unfeignedly believed suffice to purchase salvation; nor is it required we should believe aught beside. And Hall in ●ua Roma irreconcil. sect. 1: We are all one and the same Church, as many as in any part of the earth worship jesus Christ the only Son of God and Saviour of the world, and profess the same common belief comprised in the Creed.  

The Creeds.  2. Some of them will have the grounds of faith to be contained in the Creed; as Plessy lib. de Eccles. c. 5. Hereupon Mark Antony de Dominis in consil. suae profect. pag. 18. & 20. saith: Restore peace and charity to all Christian Churches, which profess Christ by the essential cognisances of belief. Others add to the Creeds the 4. general Counsels or at least one of them, as D. Andrews in Respons. ad Apol. Bellarmin. cap. 1. pag. 52: That which is set down in the Creeds and 4. general counsels, 
The Creeds & the 4. general counsels.  is to us a sufficient object of faith. And in Tortura Torti pag. 127: Nor do we lightly discern and try heresy by other touchstone, then by examining whether it be repugnant t● any of the three ancient Creeds, or 4. ancient general counsels. And Melancthon tom. 3. l. de iudicijs Synodorum fol. 389. saith of himself, that he is not without the Church, because he faithfully embraceth all the articles of the Apostles and Nycen Creed. Musculus also in the place above quoted puts down this conclusion: As many as believe the Apostles and Athanasius Creed, hold all the Catholic faith, and are not heretkes but Catholics. Some of them are of opinion, that all the fundamental points of belief are contained in the Creed and decalogue; 
The Creed and Decalogue.  as Melancthon tom. 1. in cap. 7. Matth. pag. 402. tom. 3. in respon ad artic. Bavar. fol. 363. Vrsinus in Miscellaneis Thes. 8. pag. 1●4. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 789. Some of them say, they are in the Creed, the decalogue, and Lords prayer; 
The creed Decalogue, and Lords prayer.  as Luther tom. 7. in Enchirid. fol. 118. Beza lib. de notis Eccles. pag. 52. Keckerman lib. 1. System. Theol. 201. D. White in the preface of his way, and in his defence of the same cap. 8. pag. 54. Others reckon the 10. commandments, the Creed, the Lords prayer, & the Sacraments; as D. Whitaker cont. 1. quest. 4. cap. 4. 
The creed Decalogue, Lord's prayer, & Sacraments. And the Ministry.  pag. 342. (howbeit quest. 5. cap. 9 pag. 362. he omitteth Sacraments, & putteth in Catechism in exchange.) Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 24. unto which jeslerus lib. de bello Euchar. pag. 40. adjoineth the ministry. And these men according to their several decisions concerning the fundamental points of belief, must with like diversity require in a limb of the Protestant Church either the belief of the Creed alone, and decalogue; or must add beside (as each think it needful) the Lord's prayer, the Sacraments, 
Baptism and worship of Christ.  the Catechism, and the Ministry.  
3. But sometimes they give larger scope, & demand fare less, to wit, Baptism only, or faith in Christ. Let him let Chr●s●ianity stand (sait● D. Andrews in respon cit. cap. 5. pag. 126) in baptism and worship of Christ. M. Morton in his book of the Kingdom of Israel and the Church pag. 91: In what place soever any society of men adore true God in Christ, they profess the substance of Christian Religion: 
Baptism alone.  jerlach. us disput. 22. de Eccles. pag. 662: Wheresoever baptism remains curier in regard of its substance, thither reacheth the territory of the Catholic Church: 
Luther de Notis Eccl. fol. 150.  Again: If they acknowledge true baptism both in o●rs and in other congregations, they must yield, that in the same there is likewise the Catholic Church. And Hurterus in his Analysis of the Confession of Ausburge pag. 525: As many as are enroled for Christ's soldiers by sacred baptism, or at least wise are joined to him, by profession of faith, are every one of them members of the Church simply taken, as it signifieth the company of them that are called. Seravia defence. contra Bez●m cap. 2. pag. 31: As long as there remains amongst them the new and old testament, together with the Sacrament of baptism, and belief in God the Father, and in the Son, and holy Ghost; and they trust to be saved by the Son of God and his death; albeit they adjoin a number of their own wicked forgeries, they are notwithstanding parts and members of the universal Church. The ministers of the scattered Church of the Netherlands in sua narrat. pag. 71: No man can, 
Profession of Christ.  nor aught to give sentence in the Church of an others condemnation, of whom it is not publicly known, that he is fallen away from the foundation of the Apostolical Confession, uttered by the mouth of Peter. Oecolampadius epist. ad Bucerum apud Hospin. part. 2. 
Profession of Christ God and man.  Histor. fol. 112: We are gladly at peace withal those that confess with us and teach jesus Christ true God and true man in unity of person. And Bucerus apud eundem fol. 84: Who so preach the same Christ with us, we account them ours, what estimate soever they make of us. Beza de lib. notis Eccles. pag. 30: We say it is a true definition of the true Church, whether generally considered or in particular, wherein it is said to be a company which acknowledgeth one Saviour. 
To acknowledge one Saviour.  For (saith he) this al●ne is the only ground-work● of that spiritual house of God; Christ jesus is the soul of that mystical body, the only rule and square of that building. And the Confession of Bohemia artic. 8. defines the Catholic Church to be all Christians, That are associated in one belief concerning Christ and the holy Trinity. 
The faith of Christ and the Trinity.  The Confession of Basse artic. 5. hath this assertion: We believe the holy Christian Church etc. Wherein all those are Citizens, that confess jesus to be Christ, the lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, and show openly the same belief by works of charity. Acontius l. 3. Stratagem. Satanae pag. 119. concludes that nothing else is necessarily to be believed, 
Belief of one God & Christ.  but That there is one God and Christ his Son made man and raised from the dead; and that salvation is purchased by his name, and not by any other name, nor by the works of the law. And Luther upon the 7. of Math. fol. 86. closeth up all with this epilogue: The head and sum of Christian doctrine is this: 
That God saveth by Christ.  that God sent and gave his Son, by whom alone he pardoneth our offences, and doth justify and save us. This (saith he) and nothing else, it behoves thee firmly to believe. Sometime to believe their article of justification by only faith is as much as they require in a limb of their Church, 
The only article of justification sufficeth.  or think needful to salvation. Luther tom. 7. tract. in 3. symbol. fol. 140: I have found by experience, that who so have truly and sincerely believed that principal article of Christian faith concerning jesus Christ, though they had their errors and faults, have at last notwithstanding been saved. And tom. 4. in cap. 42. 
Pareus in 1. Galat. lect. 8. jezler. de bello Euch. fol. 77.  Isaiae fol. 178: If we abide in this article, we are secure from heresies, and retain remission of sins; which pardoneth our weakness in civil duties and belief. And in cap. 43. fol. 200: Who so believeth this article, is out of danger for ever falling into error, and the holy Ghost must needs assist him. And Brocard upon the 2. cap. of the Apocalips fol. 45: The former Ministers who were before the first council of Trent, determined, that we ought not to contend, but that their Supper should be common, which had received one doctrine touching justification. Caluin de vera Eccles. reform. pag. 316. writeth thus: I know it is the common saying of a great many, that so the doctrine of undeserved justification continue sound, we should not be so stiffly contentious about the rest. And the Author of the Preface in Syntagma Confess. after he had affirmed that the article of justification is the ground work, the form and soul of Christian religion, makes this demand: How can they then but have peace one with another, whosoever are fellow-partners of so great good? And he saith, it is, An unseemly and heinous thing, that between such there should be enmity and debate. And indeed all Protestants should teach so, since they make this article the definition, the sum, and very soul of Protestantisme, as shall be herrafter showed in the 6. chapter. Sometimes in a member of their Church, they require only some one point of Christianity, or but the profession of Christ's name. For Sturmius apud Hospin. in Corcord. discord. c. 24. testifieth that Bucer said: He would never condemn any one, in whom he saw any point of Christianity. 
Any point of Christianity.  And Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 2. affirmeth that the Church may be infected with heresy from top to toe, & yet be a part of the universal Church, as long as it professeth the name of Christ. And Moulins in his buckler of faith pag. 43. The universal visible Church is the company of all them who profess themselves to be Christians. Thus we see, that to a member of the visible Church, yea to faith, to Christianity, to a member of the true and Catholic Church, to eternal salvation (as Protestants sometime judge and determine) little or nothing sufficeth. Do not these men go about to expose the Church & means of salvation unto scorn and mockery? What jew or Turk did ever make his Synagogue so common?  
4. 
Protestant's challenge those that deny even fundamental articles.  Albeit the former allegations do sufficiently convince, that when Protestants calculate the limbs and members of their Church, they take, to make up the number, such as renounce the very fundamental articles of their belief; yet to make it more evident, and to prevent all colour of doubt, I will add other proofs beside. And first we have in this behalf their own Confessions. For Beza lib. de Notis Eccles. pag. 45. teacheth plainly, that some errors even in some fundamental heads of faith, may creep into the Catholic Church. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 4. cap. 3. pag. 490: It is manifest, that the true Church may err for a time even in necessary points. The like hath Hutterus in Analysi Confessionis Augustanae pag. 453. and junius doth intimate as much lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 17. D. Whitaker again cont 2. quest. 5 cap. 17: We gather, that the Church may for a time swerve from the truth even in some fundamental points, and be notwithstanding safe. And Zanchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 221. will not have us forsake any company on occasion of false opinions, which swerve from the groundwork of faith. D. Hall likewise in sua Roma irreconc. sect. 1. saith, that the true Church may foster such errors, As by deduction and consequence destroy the foundations of belief. D. Fulke in his serm. upon the Apocalips, having made this objection to himself, that seeing the Church is the Espouse of Christ, it cannot be, that he suffered it to be possessed so many ages with damnable errors; answers it in this manner: What? Christ himself hath said: that the errors of false Prophets should be exceeding great, in as much as the very elect, if it might be, should be led into error. And lib. de Success. Eccles. pag. 122. he saith: It seems not fitting to take from the Grecians the name of a Church; whom notwithstanding he confesseth to be ensnared with grievous errors. Now a grievous error (according to D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest 4 cap. 1.) dissolves the foundation, and may therefore be termed fundamental. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed, col. 790: When an error is repugnant to the foundation, either directly or by necessary consequence if it proceed of weakness, he in whom it is, aught to be reputed a member of the universal Church. And upon 1. Galat. v. 2: If a Church through frailty fall into error, although it concern the foundation, notwithstanding it remains yet a Church, as is certain by the example of the Galathians. And upon the epistle of jude v. 19: The Church of Gaelatia through weakness removed itself unto another Gospel, and erred in the foundation, yet Paul writeth to it as to the Church of God. D. Willet affirmeth the same in his Synopsis cont. 2. q. 3. pag. 104. And Melancthon tom. 2. lib. de Eccl. pag. 123. toucheth the same string when he saith: The true Church itself may have errors which obscure and darken the articles of faith. And tom. 4. in cap. 9 Rom: God gathereth always some company, in which the foundation is kept, sometimes less pure, sometimes more. D. White in his way pag. 111: Some articles lying in the very foundation may be believed not so clearly. Nay sometimes they dare avouch, that those very Corinthians that denied the resurrection, and those Galatians also that changed the Gospel of Christ into another Gospel, were of the Church. 
Luther. in 1. cap. Galat. fol 215. Perkins loc. cit.  For thus the Swissers Confession c. 17: We are not ignorant, what manner of Churches those of the Corinthians and Galathians were in the Apostles time: which the Apostle accuseth of many and grievous crimes, and yet termeth them the holy Churches of Christ. And Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 1. §. 27: Most grievous sins possess sometimes whole Churches. The Apostasy of the Galathians was no small offence; the Corinthians were less excusable than they; howbeit neither of them are excluded from the Lords mercy. Sadeel in his answer add Thes. Posnan. cap. 12. pag. 866: The Galathians and Corinthians, though corrupted with error, and disagreeing each from other about the chief groundwork of belief, and that not concerning the manner but touching the matter itself, retained notwithstanding the name of a true church. And hence he gathereth, that the debate and disagreement between the Lutherans and Caluinists concerning the Eucharist, doth not let either of them from being of the true Church.  
5. The deeds of the Lutherans and Sacramentaries yield us a second kind of proof. For the Electoral or mild Lutherans in colloq. Aldeburg. scripto 8. call themselves, 
Lutherans profess that themselues differ fundamentally.  Fellows and companions of the same Ministry, fellow-cittizens and fellow-soldiers of those of Saxony or rigorous Lutherans: of whom notwithstanding scripto 6. pag. 111. they give this censure: They have showed themselves to descent from our Churches in the foundation. Again: We will make it evident, that they impugn the fundamental doctrine. And scripto 4. pag. 4: Our opinion is, that we disagree not about impertiment matters only, or things of no consequence; but about the main and chiefest matters. And scripto 7: This one thing they aim at, and bend all their endeavours to undermine and overturn the groundwork of saving doctrine. And pag. 374. they complain that those of Saxony do often cry out of them, that they are worse than any idolaters. And the Sacramentaries in Praefat. Apologet. Orthodoxi consensus, writ thus of the Lutherans: They have hitherto suffered among them, such as call in question the doctrine of justification, of original sin, of free will, of the Gospel, of the law and use thereof, of Christ's descent into hell, of his person, of the election of God's children, and many other articles of no small moment; which things they easily put up, because all these go under the name of Lutherans. Now that the Sacramentaries likewise acknowledge the Lutherans for their brethren, is apparent by the Apology of the Church of England, by the consent of Poland, by the preface of the Syntagme of Confessions, 
Sacramē●taries challenge Lutherans.  by the Conferences of Marspurg and Montbelgard, and other public writings and registered acts: and yet they see and openly exclaim against their errors in fundamental points of faith. Of Luther thus writeth Zuinglius tom. 2. Resp. ad Luther. fol. 401: 
And yet say they differ fundamentally from them.  We judge thee a worse seductour, impostor, and denier of Christ, then was Martion himself. And fol. 430. Luther as yet, is entangled and sticks fast in two errors exceeding grievous, and in most foul ignorance. Of Melancthon thus saith Caluin epist. 183: Either he openly impugneth true doctrine in the chiefest heads, or else hideth his meaning craftily or not very honestly. And epist. 179. he complaineth that Melancthon endeavoureth to overthrew his doctrine of predestination: Without which (saith he) the knowledge of God's free and undeserved mercy is utterly lost. The like he saith, epist. 141. Sturmius lib. de Ratione incundae Concordiae, saith plainly, that the Lutherans do pluck up the foundation of Christian Religion. And Bullinger in fundamento firmo writeth, that the very infidelity of the jews and Gentiles is by the Lutherans brought into the Churches. Cureus in Exegesi Sacramentaria pag. 91: Surely the controvesy (between the Lutherans and Sacramentaries) is concerning the foundation. The Sacramentaries in the Preface of the Conference at Mulbrun say, that the Lutherans. Tear in preces and adulterate the articles of the incarnation, of the true humane nature etc. Which articles (say they) no Christian man can doubt but are the groundwork of salvation. And in the foresaid preface: They are at variance, not about the Lords supper only, but touching the person of ●hrist, touching the union of his divine and humane nature, touching the ubiquity of his body and corporal manducation thereof common both to good and bad, touching his ascending up to heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of his Father: of all these points they contend, and that with such exceeding heat of disputation, as that old heresies not a few, long since abolished and condemned, begin again to lift up their head, as if they were recalled from hell. The like they have ibidem in Prolegomenis. Of the controversy which is between the Lutherans & Sacramentaries about the ●eall presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, Martyr in locis tom. 2. p. 156. gives this judgement: The contention and difference therein concerns the chief heads of Religion. Caluin epist. 292. saith, that the opinion of the Lutherans doth, By mischievous jugglings and legierdemains overturn the principles of faith. Beza in his 5. epist. that it destroyeth the verity of Christ's body. And epist. 81. that it recalleth from hell the folly and doting errors of Martion and Eutiches. Bucer cited by Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 84: It followeth thereupon, that Christ is not true man. Paraeus in cap. 3. Galat. lection. 37: There is nothing more directly opposite to Christian Religion, then to think that the body of Christ doth indeed lie hid really under the bread, and that the same is truly eaten with the mouth. Sadeel. in tract. de Coniunctione etc. pag. 369. that it overthroweth the true nature of the true body and blood of Christ Which thing (saith he) we still lay to their charge. And tract. de Sacramentali manducatione pag. 26. that it is a word of evils. pag. 267: That it trains after it idolatry. And pag. 268: that it cannot stand with the verity of Christ's body. Hospin. part. 2. citat. fol. 2. that it is the foundation of Papistry. And fol. 181: The base and pillar which sustaineth all the whole blended and disordered heap of abuses, and all the bread-worship whic● hath under the Popedom been devised and brought in. Lavaterus lib. de dissid. Euchar. fol. 7. that it is the Foundation of the Popedom. Cureus in Spongia, that it is the foundation, the strength, the throne of the God Maozim, and of the Popish state. 
Caluin de Coena p. 8. & in Cons. pag. 754. Beza in fo. 6. v. 23.62. & add 4. Demonstr. Illyrici. Zan●hius in Confess. c. 16. sect. 12.  And Vrsinus in Catechism. quest. 78. cap. 3. saith: As long as the opinion of the corporal presence is maintained, Popish adoration, and oblation, and the whole Popish mass is kept on foot. And there is not one Sacramentary, but thinks the verity of Christ's body, and his ascension, & sitting at the right hand of the Father clean taken away, if he should say he were substantially in the Eucharist. Whereupon Zanchius tom. 1. Miscell. in iudicio de dissidio Coenae pag. 553. saith: There are two main reasons why the one party (to wit the Sacramentaries) renounce the presence of the body: The one, that the article of Christ's ascension into heaven may be kept entire: the other that the nature and verity of his humane body be not destroyed. Nay some of the Sacramentaries in their Confessions of faith condemn the opinion of the Lutherans as mad and blasphemous. For Confess. Crengerina cap. de coena Domini, saith: We condemn their madness, who avouch and maintain flesh-eating, that is, who hold, that Christ's natural and very body, raw and bloody without any change or transubstantiation at all, is received with the very mouth. And the Scots in their Confess. pag. 159. say they, Detest that blasphemous opinion, which avoucheth Christ's real presence in the bread & wine, and that he is received by the wicked or taken into the belly. This and much more of the like is sometimes the Sacramentaries plea against the real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; and yet at other times they profess that this controversy is not of so great weight and moment, as that it should dissolve Ecclesiastical Communion and fellowship. For so teacheth Martyr apud Simlerum in vita eius, the author of the orthodox Consent. Prefat. Apologet. Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 78. Caluin de scandalis pag. 95. In Consens. p. 764. Beza lib. de coena cont. Westphalum. pag. 258. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed, col. 792. and others. Nay (as we said before) these men besought the Lutherans, who steadfastly maintain the real presence, to hold them for brethren and members of their Church. They can then find in their conscience to have fellowship and Communion with those men, whose doctrine they condemn, As Frantic & blasphemous; whose doctrine (they say) destroyeth Christ's ascension, 
What kind of men Sacramentaries challenge for brethren.  and the verity of his humane nature; subverteth the principles of faith and chiefest points of religion; recalleth the doting follies of Martion and Eutyches, establisheth the Kingdom of Antichrist trains after it idolatry and a world of evils. Fie on these men belief, who think the maintenance of an opinion, which (as themselves profess) overthroweth the principal articles of Christian faith, draws after it idolatry, and most foul heresies, layeth the foundation whereon Antichristianity is raised; of so slight consequence as it ought not to dissolve fraternity and Communion. What regard of faith or salvation may we think these men have? There is yet another point o● Luteranisme touching the ubiquity, or presence of Christ's body every where reproved of the Sacramentaries, and held in extreme dislike; of which they likewise exclaim: that it is 
(a) Beza respon ad acta montisb. l. pag. 252.  forged and composed of Eutychianisme and Nestorianisme: that the heresies of 
(b) Caluin 4 Instit. c. 17. p. 17.  Martion and Eutyches, yea well nigh 
(c) Hosp. pref. par. 2.  all old heresies are by it raised again from hell; that it subverteth the whole 
(d) Perkins expos. Symb. coll. 792.  Creed; that it takes away the 
(e) Sadeel. de verit. hum. nat.  chief heads of Christian Religion; & that there is scant any one article of Christian belief which it doth not utterly abolish. And yet these self same Sacramentaries style them who defend this opinion 
(f) Sadeel. sup.  Most flourishing Churches; and made earnest sure to be held for 
(g) Beza in colloq. montisbel. pag. 462.  brethren of those very men, who upheld this doctrine against them, and maintained it to their face. Nay the particular Churches of Sacramentaries themselves consist of parts mainly disjoined in matters of belief. 
Sacramentaries say there is fundamental difference among them.  Examples hereof we need not seek a broad. Our own Protestants tell us, how the Puritans their brethren allow not of the book of common prayer, but hold it to be full of 
(a) Whitgift. resp. ad Admonit. p. 145. 157.  corruptions and all abominations, and teach that Protestants 
(b) Ib. resp. ad schedas.  wickedly mangle and wrest the Scriptures, that they have no 
(c) Resp. cit. pag. 6.  Pastors, that they have not a true Church, yea not so much as the outward face of a Church; and that they exhort the Court of Parliament with perfect 
(d) Pag. 32.  hatred to detest the present state of the Church; that no 
(e) Pag 33  jew, no Turk, no Papist, could possibly have spoken more spitefully of their Church and state, and that they seek to shake, nay to overthrew the 
(f) Pag. 6.  foundations, grounds, and pillars of their Church. Finally, that the Puritans will not account the Protestants their 
(g) Resp. ad schedas. bancroft's survey c. 33  brethren, and yet the Protestants nevertheless acknowledge Puritans for their 
(h) Resp. ad schedas Oxon. resp. ad Mi●len. Lonfer. ad Hampton Court. p. 44.  brethren and fellowlabourers in the Lord's harvest. In Scotland likewise (as his Majesty witnesseth) That which was catechistical doctrine in one assembly, was hardly admitted for sound and orthodox in another; and yet these assemblies excluded not one another from the Church. What can be therefore more clear and evident, then that both the Lutherans and Sacramentaries acknowledge (when they list) those to be members of their Church, who deny fundamental articles of their faith?  
6. A third proof may be drawn from the Protestants demeanour and carriage towards the Fathers, 
Protestant's say the father's dissent fundamentally from them.  whom they claim and challenge for their fellow-cittizens, and yet confess plainly (to omit what they acknowledge concerning other points) that they were of a contrary belief in the article of justification by sole faith; wherein (as shall be here after shown) they say the soul, the sum, and definition of Protestantisme consisteth. Luther tom. 1. 
In the art. of justification by only faith.  colloq German. apud Coccium tom. 1. pag. 131: In which error (that works joined with faith do justify) were many of the Fathers. And tom. 5. in cap. 3 Galat. fol. 358. he saith, that of the difference, which he espied between the law and the Gospel, as that the law taught justification by works, the Gospel by sole belief, There is nothing to be found in the works of the old Fathers. Augustin held it in part, Hierome and the rest knew it no: Melancthon tom. 1. in Dominicam Trinitaris pag. 89: It is marvel, that the chief Doctors had no knowledge of the justice of faith. Tom. 2. lib. de Eccles. pag. 134: Chrysostome reckons up many ways and means to obtain remission of sins, as alms deeds, tears, and other works. The Centurioators of Magdeburg. cent. 3. cap. 4. col. 79. & seqq. say, that the Doctors of the third age Make works the cause of our justice in God's sight. Cent. 4. c. 4. col. 293: In this article of justification this age revolted wholly from the doctrine of the Apostles. And Cent. 5. in Prefat. they say of the Fathers of that age: Chrysostome and the residue attribute justice unto works, they make works the means of salvation, and ascribe justification either in part, or formally, or wholly unto works. Gerlacinus tom. 2. dispat. 13: The ancient Fathers would have the justice life, and salvation of a Christian man consist in observing Gods commandments, as Hilary, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom●, Augustine, etc. Kemnitius in locis part 1. cit. de justificat. pag. 242. saith that the Fathers Intermingled sometimes and entwyned the doctrine of good works with the article of justification, sometimes plied and bended the article of justification to good works. And part. 2. tit. de lege pag. 106: If the Fathers disputes be all laid together, the sum of them is this in effect, that sin and infirmity of nature is manifested by the law, to the end we may search out a Physician, by whose grace it may be so healed, as it be able to satisfy and fulfil the law, and so we be saved. And ibidem in orat. de lectione Patrum pag. 3. 
The sum of the father's doctrine is justification by works.  he saith of S. Cyprian, He had a fundamental error. And pag. 4. of S. Hilary: He held an erroneous opinion touching the foundation. Caluin also lib. cont. Ver si pellem pag. 353: Three main points of our saith, to wit, the corruption of our nature, free and undeserved justification, and Christ's Priesthood, are so darkly and obscurely touched in the ancientest writers, that no certainly can be drawn thence. Again: We shall never learn by the Fathers, how we may be reconciled to God, how the obedience of Christ is freely and undeservedly reputed ours. Martyr in locis cit. de scriptura col. 1432: Other Fathers think good works much available to justification. Hospin. in epist. dedicat. part. 1. Histor: All the Fathers well nigh do now and then sprinkle and cast on with all the leaven of good works, and attribute justification to them, either in part, or formally or wholly. Parcus lib. 4, de justificat. c. 12: The Fathers both Greek and Latin especially those that wrote before the Pelagian bicker, fancied over much, and took too great a liking to the Philosopher's doctrine, concerning the justification of worcks. Finally M. Perkins in Problem. cap. de justificat. saith, that the old writers confound the law with the Gospel, and do not distinguish the justice of the law from the justice of the Gospel.  
7. To them, who in this manner join friendship and Communion as well with such as renounce fundamental articles of faith, as with those whose belief is contrary in articles not fundamental, wh●● marvel is it, if all heretics and Schismatiks seem fit companions, and worthy to be accounted their brethren and fellow-cittizens? But let us hear their own words, wherein they acquaint us, what rank heretics & Schismatiks hold amongst them. Luther tom. 7. serm. de Dominica 20. post Trinit. fol. 262. saith: They are frantic and beside themselves who go about to sever the Church corporally from heretics. Hemingius in Syntag. Institut. pag. 192: In the outward society of the Church, are many heretics and schismatics. Solomon Gesner in locis loc. 24: Are heretics then in the Church? By any means. Brentius in Praefat. Recognit: Christ gives not over the conservation of his sheep in the midst of heresies, but they must be such, as do not quite take away the foundation and Ministry. Reineccius tom. 4 Armatur. cap. 6. pag. 35: We affirm there are heretics even in the true Church. Hutte●us in Analysi Confessed. August. pag. 435: Neither were heresies without the territory and limits of the true Church. Plessy in his book of the Church cap. 2. affirmeth plainly, that all heretical and Schismatical congregations are truly the Church. And ibid. pag. 25. he saith: Although particular Churches be infected with heresies, from top to toe, nevertheless they are parts of the universal Church as long as they profess the name of Christ. Moulins in his buckler of faith part. 1. sect. 89: An heretical Church may be said to be a true Church, even as man blemished with a canker or infected with the plague is notwithstanding a true man. Sonis Respons. ad Spondeum c. 10. pag. 365. Heretics are within the Church. Lubbert lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3: It is manifest, that heretics are, some as yet in the visible Church, some also in the church of the elect. junius lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 4: Heretics absolutely are of the Church, unless they be such as overthrew fundamental articles of religion. 
Cap. 3: n. ●●  Bullinger teacheth the same Decad. 2. serm. 8. and it is the common doctrine of the Protestants, who (as is before proved) exclude none from being members of their Church, that deny only such articles as are not fundamental. Howbeit some of them upon heretical privilege (as Tertullian speaketh) will not have such called heretics; 
Lib. de carne Co●isti, cap. ●5.  being indeed more ashamed of the name then of the thing itself. Zanchius likewise lib. 1. epist. ad Dudit. pag. 150. saith, that heretical and Schismatical sects are within the Church. Tilenus in Syntag. disput. 14: Heretics even those that subvert the foundation, and schismatics in regard of outward Communion, are in the Church, till either of themselves they go to the enemy's side, or are cast out by the lawful judgement of the Church. And D. Feild in his first book of the Church cap 14:  God gave the power of the keys and the dispensation of his word and Sacraments only to his Church, if Heretics be not of the Church, they do not then baptise. And cap. 7: They that are partakers of the heavenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of divine truth, and the use of the means of salvation, are of very diverse sorts; as heretics, Schismatiks, hypocrites, and those that profess the whole saving truth in unity and sincerity of a good and sanctified heart. All these are partakers of the heavenly calling, and sanctified by the profession of truth, and consequently are all in some degree and sort of that society of men, whom God calleth out unto himself, & separateth from Infidels, which is rightly named the Church. D. Whitaker contr. 4. quest. 5. c. 3. pag 679: All heretics are within the Church. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical policy pag. 128: We must acknowledge even heretics themselves to be, though a maimed part, yet a part of a visible Church: Again: If an Infidel should pursue to death an heretic professing Christianity only for Christian Procession sake, could we deny unto him the honour of Martyrdom? By which words it is plain, that they admit heretics not only into the visible Church, but into the invisible also, or company of the elect and predestinate to salvation. And D. Andrews in his answer to Bellarmine's Apology cap. 5. pag. 121. denyeth that the words, Catholic and Heretic are opposite; wherefore unless he will debar and shut out some Catholics from the Church, he must needs give admittance to heretics, seeing by his own verdict they may be catholics. D. White in defence of his way cap. 38. pag. 367: The second sort of the militant Church are hypocrites and unsound members, that are not called effectually, but disobey the truth whereof they make profession such are heretics, schismatics etc. Touching their acceptations of Schismatiks, besides what hath been already alleged, D. Feild in his first book of the Church cap. 13. Writeth thus: 
They challenge Schismatiks.  The departure of schismatics is not such, but that, notwithstanding their schism, they are and remain parts of the Church of God. junius in the place before quoted layeth claim to those Schismatics, Who (saith he) sever not themselves from the whole Church but only from a part thereof. But D. Morto● in the 1. part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 2. saith absolutely without any acception or restraint at all: Schismatiks are of the Church. And lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 288: Variances (saith he) and schisms do not betoken the false Church. And D. Willet in his Synopsis cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 104: We say that Schismatiks, though they hold some false points of doctrine, yet if their errors be not fundamental, and if they retain the purity of doctrine in all points necessary to salvation, and the administration of the Sacraments, may make a particular Church by themselves. These are their acknowledgements touching Heretics and Schismatics in general. 
They acknowledge the Grecians.  Let us now descend to particularities, and see the courteous admission they give to some of them by name.  
8. The Grecians and other Eastern Schismatiks, yea heretics to, for the most part, find that favour at their hands, as they vouchsafe to account them members of their Church. His Majesty epist. ad Card. Peron pa. 13 hath thus: The Churches of Rome, Greece, Antioch, Egypt, Aethiopia, Muscovy, and others more are members of the Catholic church. D. Whi●e in defence of his way c. 37. pag. 355: The visible churches of Greece, Aethiope, Armenia, and Rome, with the nations contained therein, have in them the true church of God, wherein men may be saved. D. Morton in his answer to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 7. saith, that the Assyrian Churches keep the true foundation of Christian faith. The same, (especially of the Grecians) teacheth Luther tom. 2. lib. de captiu. Babylon. fol. 65. & in Assert. art. 37. fol. 114. Innius' cont. 4 lib. 4. cap. 6. Sedeel. Respons. ad Thes. Posnan. cap. 12. D. Whitaker l●b. 7. cont. Duraeum sect. 3. Bucanus loco 41. quest. 5 D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 5. & 28. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 120. Burhill pro Tortura Torti c. 15. and others.  
9 And sometimes they are not less freeharted towards western heretic. Melancthon in locis à Maulio editi●tit. de Eccles. pag. 491. writeth, that two girls, who were burnt (as he saith) for Anabaptisme, 
They challenge the Anabaptists.  held the foundation of saith, and died in a good Confession. And Zuinglius tom. 2. lib. de Author. sedit. fol. 134. & seq. exhorting his fellowers, not to revolt from his doctrine, for the debates and quarrels between the Protestants and the Anabaptists, calleth both parts most learned and sons of the same Father. Neither must thou (saith he) give any man way to shake and weake● thy saith, although thou see that men of the greatest learning move disputes, and fall by the cares with much eagerness of contention, touching external matters (he means baptism) but let this be rather thy steadfast persuasion, that by the Son of God we are all made sons of the same Father. Again: Neither am I wont to speak these things, for that I am so greatly moved with the baptism of children. And ibidem lib. de Baptismo fol. 96. he saith, that baptism is a matter of ceremony, which the church may omit or take quite away. Oecolampadius in his 2. book of epistles p. 363. saith, baptism is an external thing, which by the law of charity may be dispensed withal. And Musculus in locis tit de haeresi pag. 605. reckons the Anabaptists amongst those, who (saith he) keeping the foundations of faith, about secondary matters have fallen into misbelief. And Bucanus loc. 41. de Eccles. quest. 5. avoucheth plainly, that Anabaptists are a Church, Like as a man attainted with leprosy or out of his wits, is a man. Hi● Majesty epist. ad Card. Peron pag. 25. saith: Some reckon baptism among those things, which whether we have or want, the matter is not great. And D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 7. cap. 2. pag. 716. saith we may abstain from baptism, so there be no contempt and scandal in the fact. Finally D. Morton in his answer to the Protestants Apology lib. 4. albeit in the 6. chapter he make a doubt whether Anabaptists retain and hold the foundation, yet in the 2. cap. sect. 10. speaketh thus: The Anabaptists exclude Protestant's and all different professions from the hope of spiritual life, yet do not Protestants judge the state of every Anabaptist to be so utterly desperate. We see how they teach that Anabaptists hold the foundation, and deny but an external, secondary, and ceremonial matter, and such as may be omitted, so it be done without scandal; that Anabaptists and themselves are sons of the same Father, that they are in the state of salvation, and that they are a church as a man tainted with leprosy is a man. Now concerning the Arrians of these times, M. Morton in his book of the Kingdom of Israel, and the Church pag. 94. 
And the Arrians.  avoucheth plainly, that their Churches are to be accounted the Churches of God, Because (saith he) they hold the foundation of the Gospel. Hooker in his 4. 
Daneus in c. 53. Aug. de hares. Whitak. ad Rat. 10. pag. 241. Parentius in Instruct Gall. p. 27.  book of Ecclesiastical policy pag. 181. writeth thus: The Arians in the reformed churches of Poland etc. Nay some of the Protestants lay claim to that old heretic Aërius, for that he agreed with them in denial of prayer for the dead, and some other points; yet that he was stained with Arianisme, S. Epiphanius, who lived in those times haer. 75. and S. Augustin 53. (witnesses whole credit herein can no way be impeached) do plainly testify.  

They lay claim to their professed enemies.  10. Lastly they forbear not sometimes to challenge for their own, such as were their professed enemies, as is certain by their claim to the Papists and Grecians, who condemned and branded their doctrine with the mark of heresy. And the Sacramentaries pretend a right to Luther and the Lutherans, 
In Concil. Tried In Censura Orient.  howbeit it is well known, that both the Master and the sect have diverse times censured and condemned their doctrine by name, as in the Confessions of Auspurg, Mansfeld, Antwerp, & that of Sueveland set forth anno 1563. in the book of Concord, in the visitation of Saxony, and else where it appeareth. And that in the Conference of Marpurge and Montbelgard they gave them the repulse and flatly refused to admit them for brethren. Nay, as Lanatherus writeth lib. de dissid. Euchar. anno 1556: There have been many Synods held (by the Lutherans) wherein they consulted what way they might take to quell and make an end of the Sacramentaries. And they show the same encroaching desire in personal Claims. For Illyricus in his Catalogue lib. 19 col. 1917, enroleth amongst his witnesses Clicthovaeus, an earnest and vehement adversary both of Luther and Occolampadius. D. Humphrey in vita juelli claimeth Erasmus, for a maintainer and Champion of the truth. 
Rainolds l. 1. de Idolat. cap. 2.  M. Fox vouchsafes him a place in his calendar of Protestant Saints, and Verheiden sets his portraiture amongst the Worthies and Pairs of their religion. Vorstius in Append. Respons. ad Sladum pag. 136. accounteth him one of his own, that is (saith he) one of the reformed. D. Whitaker Contr. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 693 saith: It is most apparent that Erasmus thought the same of religion that we do. And yet Erasmus himself lib. 16. epist. 11. professeth, that he acknowledgeth not Luther, and impugneth openly both him and his doctrine. And (as Amidorfius writeth in epist. apud Lutherum tom. 2. fol. 487.): The sum of Erasmus doctrine is this, that Luther's doctrine is heresy. O though Brunsfelsius in his answer to Erasmus sponge, layeth these things to his charge: Thou makest protestation never to have conversation or fellowship with those men, who embrace the gospel under Luther's name. Again: It is well known and confessed, that of so many enemies of the (Protestant) gospel, no one ever did it more harm than thou. Hutterus in Expostulat. Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 72. james Andrew lib. cont. Hosium p. 110 D. james l. de corrupt. scripturae & Patrum pag. 66. and others, say the like of him. D. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani will have King Henry 8. to have been a member of their Church. D. Fulke lib. cont. Heskins. & Saunder. sect. 82. saith, he was a member of the Catholic church of Christ. And D. Andrews in Resp. ad Apoll. Bellarm. cap. 1. saith: He was a true defender of the true saith Bucer epist. dedicat. Comment. ad Rom: He embraced the pure Gospel of Christ rejecting those forgeries of men which are repugnant to it. And yet, it is most certain, that he sharply persecuted and pursued Protestants even unto death. And as Melancthon writeth to him in epist. tom. 4: He oppressed the truth then appearing and showing itself. And as Cambden saith in Apparatu Annalium Anglie. Protestants he burnt for heretics. Of Charles 5. Scultetus in Conc. secular. pag. 10. writeth thus: It is known by undoubted demonstration, that Charles 5. departed this life trusting to the same comfort an● the same saith, which Luther drew from the sacred wellsprings, and broached to the people, (james Andrews lib. cont. Hosium pag. 233. hath the like) and yet in the same sermon p. 27. he saith: To this alone he bent his whole endeavours, that he might pluck up the Lutheran religion by the roots. M Dove in his book of Recusancy will needs persuade us, that Bellarmine himself is a Protestant, or at least no right Papist. What marvel is it, if these men be so hardy as to challenge the ancient Fathers, seeing they are not ashamed to claim in this manner their professed enemies, such as are known to all the world, and are yet alive.   

That Protestants sometimes acknowledge Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist himself, and Atheists to be members of their Church. CHAP. IU.  
1. THAT they sometimes confess idolaters are members of their Church, 
Protestant's challenge idolaters.  is evident. First for that they refuse not to receive Papists, (as we have heard before) in exclamations and outcries against whose idolatry, their tongues and pens are set most a work, for to their worship of the Eucharist, of Saints, of images, of relics, they afford no milder name. And secondly it appeareth by their own words. For M. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical Policy pag. 126. saith: Christians by external profession they are all, whose mark of recogniscance hath in it those things which we have mentioned; yea although they be impious idolaters, wicked heretics, persons excommunicable. Again: Those whose knees were bowed unto Baal, even they were also of the visible Church of God. Boysseul in Confut. p. 822 answering to the place where Spondeus objected that if the Church of Rome be an Idolatress, (as Boysseul had avouched) it is not the Church of Christ; makes this reply: And why not as well as Israel? And D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475. saith: Although this error (Idolatry in adoring the calf) were most grievous, yet it destroyed not the whole nature of the Church.  
2. 
And Infidels.  That they sometimes comprise also Infidels in the Church, is manifest, first because they affirm that such may be saved; For M. Fox in his martyrologue pag. 495. reporteth that a certain Protestant Martyr whole learning piety & zeal he greatly commendeth, taught that a Turk, Saracen, or any Mahamet an whatsoever may be saved; if he trust in one God and keep his law. M. Bale in his 6. Century pag. 464. bids us beware that we condemn not rashly any Turk. And Zuinglius tom. 1. lib. de provide. fol. 370. saith: It is not universally true, that who so hath no faith is damned. Again: As for the damnation of unbelievers it is meant only of those, who heard and did not believe. And tom. 2. declarat. de peccat. orig. fol. 118: This saying (who so doth not believe shall be condemned) must in no wise be absolutely understood, but it is to be understood of those, 
See Homi●● in Specim. Contr. art. 27.  who having heard the gospel would not believe. And ibidem in exposit. fidei fol. 559. he saith, that in heaven Christians shall meet many heathens, whose names he there sets down, and amongst the rest that cruel Theseus, and Magician Numa, the founder of heathenish superstitions amongst the Romans. Which opinion of his those of Zurich in Apolog. Gualther. in prefat. tom. 1. Zuinglij, Simler. in vita Bullengeri, and others seek to patronise and make good. Now it were folly and madness, to avouch that these men were of the number of the faithful. They believe then that infidels may be saved. But S. Augustin was of a fare different belief lib. 4. cont. jul. cap. 3. where he writes thus: What one of those, who would be accounted Christians, will say an Infidel is just, be it even Fabritius.  
3. Secondly their doctrine touching the predestinate carrieth with it a necessary acknowledgement of their Communion with Infidels. For they teach, that who so is predestinate is always a member of the Church. Hus his first article condemned by the Council of Constance was this: The predestinate remaineth ever a member of the Church. And Luther tom. 2. in Assert. art. 30: I say the opinions of john Hus are all Evangelicall and Christian. Again: I admit all the condemned articles of john Hus. And tom. 1. in disput. Lypsic. fol. 254. he maintaineth openly this article of Hus: The Church is the whole multitude of the predestinate. Vorstius in Anti-bellarmine page 125: We affirm that the Council of Constance, which condemned the doctrine of Hus (that who so is predestinate is always a member of the Church) was surely in this respect Antichristian. Danaeus in Resp. ad Bellarm. Contr. 4. lib. 3. cap. 2. saith: The first opinion (which was the opinion of Hus) is true, and is ours. Again: our opinion is that the Church is the whole company of men, whom God hath predestinated to salvation And cap. 7: It must be answered that Paul was always (but not always apparently in regard of men) of God's true Church. Again: Such Turks and jews as God hath predestinated to salvation, are of the Church, even now at this time in regard they are predestinate and in respect of God; but they are not yet of God's Church apparently, and in respect of us, for as much as they lack yet those marks, whereby God doth here show us men who are of the church. And Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 12: The true definition of the true church is this: The company and multitude of those, whom God hath chosen to salvation. And junius lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 7: Paul was always of the church according to predestination; from which (saith he) the church taketh her being, or formal definition; but not according to the outward form of the church. What can be more apparent, then that these men teach, that the predestinate are members of the church according to the true being thereof and in the sight of God, even during the time of their infidelity.  
4. Thirdly this followeth necessarily upon that which they teach concerning infants (especially such as are descended from faithful parents) departing this life unbaptized. For they affirm, that the children of the faithful are actually in the Church, as the French Confession article 35: Together with the parents God accounteth also their offspring in the church. And the Zuitzers cap. 20: Why should not they (the children of the faithful) be engrafted by sacred baptism, who are Gods proper possession and within his church? Caluin in Instruct. count. Anabap. art. 1: Unspotted infants are in the Communion of the church before they come forth of their Mother's womb. And Pareus lib. 3. de justificat cap. 4. pag. 884: Caluin on good reason determineth, that the children of the church, are borne citizens of the church. Their doctrine also hath the same issue, who teach that infants (at leastwise the children of the faithful) are saved without baptism; as the Protestants in the colloq. Ratisbon. And Zuinglius tom. 2. Declarat. de peccat. orig. fol. 119: Concerning Christians children we are assured, that they are not damned for original sin; of others we have not the like assurance: howbeit, to confess ingenuously, the opinion we taught heretofore, to wit, that we ought not to judge rashly of heathens children, seems to us the more probable Voritius in Anti-bellarmine pag. 542: Zuinglius and some other ghospellers avouch, that all children whatsoever are by the grace of Christ saved, others for the most part hold, that at leastwise all the elect, whether extract from faithful or other parents do even unbaptized attain to salvation. Whereof he saith: The opinion of these later is surely the safest; and yet the first opinion is probable enough and ought not to be rashly condemned. Now as D. Whitaker saith Cont. 2. quest. 1. cap. 5. & 6: All that are saved are really and actually in the church. And D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 4: To be of the church in possibility, sufficeth not to salvation. Lubbertus lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 2: Neither can any one be saved except he be actually and really in the church. Whence Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. fol. 177. saith: Infants must of necessity appertain unto the church, seeing there is no salvation without it. They teach moreover, that Infants have no faith, 
Infants without all faith according to Protestants.  and consequently that they are infidels, whence it ensueth that they account some infidels to be actually of the church. Caluin. 4. Institut. cap. 16. §. 19: I will not lightly affirm, that they (infants) are endued with the same faith we find in ourselves. And §. seq. he saith: Infants are baptised for future repentance and saith. Now if they die before they are of years. God reneweth them by the virtue of his spirit, which we do not comprehend, in such manner as himself alone knoweth how to bring to pass. Lib. cont. Seruet. pag. 647. he saith, that that sentence of the Scripture: Whosoever believeth not in the Son of God abideth in death, and the wrath of God remaineth upon him, belongeth not to infants, but only to such as are obstinate. And in cap. 5. Rom. v. 17: That you may be partaker of justice, it is needful that you be faithful, because it is received by saith. To infants it is communicated by a special manner. Bucer in cap. 19 Matthaei pag. 404: Paul saith that saith cometh by hearing the word preached, and in the same sort all the Scripture speaketh of saith. Seeing therefore infants hear not the word preached, they cannot have this kind of saith. But out of that, that infant's want saith, nothing less can be concluded, then (which some think) that therefore they cannot please God. Infants are blessed by the grace of God and merits of Christ. But if they be taken hence in their infancy, they shall know God and reap felicity by some other knowledge than faith. Musculus in locis tit. de baptismo: Infants have yet no faith. Again: Infants are saved by God's election, though they be taken out of this life not only unbaptized, but even before they have faith. Beza in Confess. cap. 4. sect. 48: It doth not appear to us that infants are endowed with that habit of faith, 
Infants have not so much as the habit of faith.  which we said was required to the receiving of the matter and effect of the Sacraments, nor is it likely that they are. And in colloq. Montisbel. pag. 407: Wherhfore, though the children of the faithful want saith, yet is not baptism unprofitable to them. And part. 2. Respons. ad acta Montisbel. pag. 124: All eit infants have no saith of their own, especially actual; yet rightly are they baptised according to the form of the Covenant, I will be thy God, and of thy seed, which is apprehended by the parents to themselves and their children. And pag. 129: I confess that saith is required, that infants comprehended in the Covenant may please God; but I deny, that they can or aught to be endowed with their own faith inherent in them. Dancus l. 4. de baptismo cap. 10. pag. 268. proposeth to himself this question: What is the faith which in baptism we require in infants? and answereth: None. Vrsinus in defence. argument. Bezae. God receiveth infants into the Church without faith. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 7. pag. 94:  the holy Scripture doth not tell me, that infants believe, or those miracles are wrought in them, neither see I that it is necessary for their salvation, I think it is enough that they be thought to be saved, because by election and predestination they belong to the people of God, & are endued with the holy Ghost, who is the author of faith, hope, and Charity. Perhaps they will answer out of Augustins opinion, that they are saved by the saith of others, to wit of their parents. But the Prophet saith that every one is saved by his own saith, not by other men's saith. Wherhfore we answer more easily, who exact express and actual faith in those that are of years, but in the children of Christians, who are brought to be Christened, we say faith is begun in its principle & root, because they have the holy Ghost firm whence all both faith and other virtues do flow. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 6. c. 3. pag. 566: Baptism doth not infuse any saith or grace into infants. And he saith plainly, that infants have no faith. And lib. 8. cont. Duraeum sect. 77: Albeit in the Sacraments faith which receiveth the word of promise, be necessary, yet that saith is not needful in infants, albeit it be not to be doubted but the holy Ghost effectually worketh in them after a secret and wonderful manner. M. Perkins de praedestina●. tom. 1. col. 149: Infants which die in the Covenant, we believe to be saved by tenor of that Covenant, but they were not chosen for faith or according to faith, which set they had not And 〈◊〉 ●●rie causar. cap. 25: Elected infant's dying in the womb or soon after they be borne, are saved after a hidden and unspeakable manner engrafted in Christ by the spirit of God. Luther tom. 6. in cap. 25. Gen. fol. 322: Unbaptised infants have no faith. Melancthon in locis tit. de baptismo to. 3. fol. 238: It is most true that saith is required in all that are of years. But concerning infants (saith he) the matter is otherwise. 
Infant's 〈…〉  Kemnitius part. 2. Exam. tit. de baptism. pag. 89. telleth us that some Protestants are of opinion, that infants are indeed saved by the grace of God, but without saith. Nor doth their saying that the seed or root of faith, or else an inclination or disposition to faith (which some of them affirm infants to have) help them any thing it all, both because Scharpe cont. 1. de justifi. granteth that this seed can neither have the knowledge nor applying of the promises, and therefore is not Protestant faith, and because Musculus in locis tit. de fide art. 7. confesseth, that they distinguish and put a difference between faith and this hidden seed. Now if it be no faith, it maketh not him faithful in whom it is. And lastly because (as themselves acknowledge) they are not assured, whither infants have any such seed or no. For Caluin lib. 4. cap. 16. § 9 cit: Whether they have at all any knowledge like unto faith, I choose rather to leave it undetermined. And he addeth, that the manner of their renewing is known to God alone. To these allegations you may add, that M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic cont. 16. saith, a man may be saved by a desire to have saith: And nevertheless confesseth that this desire is not indeed saith. And in 2. Galat. col. 91: God accepteth the will and desire to believe, for belief itself. Now as long as a man hath not faith but only a desire thereof, he is an infidel.  
5. You might think, that having made this grant of salvation to infidels, their liberality would rest here, and not pass these bounds; 
Protestant's challenge Antichrist,  but they go yet further, and bestow it sometimes even upon him, whom they swear, yea believe as an article of their faith (and that with as great certainty and assurance is they believe God is in heaven, or Christ is the Messiah) to be that notable Antichrist foretold in Scripture. For thus writeth M. powel lib. de Antichristo cap. 33. pag. 338: I will in no wise say, that all the Popes from the time wherein Papistry was first revealed to be Antichristianity, are damned. Howbeit in the beginning of his book he makes this protestation: I solemnly take God to record, that I as certainly know the Bishop of Rome to be that great Antichrist, and the Popish church to be the Synagogue of Antichrist, as I know God to be in the heavens, or jesus Christ to be the true Messiah promised to the Fathers. D. Whitaker likewise come. 4. q. 5. cap. 3. pag. 694. saith: Let us cry aloud and swore by him who life's for ever, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist. And to D. Sanders last demonstration that the Pope is not Antichrist pag. 799: We may take that most sacred and most true oath, and swear by him who life's for ever, that the Bishop of Rome is the very Antichrist. And nevertheless in his answer to the first demonstration he saith with M. powel: I will not say, that from the time that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselves have been all damned. And both he cap. cit. p●g. 679. & 682. & other Protestants ordinarily affirm that Antichrists Sea shallbe in the true Church, among the company of the faithful, and that he shall be a citizen, and inhabitant, and Pastor of the Church. To whom I pray will these men deny salvation, or a place in their Church, who grant it unto Antichrist the sworn enemy of Christ, whom the scripture itself styleth: Christ's adversary, the man of sin, the son of perdition? I see not why they should henceforward upbraid us with Antichrist, since they themselves claim him for a member of their Church.  
6. It is also certain, that they challenge Atheists. For Illyricus in Catel. lib. 9 col. 1916. D● Humphrey respon ad Rat. 3. 
That they challenge Atheists.  Camp. M. Fox in his Acts printed anno 1596. pag. 646. allot that Atheist Machiavelli an honourable room among the witnesses and maintainers of the truth. And Luther apud Manlium in loc. tit. de Eccl. pag. 483. lay of Valla, that he gave place to none but Epicure himself, and professed openly, that he held opinions repugnant to the foundation of saith. Nevertheless the same Luther respon ad Lovan. & Colen. tom. 2. fol. 38. writeth thus of him: Valla in my judgement was either a remanent spark, or some fe●●eli of the primitive Church, whose like in constancy and unfeigned zeal of Christian faith Italy or the whole Church had not for many ages. One Epicure then in Luther's judgement was the remanent spark, and jewel of the Church.   

That sometimes Protestants account all those their brethren, who under the name of Christians oppose themselves any way against the Pope. CHAP. V.  
1. THAT Protestants sometimes acknowledge all those for members of their Church, who under the name of Christians do any way oppose themselves against the Pope, I prove: First because some of them do openly so profess. For (as Ke●nice reporteth in locis tit. de Eccles. pag. 122.) Some fain the Church to be a rabble of all Sects, of Anabaptists, Sacramentaries, Swineseldians, and others, so they be not Papists. And Capito in Caluin. epist. 6. Some have brought in a liberty as if all were of the gospels side, whosoever have cast of the Pope's yoke. Musculus also in locis tit. de caena pag. 522. saith: I embrace all for brethren in the Lord, howsoever they disagree from me or among themselves, as long as they maintain not the Popish impiety. Secondly, because they profess, that the end of their preaching was to lessen the authority of the Pope, 
For what end Luther and ●is fellows preached.  and Bishops, and to be contrary to them. For thus Luther writeth of himself epist. ad Frederic. Elect. tom. 2. fol. 330: The Ecclesiastical tyranny is now weakened and broken, which only I purposed in writing. Or as Slcidan lib. 3. reporteth, He writeth, that the Ecclesiastical tyranny is now weakened, & that, that alone was his design at the first. And epist. ad Waldenses in Ho●pin. part 2. fol. 8. he saith, that he impugned transubstantiation only for enny of the Papists. And in par●● Confell. apud e●●●dem fol. 13. that he impugned the Elevation only to spite the Papists. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 10. §. 1. saith: The end of our contention is, to bridle that infinite and barbarous Dominion, which those, who would be accounted Pastors, have usurped over souls. Zuinglius lib. de Auctor. Sedit. ●om. 2. ●ol. 125. affirmeth, that there is a sort of Protestant's, which for no other cause do hear the doctrine of the Gospel then because they extremely hate the Popedom, and envy Papists their felicity and glory. Bucer lib. de regno Christi cap. 4: The greatest part of men seem to have sought only these things of the gospel. First that they might shake of the tyranny of the Roman Antichrist, and of the false Bishops etc. Luther also tom. 2. German. fol. 22. telleth what was the end of the Sacramentaries & Anabaptists: I hear (saith he) that some embrace Anabaptisme for this only end, that so they may spite the Bishop of Rome, even as the Sacramentaries do only in hatred of the Romish Bishop, deny that there is any thing in the sacrament beside bread and wine. Of the new Arians end thus writeth Z●nchius lib. 1. epist. pag. 154: Ou● Arians have determined to overturn from the foundation whatsoever is in the Church of Rome. And what end Illyricus had, thus telleth D. Whitaker ad. Rat. 8. Campiani: Illyricus went further than he should, as I think to be the further of from you, whom he hated.  
2. Thirdly, because they call the departure from the Pope and Popish doctrine, the foundation, a good part, and the sum of the Protestant building. S● d●el Respons. ad Arthu. cap. 12: Protestants agree in this foundation, that the Church ought to be reform out of the word of God, and that Popish errors must be removed out of the Church. Seranta epist. dedicat ad Episc. Angliae: It is to be wondered how much almost all the Reformers please themselves in this point that they will have nothing common with the church of Rome. Grotius apud Homium in Specimine &c: Neither can I forbear to show the fountain and offspring of this and other calamities; We think that we are so much the purer, the further we go from points of Romish doctrine without any difference. Vergerius dial. 1. pag. 20: We hope, that shortly all matters will be composed. We could do, by God's help, that which seemed the chiefest of all and the hardest and well nigh impossible, that is, pull ourselves and rid us of the Papists tyranny. Wherhfore nothing is to be doubted, but we shall compass other matters of less moment. For a good foundation is laid, yea a good part of the building is set up. And Zuinglius Respons. ad Billi. tom. 2. fol. 261. When one objected unto him the dissension amongst the Sacramentaries in expounding Christ's words of the supper, answereth: No man ought to be offended with this diversity, more than with the difference among many captains, 
Tertull. praes. c. 41. Athanas. orat. 1. cont. Arian. Hieron. ad Cresiphont. August. in Psal. 80. Beda l. 1. in job. c. 7.  who go about to conquer a castle, whiles one would have it battered, another undermined, and a third would have it scaled. For all agree to destroy the castle, the difference is only about the way, not about the sum of the matter. And so concludeth, that if any Sacramentaries have erred, They erred (saith he) in the letter not in spirit, in the sum they agree all. The sum therefore wherein all Protestants agree, is to overthrew the Popish castle, and Catholic faith, (in which also the ancient heretics agreed amongst themselves as the holy Fathers do testify) and who attempteth that by what means soever, erreth not in spirit, but in letter only, not in the sum but in some circumstance only of Protestancy. But with what spirit they are led herein, let them hear of their own Prophet Luther, defence. verb. coenae tom. 7. l. 411: What a kind of spirit is that (saith he) which hath no other end, but to weaken the adverse party? without all doubt it is no other spirit then the Devil.  
3. Fourthly, because they describe, paint, & name a Protestant by departure from the Pope and Popish doctrine. The Confession of Wittenberg in Prefat. describeth Protestants to be such, as have changed in their Churches a kind of (Popish) doctrine, which had been used for many years, and some other ancient ceremonies. M. Perkins in the Preface of his Reformed Catholic, saith: By a Reformed Catholic (so he termeth a Protestant) I understand any one, that holds the same necessary heads of Religion with the Roman Church, yet so as he pares of and rejects all errors in doctrine, whereby the said religion is corrupted. D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis: A Protestant is he that professeth the gospel of jesus Christ, and hath renounced the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome, and the forced and unnatural obedience to the Pope. Schusselburg tom. 13. Catal. Haeret. pag. 23: A Lutheran or true Christian is he, who hath severed himself from Papists &c. And tom. 8. pag. 363: True Lutherans are they who embrace the doctrine of the gospel amending Popish abuses. You see how in all these descriptions of a Protestant, the denial of the Pope and Popish doctrine is put as a certain difference, which concurreth to the making and distinguishing of a Protestant from all others. Hereupon D. Audrews Apol. Cont. Bellarm. cap. 1. saith: Saving this Protestation (that they will not suffer certain Popish errors and abuses) our faith is no other than yours is, or aught to be. And he addeth, that they call their religion reform, only because it is purged from certain devices and corruptions, which had crept into it. And saith, that Bucer and Peter Martyr did only pluck up certain cockle, which Papists had sowed. In like sort Boysseul in his Confutation of Sponde pag. 724. saith: Take away your Popery & that which dependeth thereof, and you and we shall be but one church, because we shall have but one Confession of faith. Moreover Plessy in the forefront of his mystery of iniquity, painteth a Protestant with a torch in his hand, setting fire to the tower of Babylon, by which he understandeth the Popedom. And finally Luther in exempl. Theol. Papist. tom. 2. fol. 401. calleth himself an Anti-papist, as of his principal end or office, and saith, that he was called by divine revelation to destroy the Pope's Kingdom. D. Humphrey also termeth Ochinus a stout Anti-papist, as if to be a Protestant and an Anti-papist were all one.  
4. Fiftly, because the same opinions which in Papists they detest, in other who are opposite to the Pope, they dissemble or extenuate. Lubbert. lib. 1. Replicat. cap. 4. saith: The Lutherans dispute not with us about the Canon of Scriptures, nor we with them. And lib. 4. de Concil. cap. vlt: We contend not with the Churches of Saxony, which keep images in the Churches. And yet they dispute most eagerly against Catholics about the Canon of scriptures, and images. The Scots in their general Confession profess to detest Popery, for maintaining the real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, for making the sign of the Cross, for denying infants without baptism to be saved. And in their other Confession c. 22. they say they shun the Communion of the Popish Church, 
Conf. Augustus ●visit. ●axon. Liturgia. Auglia●. Conference at Hampt. Court.  because her ministers are not Ministers of Christ, because the permitteth women to christian in case of necessity; and yet dissemble, that the Lutheran Protestant's allow all these points; and that the English Protestants admit Popish Priests for sufficient ministers command the making of the cross in baptism, & allow women's baptism in case of necessity; but because they are against the Pope, as well as the Scots, their opposition to the Pope, like sole faith covereth all, and maketh that the Scots impute not these matters to them. And if at any time the Catholics do set before their eyes the errors or dissensions amongst them, either they impudently 
(a) La●ko & Erastus in Schussel. l. 4. Theol. Caluin p. 310. Field l. 3. of the Church cap. 24.  deny them or greatly extenuate them, saying, that they are not about the 
(b) Apol. Anglis.  foundation, not of 
(c) Whit. Count 2 q. 5. cap. 8.  weighty matters, of light matters, not of the 
(d) Bucer in Schussel. lib cit. Caluin de rat. concord. p. 862.  matter but of the manner, of 
(e) Epist. Monitor.  things indifferent, of I know not what titles, and finally only of 
(f) Mart. in loc. tit. de Euchar. §. 65. Hosp part. 2 fol. 134. 163. 109. Brunsfeld. resp. ad Erasm.  words. Surely I imagine, as they say, that all sins in the elect faithful are venial, but in others all are mortal: so they deem, that all errors in those that are opposite to the Pope are venial and light; but in Papists all are heinous and mortal. So much the alteration of the person changeth the case with them. Hereupon Q. Elizabeth enacted, not that it should be treason for any one to dissuade from that religion which she had established, unless it were done with intention to induce him who was dissuaded, to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome. And hereupon also some of them openly profess, that they more esteem Turks then Papists; forsooth because the Turk agreeth with them in hatred of the Pope and Popery, in respect whereof they little regard the consent in the mysteries of the Trinity, and Incarnation and Passion, and other articles of Christian faith. Sixtly they make the forsaking of Popery an evident argument of true religion, and oppose their consent therein, as a sufficient cloak to cover all their dissensions in other matters. Zuinglius Prefat. Ecclesiast. tom. 1. fol. 39: It is an evident argument of true Religion among you, that you cast out all the filth of (Popish) idolatry and bridle the slothful company of Priests and put them from the Church. And when Cardinal Hosius objected to Protestants their disagreement about the Eucharist, james Andrews in his answer pag. 367 saith: 
In what Protestant's especially agree.  What is this dissension to you Papists? Be it we truly disagree in this point, yet in that we especially agree, that with one mind we impugn your Popery as true Antichristianisme. And Drentius in the Preface of the same book: Otherwise with one consent they fight against Popery. And to the same objection Caluin in Confutat. Holland. pag. 576 saith thus: True; yet with one consent we all teach, that (Popish) idolatry is to be detested. In like manner Beza in Hospin. part. 2. Hist. fol. 300: I confess; yet in this we all agree with united minds to impugn your transubstantiation. Sadeel also Respons, ad Sophism. Turriani pag. 562: Yet nevertheless this my little book will be witness with how conjoined strength all our Churches do set upon the Popish errors. And in in dice Repet. pag. 808: It is well that all they who conjoined themselves to the reformed Church, with one consent reject the Pope's Primacy. And D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest 5. cap. 8. pag. 521: Yet in the mean time we all agree against the Pope. And in this unity of theirs to be against the Pope, they greatly triumph. His majesty in his monitory epistle p. 174: Almost the half part of the Christian world is gone out of Babylon. And D. Andrews respon ad Apol. Bellarm. cap. 14: Almost False of the Christian world is so fare united in one profession, as that they are gone out of Babylon. And when Becanus had found fault with him, because he said. The King of great Britain and the Kings of Denmarck and Sweden with the Princes of Germany who are of one belief with him, are a part of the Lords flock; because the Kings of Denmarck and Sweden be Lutherans, and therefore are not of one belief, with the King of great Britain; Burhill in defence of him cap. 15. answereth: That, who are of one belief with King james, is put in steed of who with him refuse to be under the Pope. They mean then, that all those are of one belief with them, and be part of the Lords flock, who refuse to be under the Pope. Which kind of unity is that, which his Majesty in his declaration against Vorstius noted Heretics to keep, saying pag. 49: There are in Hungary and Bohemia innumerable Heretics, who agree together only in hatred of the Pope. But not only Heretics, but also jews, Turcks and Infidels agree with Protestants in this point. An excellent unity surely, & worthy of Christians, wherein they shall have such partners and fellows. Seaventhly I prove it, because when they be asked, who were Protestants before Luther, they produce no other than such as were adversaries to the Pope. Illyricus being to make a role of witnesses, dares not call them Protestants or witnesses of the Protestant truth, 
Editio Lugdun.  but simply witnesses of the truth, or witnesses who reclaimed against the Pope and Popish errors. And in the Preface professeth, that he gathereth, as fare as he cold, all those, who in any sort did before Luther give testimony to the truth of Christ against the errors and furies of Antichrist. And l. 20. col. 1951. after he had brought forth all his witnesses, he saith of them thus: They desired a fuller manifestation of the truth, which at last (saith he) we in this sixteenth age have obtained. That is, his witnesses attained not to the knowledge of Protestant truth, which was revealed but in the sixteenth age. Nevertheless they seemed witnesses good enough for Illyricus, because in some sort they were opposite to the doctrine and deeds of the Pope. Beza also lib. de notis Eccles. pag. 80. when he had objected to himself, that in former times their Church was not visible, answereth: I say, that from the Apostles time there was scarce any age, in which as soon as this Antichrist (the Pope) began to put out his head, God did not raise some, who opposed themselves against his tyranny. And to the same question thus answereth Sadeel in Refutat. art. 6●. Posnan. pag. 851: We are ready to show, that there was no age, in which there were not some, who reproved your false Church. Surely these men imagine Protestancy to consist in opposition to the Pope and Popery, or they say nothing to the question proposed. Likewise D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 474. proveth, that the Protestant Church hath always been in Popery, because therein have been some, who though they communicated with Papists, yet before death rejected their opinions; which kind of proof supposeth, that it sufficeth to a Protestant to reject Popish opinions.  
5. You see then, that the chief ring leaders of the Protestants confess, that theirs and their followers end was to abate the authority of the Pope; that they deem the forsaking of the Pope to be the foundation, a good part, and sum of the Protestant building; that they account the leaving of Popery an evident argument of true religion; that they define, describe, paint, and name a Protestant by opposition to the Pope; that they say their faith differeth not from ours, but in denial of some of our articles; that they deny, dissemble, and extenuate whatsoever they dislike in those, who are adversaries to the Pope; that they oppose their consent in opposition against the Pope as a buckler against all objections about their dissensions in other articles; & finally that being bidden to produce Protestants before Luther, they name such as any way opposed themselves against the Pope. What do all these things declare, but that which some of them say in plain words, that the Protestant Church is a rabble of all sects which are not Papists.  
6. But out of all things which have been said in this and the former chapters. First we see, what great power Protestants take to themselves, 
What followeth of all hitherto said.  that according as they please they include, or exclude the same men out of the Church. Who will not (to use S. Augustins words) fear these men, who have received such wonderful power over men. Secondly we see, that they imitate the old heretics, 
lib. 3. cont. Crescon. c. 20. Prescript. c. 41.42. L. 18. de Civit. c. 50.  who (as Tertullian saith) make peace generally with all, and with whom division is their very unity. For (as S. Augustin noteth) the devil hath stirred up heretics, as if they might be indifferently permitted in the city of God without amendment, as the city of confusion indifferently had Philosophers of different, yea of contrary opinions. Thirdly we see, how infamous a society Protestancy is, into which all heretics and Schismatics, likewise Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist, Atheists, are admitted. What sink ever did receive such filth? Surely such a rabble deserveth better the name of hell, then of the holy Church. Fourthly we see, how monstruous a company it is which consisteth of so different and opposite members. 
What they mean by a Protestant in tym●past.  Fiftly, we may gather, what Protestants mean, when they say Protestants have been always, or before Luther. For they mean not, that there have been always some, who believed at least all their fundamental articles, but that there were always some, who (as they speak) opposed themselves against the Pope or his errors, whether they were otherwise Schismatiks, Heretics, infidels, or Atheists. Of which kind of men I deny not but there have been always some rabble, but none but a mad man will say, that it was the holy Church & spouse of Christ. Sixtly we see how little Protestant's account of their Church, faith, and religion; and believe nothing less than that it is the church of God, or faith of Christ. For who doubteth, but Schism, heresy, infidelity, Atheism, are most pestilent plagues and infernal darkness directly opposite to ecclesiastical Communion and faith, which are the form, life, & soul of the Church? And who can imagine, 
Note.  that he can associate and unite together forms so contrary as are light and darkness, life and death, truth and lies? or that the society in darkness, lies, and death, as are the societies in Schism, Heresy, and infidelity, can become one with the society in light, life, & truth, as the Church is? If therefore seriously they believed their Church to be the church of Christ, they would never think, that she could become one with the society in Schism, heresy, and infidelity. And this sometimes Protestants themselves perceive. For Brentius in Appendice Recognit. thus speaketh to the Sacramentaries, when they desired to be held for brethren of the Lutherans, whom yet they condemned of heresy: If they judge our opinion to be impious, with what face do they desire to join themselves with that Church which maintaineth impious doctrine, and to be held of her for brethren? What fellowship (saith Paul) is there of justice with injustice? or what Communion of light with darkness, or what agreement of Christ with Belial? or what for the faithful with the infidel? Wherhfore if they desire this sincerely, and in earnest, they manifestly show, that they make mockery of religion, as if it skilled not which one follow, so he may pass his life peaceably and quietly. In like manner those of Wittenberg in their Refutation of the orthodoxal consent pag. 636. say: We cannot wonder enough, that seeing they not only accuse the doctors of our Church of horrible and damned heresies, but also have long since condemned them, to wit, of Arianisme, Nestorianisme, Eutichianisme, Marcionisme, Manicheisme, and the Monothelites heresies; nevertheless they dare account us for brethren and desire our brotherhood. Who that is careful of piety and truth can persuade himself, that these Sectmasters do in earnest handle religion? For if we be such as we are judged of them, our friendship and fraternity is to be detested, not desired. Thus speak the Lutherans to the Sacramentaries, which no whit less falleth upon themselues, because they also challenge the Hussites and other old heretics, whom they cannot excuse from holding vile heresies. Finally we see, how uncertain Protestants be in determing what a Protestant is, and what is necessary to the essence & making of a Protestant; & consequently how uncertain they must be, whom to hold for one of their household, whom for a stranger, whom for a brother, whom for an enemy; which church or company they must embrace, which they must fly, which they must account the spouse of Christ, which the Synagogue of Satan. Then the which uncertainty nothing can be more miserable in matter of religion. Wherefore sith they are so uncertain in this matter, we must therein settle some certainty, and that according to their own principles.   

That it is necessary for a Protestant to believe with only special faith that himself is justified. CHAP. VI  
1. ABOVE all things it is most necessary to an invisible or true Protestant in the sight of God (as they term him) that with only special or peculiar faith he believe some thing belonging to himself, to wit, that he is justified in Christ, or (as they use to speak) that with faith he apprehend Christ's justice, and apply it unto him elf in particular. And to a visible Protestant in sight of men it is in like sort necessary, that he profess himself to believe with such a faith that he is justified in Christ. For example; For Luther to have been a true Protestant before God, it is needful that he have truly believed himself to be justified by only the foresaid special faith, which he had of his own justice; which faith they call special or particular, because it was particular to Luther, no man being bound to believe Luther to be justified beside himself. And for Luther to have been a visible Protestant in the sight of men, it was needful in like manner to have professed himself to have believed that he was justified by only the said faith. The same I say of Caluin and of every Protestant in particular. That according to their doctrine it is most necessary to a Protestant that he believe himself to be justified by only special faith is manifest. First because they teach, that a man is justified by only special faith, wherewith he believeth something belonging to himself alone, not by an universal or Catholic faith whereby he believeth the mysteries of Christian religion common to all, and which every one must believe, for this faith they call historical, and say it may be in such as are not just, yea in hypocrites and Devils. Seeing therefore in their opinion no man is a true Protestant in the sight of God, but only he that is just, nor any just but who hath a special or peculiar faith wherewith he apprehendeth Christ's justice to himself, it is manifest, that according to their principles, none can be a true Protestant before God, unless he have the foresaid special faith; and in like manner that none can be a visible Protestant before men, unless he profess to believe justification by only special faith; because none can be accounted to be of any religion, unless he profess to believe those means of obtaining justification and remission of sins, which that religion teacheth. Caluin 3. Instit. cap. 2. §. 16: None is a true faithful man, 
None faithful without special faith.  but he, who with a solid persuasion that God loveth him, assureth himself of all things from his goodness etc. And §. 39 he saith: Without this, Christianity standeth not. And in Rom. 1. v. 7: Hence we gather, that none do rightly account themselves faithful, unless they certainly assure themselves that God loveth them. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 780: No man can believe himself to be a member of the Church, 
What faith is according to Protestants.  unless he firmly and certainly persuaded that he is predestinated to eternal life. Besides Caluin in his little Catechism cap. de fide defineth justifying faith, to be a certain and steadfast knowledge of our heavenly Father's goodwill towards us. The like definition he hath 3. 
Pareus l. 1. de justit. cap. 11,  Instit. cap 2. §. 2, Luther in cap. 4. joelis tom. 4. and generally all Lutherans and Sacramentaries, except that where some define it to be a knowledge, others say it is an assurance or confidence of God's favour. Hence it is manifest, that they account none a just or faithful man, unless he have a special faith of his justification and God's favour towards him.  
2. Secondly I prove the same out of diverse commendations of Protestants touching the necessity and excellency of this article. For Luther tom. 1. in disp. fol. 410. saith: In vain he believeth other articles, who denieth that we are justified by only faith. And tom. 2. lib. cont. Missam fol. 390. he saith, 
The Sum.  that this article is the sum of his doctrine and Gospel. And lib. de votis fol. 278. that this is the definition of a Christian, who believeth to be justified by the only works of Christ alone, 
The Definition.  without his own. Tom 3. in Psalm. Grad. fol. 573: That the only knowledge of this article conserveth the Church. And fol. 576. that it is the sum of Christian doctrine, 
The Sun.  the sun which lighteneth the Church, which falling the Church falleth. Tom. 4. in cap. 53. Isaiae fol. 200. he writeth, that it is as it were the foundation on which the Gospel relieth, and which alone distinguisheth his religion from all others. Fol. 201. that it is like the lively fountain whence all treasures of divine wisdom do flow, 
The foundation.  and the foundation of all the Church and Christianity. And Prefat in jonam, that it is the chief of Christian doctrine, and the sum of all the scripture. Tom. 5. Prefat. in Galat. fol. 269. he affirmeth, that it is the only rock of the Church. And 273: 
The rock.  Who holdeth not this article, are (saith he) either jews, or Turks, or Papists, or Heretics. And fol. 274. that in this doctrine alone the Church is made and consisteth. And fol. 333. he plainly confesseth, that it is his only defence, 
Their defence.  without which (as he speaketh) both we and heretics together with us, had long since perished. Tom. 6. in cap. 21. Genes. fol. 265. he termeth it the chiefest article of faith. And tom. 7. epist. ad Livones fol. 499. avoucheth, that it is the only way to heaven, and the sum of Christian life. 
The only way.  And finally in the first article concluded at Smalcald: In this article are and consist all which in our life we teach, witness, and do against the Pope, the Devil, and all the world. This and much more writeth Luther in commendation of the necessity and excellency of the article touching justification by only faith. And of the contrary belief concerning justification by works tom. 5. in cap. 3. Galat. fol. 257. he saith: It is the sink of all evils. And in cap. 4. fol. 402: That it taketh away the truth of the Gospel, faith, & Christ himself.  
3. With Luther herein agree the Lutherans. For the Confession of Auspurg cap. de discrimine ciborum, saith, that this article is the proper doctrine of the gospel. And the Apology thereof cap. de iustificat. that it is the principal place of Christian doctrine. And cap. de poenit: the chiefest place and principallest article about which they fight with their adversaries; and the knowledge whereof they account most necessary to all. The Confession of Saxony, that this article being extinguished, there is no difference betwixt the Church and other men. The Confession of Bohemia, 
The sum of all Christianity and piety.  that this article is held of them for the chiefest of all, as which is the sum of all Christianity and piety. The university of Wittenberg. tom. 2. Lutheri. fol. 248: It is the chiefest article of the gospel. The Ministers of the Prince elector in Colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 1. say, that this article is as it were the sum and last end, to which all the other articles do look unto. And those of the D. of Saxony pag. 132. affirm, that as long as this doctrine standeth, Luther standeth, yea Paul, yea God. This doctrine falling, Luther falleth, 
This falling, God falleth.  Paul falleth, God falleth; and all men are necessarily damned. Those of Magdeburg in Sleidan lib. 21. call this article the stay of salvation. Melancthon tom. 2. Lutheri fol. 506. termeth it the chiefest article. Kemnice part. 1. Examen. tit. de justificat. pag. 231: The chiefest place. And in locis part. 1. tit. de justificat. pag. 216. writeth, that it is like the castle and principal bulwarck of all Christian doctrine and religion. Lobechius disput. 22. 
The Bulwarck.  pag. 515. addeth, that it is one of the chiefest points of our saith, because the prore and poop of Christianity is contained therein, and on it hangeth the hinges of our salvation. Scnusselburg. tom 8. Catal. haeret. affirmeth, it to be the chiefest article, wherein consisteth our salvation, and which is the head of our religion. Finally (to omit other Lutherans) Brentius in Apolog. Wittenberg. part. 3. pag. 703. saith, 
The essential difference.  that the essential difference betwixt a Protestant and a Papist is, that of the Protestant religion these are the first principles: The scripture, Christ the Son of God, & saith or assurance of God's favour towards us for Christ's sake.  
4. Neither do Sacramentaries descent herein from the Lutherans, For the Confession of Basse avoucheth it to be the first and chiefest point in Evangelicall doctrine. The French Confess. art. 18. calleth it the foundation. Zuinglius in Isagoge fol. 268. saith it is the sum of the Gospel. Bucer Respons. ad Abrincens. pag. 613. And Gualther Prefat. in joan. writ, that about this article is almost all the whole substance of dispute with them and Papists. Bullinger in Compend. lib. 5. cap. 1. termeth it the chiefest point of holy, Evangelicall, and Apostolical doctrine. And lib. 8. cap. 8: The highest and chiefest head of Christian doctrine and of faith. Peter Martyr in locis tit. de justif. col. 939. saith, it is the head, fountain, and stay of all piety. Tom. 2. epist. ad Peregrin. col. 136: 
The sum of Summe●.  It is the sum of sums, and chiefest head. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 11. §. 1. that it is the chiefest prop of religion, lib. 11. §. 17: The sum of all piety. And Respons. and Sadolet. pag. 125. that the knowledge thereof being gone, Christi glory is extinct, religion abolished, and hope of salvation wholly overturned. And lib. de Necess. Reform. fol. 47. that the safety of the Church dependeth upon this doctrine no less than man's life dependeth of his soul, Pareus in Prooem. lib. de justificat: On this alone the hinges of our comfort and salvation do hang. And lib. 2. cap. 2. affirmeth that it was the chiefest cause of the separation of the Protestant Church from Popery. And lib. 4. cap. 2. saith: The only doctrine of obtaining justice and salvation by only saith and of losing them by incredulity, is the sincere and proper gospel; all other doctrine in the scripture belongeth to the law. And those of Geneva Prefat. Syntag. Confess. avouch, that this article is the groundwork, form, and soul of Christian religion; 
The soul.  the sum of Evangelicall doctrine, of which men are called faithful and true Christians, without which the knowledge of other articles hath no wholesome fruit. For it is the substantial, inward, and formal cause of salvation; of which all Sacraments instituted by God are and were pledges and seals, unto which article all the other do tend as to their centre, and in which man's felicity consisteth.  
5. Neither do our English Protestant's make less account of this their article of justification by only faith. For D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 6. cap. 3. pag. 562. saith: It seems to be the chiefest of all, and most fundamental, 
The Prore & Puppe.  as in which the Prore and puppe of our salvation consisteth; and who fain any other means of justification, do overthrew the foundation and most necessary heads of Christian religion, and are fallen from salvation and everlasting life. And Respons: ad Rat. r. Camp. he writeth thus of their doctrine of justification by only faith: If james, or a heavenly Angel disallow it, he is impure, wicked, and to be detested to hell. D. Humphrey in his oration de vitando fermen to calleth this article, The chiefest point and hinges of faith. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 4. The principal head of the gospel. M. Fox in his acts pag. 440: The foundation of all Christianity. And pag. 770: 
The foundation.  The only principal origen of our salvation. And finally M. powel lib. 2. de Antichristo cap. 5: The sum of the doctrine of saith Neither is it to be marveled, that Protestants so highly esteem this their article, both because it is the chiefest bait wherewith they draw men unto them, as also because (as Luther confessed) it is their chief defence, without which they had long since perished; and finally because justification being one principal end of religion, if special faith be the only means to attain to justification, undoubtedly it ought highly to be esteemed of that religion, which believeth it to be such a means. 
Protestant's esteem of only faith.  Thus we see that according to the common opinion of Protestants, to believe himself to be justified by only faith, is the chiefest article, the foundation, the stay, the head, the fountain, the sum, the last end, the prore and puppe, the hinges, the prop, the castle, the bulwarck, the essential difference, the definition, the soul, the form, the formal cause, the only rock, the only safeguard of Protestancy, & the only way to heaven, which falling the church, yea God himself falleth. But none can be a Protestant without the foundation, head, soul, form, sum, definition etc. of a Protestant. Therefore none can he held for a Protestant, unless he profess to believe to be justified by only special faith. Whomesoever therefore Protestant's cannot prove to have held this article, they cannot with any reason and colour challenge for Protestants. And because (as it shall hereafter appear) they cannot prove that any one before Luther held this article, nay on the contrary we will prove that Luther first devised it, they cannot with any appearance of truth avouch, that there was any Protestant before him. And in like sort, whom we can prove not to have believed this article, we may evidently conclude, that they were no Protestants.   

That it is necessary for a Protestant to believe all the fundamental articles of Protestancy. CHAP. VII.  
●. BESIDE the foresaid article of justification by only faith, it is also necessary to the making of a Protestant of a member of the Protestant Church, 
V●●●d. l. 3. de Eccles. c. 2.  that he believe at least all the fundamental points of Protestancy, either explicitly or implicitly, so that he obstinately deny no one of them. This is manifest. First because (as I shown before cap. 1.) it is the common opinion of Protestants, that all those are out of the Church, whosoever deny one fundamental article. 
Num. 3.  Again, because themselves say, that the name of a fundamental article doth insinuate, that it sustaineth the Church as the foundation sustaineth the house. Besides, all Protestants assign truth or purity in doctrine for the mark of the Church, As the Confession of Ausparg cap. 7. The English Confession cap. 19 The Sui●zers cap. de Eccles. and other Protestants commonly; and their meaning is, 
Truth essential to the Church.  that it is the essential mark. Whereupon D Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 5. cap. 17. pag. 541. saith, that it is absolutely necessary and the essential mark. And at Rat. 3. Campiani, that it is the substantial note. His Majesty in his epistle to Cardinal Peron, that in is the substantial form of the Church. 
 Caluin. epist. 190. The purity of doctrine is the soul of the Church. And the same say Sadeel ad Sophism. Turriani loc. 1. Author de Eccles. in Danaeo pag. 1029. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 145. D. Willet. cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 102. Yea D. Morton part. 1. Apos. lib. 1. cap. 6. affirmeth, that Protestants account the truth of Evangelicall doctrine the chiefest and almost only essential inseparable and perpetual mark of the Church. And hence it proceedeth, that they put the truth of purity of doctrine in their definition of the Church as an essential part thereof; as the French Confession cap. 27. The Magdeburgians Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 4 col. 140. Melancthon tom. 1 in cap. 16. Matthae●. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 20. pag. 552. Sadeel ad Sophism. surrianis loc. 21. and others commonly. But this purity of doctrine if it must be in any articles, especially it must be in those which are fundamental, as is manifest, and the Protestants do grant. For thus writeth D. Morton part. 1. 
Purity in fundamental points essential to the Church.  Apol. lib. 2. cap. 38. Purity in the fundamental principles of faith is necessary to the being and making of the Church. And D. Feild lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3: Purity from fundamental error, is necessarily required to a Church. And the like hath Vorstius lib. cit. pag. 148. Nay the English Confession art. 19 defineth the visible Church of Christ to be a congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached and the Sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. And his majesty ep. cit: 
Whit●k. Cont. 2. q. ● c. 18. Sutla l. 1. de Eccl. c. 1. Mort. Apol. l. 2. cap. 3●.  It is needful that the churches be united among themselves in unity of saith and doctrine in those points, which are necessary to salvation. And hereupon diverse Protestants deny those Corinthians who denied the Resurrection, and those Galathians, who overturned the Gospel of Christ, to have been members of the Church; because they denied a fundamental point point of Christian faith. Wherefore unless Protestants will deny their common doctrine in this matter, reject their own definition of the Church, cast away their only mark of the Church, and leave no mark of her at all, they cannot avouch any one to have been a Protestant, who dissented from them in any fundamental point of doctrine.  
2. If any one say, that although he, who denyeth any fundamental point of Protestancy, cannot be of the visible Protestant Church, yet may he be of their invisible Church: I answer, that (as shall be showed hereafter) there can be no Church which is invisible in profession of faith, howsoever it be invisible in justice and predestination; and therefore none can be of the invisible Church, who is not also of the visible. Again Protestant's will have none to be of the invisible Church, but such as are just. But how is he just, who denieth God's faith, and maketh him a liar, and that in a principal point of religion? Besides, Protestants say, that none can be a member of the invisible Church, unless he be also a member of the visible Church, if so conveniently he may.  
3. Moreover the holy Fathers most frequently, 
Leo. Ierm. 4. de Nat. Hier. lib. 3. ●ont. Ruffi. Aug. l. de haer. & q. 11. in Mat. & 18. de civet. c. 51. Basilius in Theodor. lib. 4. c. 19  and sometimes also Protestants themselves, do teach, that it is necessary to a faithful and believing man, that he deny no one article of faith, and much less a fundamental or principal article. Finally, Protestants are wont to laugh at Catholics if they prove any Father to have been a Papist, because he held some fundamental point of Papistry. For thus writeth Pareus lib. 1. de amiss. gratiae cap. 1: It is ridiculous for him to conclude S. Augustin to have been a Papist, because in this error he agreed with them; no less them if you infer, that we are Papists, because we agree with Papists in some truth. And D. White in defence of his Way cap. 45. pag. 432: His holding of some things superstitiously which the Church of Rome hath entertained, proves not that he professed the same faith the Church of Rome now doth, because the faith of the said Church comprehends much more than he held; and what he held is now otherwise expounded and applied then by him it was. And in his Way pag. 298: If he would deal faithfully and to the point, he should not say Bernard professed the Roman faith and was a monk; but he should have showed, that be professed the present Roman faith, as the Council of Trent and the jesuits have set it down, at least in the fundamental points thereof. Let them then abide the law which themselves have made, and let not them conclude any one to have been a Protestant, because he agreed with them in one or more points, unless he agreed with them at least in all fundamental points of their doctrine. I add also, that against Protestants we do rightly conclude, that the holy Fathers were Papists, if we do show that they dissented from Protestants in one or more fundamental points. For they will not deny, but that the Fathers were either Papists or Protestants: But Protestants they were not, if they denied their doctrine in any fundamental point thereof: therefore they must needs be Papists. And the like is not of others, whom Protestants cannot conclude to have been theirs, if they can prove that they were none of ours. Because neither we will grant, nor they can avouch, that such were either ours or theirs, as they grant of the holy Fathers. 
What is necessarily required to a Protestant's  Be it therefore certain and assured, that to a Protestant is necessarily required, that either explicitly, or at least implicitly and virtually he believe all the fundamental points of Protestancy, and wilfully deny no one of them. And that therefore Protestants can no way challenge any, who rejected any one of their fundamental and principal articles. It remaineth that we set down the fundamental articles of Protestancy, 
lib. de unie. baptism. c. ●●.  because Protestants themselves agree not herein, but as S. Augustin said, that the Donatists did, concerning sins which they would have to exclude men out of the Church; so Protestants, in a strange fashion distinguish the fundamental points of their faith, devising rules of distinction amongst them, not out of the scriptures but out of their own heads.   

Which be the fundamental heads of Protestancy. CHAP. VIII.  
1. THAT we may determine which be the fundamental articles of Protestant religion, we must first show, 
How much Protestant's esteem the Conf. of Ausp.  that all Protestants profess to receive the Confession of Auspurge, at least in the principal and fundamental articles thereof. Of the Lutheran Protestant's this is manifest. For in their conference at Aldeburg both parties of them agreed to admit it for a rule of their disputation. And ibidem pag. 404. those of the Electors side do say: We refer ourselves and do look unto the Confession of Auspurg, as to the foundation of religion next after the word of God. And other Lutherans in Zanchius in Supplicat. ad Senat. Argentinens. pag. 70. 
The foundation of Religion.  do appoint, that it be taught according to the Confession of Auspurge, presented to Charles the 5. anno 1530, and the Apology thereof subscribed at Numberg, and that it be the square and rule of all religion in all articles. 
The square of religion.  Heshusius lib. de present. corp. Christi in caelo affirmeth, that amongst the Lutherans all that are promoted to degrees and cure of souls, do swear to the Confession of Auspurg and the Apology thereof. 
They swear to it.  The same testifieth Lobechius disp. 1. pag. 12. and as Lavatherus addeth anno 1530: The laws of the university of Wittenberg do straight forbid to defend any opinions which are contrary to this Confession. He●●●sius also lib. cit. writeth, 
The authority thereof most holy.  that the authority thereof aught to be most holy amongst all godly men. Westphalus cont. Laskum affimeth, that it containeth the sum of doctrine founded in the word of God. Ernestus Regius in vita Vrbani, that it is the square and rule of controversies in the Church. Lobechius lib. cit. that it is the rule of saith and doctrine distinguishing the orthodoxal Church from the heterodoxal. Reineccius in armatura tom. 1. cap. 28. 
Containeth the sum of doctrine.  affirmeth, that it was inspired from heaven, and written by instinct of the holy ghost. Nay some Lutherans, (as testifieth Laskus epist. ad Regem Poloniae) said, that they would rather doubt of the doctrine of Paul, 
The Rule of faith.  then of the Confession of Auspurg. And with the Lutherans herein conspire the Sacramentaries. For as Bucer confessed in the Conference of Ratisbon: The Protestants condemn all writings, 
Inspired from heaven.  which are repugnant to the Confession of Auspurge and the Apology thereof. Caluin admonit. vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 797. saith: 
Surius anno 154●.  Touching the Confession of Auspurg I answer thus, that as it was published at Ratisbon, there is not one word in it contrary to our doctrine. And epist. 236. saith, that be wittingly and willingly subscribed to it. Beza epist. 1. writeth in this sort: I define those to be our Churches, which hold the Confession of Auspurg, the French Confession etc. And Apol. 1. cont. Saintem pag. 297: Neither is the Confession of Auspurg such, as any pious man may reject it. Zanchius loc. cit. received the Confession of Auspurge as the square and rule of all doctrine. And as Vorstius writeth Respons. ad epist. Parci pag. 91: In the university of Heddelberg they used to swear to no Confession, but to that of Auspurg. Or as D. Whitaker affirmeth Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 5. pag. 505: The Confession of Auspurg is received of all Protestants, unless perhaps it be in one word or two, rather than in any opinion. And in truth seeing all Sacramentaries profess to hold the Lutherans, (who follow the Confession of Auspurg) for their brethren in Christ, and beside, when we object unto them their dissension in matters of faith, they appeal unto their harmony or syntagm of Confessions, amongst which the Confession of Auspurg is placed, as do those of Geneva Prefat. Syntagmatis, the Swissers Prefat. suae Confess. Beza epist. 1. Sadeel Indice Repetit. Turrian pag. 808. and respon ad Theses Posnan. c. 11. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 168. D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 12. & 42. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest: 5. cap. 8. pag. 521. D. Andrews Respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 1. D. Fulke de Success pag. 287. & 304. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 138. and others commonly. When as (I say) the Sacramentaries do thus, they must needs approve the Confession of Auspurg, at least in all the principal and fundamental points thereof. For (I hope) they will not hold them for brethren in Christ, whom they see to descent from them in fundamental points of Christian faith; nor say, that those Confessions agree, which are repugnant in the very foundation of belief.  

Which the confess. of Ausp. accounteth fundamental articles  2. But this Confession of Auspurg so generally received, and of so high account with Protestants, as we have rehearsed, hath set down and declared which be the fundamental points of Protestancy. For in the beginning thereof is set this title; The principal articles; and after that many Protestanticall opinions are rehearsed, thus it saith of them. cap. 21. 
The sum of Protest. doctrine.  This is the sum of the doctrine which is delivered in our Churches. And afterwards naming certain controversies of Indulgences, Pilgrimages, & the like, it saith of them: These kind of matters we have let pass, that those things which are the chiefest in this cause might be easierly known. Again: 
Chiefest points.  those things only are rehearsed, which were necessary to be told. And finally; We would present these articles before written, in which our Confession might be extant, 
Only necessary.  and the sum of their doctrine who teach us, might be seen. And in another edition of this Confession in Melancthon. tom. 3. thus is written in the end thereof: We have comprised the sum of Evangelicall doctrine necessary to Churches. 
Summe of doctrine necessary.  Wherefore, unless Protestants will reject their first and most majestical Confession of Auspurg, they must needs confess that the articles thereof are the sum of Protestant doctrine, the principal articles of their faith, are they only, which are necessary to be told, and the sum of Evangelicall doctrine necessary to Churches. But surely such are fundamental articles.  
3. Neither doth the said Confession alone, but also many other great Protestants acknowledge the articles of it to be fundamental. For thus hath the Apology of that Confession in Melancthon tom. 3. fol. 91: 
Truth necessary to the Church.  We have comprised in the Confession of Auspurg almost the sum of all Christian doctrine. And Melancthon himself in the preface of that Apology writeth, that that Confession is truth necessary to the Church. And likewise in the preface of his 3. to me: I gathered together the heads of confession, comprising almost the sum of the doctrine of our Churches The whole form of the Confession was after sent to Luther, who wrote back that he had read and allowed this Confession. And tom. 4. Respons. ad Staphylum pag. 817. saith, that the Confession (of Auspurg) containeth the whole body of doctrine. And in Prefat. 2. tom. Luther 11 The sum of doctrine which our Church preached is publicly comprehended in the Confession of Auspurg. 
The whole body of doctrine.  Likewise the D. of Wittenberg in the preface of his Confession speaking of the Confession of Auspurg saith thus: We commanded our preachers to write the sum of their doctrine. And the Ministers of the Elector in colloq. Aldeburg scrip. 3. pag. 21. say: We doubt not but the sum of doctrine revealed from heaven is dextrously, plainly, and most sweetly contained in the Confession of Auspurg. And pag. seq: W●●● the Confession of Auspurg we comprehended the sum of doctrine. Kemnice Praefat. lib. de coena: The sum of wholesome doctrine is comprehended in the Confession of Auspurg out of the word of God. Westphalus defence. altera cont. Laskum saith; It containeth in brief the sum of Christian doctrine. james Andrews lib. cont. Hosium pag. 22: The sum of pious doctrine is contained in the Confession of Auspurg Finally the Lutherans (as the Sacramentaries of Newstad writ in Admonit. de lib. Concord. cap. 4. Note. pag. 116) do place in the role of heretics as erring in the foundation of saith and salvation all those who find any salt with the Confession of Auspurg, or descent from it in any article. And as touching the Sacramentaries themselves, the Palatin Confession pag. 198. saith thus: That Confession of faith which was presented at Auspurg, and the Apology annexed thereto, was taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles & Prophets, and the foresaid Creed, as a certain little sum. Caluin. lib. 1. de Lib. arbit. pag. 142: When at Auspurg there was to be exhibited a form of Confession (Melancthon the Author thereof) would not make any stay, but only in that doctrine, 
Doctrine necessary to salvation.  which alone is proper to the Church and necessary to salvation to be known.  
4. According therefore to the verdict, both of Lutherans and Sacramentary Protestants, the●e Confession of Auspurg containeth the sum & whole body of Protestant doctrine, and only those things which are necessary to be told, and that only doctrine which is proper to the church, and is necessary to be known for salvation. Whosoever therefore dissenteth from the Confession of Auspurg, dissenteth from Protestants in the sum and body of Protestancy, in things that are necessary, 〈◊〉 doctrine necessary to the Church, and necessary ●o ●●●nation. But undoubtedly who o●ssenteth in s●ch things dissenteth in fundamental points. And th●s manner of examining who is a Protestant, cannot be disliked of Protestants, because themselves used it against the Anabaptists in their Conference at Frankentall, wherein they prove, that the Anabaptistia were not before the year of Christ 1522: For (say they) if you read over all histories, you shall not find any people from the beginning of the world, who had a Confession of saith like to yours. They are therefore of opinion, that it is necessary for an Anabaptist, that he hold their Confession. Why then may not we say the like is necessary to a Protestant. Besides, Sadeel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. pag. 866. saith, that we ought to judge of the faith of the reformed Churches by the Confessions of their faith; which rule we now follow.  
5. And if any Protestant do not think, that the articles of the Confession of Auspurg be fundamental, let him take the Confession of Saxony, 
Fundam. articles according to the Confess. of Saxony.  to which many principal Protestants subscribed, and which they composed with mind to present it to the Council of Trent. For this Confession affirmeth her articles to be fundamental saying cap. 23: This is the sum of doctrine, which with one mouth we preach in our Churches. And soon after: It is true doctrine and necessary to the Church. And Hospin part. 2. Hist. fol. 215. saith, that the composers of this Confession avouch this in sum, that that writing containeth clearly and fundamentally the principal articles of Christian faith, and doctrine of Sacraments instituted of Christ. Or if he please let him take the Confession of Strasburg, 
According to the Confession of Strasburg  which in the end thus writeth of the articles thereof: These are the chief points, in which our men have somewhat gone from the common doctrine of the Clergy Or else the Scottish general Con●ession, wherein thus speak the Scots: We believe, confess, and subscribe, 
According to the Confession of Scotland.  and affirm before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian saith, which pleaseth God, and bringeth salvation to men, which is now laid open to the world and received of diverse Churches and Kingdoms, especially of the Scottish Church. For these Confessions do affirm, that their articles are principal necessary to the Church, and their doctrine the only true Christian doctrine which bringeth salvation. But surely such articles be fundamental. Therefore the articles of these Confessions be fundamental articles in Protestancy. And consequently, that a man be accounted a Protestant according to the judgement of these Confessions, it is necessary, that he profess their articles. Or finally let him make choice of the Bohemian Confession, 
According to the Confession of Bohemia.  in the Preface whereof it is written thus: We embrace and hold all things which belong to the true Church and without which she can be no where on earth. For without doubt such things are fundamental.  
6. But if any will not admit either the articles of the Con●ession of Auspurg or of Saxony (which are Confessions of Lutherans) nor the articles of the Confessions of Strasburg or Scotland (which are Confessions of Sacramentaries) not finally the articles of the Bohemian Confession (which is said to be the Confession of the Waldenses) to be the fundamental articles of Protestancy; First he shall show, that touching which are fundamental articles, he agreeth neither which Lutherans nor Sacramentaries, nor Waldenses. Again, besides that which we have repeated out of Protestants concerning their account of the Confession of Auspurg he shall herein reject those Confessions to which Protestants (as themselves say) yield almost as much as Papists do to the Council of Trent, 
Vorstive in Praefat. Antibell. Praefat. Syntagm. Conf ssionum.  which they hold for authentical writings, and which they say have been sealed with the blood of many martyrs, and approved of Kings, Princes, and common wealths, most excellent Divines, & great servants of God. Assuredly if there be any certainty or worth in Protestant doctrine, it is in their Confession of faith. Moreover, he can name no other articles which Protestant's by public and common judgement have agreed to be fundamental, and therefore either they have not by public consent determined which articles they hold for fundamental, or certainly no judgement or decree of theirs is to be more esteemed of them, then that which we find in their Confessions of faith. 
If Protestants be not certain which are fundam. articles they are not certain of their Church.  Wherefore either they are to be held for fundamental articles, or else Protestants are not certain which are fundamental articles of their faith. And if they be not certain hereof, they cannot be certain what is the essence or substance of a Protestant, or who is a Protestant, who not, seeing (as I shown before) the only essential form and substance of a Protestant they put in the belief of their fundamental articles. Either therefore they have not yet determined which are their fundamental articles, and consequently they have not determined what is the substance of a Protestant, or who is a Protestants who not, who is a member of their Church, who an alien; or that which they have determined in their foresaid Confessions, is to be taken for their decree and determination in this matter. Finally, I regard not, what articles this or that Protestant judgeth to be fundamental, for I might set down which Luther tom. 1. in Praefat. Disput. fol. 419. or which Zuinglius Prefat. Conf. fidei, or which Beza in fine brevis Confess. or which Bullinger Praefat. Compend. have reckoned for fundamental articles; but I would determine this matter out of their public Confessions of faith, 
Sadeel ad Thes. Posnan. c 12. Beza epist. 1. Rainold. praelect. 4.  because they cannot deny them, but in denying their faith; as also because they are of more authority amongst Protestants, and finally because themselves require us so to do.  
7. Let it be therefore assured and steadfast, that according to the judgement generally of all Protestants it is necessarily and before all matters required to a Protestant that he believe justification by only special or particular faith, 
What necessary to a Protestant.  because this is the soul, life, definition and all in a Protestant; and moreover (according to the judgements of the foresaid Confessions) that he believe at least virtually and implicitly all their articles, and wittingly deny none of them, because as we see they are fundamental articles of Protestancy, without which one cannot have the whole essence or substance of a Protestant, nor be an entire and absolute Protestant, 
We speak of any who are Protestant's only in part.  but only in part and in some sort. And we (as hath been often said) treat here only of an entire and absolute Protestant, such as at least hath all the substantial parts of a Protestant, and endeavour to prove that Luther was the author of such a company and of such a faith and religion, and regard not whither that before his time there were any, who were Protestants only in part and in some sort, and held only some part of Protestant religion, but not the whole substance thereof. And hereupon we frame an invincible argument, to prove that there was no true Protestant or Protestant church before Luther. 
The definition of a true Protestant.  Every true Protestant believeth justification by only special faith, and at least virtually and implicitly believeth the articles of the Confession of Auspurg, or of Saxony, Scotland, Strasburg, or Bohemia. But there was no man, no Church before Luther who thus believed. Therefore no true Protestant or Protestant church. The Mayor is the very definition of a true Protestant, gathered partly out of the common doctrine of all Protestants, partly out of the foresaid Confessions of their faith. The Minor being negative is sufficiently manifest, by that neither Luther, nor any in his time, or to this day could produce any one man or company who before Luther's preaching had believed in that sort. This foundation therefore touching the essence and substance of a Protestant and Protestant Church being laid, to wit, that he only is a true absolute Protestant, who believeth justification by only special faith, and the foresaid other fundamental points of Protestancy, and that the Protestant Church is a company of such believers, and the Protestant religion such a belief and worship of God; I will endeavour in this next book out of Protestants testimonies and Confessions to prove, that Luther was the first beginner of their Church and Religion.   
The end of the first Book.   

THE SECOND BOOK. Of the Author, or Beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion.  

CHAP. I. That Protestants confess that the substance of their Church and Religion was perished when Luther began.  
THE first demonstration, wherewith we will prove, that Luther was the author and first beginner of the Protestant Church and religion we will take out of Protestants Confessions of the substantial destruction of their Church, 
Protestant's confess their religion was perished.  religion & principal article of justification by only faith, before Luther arose. For of the destruction of their faith and religion thus writeth Luther himself tom. 1. Proposit. 62. fol. 375: Certain it is that our Apostatical Bishops reigning, God's faith perished. 
Perished.  And lib. de Captiu. Babylon. tom. 2. fol. 77: The Pope's tyranny hath many ages agone extinguished the faith. 
Extinguished.  And lib. de ab●og. Mist. fol. 249. he saith to the Catholics: Ye have extinguished the Gospel. And lib. de pijs ceremon is fol. 387: alias 393: 
Destroyed  The doctrine of the gospel lay destroyed by humane traditions. Tom. 3. in psalm. 1. fol. 126: What thinkest thou was in the Church, but a whirl wind of God's wrath, by which we were thrust into so many, so different, so inconstant, so uncertain, and those infinite, glosses of Lawyers, 
Christ altogether unknown  and opinions of Divines, & in the mean time Christ being altogether unknown, stumbling into many quick sands, gulfs, and snares of conscience were knocked together. And in psalm. 22. fol. 345: Christ together with faith is now extinguished. 
Christ and faith extinguished.  And fol. 348: Faith lieth extinct. And in psalm. 51. fol. 460: The former age could neither understand nor sound teach the greatest and weightiest points. Praefat. in psalm. Grad. fol. 509: God punisheth contempt so as he plainly taketh away his word whereof Popery is a notable example, 
All knowledge of Christ wholly extinct.  in which we see it hath so fallen out. And fol. 568: Faith itself was plainly extinct. Tom. 4. Praefat. Eccl. fol. 1: The schools of Divines have wholly extinguished most assured faith in Christ, together with all the knowledge of Christ. Tom. 5. in cap. 2. Galat. fol. 306: The Papists with their impious and blasphemous doctrine have not only obscured, but simply have taken away 
Not only observed but simply taken away.  the Gospel, and overwhelmed Christ. And fol 322: Christ's gospel being obscured, yea truly overwhelmed, the Pope etc. In c. 4. fol. 376: This most common and most received opinion of the uncertainty (of the remission of sins) was surely an article of faith in all Popery, 
Christ shut out of the Church.  wherewith truly they overwhelmed the doctrine of faith, destroyed faith, and shut Christ out of the Church. Fol. 400: The Pope hath utterly extinguished Christian liberty. In cap. 1. Petri: The sincere knowledge of faith was extinct. In cap. 15.1. Cor. fol. 134. Without our help they had never learned one word of the Gospel. 
Without Luther not one word or jot of the Gospel.  And fol. 141: They had not known one jot of the Gospel unless by our labour and study it had been brought forth into the world. ●om. 6. in cap. 3. Genes. fol. 43: Wholesome doctrine was by little and little extinct. In cap. 4. fol. 57: The light of the word was extinguished by wicked Popes. In cap. 17. fol. 199: That I may say all in one word the Pope hath truly buried Christ. In cap. 48. fol. 643: The Pope hath obscured, nay destroyed the doctrine of saith. In cap. 49. fol. 660: The Pope hath truly obscured the doctrine and taken away the Promises, 
Christ truly buried.  that we knew not what Christ was Fol. 666: He hath extinguished the Gospel. Tom. 7. lib. de Missa fol. 230: The knowledge of Christ was truly abolished and destroyed This ye Papists ye cannot deny, the matter itself proclaimeth it. And fol. 231: All true Worship of God being extinct from the bottom etc. Epist. ad Fredericum Electorem fol. 506: 
Knowledge of Christ truly destroyed.  The Pope of Rome hath most plainly rooted out the Gospel truly oppressed and overthrown. lib. cont. Papatum fol. 469: Faith was weakened, choked, and extinguished, and Christian liberty lost. Thus plainly speaketh Luther almost in all his Latin comes of the substantial destruction of his faith and Gospel before that (as he saith) he brought it again into the world. 
Gospel most plainly rooted out.  To which he addeth in his 7. Dutch tome in his admonition to the Germans: This abomination was increased so, that they blotted out and suppressed the words of this Sacrament and faith, so that neither a letter, nor point of them remained in all Popery, in all masses, and books. Thus Luther.  
2. In like manner the Protestants in Sleidan lib. 1. fol. 258: The Pope made laws, by which true knowledge was utterly oppressed. Melancthon tom. 2. Lutheri fol. 192: Scholastical divinity being received, faith was destroyed, the doctrine of works being admitted. The Magdeburgians Praefat. Centur. 5: 
Extreme abolition of religion.  There was an extreme abolition of true Religion and the word of God under Popery. Caluin Praefat. Institut: In former ages men had extinguished the light of God. And 1. Institut. cap. 11. §. 9: Many ages since true religion was drowned and overthrown. 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 2: 
The substance of Christianity buried.  Under Popery that doctrine without which Christianity cannot consist was all buried and shut out. Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 128. he saith, that the necessity to leave the Roman Church was, That the light of divine truth was extinct, the word of God buried etc. And p. 130. 
Chiefest points of doctrine overthrown from the root.  maketh this speech unto God in defence of his forsaking the Roman Church: There were not a few profane opinions, which even by the ground overthrew the chiefest points of that doctrine, which thou didst deliver unto us by word. Lib. de necess. Refor. pa. 49: When the word of God was choked with these so many & so thick darknesses, Luther stepped forth etc. pag. 62: None prayed to God with assured saith, that is in earnest, neither could they, for Christ being buried in that manner as he was etc. 
Word of God ended.  Respons. ad Versipell. pag. 358: They have extinguished the doctrine of salvation. In Psycopan. pag. 388: The word of God being ended by perverse use and sloth now returneth to light. In Rom. 11. vers. 22: The truth was taken away. 
The light put out.  S. deel. de vocat. Minist. pag. 552: God suffered that light to be put out which should perpetually have lightened us in governing our life. 
Pure worships banished.  Crispin Prae●at. operum Occolampadij: Both the doctrine of salvation and piety were taken away, they banished out of the Church all pure worship of God. Celius secundus Cario de amplitudine regni Dei lib. 1. pag. 33: 
True Christ taken out of the world.  And so by little and little true Christ was taken out of the world, and Antichrist put in his steed. And Hospin. part. 1. Histor. lib. 4. pag. 291. writeth, that after 800. years after Christ the light of the wholesome and true doctrine began to be darkened, till it was utterly put out. 
The light clean put out.  Thus foreign Protestants, both Lutherans and Sacramentaries.  
3. Amongst English Protestants thus writeth M. Bale Cent. 4. c. 6: Wholesome truth perished from the earth. Cent. 1. pag. 69: From this time (anno 607) purity of heavenly doctrine vanished out of the Church. 
The truth perished from earth.  In his Apology against Priesthood and vows fol. 3: Two things have chiefly been the cause of the utter decay and full destruction of Christian religion etc. 
Vanished out of the Church.  M. powel in ●tinerarium Cambr●ae lib. 2 cap. 7. saith, that about the year 1189: There was the chief reign of darkness, in so much that not only preaching of the true word, but also the true religion was banished and scarce the name of Christianity remained. 
Utter decay & full destruction of religion.  M. Fox in the Protestation before his Acts, affirmeth that about the year 1215. and 1080: Christian saith was extinguished. And pag. 840. that Christian Religion was wholly changed into Idolatry. D. Fulke ad Cavillat. S●apletoni: 
Scarce name of Christianity remained.  Scarce could he five hundred years after banish the true doctrine of salvation out of the Churches of Europe. And finally the Apology of the English Church part. 5. cap. 13. diuis. 1. saith, that Papists have broken in pieces all the pipes and conduits, have stopped up all the springs and choked the fountain of living waters, and by damning up all the fountains of God's word, have brought the people into a pitiful thirst. Item: 
Not a sparck of divine light found.  With great distress went they scattering about seeking some sparck of heavenly light to refresh their consciences withal, but that light was already throughly quenched out, so that they could find none. This was a rusull state, this was a lamentable form of God's Church. It was a misery to live therein without the Gospel, 
Protestant's light thoroughly quenched out,  without light, without all comfort. Thus writ these learned Protestants both English and strangers of the destruction of their doctrine, their faith, their religion, and Gospel before Luther arose, which do so plainly testify the substantial destruction thereof, as I may well use S. Augustins words in the like occasion: If I should speak thus, they would resist and cry, 
Lib. 1. de pec. mer. c. 9  that I speak not truly, thought not truly. For in these words, if they were spoken by others, they would imagine no other meaning, then that, which in the foresaid (Protestants) they will not understand.  
4. 
Protestant's confess their lundam. art. perished.  Neither writ they otherwise of the destruction of their principal and most fundamental article of justification by only faith. For thus the Confession of Anspurg cap. 20: When the doctrine of faith, which ought to be principal in the Church, lay so long unknown, 
Sole faith unknown  as all must needs confess that there was a most profound silence of the justice of faith, that in sermons only the justice of works was spoken of in Churches etc. And tit. de bonis operibus pag. 25: 
Horribly overwhelmed.  In times past certain absurd opinions horribly overwhelmed this doctrine, in which the unlearned feigned that men did satisfy the law of God. In the mean time there was great silence how Christ is to be apprehended by faith. And pag. 27: The was no word of faith which is necessary for remission of sins. And pag. 19: In times passed there was great silence in Churches of the exercises of saith. And Praefat. Apol. Confess: August. in Melancthon tom. 3. fol. 27: All Churches, Monasteries, schools, briefly all books of late divines, 
No man taught &c All Prot. comfort unknown  were before mute of the justice of faith. No man taught sins to be forgiven by faith in Christ, Sacraments were impiously profaned, after that opinion, that they justify by the work wrought, was received. And this opinion did wholly oppress the doctrine of saith. Praefat. Conf. Saxoniae: All this comfort, which is necessary to every one, how a man converted to God is justified, was unknown. The Protestant Princes and Cities in Sleidan lib. 21. fol. 240: The contention is about the doctrine of saith, and of the true knowledge of God, which is the chiefest head of Christian life and of pure religion. 
Utterly extinct.  And it cannot (say they) be denied, that this doctrine was utterly extinct, and a new doctrine brought in. And lib. 13. ●ol. 304: It cannot be denied, that there was no word taught of receiving grace by Christ of remission of sins. Luther in Catechismo Maiori tom. 5. fol. 627: 
No man believed justification without works.  Popery reigning, faith wholly neglected and obscured was in pitiful plight. No man believed Christ to be a Lord, who had reconciled us to the Father without our worcks. Tom. 7. in c. 5. Matthae●. fol. 23: The Popish company saying nothing of the chiefest article of justification by faith in Christ etc. And in 3. Symbol. fol. 140. I have observed, that all errors, heresies, and all impiety came into the church principally, because this article, or this part of Christian saith in jesus Christ was despised and neglected or utterly lost. And in the Epitaphe graven upon Luther's tomb is this verse: He restored to the world the difference lost before, which is meant of the difference which Luther taught to be between the law and the gospel, that the law teacheth justification by good works, the gospel by only faith, without which difference Luther professeth that Christianity cannot stand. And in his table talks cap. de morte he thus speaketh: Show me one place of justification of faith in the decrees, in the decretals, in the Clementines, in all the sums and sentences, 
Coccius to. 1. pag. 1217  in all the sermons of Monks, in the statutes of Synods, in all the Postilles, in all Hierome, Gregory etc. Thus assured Luther was, that before he preached, of this principal article of justification by only faith, there was no news in the whole world.  
5. The same confesseth his Copemate Melancthon, who tom. 2. Respons. ad Clerum Colon. pag. 96. hath these words: The doctrine of penance was overwhelmed, there was no word of faith by which remission of sins is to be received: and pag. 97: The doctrine of true invocation and of the exercises of faith lay dead. If any (saith he) deny, that such was the state of the Church be may be disproved not only by testimonies of honest men, but also by the books of Monks. And pag. 99: There was no speech of the hope of free mercy. And lib. de usu integri Sacramenti pag. 188: The Popes have destroyed the true doctrine of faith. And the same Melancthon or Carion in Chronico lib. 4. pag. 418. & seq: These errors being settled and established by public authority, drew after them a great ruin, wherewith they wholly destroyed the doctrine of justice before God, and free remission of sins. And pag. 439: School divinity quite trampled and extinguished the least sparkles of pure doctrine, 
The least sparkles extinguished.  touching the law, the gospel faith and justification before God. And pag 4●3: They have quite taken away the difference between the law and the gospel. Vigand. lib. de bonis & mal●s Germaniae: The difference betwixt the law and the gospel was quite blotted out after the Apostles tym. 
Quite blotted out.  The Magdeburgi●ns Pre●. C●●tur. 13. The doctrine of saith without works was extinct. The matter itself showed, that pure doctrine was utterly suppressed. Kemnice in l●cis part. 2. ●●t. de justificat pag. 246: In all ages the light of wholesome doctrine touching justification first decayed, after more and more obscured, and last was plainly lost and extinguished. And pag. 244: 
Plainly lost.  In our time God hath restored the doctrine of justification out of most thick darkness. And Humius Praesat. lib. de libero arbit: The article of ●ustification was by Luther brought into light of out of the more than Chymerian darkness of former ages. Thus the Lutherans.  
6. The like Confession make the Sacramentaries. For thus writeth Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 125: We say that doctrine (of justification by only faith) was by you blotted out of the memory 
Blotted out of memory.  of men. Lib de Necess. Reform. pag. 46: The virtue of faith was utterly extinct, the benefit of Christ destroyed, man's salvation overthrown. And lib. de vera Reform. pag. 322: By these, the Apostolical doctrine was corrupted, nay destroyed and abolished. 
Corrupted, nay destroyed.  jezlerus de bello Euchar. fol. 24: The doctrine of justification was most sowly darkened & corrupted. Pareus lib. 5. de justificat. cap, 3: The doctrine of grace began to be obscured, and at last to be utterly oppressed in Popery. 
Only name of Christ remained  Finally M. Fox in his Acts printed 1610. pag. 391. saith: In these later days the only name of Christ remained among Christians. As touching faith, the end, and the use of the law, of grace and justification by saith, of liberty of a Christian man, there was no mention nor any word almost spoken of. Thus both Lutheran and Sacramentary Protestants confess, their doctrine of justification (in which as we have seen they affirm the definition, life, soul, and all points of a Protestant to consist) to have perished, been extinguished, horribly overwhelmed, vanished out of the church, no spark thereof to be found, the light thereof clean put out, and utterly extinct, before Luther start up. And consequently they must needs also confess, that the substance of their Church and religion was perished, which could not be without the soul, life, definition and sum thereof.  
7. Neither do they less openly confess that their Church was perished. 
Protestant's confess that their church perished.  For thus saith Luther lib. de Captiu. Babylon, tom. 2. fol 76: But now faith being not spoken of, the Church is extinguished by infinite laws of works, and ceremonies. Respons. ad Catharin. fol. 140. after he had said that the Church is conceived, form, borne, nourished and conserned only by the vocal word, he addeth: 
Extinguished.  By the Pope and Papists the vocal gospel being choked and extinct, was silent through all the world. Tom. 3. in psal. 17. fol. 285: And now that common sort of preachers reprobate what proposeth it to us in the Church of the deeds of Saints, but some small works, until faith being extinguished there become nothing but heathenish superstition where once the Church of God was, the name only of the Church left, 
Name only of the Church left.  the substance quite lost. In psalm. 22. fol. 332: This day under the Pope's dominion there is not lest one trace of the Church which appears. And 10. 6. in cap. 49. Genes. fol. 666: 
The order of the Church perished.  The Pope hath extinguished & swallowed up the Church. Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 132: The matter came to that pass, that it was manifest and evident to the learned and unlearned, that the true order of the Church then perished, the Kingdom of Christ was thrown down, 
Christ's Kingdom thrown down.  when this dominion (of the Pope) was erected. 4. Institut. cap. 3. §. 4. after he said that Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets were instituted only for that time when Churches were to be set up, or to be drawn from Moses to Christ, he addeth: In our time God raiseth Apostles, or at least Evangelists. For there was need of such to reduce the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. The French Confession art. 31: In our days the state of the Curch being interrupted, 
State of the church interrupted.  God raised up some extraordinarily which might restore the decayed ruins of the Church. Or as it is in the French copy: In our days when the state of the Church was interrupted, God raised up some after an extraordinary manner, that they might set up the church a new 
Church to be set up a new.  which was in ruin and desolation. But surely that church, which was in ruin and desolation, & so as it needed to be set up a new, was substantially fallen. Danaeus in lib. Augustini de haeresibus cap. 95. About the year after Christ's passion 574: This slaughter, plague and tyranny of the whole Church began, 
Slaughter of the whole Church.  which afterward utterly destroyed the Kingdom of Christ. 
Kingdom of Christ utterly destroyed  And lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 8: The Church was in banishment 350. years. Aretius' in locis part. 3. fol. 25. having said that Luther was immediately sent of God, addeth: God then useth immediate vocation, when there is no Church founded, or having been founded is so degenerated, 
No church or only shadow thereof.  that the only shadow of her remaineth. Chassan. in locis lib. 2. de Eccles. pag. 151: It is false that the Church shall never be broken of. Sadcel. lib. de vocat. oftentyms saith, that the Church was corrupted, decayed, overthrown, and her foundation shaken and overturned. And p. 555, that to restore her we must do, as men use to do in renewing that building which is quite fallen. And in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. cap. 8: When Popish errors had possessed almost the whole world, nor there appeared openly true fruits of the Church, nay nor true leaves; we say the Church was in one or two. 
The Church was in one or two.  Boysseul in Confurat. Spondae● pag. 742: It is true that all the Church was corrupted, all adulteress, all Idolatress. Soninus in Methodo Theol. pag. 212: about the time of Gregory the great the Church degenerated more and more, until at last it lost all purity and plainly fell to dotage yea to madness, and in the West ended in Popery, and in the East in Mahometisme. D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 512: As men do in a building fallen, that who will renew it buildeth not in the old foundation because it is loosed and not sound, but layeth some new foundation; so it was done in the renewing of the Church (by Luther). Behold the old foundation of the Church put away, and a new laid. 
A new foundation of the Church laid.  And pag. 510. he saith, that before Luther the state of the Church was fallen and quite overthrown, and the church decayed & overturned. And quaest. 5. cit. pag. 528: Luther took upon him to restore religion corrupted. And Controuers. 4. quest. 5. cap. 12. pag 683: So at last the Curch was oppressed & extinguished. D. Fulke in his answer to a false Catholic pag. 35. The true Church sailed immediately after the Apostles tyme. D. Morton. Apol. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 25. Protestant ministers were raised to set up again the Church being pitifully fallen. 
Nothing in the Church but pitiful ruins.  The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 9 diuis. 3: For these men new after they have left nothing remaining in the church of God that hath any likeness of his church, yet will etc. Ibidem cap. 14. divis. 1. & 2: Long ago hath the Bishop of Rome willed to have the whole church depend upon himself alone; wherefore it is no marvel though it be clea●● fallen down long ago. And part. 6. cap. 17. divis. 1. & 2. When we likewise saw, that all things were quite trodden under foot by these men, 
The only name of the Apostolic Church rooted out from the ground  and that nothing remained in the temple of God but pitiful spoils and decays, we reckoned it etc. M. Fox loc. cit: The Church being degenerated from the Apostolic institution above all measure, reserving only the name of the Apostolic Church but fare from the truth thereof in very deed, did fall into all kind of extreme tyranny etc. And M. Cartwright in D. Whitgifts' defence. pag. 217: When Antichrist had rooted out the Church even from the ground. Lastly Orhinus one of the four false Apostles of England hath these words: Considering how Christ by his wisdom power, 
Coccius to. 1. pag. 983. Quite overthrown.  goodness, had sounded, builded, settled, his Church, with his blood washed it, with his holy spirit enriched it, and at last seeing it quite overthrown, I could not but marvel.  
8. To these their plain Confessions of the entire destruction of their Church we may add that commonly they say, 
Protestant's say that Elias thought the church was perished.  that Elias the Prophet did think, that the Church had failed in his time, and that beside himself there was no faithful man or member of the Church. Luther lib. de Missa tom. 7. fol. 237: Elias thought the whole church of God to have been extinct, that himself was left alone, and the only Christian. Beurlin in Refurat. Soti cap: 53: Elias complaineth before God, that besides himself there was never a Godly man remaining. Lobechius disput. Theol. 10: Elias thought the Church had holy perished. Zuinglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de Euchar: Elias thought that he was alone. Peter Martyr in Rom. 11: Elias thought that piety was perished, and that all Saints were cut of in Israel. Caluin in Antid. art. 18. Paris: Elias thought himself alone to remain of the Church. And in Rom. cap. 11. v. 2: He thought that in his nation religion and worship of God had perished. He condemned the whole nation besides himself of impiety. He imagined that he had been left alone. Keckerman lib. 3. System Theol. pag. 389: Elias believed that he alone remained of the people of Israel, who could be said to be actually a member of the true Church. Lubbert lib. 6. cap. 3. Elias thought that besides himself there remained none who was truly turned to God. Rivet. in Epitome Controuers. tract. 1. sect. 37: Elias thought that he had remained alone. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 134: Elias thought that of the true worshippers of God he alone remained. Boysseul in Confutat. Spondaei pag. 247: Elias thought that he was the whole Church of God Nay Polanus part. 3. Thes. de Eccles. saith plainly in his own person, that the church failed in Elias his tyme. The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 12. divis. 1. &. 2. saith: Where was that Church then when Ely the Prophet so lamentably and bitterly made his moan, that only himself was left of all the whole world, who did duly and truly worship God? And M. jewel in Deaf. Apol. part. 4. c. 4. divis. 2. Elias thought all the godly in Israel had been slain and not one left alive. D. Fulke ad Cavillat. Stapletoni: It sell to Elias, that he seemed to be left alone of all the number of the Godly, which sincerely worshipped God. M. Hooker in his 3. book of Eccles. policy pag. 126: He took it as though there had not been remaining in the world any besides himself, that carried a true and an upright hart towards God, with care to serve him according unto his holy will. D. Sutclife lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 6. pag. 95: The church in Elias his days did seem to him so destroyed, that he thought he had been left alone. D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 476: Elias thought the whole Church of the faithful was perished in his tyme. Elias believed that none remained beside himself. Elias thought that he alone was left a true worshipper of God. And pag. 475: Elias said that he was alone left the true servant of God. I dispute not now, how falsely they impose upon Elias this blasphemous opinion of the church perishing or destruction, only I note, how under the name and authority of that great Prophet, they teach that the church may perish, which sometimes they are ashamed to avouch in their own names.  
9 Moreover they teach, that the Church may consist of one or two, which is in effect and in other words to say, that it may perish. Luther lib. de notis Eccles. tom. 7. fol. 148: 
Protestant's Church may 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 child  This is called the Christian society, & it is necessary that there be always such men in the world albeit of them there be only two or three, or children alone. Aretius' in locis part. 3. fol. 50: Any number, though never so small, sufficeth to the Church for external matters. Iuniu● cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 16: 
Of any number.  Two men ordered towards God are a Church. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: It is false, which he saith, that two men cannot make a Church. And pag. seq he granteth that Protestants teach that each man is a several Church. And pag. 478: 
Of two only.  If in the most forlorn times of the Church there be one or another faithful servant of God, it is enough. 
If one or two.  Which also Bucanus saith loc. 41. de Eccles. sect. 14. Nay Luther in cap. 7. Gen. tom. 7. fol. 107. saith: If I were the only man in the whole world who did hold the word, I alone should be the church. 
Of one alone.  And Rivet. in Epitome. Cont. tract. 1. sect. 27. The Church subsisteth in every one of her members. Finally they think, 
Protestant's believe not the continuance of their Church.  that their Church and religion shall not always endure. For thus Luther writeth in cap. 2. Mathae● tom. 4. fol. 438: We cannot comfort ourselves so as the Papists do, with that consolation, that the Church shall not perish. For wheresoever we cast our eyes we are diversely terrified, the fury of Satan and the world is extreme, wherewith he endeavoureth to extinguish this doctrine. But the Pope's boast, and that with full mouth, that the Church shall not perish. In cap. 55. Isaiae fol. 226: There is danger lest it shortly fall out, that the word be again taken from us. Tom. 3. in psalm. grad. fol. 489. alias 508: The Pope obstinately keepeth those promises, with which Christ did comfort his followers, that he would be with them to the end of the world. That S. Peter's boat althought it be in danger, shall never be drowned. But the true (Protestant) Church to which alone that was said, doth not so believe that, nor so cheer up herself with the trust of those promises. Kemnice in locis part. 1. tit. de justificat. pag. 216: I often tremble that Luther oftentimes (I know not with what abode) repeateth those words, This doctrine after my death shall be darkened again. The Confession of Mansfeld: It is evident what shall follow at length, to wit, a horrible destruction of pure doctrine, which suddenly we shall lose beyond all expectation. The Magdeburgians Praefat. Cent. 5: The revealed truth is already perished, and that upon the sudden, what remaineth but utter abolition of true religion? Caluin in his Catechism: I am so doubtful touching posterity, that I scarce dare think thereof. Author Praefat. in Syntag. Confess: We have cause to fear, that matters will return to the darkness of former times. And Paraeus in Miscellanca Ursini pag. 39 saith, that all good and wise men do easily perceive, that there hangeth over their heads some dreadful night and darkness. M. jewel in his sermon in cap. 1. Aggaei: This Gospel which ye now loath, shall be taken from you. D. Whitaker cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 503: That which he saith that neither Lutherans nor Zwinglians nor Caluinists shall last ever, is uncertain. And lastly D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 31. saith: Protestants say not, that their Church cannot fail: Thus ye see that Protestants cannot comfort themselves that their Church shall not perish, that they do not believe that they shall not be drowned, that a horrible destruction and utter abolition of their doctrine is to follow, that they dare scarce think of posterity, that it is uncertain whether they are to last for ever, and that they believe not that their Church cannot fail.  
Consider now diligently (good reader) First how not few but very many Protestant writers have confessed that their Church and religion was then perished when Luther began. Secondly, 
Note.  that not obscure writers, but the most famous amongst them. Thirdly, that they have not seldom confessed it, but oftentimes. Fourthly, that not in obscure or general terms only, but in plain and most particular words. Lastly, that not only in their contentious writings against their adversaries, or in their sermons to the people (in which speeches some use to speak hyperbolicaly) but also in their most sober and temperate writings, as in those wherein they deliver their doctrine or relate histories, in their commentaries upon the scripture, in their Confessions of faith, and in their speeches unto God himself. Be it so, that one or two, or some few in heat of contention should have hyperbolically said, that their church and religion was perished without meaning so. But that so many, and so great masters, so often, and in so many kinds of writings, so plainly and so particularly, should say that their Church and religion was perished, and yet not mean so; cannot be said, unless we will grant that so many & so great Masters of Protestants in so great a matter have deceived their Readers, and have written one thing and meant another, and that their meaning is not to be gathered out of their own most frequent and most plain words, uttered in all kinds of writings, but out of our fancy and pleasure. 
Scorp. c. 12.  What (as Tertullian saith) mean they otherwise then they writ, masters of deceit not of truth?  
10. If any demand, how it came to pass, that Protestants should so often and so plainly say, that their Church and religion was perished before Luther appeared, 
Wherefore Protestant's say their Church was perished.  I answer, that there were many causes thereof. First because it was so evident, that their Church and religion was not at all when Luther began, that (as themselves have confessed) they cannot deny it. It cannot be denied. If any deny it he may be convinced. All men must confess it. The matter itself proclaimeth and proveth it. 
Num. 1.4.5.7.  And finally that it is manifest both to learned and unlearned. Secondly, they said so for to move men to hate the Pope and Papists, whom they affirmed to have destroyed the faith and Church. Thirdly, for to purchase the love of the people, as who had restored to them again the Church and Religion. Fourthly, they said so for to excuse their preaching and playing the Pastors without ordinary calling, as if forsooth when they began, there had been no church which could give them commission. Finally, as phrantike men so Protestant's sometimes are in good fits, in which they see and confess the truth. But at other times when catholics out of this perishing and destruction of their Church and religion do infer, that it is not the Church or religion of Christ, 
Matth. 16.  against which (as he hath promised) the gats of hell shall not prevail, but some other Church & religion either first began by Luther, or else restored and renowned by him after that it was substantially perished and destroyed; then they mollify and gloze their former sayings, device strange & violent senses of their words, and every way seek out shifts and sleights whereby they may avoid the force of their own testimonies, which we shall rehearse and refute in the next chapter.   

The Protestants shifts for to delude their foresaid Confessions touching the substantial decay of their Church and Religion refuted. CHAP. II.  
1. ALBEIT the foresaid confessions of the Protestants touching the substantial decay of their Church and religion before Luther arose, be so plain and evident, as we may well say with Tertullian: Who will not acknowledge these rather than expound than? 
De Resur. c. 21.  Yet because the obstinacy of heretics is so great, as it may be sooner overcome then persuaded, & is wont to seek out all shifts to avoid the force even of their own words, I will hear set down their shifts and confute them.  
2. Their first shift is, 
Their first shift.  that the forenamed Protestants by the words of faith, religion, and the like, when they say that they perished, did not mean the inward faith of the heart, as if no man in his heart had held the Protestant faith or religion, but only the outward profession thereof, and so mean only, that the outward profession of Protestancy was perished, or that none professed it. I grant indeed, that sometime they speak of outward profession of faith, but this cometh all to one purpose. 
That they say inward faith perished.  Because the profession of faith can no more perish in the church, than the faith itself, as hereafter we shall prove by the confessions of Protestants themselves. But that they speak not also of the inward faith, or of faith itself, is most false. First, because they say so without all proof, neither can they prove it otherwise then because perhaps the same Protestants have other where said the contrary, which kind of proof we hereafter show to be nothing worth. 
Lib. 2. c. vl.  Again it is credible, unless one will believe what he list, that by so many words of light, clarity, religion, worship of God, truth of God, 
Ca 1. n. 2. 3.  saith, true knowledge, knowledge of faith, Christian faith, knowledge of Christ, as they have used and we repeated, they meant not faith itself, but only the outward profession of faith. Besides, they said plainly, That none believed to be justified without works. That the doctrine of justification by saith, was blotted out of the memory of men, 
Cap. 1. nu. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6  that wholesome truth perished from earth, and that it was taken from men, that Christ was buried and taken out of the world and the Church, that all (Protestant) consolation was unknown, that without Luther one jot had not been known, that the knowledge of Christ, the knowledge of saith, failed, and lastly that Christ was not understood but utterly unknown. Which words are manifestly spoken & meant of true or inward faith. I add also, that it is a rule of civil law approved by Luther and Protestants, 
Luther de abrog mis. & epist, ad Amsd. Schusselb. tom. 4. Catal. haeret.  that who could speak clearly, and yet spoke obscurely, should have his words expounded against him. Seeing therefore Protestants could have spoken fare more clearly, if they had meant only that outward profession of faith had perished, we may lawfully expound their words against themselves.  
3. To this shift is another like, wherewith they say that the foresaid testimonies of Protestants touching the destruction or decay of their Church are not to be understood of their invisible Church, 
The second shift.  which they say is the company of only true faithful and predestinate men, but of the decay of their visible Church, which they say is the company of all those that profess true doctrine, and is the Church not in the sight of God, but only in the eyes of men. I do not deny, that sometimes they speak of the visible Church, notwithstanding (as before I said) it comes all to one purpose, because (as shall be proved hereafter) there can be no invisible Church without a visible, nor a company of faithful and predestinate men, but they must profess their faith. 
The Protestant's say the true Church hath perished.  But most false it is, that they speak not also of the true Church, which they will have to be invisible to any but to God alone. For first (as before I argued) this cannot be proved otherwise, then that perhaps the same men have at other times said the contrary, which will prove, that they like liars have contradicted themselves, not, that they have not said this, which they have as clearly said, as ever they said any thing else. Besides, in saying (according to their meaning) that the Church hath not perished or cannot perish, they do not indeed contradict themselves, when they say that it hath or can perish. For when they say, that the Church cannot perish, by the name of the Church, they understand not the Catholic Church, that is, the Church spread throughout the world: 
Cap. 1. n. ●.  for (as we saw) they teach that the Church may consist or be reduced to one or two, and that Elias thought there was none of the Church but himself. Whereupon D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 608: findeth fault with Cardinal Bellarmine, when he saith that there is always a visible Church, by the name of the Church he understandeth not one or two, but a multitude. Neither also do they by the name of the Church, when then say it cannot perish, understand any true particular Church consisting of a Pastor and flock, as is evident; both because they say the Church may be reduced to one or two, as also because (as shall hereafter appear) they think that all Pastors may perish; 
Cap. 7.  and lastly because D. Whitaker loc. cit. reprehendeth Bellarmine for that by the name of the Church which cannot fail, he understandeth a multitude gathered together, in which are Prelates and subjects. They are therefore of opinion, that both the Catholic Church spread through out the world, and every particular church consisting of Prelates and subjects, may fail and perish; and when they say the Church cannot fail, by the name of the Church, they understand faith; and mean, that there shall always be faith in some one or other, as clearly appeareth by their former words, and also by these of D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag. 469: 
What Protestant's mean by the church when they say it cannot perish.  Hence he gathereth, not as our adversaries do, that the visible Church shall never sail, but that saith shall never sail in the whole, but that to the end of the world Christian religion shall remain in some. This (saith he) is the very thing which we say & maintain. Ye see plainly, that when they say the church cannot fail, they only mean that faith cannotutterly fail, but that it shall be always in some. Wherein there is no contradiction to that which otherwise they teach, that the Church can fail, because faith and the Church are different things; neither doth faith in whom soever, and in how few soever, make the Church. Wherefore if they be mad men and no Christians, who say that the Catholic Church may fail, or that the Church is not to dure for ever (as D. Whitaker himself saith cap. 1. & 2. cit.) certainly these Protestants are such. For whiles they say, that the Church may be brought to one or two, and that all Pastors may perish; they manifestly say indeed and effect, that both the Catholic and all kind of true Churches may fail. Moreover I prove, that they mean that the true Church was perished, because they think that she is made by inward faith; but this they affirm to have perished, as even now appeared. Besides, the very name of the Church properly signifieth the true Church, and only improperly that which is not the true Church. And therefore when it is simply and absolutely put, it ought to be taken for the true Church; which thing also themselves do teach. For thus writeth Sadeel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. cap. 4. pag. 827: When the Church is simply put, or when it is said the Church of Christ, it properly signifieth only the elect. Hereupon also Kemnice in loc. tit. de Eccles. cap. 3. defineth the Church to be the Catholic company. But the Catholic company is the true Church, as is evident by the Creed, where we profess to believe the Catholic Church, and is confessed by D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest. 1. cap. 2. & 5. by D. Morton Apol. part 1. l. 1. cap. 13. by Lubbert lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 4. by the French Catechism Domin. 15. and others. And therefore most rightly saith S. Augustin, that it is a wicked, impudent, detestable, 
De vni●. Bapt. c. 14. Conc. 2. in Psal. 101.  and abominable speech to say the Church hath perished; which yet would not be, unless by the name of the Church were understood the true Church. For what offence were it to say, that the false Church had perished? Furthermore, when heretics as the Donatists, 
Calu. cont. Seruet. pa. 657. Whitak. Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 2. & 3.  Seruetus, and the like, do say that the Church was perished or banished, the Protestants themselves understand then of the true Church; why then ought not Protestant's to be understood in the same manner, when they use the same words? Again, because sometimes they say, that the Kingdom of Christ, the temple of God hath perished. 
Cap. 1. n. 7.  But what can be the Kingdom of Christ and temple of God, but the true Church, for the false is rather the Kingdom and temple of Satan? Whereupon D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 3. cap. 1. pag. 466. saith: The scriptures most plainly teach, that there will be no end of the Kingdom of Christ. And ad Demonstrat. 17. Sanderi: What other thing is the temple of God, but the Church of Christ, which is built with lively stones? And M. powel lib. 1. de Antichristo cap. 3: The Church is defined 1. Tim. 3. to be the temple of God. Hereto we may add, that Ochim saith, that that Church which Christ founded, washed with his blood, & enriched with his holy spirit, (which undoubtedly is the true Church) was utterly destroyed. 
Num. 8.  Finally because they say, that Elias thought that there was not remaining one pious man besides himself, that he was the only Christian, the only true worshipper of God, which was left alive, and actual member of the true Church. Seeing therefore they will make Elias to think so of the true church, of the same also ought themselves to be understood, who use to draw arguments out of Elias his words; especially when as they say, that it sufficeth if there be one or two faithful men in the most forlorn times of the Church, which they must needs mean of the true Church which they will have to consist only of the faithful servants of God.  

That they mean of the universal Church.  4. Their third shift may be, that when they speak of the destruction of the Church, they mean not of the universal or whole Church, but of some particular, or part of the Church. But this is easily refuted. First because (as we have rehearsed) they say there was a slaughter of the whole Church, that all the Church was corrupted, all became idolatrous, that scarce the name of Christianity was left, that none believed, that not one jot of the gospel had been known without Luther, that the whole knowledge of Christ, all pure worship, all true religion was abolished. Secondly because under the name of Elias they plainly say, that the whole Church was extinct, the whole Church failed, he alone was a faithful man, 
Num. 8.  and actual member of the true Church. Wherefore either they think it not blasphemy to say the whole Church hath perished, or this horrible blasphemy which calleth in question all religion, they most impiously attribute to that holy Prophet. Thirdly, because they say that their Church was brought to one or two, and that it is enough to the Church, if there be one or two faithful persons. But what man well in his wits will say, that one or two are enough to make the Catholic or universal church. Finally, this shall yet more appear out of the chapter following, where we shall see, that they teach that the whole world did fall from the faith.  
5. Their fourth shift is, 
That they mean of a substantial perishing.  that by the words Destruction, decaying, failing, overthrowing, and such others, they mean not a substantial perishing of the faith or Church, but only an accidental corruption of becoming worse. But this shift also is soon refuted. First because Luther saith of his faith, doctrine or gospel, that it died, was neglected, overwhelmed, extinct, blotted out, taken away, overthrown, lost, 
Cap. 2. n. ●●.  abolished, forgotten, and rooted out. And that he might put it out of all doubt, that by these words he meant a true and substantial destruction or perishing, he added unto them most significant adverbes, saying that it was truly overwhelmed, wholly extinct, utterly extinct, 
Ib.  extinct from the bottom, plainly extinct, plainly taken away, simply taken away, quite taken away, utterly buried, utterly lost, wholly abolished, and blotted out, and most plainly rooted out. And lest any one might also cavil that these words are not meant of a true and substantial destruction, he said further, that the Pope hath obscured, nay extinguished the doctrine of faith: They have darkened, nay wholly overwhelmed Christ's Gospel: They have not only obscured, but absolutely taken away the gospel. 
Lib. 1. de peccat. mer. c. 4.  Surely (as S. Augustin saith) such kind of words needs no Expositor but only a reader. In like sort other Protestants say of their faith or gospel, that it was banished, cast out, extinct, ended, choked, buried, obscured till it was utterly extinguished, 
Num. 2.3.  that it perished from the earth, and vanished out of the Church. They add also, that it was wholly overturned, utterly extinct, quite changed into idolatries, overturned from the root, and that there was an utter abolition, an extreme salling away, and full destruction of it, so that not so much as one little spark could be sound, but it was quite extinct, & scarce the name of Christianity was left.  
6. Besides of their principal and most fundamental article of justification by only faith they say, 
C. 1. n. 4. 5. 6.  that lay long unknown, that there was profound silence of it, that no man taught it, that it was neglected, lost, blotted out, extinct, and horribly oppressed, that it was corrupted, nay extinct and abolished, that no man believed it, that it was utterly extinct, plainly lost, quite lost, wholly suppressed, wholly oppressed, wholly trampled, wholly dashed out, utterly blotted out, quite extinct, quite taken away, quite neglected and blotted out of the memory of men, and not only obscured but quite extinguished. But if this doctrine were so extinct as no man believed it, and blotted out of men's memory, surely not only the Profession of their faith but also their faith itself was utterly perished; and consequently also their Church, whereof this article is the life, soul, sum, definition, and all.  

Num. 7.  7. Of the Church also they say, that it was banished failed, was oppressed, extinct, overturned, fallen, wholly fallen, that it fell to Antichrist, that the old foundation thereof was removed, and a new laid, that the order of the Church perished, that there was a slaughter of the whole Church, that Christ's Kingdom was thrown down & razed to the ground, that in the temple of God there was nought but pitiful ruins, that the Church was from the foundation rooted out and overthrown by the ground, and that where it once was there remained only the name, the substance being quite lost. Surely either by these manner of speeches is signified a substantial destruction, or that cannot be plainly signified by any manner of words. Besides the forms of speech do more clearly signify a substantial destruction, than those which Protestants condemn in some heretics. For Caluin lib. cont. Seruetum pag. 657. condemneth Seruet for saying, that there had been a long banishment of the Church from the earth, and that she had been driven out of the world. And yet as we see Danaeus saith, that the Church was banished. powel, that all true religion was banished. D. Fulke, that the true doctrine of salvation was driven out. An● Crispin, that all true worship of God was driven out D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 471. and otherwhere, condemneth the Donatists and other Heretics for saying, that the Church perished; and yet Bale saith that wholesome truth perished from the earth. And Lobechius under Elias his name, that the Church quite perished. Moreover they say, that the Church may be reduced to one or two, which is indeed to say that the Church may substantially perish, 
Num. 8.  for the Church is defined to be a company or multitude in the English Confession article 19 
That the Church cannot consist of one.  in the French art. 27. in the Suitzers art. 17. and in the Flemish art. 27. But one or two are not a company. Whereupon Danaeus lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 16. saith: It is written of Vlpia● the Lawyer in the civil law, that at least three persons are required to make a College; and if to a College much more to the Church. And Lubbert lib. 2. Replicat. cap. 3. saith plainly, that one man makes not a Church. And Polanus in Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1: One man, though never so holy, cannot be a church. Beurlin also in Refut. Soti: Neither do we call the solitude of one man, which worshippeth God, the Church. And D. Whitaker. lib. 1 de Scriptura cap. 11. Sect. 4. How can the Church be in one, seeing the very name of the Church doth signify a company or multitude? If therefore there be but one, there is no Church. For the Church cannot be imagined to be but in many. 
jewel. Defence. Ap. part. x. c. 1. Fulk. de Success. p. 89. Beza in Catech. c: 5. Brent. in Prologue. q. 4.  And much less can one or two be the Catholic Church, that is (as the Protestants themselves expound it) the Church spread throughout the whole world, because one or two cannot be spread throughout the world. Whereupon the Scots in their Confession cap. 18. say, that two or three make not the universal Church. And Zuinglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. tom. 2. fol. 192: Who says that the Church signifieth some few, erreth, like to him who saith that people signifieth the King. Surely it should be a notable flock which consisted of one or two sheep, a worthy Kingdom which had but one or two subjects, and a strange Catholic or universal Church which contained but one or two faithful persons. What? can the gates of hell prevail so fare against the Church, as they can reduce her to one or two Christians? What other thing is this, then to say that the Church can perish? For seeing the Church cannot be imagined but in company or multitude, who saith ●hat the Church can be brought to one or two, doth indeed say the Church can be destroyed.  
8. If any reply, that S. Augustin upon the 128. psalm saith that the Church was once in Abel alone, and Tertullian. lib. de poenit. cap. 10. the Church is in one or two; I answer, that S. Augustin there by the Church understandeth those only, whom the scripture by name hath canonised, as it hath Abel; for otherwise it is manifest, that in Abel's time, there were others that were of the Church besides himself, to wit Adam and Eue. And Tertullian by the Church understandeth, not the Catholic or universal Church as we do, but any number of Christians, such as were those domestical Churches, which S. Paul sometimes saluted.  
9 The last refuge may be, that what Protestants have said of the destruction of the Church and faith, they meant not of their own Church and faith, but of some others. But this is a fond shift. For first, as I have showed, they mean the destruction of the true Church and faith. Either therefore their Church and faith is not the true but false, or else they mean of their own. For the true Church and faith is but one, as the Apostle saith Ephes. 4: One God, one faith. And the Nycen Creed: I believe one church. S. Cyprian lib. de unit: One God, one Christ, one Church, and one saith. S. Hilary ad Constant: Whatsoever is beside one faith, is not faith but treachery. And S. Leo serm. 4. de Nativit: Unless it be one it is no faith. Nay Luther lib. cont. Papa●um tom. 7. fol. 461: Christ knoweth not two kinds of unlike Churches, but one only Church. Caluin 4. Inst. cap. 1. §. 2: We cannot find two or three churches unless Christ be plucked in pieces. And in his Catechism: As there is one head of the faithful, so they must all be united in one body, that there be not many Churches, but one only. And hereupon inferreth Sadeel in Refutat. Thes. Posnan. art. 61. that what is said of the true Church, is said of theirs. Seeing (saith he) the true Church is one and not many, as often as the truth of doctrine shineth openly, so often we say the true Church and therefore our Church was visible. Secondly because (as we have seen) they speak of the destruction of their most principal article of justification by only faith, which they affirm to be the life, soul, and sum of their Church. Thirdly because they eftsoons speak of the destruction of the Gospel: but by the name of the Gospel they mean their own doctrine, as by the name of Gospelers they understand themselves, as hereafter shall appear. Finally, because they profess that by the name of a Protestant, Lutheran, or Caluinist they understand a true Christian. Sadeel lib. de peccat. remiss. cap. 1: Ours, that is the true Christian Catholics opinion. D. Fulke lib. de Succest. pag. 186: I will never deny that jewel was a noble Protestant, that is a Christian. And ad Cavillat, Staplet: The community of Christians, whom ye call Protestants. Hutten in Expostul. cum Erasmo: Against Lutherans, that is maintainers of the truth. Schusselburg. tom. 7. Catal. haeret. Pap. 73: A Lutheran or true Christian, is etc. And lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. fol. 131: Lutherans that is true servants of Christ. Beza cont. Illyricum pag. 168: We perceive no difference between Sacramentaries and Christians. Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 384: The Sacramentaries, that is the orthodoxal. And Danaeus cont. Bellarm. pag. 311: The Caluinists, that is Christians. pag. 169: A Caluinist, that is, a godly man.  
10. Wherefore out of all wh●ch hath been said in this and the former Chapter, I thus make my first demonstration to prove that Luther was the Author and first beginner of the Protestant Church and religion. If the Protestant Church were not at all when Luther began, he was the author thereof: But it was not at all: Therefore he was the author of it. The Mayor or first proposition is evident. For if it were not at all when Luther began, he was the beginner of it. The minor is manifest by the foresaid Confessions of Protestants, wherein they plainly say, that it was substantially perished.   

That every man followed a Church and religion different from the Protestant before Luther arose. CHAP. III.  
1. THE second demonstration wherewith we will prove Luther to have been have been the Author of the Protestant Church and religion we will take from the Protestants confessions, that when Luther first began all the world and every man embraced a different religion. Luther in the Preface of his first come: Here see even by my case, 
The whole world.  how hard it is to yet out of errors which are confirmed by the example of the whole world, and by long custom as it were changed into nature. And to. 2. this is written in his Epitaph: O Christ, 
Long custom.  he shown th●e when all the world was overwhelmed with darkness. And lib. 1. de captivit. Babylon. fol. 72. being to write against Mass, he saith: Neither let it move thee, that the whole world hath the contrary opinion and custom. And fol. 68: There is almost this day nothing more received or more se●led in the Church, than that Mass is a sacrifice Against: 
So many ages  I set upon a thing, which being approved by the custom of so many ages and consent of all, is so engrafted, as it is needful to change almost the whole face of the Church. 
Consent of all.  And lib. de ●●r●g. Miss. fol. 244: How often did my trembling hart quake, and reprehending me objected that their strongest and only argument: Art thou only wise, what did all err, 
Only Luther wise,  were so many ages ignorant? Behold how Luther's heart or conscience did tell him that he alone knew Protestancy, and that for many ages all were ignorant of it. And in hi● table talks, fol. 10: These cogitations were very troublesome to me. Thou only hast the pure word of God, all others want it. And lib. cit. de Missa ●ol. 247: The common people without doubt are most fully persuaded, that all men are helped by Masses, for it seemeth incredible, that all the world should be so forsaken of God. And fol. 256: It seems incredible to them, that Luther alone should be wise. Contra Cochlaeum fol. 408: The Sophisters and Monks have seduced the whole world to trust in works. 
The whole world under the Pope.  Tom. 3. in psal. 82. fol. 481: In times past the whole world was under the Pope's Dominion. Tom. 5. ●n 4. Galat. fol. 388: In former ages Paul was unknown to the whole world. Tom. 6. in cap. 11. Genes. fol. 130: The wicked impostor (so he termeth the Pope) hath deceived all the word. in c. 37. fol. 506: The whole world was horribly brought into madness and folly by Papists. In cap. 19 fol. 238: In the former age all things lay in darkness. Tom. 7. epist. ad D. Sabaudiae fol. 483: We confess that the world was by the Pope most miserably seduced & ensnared in those traditions of men, but rather snares of the devil, whiles all were persuaded that in keeping them they obtained salvation, in omitting them sell into damnation And serm. de Simulacris fol. 277: All the world was filled with the other abuse of images: For who would (have put images in Churches) if thereby he had not thought that he did service to God. Thus much Luther.  
2. And in like manner speak the Lutherans. The Confession of Auspurg. cap. 20: No man admonished of the difference betwixt humane traditions and Gods law, no man taught how good works did please. The Magdeburgians Praefat. Centur. 5: All alike were drowned in the impieties and Egyptian darkness of Antichrist. 
All alike.  And Praefat. Centur. 8: Antichrist had brought under his yok all Europe that we may (say they) speak nothing of other parts of the earth. 
All Europe.  Melancthon tom. 4. Prefat. in Act. Ratisbon. pag. 730: Only Luther durst touch the errors of the Popes & schools. Our Churches follow him rather than the consent of so many ages, Popes and schools. Lobechius disput. 29: The Roman tyranny hath overwhelmed the Church and held the Christian world in thraldom. Huber. in Antibellarm. lib. 4. 
The Christian world.  cap. 3. Our Church hath a new form not used at that time when the Pope possessed all. Morgestern tract. de Eccles. pag. 145: The whole Christian world knoweth that before Luther all churches were overwhelmed with more than Cymmerian darkness. 
All churches.  Hitherto the Lutherans.  
3. Amongst the Sacramentaries Caluin 2. Institur, cap. 2. §. 4: All, 
All even to the common people.  even to the common people are embued with this principle that man hath free will. Lib. 4. cap. 18. §. 18: The Abomination of Mass proffered in a golden cup hath made so drunk all Kings and people of the earth from the highest to the lowest that they put the whole hope of their salvation in it alone. 
All people on earth from the highest to the lowest  Which very words are repeated by Lobechius disput. 26. and by Hospin. epist. dedicat. 1, part: Histor. and part. 2. fol. 25. And the said Caluin lib. 4. cit. cap. 10. §. 5: The whole world was covered with a most thick mist of ignorance. And lib. de Coen. pag. 10: With how thick a mist of darkness was the world besieged. Again: When Luther began to teach he so handled the matter of the supper, as that, what belongeth to the corporal presence, he seemed to leave such as all then received. And lib. de Necess. Reform. pag. 46: It is manifest that the whole world was bewitched with these wicked opinions before Luther appeared. 
The whole world.  And Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 130: All things were stuffed with pernicious errors. There was none which truly esteemed that only sacrifice (of Christ) none which so much as dreamt of his eternal Priesthood and the intercession which dependeth thereupon, none rested in his only justice. 
No man so much as dreamt of etc.  But now whereas all did put their trust in good works when they went about by good words to purchase thy (God he speaketh to) grace, to obtain justice, to purge their sins, to satisfy thee. All which (saith he) do dash out and annihilate the virtue of the cross of Christ. Respons. ad Ve●●pel. pag. 354: Seeing the whole Western hurch as he calls it defendeth obstinately all the inipiety which we justly detest etc. 
All the western Church.  And epist. 141: We are comp●●en to make a separation from the whole world. Bucer lib. ●0 v●●●●●●su Ministerij pag. 602: It is plain, that for many ages past God revealed to no nation the doctrine of our salvation, and all things belonging to his Kingdom so fare as he h●●● d●● in our age: L●b. de Concord. pag. 660: This error of the real presence prevailed with all Nations of the whole world. D. 〈◊〉 ●it. de Antichristo cap. 26: At length antichrist and his doctrine overcame, all men holding their peace & shamefully and basely submitting themselves unto him until john Wills arose who stoutly opposed himself against him. S●eidan ep●●t. ●ed 〈◊〉 H●●tor: The beginning (of Protestancy) was slender and almost contemptible, 
One only man.  and one only bore the ha●●● and brunt of the whole world. Bibliander Orat. ad P●●● o●e● Germ: We put it as a thing known by itself most clear and out of all doubt, 
All people from the first to the last.  that after Gregory the great his death the Pope of Rome was Antichrist, who with his abom nations blasphemies and idolatries did so besot all Kings and people from the first to the last, that they became more blockish than ●rute beasts Z●●inglius lib. de vera & falsa relig. cap. de E●char: 
The whole body of Christendom.  I think no man will deny this that we all ran to mass as to a sacred refuge. Daniel Camier. epist. 49: Error possessed no● one or two small parcels, but Apostasy turned the very whole body away from Christ. Hospin. Praefat. part. 2. Histo●: 
None striven against  From Gregory's time no man striven against superstition, but all added and put to what strength each one could. And ep. dedicat. part. ●: This most gross and more than Cymmerian darkness endured in the whole Christian world these 6. hundred years last passed. Viretus in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 224: The whole Christian Nation 
The whole Christian Nation.  utterly bewitched as it were with sorceries and alienated from God and true religion etc. Praefat. Syntag. Confess: When all was covered with most gross darkness of ignorance and idolatry. Gualther. Praefat. Comment. Epist. ad Rom: In the point of the real presence the whole Christian world was greatly deceived. And Praefat. in ●om. 2. Zuinglij: The whole world was before bewitched with trust in outward signs. jezler de bello Euchar. fol. 24: The former age was every where drowned in most thick darkness which no man in his wits can deny. Brocard in c. 2. Apocal. fol. 41: 
Al & every member of Christ.  When the preaching of the gospel was allowed in Luther and his first onset against the Papacy the knowledge of Christ was sound missing in all and every of his members.  
4. Amongst our English Protestant's thus speaketh the Author of the Apology of the English Church pag. 38: We are indeed departed from him, who we saw had blinded the world for many ages. His Majesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 37: In those ages a thicker and more blind ignorance of truth possessed the world. Pag. 100: How many ages was the Christian people held in so great blindness and ignorance of wholesome doctrine. And pag. 160: A dark night of Popish doctrine possessed the world. D. Wh●taker Con●. 2. e●. 3. pag. 467: The plague (of Popery) at last went through the whole world. Pag. 468: That Antichristians plague raged through all parts of the world, and through all visible Churches. And Cont. 4. quaest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 684: In times past no religion had place in Churches but Papistical. D. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani: At length all left the fellowship of the Church. M. Perkins in Exposit. Symboli: During the space of 900. years the Popish heresy spread itself over the whole world. And D. White in his way pag. 352. compareth Popery before Luther's time to a leprosy. which (saith he) possesseth every part of man. And in his defence cap. 37 he saith: I affirm Papacy to be a leprosy breeding in the Church so universally, that there was no visible company of people appearing to the world free ●●om it. And whether any company at all, known or unknown were free from it wholly or not, I neither determine, nor greatly care. M. jewel serm. in cap. 11. Lucae pag. 208: When all the world the people Priests and Princes were overwhelmed with ignorance, when the word of God was put out of sight: when all schools, Priests, Bishops, & Kings of the world were sworn to him (the Pope) that whatsoever he took in hand they should uphold it: When whosoever had muttered against him, must strait way have been excommunicate & put to most cruel death as God's enemy. M. Fox in his Acts p. 391: All the whole world was filled and overwhelmed with errors and darkness. And finally D. Bancroft in his survey c. 4. pag 60. hath these words: Both the Priests of all sorts and likewise the people became in time to be so drowned in the puddles of Popery, all of them together from the top to the toe, 
All people from the top to the toe.  forgetting etc.  
5. By these confessions of Protestants we see plainly, that all the western Church, all Europe, all Christian Churches, the whole Christian nation, the whole body of the Church, the whole world, all, all without exception, all alike, all even to the last, all even to the common people, all Kings and people from the first to the last, all Priests and people from top to toe, all and every one were overwhelmed with Popish and more than Cymmerian darkness. Secondly we see, that no man strone against Popery, no man admonished, no man taught, no man believed, no man so much as dreamt of that which is the chiefest and most principal point of Protestancy, but one only, and Luther alone was wise. Thirdly that the case was such for so many ages, for 600. yea for 900. years' last passed. Fourthly that it is so manifest, that as themselves confess the whole Christian world knoweth it, it is confessed manifest by itself, most clear, and out of all doubt, and no man in his writs can deny it. To all which if you add, that very many, and most famous Protestants, oftentimes, most plainly, most freely, and in all kind of writings have confessed this, ye shall most evidently perceive, 
Lib. 1. cont marc. ca 3. de carne Chr. c. 5. li. 22 cont. Faust. c. 15.  that unless it be heretical licence (as Tertullian speaketh) or by some devilish privilege (as S. Augustins word is) their confessions can be understood in no other sense, then that when Luther began, there was not one Protestant in the whole world. Lastly we see hereby, that Protestants herein imitate the phrases of old heretics: 
Cont. epist. fund. c. 4.  for Manichee as S. Augustin writeth said: Almost all nations are ignorant how the truth is. And the Donatists: The Church is perished from the whole world. The Luciferians in S. Hierome: 
Heres. 69.  The whole world is become Devils. Whose damned speech saith he, doth frustrate the Passion of Christ. 
Dial. cont. Lucifer.  Nestorius' in Vincent. Lyrin. avouched. That the whole Church had erred. And other heretics there say, Learn true faith which besides us none understandeth, 
Cap. 26.  which lay hid for many ages and now of late is revealed and showed. Martion also and Valentinian in Tertullian avouch, 
Praes. c. 28.  that all had erred, at whom he pleasantly jesteth in these words: Forsooth truth which was to be freed expected some Marcionists or Valentinians (Lutherans or Caluinists.) In the mean time men preached amiss, believed amiss, so many thousands we wrongly Christened, so many works of faith wrongly done, so many miracles so many graces done amiss, so many Priesthoods so many functions wrongly executed.  
6. If any say that the scripture sometime speaketh universally when notwithstanding it is not to be understood universally, as when it saith: All seek their own: There is not one that doth good, no not one, and the like, and therefore though the foresaid speeches of Protestants be universal, yet they are not to be understood universally: I answer, that it is found to affirm, that the foresaid speeches of Protestants ought to be understood according to certain speeches of the scripture, and those spoken of other matters, rather than according to their own plain and manifest signification. Who made this law of expounding Protestants words? Or do they keep it in expounding catholics or other men's words? God may speak in scripture as he thinks best, Protestants ought according to custom, (which as is said is the law and rule of speech) both to speak and to be understood. Besides, sith we know, that the scripture cannot lie or gainsay itself, and in other places it saith the contrary, we justly limitate its universal speeches in this or that place. And therefore unless Protestants can show that they have the like privilege that they cannot contradict themselves as the Scripture hath, there is no reason to expound them according as we do the holy Scripture.  
7. If any reply that also Saint Hierome Dial. cont. Lucifer. said that the whole world marvelled how it was become Arian, and yet meant not that the whole world was Arian? I answer, that Saint Hieromes example doth nothing avail Protestants. First because Saint Hierome said once so, Protestants very often. Again, he said so only in heat of dispute with his adversary; Protestants have written so when they disputed with none. Besides, Saint Hierome in the very same place expoundeth himself, that he meant not that indeed the whole world was become Arian: For he saith, that it was evident that the Bishops were no Arians, but believed a right and abode in the agreement of faith, but only speaketh so because all the Bishops assembled at Arimini yielded to the Arians, that the word Consubstantial should not be used. But Protestants say not that all the world yielded to the Pope about the suppressing of one only word, but that all from the first to the last, from the top to the toe were drowned in Popish errors, and none believed or so much as dreamt of that which is most fundamental and necessary in Protestant religion: Which kind of speeches S. Hierome never used. Again, Saint Hierome used only this phrase: The whole world, but Protestants use both that and many more and more plain. Lastly albeit Saint Hierome had spoken altogether as Protestants do, yet there were no reason that they should be understood rather according to Saint Hieromes meaning, then according to their own most proper, most plain, and most frequent words, especially when as Luther saith tom. 1. fol. 414: Many things are borne withal in the Fathers, who were known to be orthodox, which we may not imitate.  
8. Wherefore out of all which hath been rehearsed in this chapter I thus frame my second demonstration: If so be that before Luther arose there were not one only Protestant in the whole world, but that all & every man followed a different Religion, Luther was the Author and beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion. But that is true, as manifestly appeareth by the manifold and open confessions of Luther and many and most famous Protestants. Therefore etc.   

That Protestants confess their Church and religion to have been altogether invisible before Luther appeared. CHAP. IU.  
1. THE fourth demonstration, wherewith we will prove Luther to have been the Author of the Protestant church and religion we will draw out of that which they confess of the invisibility thereof before Luther broke out. And by the way I must advertise the Reader of two things. The one is, that by the name of the Church is not to be understood only the men who are of the Church, but their society in religion whereby they make a church. wherefore those Protestants speak not to the purpose, who to excuse the absurdity of their doctrine touching the invisibility of the Church, say they mean not, that the men, whereof it consisted, were invisible men; for it sufficeth, that they confess, that they were invisible worshippers of God, according to the Protestant manner; or that their society in this kind of worship of God was invisible. 
Note.  The other point is, that in these kind of questions: Whether before Luther the Protestant Church were? Whether it were visible? 
Colloq. Batisban. Sesse. 1.6. 10.17. jewel. Def. Apol. par. 5. c. 15. d. 1.  Wither it had Pastors? and the like: the Catholics hold the negative part, and Protestants the affirmative, and that it belongeth to the affirmer, to prove what he affirmeth: wherein if he fail, he is overcome: and it is not needful for the denier to prove his denial, but is sufficient reasonably to answer the proofs of the affirmer: which if he perform, he hath won the cause. As if one like Anaxagoras would say, that there were many worlds besides this: or that such and such things have been done in times past; he were bound to prove what he saith, & he that should deny such matters, were not bound to prove his denial, but only reasonably to answer his adversary's arguments. And the reason is manifest, because for to affirm or believe any thing, we must have reason or proof thereof: burr for the not believing of it, we need no other reason, then to show that there is no sufficient reason why it should be believed. Hereupon Luther in his book against Henry 8. King of England tom. 2. fol. 340 said: He must be taught the principles of disputation, who having to prove his affirmation, urgeth his adversary to prove his denial. And Vorstins in his Antibellarm. pag. 464: It is enough for the denier, probably to deny. Wherefore in these kind of questions Protestants ought to be urged to perform their part, that is, to prove what they affirm, to wit, that before Luther's time their Church was, had Pastors, and the like: which if they cannot do, they must needs confess, that in this debate they have lost their cause. And they ought not to press us to prove, that before Luther their Church was not, had not Pastors etc. Because (as I said) herein we are only the defenders and deniers, 
Tom. 1. fo. 389. 473.  and therefore it sufficeth for us to show, that no reasons, which the Protestants allege convince a reasonable man to believe that there was any such Church before Luther appeared: which if we do, we have won the cause. 
That the Protestant's Church was invisible to strangers.  Nevertheless, (that I may use Luther's words in the book before cited) Albeit it belong not to us to prove the negative, let us do it.  
2. First therefore, touching the invisibility of the Protestant Church before Luther's time, Protestants confess, that it was invisible to Papists, to enemies, to the world, and to all that were not of it. For thus saith Sadcel in his Refutation of the 61. article pag. 538: We deny not that the Godly men lurcked under Popish darkness; and we give God thanks, that such persons, families, 
Invisible to Papists.  and companies, were for a time invisible and unknown to the Pope and all his Catchpoles, seeing they were for a long time like sparkles covered with much ashes. The same he saith in his answer to Arthur cap. 8. and to the Sophisms of Turrian loco 10. and to the Repetition of them pag. 706. Danaeus in his book of Antichrist cap. 38. writeth: That there were very few Protestants and those dwelling in wildernesses, and also unknown to others. 
unknown to others.  junius in his 4. book of the Church cap. 5. speaketh thus of Protestants before Luther: They professed their saith amongst themselves, but not before dogs & wild beasts who would run upon them. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quaest. 2. cap. 2. pag. 458. Was it (the Protestant Church) manifest to all? No: but to those only who had eyes. And pag. 468: There was no true Church on earth, 
Known only to Protestant's  which appeared to all. And quest. 6. cap. 2. pag 359: We care not for their objecting solitude unto us. For we are not ashamed to have recalled our Church out of this kind of solitude. D. Fulke to the Cavillations of Stapleton: The whole form of the Church was for some ages unknown to the ungrateful world. And in his book of succession pag. 118: They confessed Christ, but not always before heretics; but before themselves and the Church. And in his notes upon the 11. cap. of the Acts; If by visible you understand that which is seen and known to the whole world; it is not true, that the Church was always visible. D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology book 1. cap. 16. saith: They professed secretly not publicly. D. White in his way to the Church pag. 95: That they professed among themselves. Osiander in his Manuel pag. 59: In the visible Church of Rome there was the invisible company of believers hidden to the eye of the world. Caelius secundus Curio in his book of the lardgnes of the Kingdom of God, pag. 212: It came to pass that for many years the Church lay hid; and that the Citizen of this Kingdom could scarce, or not at all be discerned from others. And the Scots in their general confession: We say, that this is the only true Christian saith, which is now revealed to the world. Thus they acknowledge that before Luther's tym Protestants were unknown to the Pope and his officers, to their enemies, to the world, to all others besides themselves, could not be discerned from others, lurcked in deserts, in darknesses, like sparkles under much ashes, professed not their faith before the world, or their adversaries, but at most before themselves, and were known only to those that had eyes, that is, to themselves.  
3. The same also they mean, 
They teach that the church may be invisible to the world.  when they teach that the church of God may be invisible to the world, and all that are out of it. junius in his 2. book of the church cap. 13: We conclude that the outward form and visible shape of the Church, may so in common vanish, that it cannot be pointed at, or perceived of the world. And again: The Church is oftentimes covered and invisible to the world. 
Often invisible to the world.  And cap. 16: The visible fashion of the Church may be hid and fail from the ungrateful world. And in his Theological Theses cap. 43: Sometimes the church appeareth to the faithful alone; sometimes it is known to some godly persons, not to every one. Besnage in his book of the state of the visible and invisible Church, cap. 4: The Church is not always known to the world. Sonis in his answer to Spondé cap. 2. pag. 32: God sometimes taketh away the face of the Church from men. Lubbertus in his 3. book of the Church cap. 4: We affirm that the Church may be driven to those straits, that it may lie hid from the world and persecutors. And cap. 6: We deny that she is always visible to the world; which he repeateth again cap. 7. Rivet in his Epirome of Controversies treatise 1. sect. 37: It happeneth sometimes that the Church hath been invisible, or rather hidden sometimes from the eyes of persecutors, sometimes from the eyes of the faithful themselves, to wit of some and the most of them. D. Whitaker Controuers. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: We say, that the Church may be conserved in so few, that it appear not to the world. And quaest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: It is most false, that the Church shall always be known, and manifest to the world. D. Fulke to Stapletons' Cavillat. Bullinger, Alphonse, Chytreus, Marlorate and all the rest, do acknowledge that the Church by the defence of Christ shallbe protected in the desert, that is in places remote from the sight and access of the wicked. Again: The Church is not always apparent to the multitude of the wicked. And in his book of Succession pag. 19: It is not doubted, whether the Ecclesiastical succession of persons and places ought sometimes to be visible to the world, but whether at all times. And pag. 21: Sometyms the Church is unknown to the world. Pag. 42: God would sometimes provide for the Church in this sort, in striking her enemies with blindness, that they could not find her. And pag. 129. The external policy of the Church is unknown to the world, that is, to the enemies of the Church. And pag. 366: I affirm that the Church is sometimes unknown to the world. D. White in his way to the Church pag 86: The question is only of the outward state of the Church, whether it be always visible to the world or not, that in every age those congregations may be discerned and pointed to, which are the true Church; For we say not. Pag. 87: This number may be very small, and their profession so secret amongst themselves, that the world, and such as love not the truth shall not see them, they remaining so hidden, as if they were not at all. And pag. 97. The Church may be hid or become invisible sometime, so that the world cannot see it. D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology, lib. 1. cap. 16: 
Protestant's proper defence.  Protestants say the Church is not always known to all the faithful, nor to her enemies. And this he termeth the proper defence of Protestants. And cap. 13: When Protestant say, the Church is sometimes eclipsed like the moon, they mean that she is brought sometimes to so sew, that it is not seen but of those, which are in her, but not openly known by her visibility, rites, or visible Succession, or to all the faithful: D. Willet in his Synopsis Cont. 2 quest. 1. pag. 67: A number of faithful people hath been always in the world, but not always visible to the world. Again; If by visible they understand that which is actually visible, we say it is not so always visible to the world. Thus we see that for to maintain the invisibility of their Church, they teach that the visible form of the Church of God may vanish, mayly hid, may fail from the world, is often taken away from men by God, is unknown to the world. That the Church sometimes is unknown or appears not visible to the world, sometime known only to the faithful, & yet not to all them neither, but to some and the fewer of them, and that neither, by any visible rites, nor by visible succession, and that this kind of doctrine they term the proper defence of Protestants, to wit, for to defend the invisibility of their Church before Luther. Which kind of defence hath neither truth nor probability, and though it had, yet would it not suffice to defend the invisibility of their Church before Luther's time, when it was invisible not only to the world, to enemies, to strangers, to some or most of the faithful; but to all and every one, as shall manifestly appear hereafter.  
4. If any say, that it is no marvel if Protestants teach that their Church was invisible to the world, because the true Church cannot be seen but by faith: I answer, first that this supposeth their Church to be the true Church, which ought not to be supposed, but proved. Secondly that they teach, that the Church may be unknown, not only to the world, but also to some or most of the faithful. Lastly that the true Church may be known two ways, one way to be the true Church of God, an other to be known distinctly from all other Churches; 
The true Church discerned from all other Churches even by Infidels.  as Christ was known to be the Messiah only by his disciples, but yet he was known distinctly from all other men by the jews. And the scripture is known to be the word of God only by Christians, but is known distinctly from other writings by Infidels. And in Christ's time his company was known to be the true Church of God, only by the faithful, but known distinctly from all other companies or Churches even by Infidels. And the same we say of his Church from his time unto our days, that it is and ever was known to be the true Church of God, only of the faithful, but known and seen distinctly from all other Churches even by the world & Infidels. And of his kind of knowledge and visibility, wherewith the true Church is known and visible not only to the faithful, but even to Infidels, and of the opposite ignorance or invisibility we speak in this matter, and Protestants also, as appeareth by their testimonies already rehearsed, & shall yet more by those which we shall repeat hereafter.  

That they say their Church was simply invisible.  5. Further more therefore Protestants do not only teach that their Church may and hath been invisible respectively; that is, to this or that kind of men, (as we have already heard,) but also they grant, that it may be simply and absolutely invisible. Luther upon the 90. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 493: The Church was and abode in Popery, but truly so hidden, as to one that would judge by the appearance, the seemed to be no where at all. 
Seemed to be no where.  And upon the psalm. 22. fol. 344: The Church is brought into the dust of death, so that no where there appeareth any show or trace of her. And upon the first chap. of Micheas tom. 4. fol. 434: 
No trace of church appeared.  In the former ages there was no true form of religion extant. The Magdeburgians in the preface of their 10. Century: It is very hard to find, where & which the Church was in this age. 
No form extant.  Likewise in the Preface of the 11. Century: Every where was darkness, neither durst the Church mutter any thing. Gerlachius in his 22. disput. of the Church pag. 927. writeth, that before Luther: The true Church withdrew itself from the eyes & sight of men, into lurking holes, and hid herself in darkness. Zuinglius in his supplication to the Bishop of Constance, tom. 1. fol. 120: The heavenly doctrine lay a long time hid. Hospinian in the epistle dedicatory of the first part of his History: From the year 1200. until the year 1515. the Church lay miserably overwhelmed, as it were, with a most deep and most strong deluge. Caluin in the Preface of his Institutions: God permitted that in former ages there should be no face of the true Church extant. 
No face of the church extant.  And addeth of his own doctrine: It lay a long time unknown and buried. Again: For some ages all things were drowned in deep darkness. And upon the 23. chapter of the Acts vers. 6. he saith: The Church was hidden from the eyes of men. And in his Preface upon Isaias: Touching the oveward show of the church, nothing for many ages appeared, but desolate and confused waist on all sides. Beza in his book of the notes of the church pag. 99: The Church lurked in the wilderness. Pareus in his 4. book of grace and freewill cap. 6: In Constantine's time the church began to wa● sick to death; notwithstanding the Catholic Church remained. But where? In the desert, as in the world withdrawn from the eyes of men. Sadeel in his treatise of the vocarion of Ministers pag. 533: After the Church had a long time lurked, the Lord called her at this time into light. 
Can not be discerned.  Voyen in his Preface of Catalogue. Doct: The true visible Church could not be discerned: no tract of God's grace appeared in his Church. The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 4. diuis. 2. saith, that 40. years ago truth first began to spring, unknown at that time and unheard of. 
Unheard of.  D. Humphrey unto the 3. reason of F. Campian pag. 286: Why the picture of the Church in these later times cannot be seen of our adversaries, or drawn of us etc. And pag. 288: If the only names of our Fathers were extant, who either by teaching, 
Not so much as their names extant.  or monishing, or writing, did help the Church of Christ, we should see another rank and progress of the Church, another succession of Bispops, another picture of Protestants. And pag. 291: And yet they will object that our Church was hidden, which they no where suffered alive. D. Whitaker Controu. 2. quest. 3. pag. 479: When they ask of us, where was our Church in times passed for so many ages, we answer, that it was in a close wilderness, that is, that it was hidden, lay secret, fled the sight of men. And quest. 5. c. 3. pag. 499: Luther brought the faith out of darkness, wherein before it lay drowned. And cap. 4. pag. 502: Our Church was then, but you will say, it was not visible. 
Not visible.  What then? therefore was it not? No. For it lay hid in the wilderness. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed colum. 788: We say that many ages passed before this our age, that universal defection overwhelmed almost all the world, 
Not visible.  and that our Church was not visible at that tyme. M. Base, in his 1. Century of the writers of Britanny cap. 4: From Phocas until the renewing of the Gospel, the doctrine of Christ lay so long in lurking holes. M. Downham in his 2. book of Antichrist cap. 2: The general defection of the visible Church began to work in the Apostles tyme. M. powel in his 1. book of Antichrist c. 23: Our religion lay long time unknown and buried. 
unknown & buried.  And M. Cox Chancellor of Oxford in King Edward 6. time exhorting the university men to Protestantisme, biddeth them pluck out truth lying long time lurking in Trophonius den. Thus clearly and thus many ways they simply and absolutely grant, that their Church was invisible unknown and buried before Luther arose.  
6. The same also they intent, 
They teach the Church may be simply invisible.  when they say, that the Church either was, or can be invisible. For they would never say so, unless they knew that such was the condition of their Church before Luther began. Luther upon the 90. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 495: Sometimes the Church was most weak and so dispersed as it appeared no where. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg pag. 448: 
No where appear.  It is certain that it may fall out, that the true Church may lie hidden, and her visible form not at all times appear to the eyes. Herbrand in his Compend. of divinity, place of the Church, pag. 502. writeth: That the faithful sometimes appear not to the eyes, even of the Godly. 
Not to the Godly.  Kemnitius in his common places tit. the epistles of the Apostles pag. 78: Sometimes the true Church (another bastard and company prevailing and overtopping) doth so as it werely hid, that Elias may say, I am le●t alone. Gerlachius in his 22. dispute of the Church, pag. 946: No surely, if at some time the Church be not seen with corporal eyes, therefore she is not. Caluin in the Preface of his Institutions: Sometime God taketh away the outward knowledge of his Church from the sight of men. Sometime the Church hath no apparent form. And in his treatise of the true Reformation of the Church pag. 332: The Church sometime lieth hid, and flieth the sight of men. And in his Antidote of the 18. article of the University of Paris. We gather, that the Church is not at all times subject to the eyes of men, as the experience of many ages witnesseth. Again: Elias thought himself only left of the Church; falsely indeed, but that is a proof, that she may lie so hidden. And in his 4. book of Institutions cap. 1 §. 3. he affirmeth, that it is not needful to see or to feel the Church, and that she may pass our knowledge. Beza in his Confession cap. 5. §. 9: divers times the Church seemeth to have perished utterly. junius in his 3 book of the church cap. 16: The Church shall never end, but shall lie hidden, according to her visible form. Chassanio in his common places loc. 2. of the Church pag. 148: The Church is not always visible. Danaeus in his 3. book of the Church cap. 2. Bellarmine will have that only to be the Church which is visible which is most false. Cap. 12: God oftentimes will have some visible Church on earth, and often times none. When there is no visible Church, 
Oftentyms no visible Church on earth.  than this precept (of adjoining himself to the Church) ceaseth. And cap. 13: Bellarmine laboureth to prove the true Church of God on earth to be always visible. That being most false etc. And cap: 16: We say, we affirm, we avouch that the Church may so fail on earth, not that there is none at all, but that there is none in respect of us, that is, of men, that there be none visible to us on earth. Again: S. Paul inferreth generally that the whole Church may leave to be visible. And lib. 4. cap. 8: The true Church may sometimes fail to be visible. Son is in his answer to Sponde cap. 2: pag. 33: 
The whole Church may have to be visible.  God maketh that the Church is not always visible. Plessy Mornay in his book of the Church cap. 1: Oftentimes the good corn is hidden under the chaff without any appearance of the Church. Polanus in his Antibellarm. College disput. 14: The visible Church may fail. Bucanus in his common places loc. 41. sect. 9: It oftentimes happeneth that there is no company of men extant which publicly and visibly worshippeth God purely. 
The visible church may fail.  And sect. 12: There is always on earth some number which worshippeth Christ piously, but this number is not always visible. Trelcatius in his 2. book of Theological Institutions maketh rhis title of one Chapter:: That the visible church may fail against Bellarmine. Hyperius in his Method of divinity lib. 3. pag. 548: While Elias wandered here and there, there appeared no face of the Church. Sadeel in his refutation of the 61 article pag. 531: They are deceived who think there is no Catholic Church, unless they measure it with their eyes. And pag. 535: The true church maybe conserned without any visible state. And in his repetition of Sophisms pag. 610: It is plain, 
Wanteth outward form.  that the Church is not so to be tied to any outward form whatsoever, that it ought to be denied to be a Church, as often as that form shall not be extant. And of vocation of Ministers pag. 543: The Church sometime wanteth the external form. Again: It is clear that the Church hath sometimes been without visible and personal succession. Pag. 550: Mens wickedness doth sometimes take from us the visible face of the Church. And again: It is sometimes so darkened, that it appeareth not to our eyes. 
The whole visible Church may perish.  Scharpe of justification Cont. 5: The visible Church as such may perish. The members of the visible Church may perish, yea the whole visible Church, as such. Bastingius upon the Catechism, title of the Church, pag. 227: Without doubt in every age things have been so troubled, as like a grain, covered with straw, there appeared no face of the Church. Vorstius in his Antibellarm. pag 133: A little before the calling of Abraham, no where appeared any visible Church. And pag. 136: Hereupon it followeth that the visible church of Christ not only in a great part, 
The whole visible Church may fail.  but also taken whole in her uttermost extent, may for some time fail from the true saith, and be wholly darkened. The outward church of Christ may perish. And pag. 424: Neither did Christ promise, that he would absolutely and perpetually hinder the perishing and corruption of the outward Church. The Flemings Confession article 27: The Church in the eyes of men for sometime seemeth as extinguished. And Napper upon the 11. chap. of the Apoc. pag. 186: They err, who think that the true Church is always visible. And upon 12. cap. pag. 195: The visible Church wholly embraced the errors of merits, of indulgences etc. And Proposit. 20. pag. 41: The true Church was invisible, and the true knowledge of God so covered with darkness, that none could visibly enter. Thus foreign Protestants. Of our countrymen D. Whitaker Contr. 2. quest 3. cap. 2. pag. 470: Sometimes obscurity most of all helpeth the church. For at some time she could not be safe, unless she lay hid. And cap. 3. pag. 474: We say that sometime the Church may avoid the sight of men, & hide itself in corners. Cap. 1. pag. 466: We confess, that ever more there is on earth some number of them, who piously worship Christ, & hold the true faith and religion, but we say that this number is not always visible. Their (Papists) opinion is, that there is ever more on earth a visible church. 
Not always visible.  It may fall out that there cannot be found out and known any true and certain visible church. And cap. 2. cit. pag. 468: Our adversary would prove, that there was always in the world some visible church. And pag. 469: Hence inferreth (Denis the Carthusian) not as our adversaries do, that the visible church can never perish, 
The visible church may perish.  or that there is ever more in the world some visible church; but that saith shall never perish wholly, but that Christian religion shall still persever in some to the end of the world. This (saith Whitaker) is plainly that which we say and defend. Mark how plainly he professeth, that they do not teach, that the visible Church cannot perish, 
Note.  or that there is always some visible Church on earth, but only that some shall always believe the Christian religion. The same doctrine he teacheth pag. 470. 473. 475. 476. and 479. And q. 6. cap. 2. pag. 559. And in his third book against Duraeus sect. 5. 6. 7. 11. M. Perkins in his problem. title of the church: The ancients do acknowledge, that the church on earth is not always visible. D. Willet in his Synopsis Cont. 2. q 1. pag. 67: We say the church is not always actually visible to the world: nay it may sometyms be so hid and secret that the members know not one another. Again: 
In Elias time not visible.  In the days of Elias the church was not visible. And quest. 2. pag. 74: A visible church we define, to be a congregation of men, amongst whom the word is truly preached, and the Sacraments administered. Such a church hath not always been, neither can we be assured that it shall always be sound upon the earth. There was a time when as the visible church failed upon earth. 
The visible church failed.  This invisibility of the Protestant Church, which I have hitherto proved by their manifold Confessions, I will also prove by sequels out of other their sayings. First therefore D. Morton in his Apology part. 1. book. 1. cap. 31. disliketh not these words of Bellarmine: Protestants when they say the church cannot fail or perish, mean the invisibible church. And many of them in express words deny, that the Promises of perpetuity, 
Protestant's say the promises belong not to the visible Church.  which in the scripture are made unto the church, Math. 16. and other where, be made to the visible church. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 468: It is most false, that it is the visible church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. And Daneus Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 717: There (Math. 16.) is not meant the visible church. To whom assenteth D. Willet in his Synopsis cont. 2. quest. 2. M. powel of Antichrist lib. 1. cap. 10. Beurlin in his Refutation of Sotus, cap. 53. Moulins of the vocation of Ministers lib. 1. c. 4. & in his Bucklet part. 1. pag. 49. And D. Morton lib. cit. cap. 13. addeth that those three places Math. 16. & vlt. and psal. 47. which promise the perpetuity of the Church, 
Protestant's believe not the visible church.  Are every one of them understood, almost by every Father, of the only company of the elect, which the Protestants call the invisible Church. Besides, they all generally teach, that by the Catholic Church, which they profess to believe in the Creed, they mean not the visible Church, but only the invisible. Luther in his book of abrogating Mass, tom 2. fol. 247: Who shall show us the holy church, seeing it is hidden in spirit, and is only believed, according as I believe the holy church. Zuinglius in his explication of the 31. article: The church, which consisteth of those which are known to God alone, in that which we profess in the articles of our creed. Danaeus lib. cit. pag. 713: The question is of the true church of God whereof it is said in the creed: I believe the holy church. Bellarmine will have it to be the visible, we deny it. The like he saith pag. 789. 717. 718. and 725. Vorstius in his Antibellarm. pag. 144: We profess not in the creed to believe the visible church, but the invisible. D. Whitaker lib. 3. against Duraeus sect. vlt: You see what Catholic church we believe, not the visible multitude of Christians, but the holy company of the elect. The same he saith Cont. 2. quest. 2. cap. 2. Brentius in Prolegominis pag. 2. and others commonly. Furthermore they say, that the visible Church is not the true Church in the sight of God. For Caluin in his 4. book of Institutions cap. 1. §. 7. 
They say the visible Church is not the true Church before God.  and the rest grant, that both wicked and reprobate Christians may be of the visible Church, but deny that they can be of the true Church in the sight of God. Now surely if the visible Church be neither the true Church in the sight of God, nor she to whom he hath promised perpetuity, nor she which Protestants do believe; what reason can they have to believe that the visible Church shall always remain, or (which is all one) that the Church shall be always visible. Again, their common doctrine is, that preaching of true doctrine is the note of the visible Church; for so teacheth the Confession of Auspurg cap. 7. the English Confession artic. 19 and all the rest. To which his Majesty in his epist. to Cardinal Peron, D. Whitaker Contr. 2. q 5. c. 17. D. Morton part. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 6. M. Willet in his Synopsis Cont. 2. quest. 3. pag. 102. Sadeel to Turtians Sophisms loc. 5. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 145. and others do add, that it is an essential note of the visible Church. And it is manifest that they must say so, because they use to define the visible Church, to be a company, wherein the pure word of God is preached, & the Sacraments rightly administered. For so it is defined of the English Confession and of Sadeel lib. cit. of Whitaker quest. 5. cit. cap. 20. of Melancthon tom. 1. in cap. 15. Matth. and of others generally. But before Luther there was no preaching of Protestantisme, as we shall hear them confess cap. 7. therefore there was then no visible Protestant Church. Finally, sometimes they say that not only preaching of the word, but that also a lawful ministry; or, that not only what true preaching soever, but also such as is made by a lawful Minister, of the word, is of the essence and substance of the visible Church. For thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. q. 5. cap. 19 pag. 550: Stapleton saith, that the preaching of the Gospel by lawful Ministers is the proper note of the church; and we say no otherwise And pag. 551. That he confesseth true preaching by a lawful Ministry to be a note of the church, is no other thing then that we say and defend. The like hath Sadeel in the place now cited: and the Swissers Confession cap. 17. putteth lawful preaching for the chiefest note of the church; Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 1. for a perpetual note, & the conclusions defended at Geneva pag. 845. for an essential note thereof. But before Luther there were no Protestant Ministers at all, as we shall hereafter hear the Protestants confess. Therefore no visible Protestant Church.  
8. By that which hath been rehearsed, it is manifest, 
Summe of the foresaid confessions.  that very many and very famous Protestants have often and plainly confessed that when Luther came first (as they speak) to the Gospel, the Protestant Church and religion was not visible, say hid, lurked, lay in the wilderness, in lurking holes, indarknesse, in Trophonius his den, was buried, was unknown, unheard of, appeared to none, could not be discerned: Her image could not be seen, no show of, besides a huge spoil did appear; no face, no fashion, no trace of her was extant, and she was so hid, that he who would judge according to the outward show, would think her to be no where: And that this is so manifest, as that the experience of many ages beareth witness thereof. With what words, I pray you, could they say that their Church was altogether invisible, if they have not said it in these?  
9 Moreover it is manifest, that for to maintain their invisible Church, they do teach, that the Church may be unknown to the godly, & to those who are of it; that it may be not visible, not appear, not be seen by corporal eyes; that the external knowledge thereof may be taken from men, that it may consist of no apparent form, be without any visible condition, without visible succession, and destitute of outward form. That the visible face thereof may be taken from us, that it may seem to have utterly perished, that the visible Church may perish, the outward Church perish, that it may wholly leave to be visible, and the whole visible Church perish, and finally that there be no true visible Church in the world.  
10. Besides, it is clear, that they teach, that not only some part of the visible Church, but also (as they speak) the whole and all the visible Church may perish, and that it may fall out that there be none, 
De great. & lib. arb. c. 8.  none at all, no visible Church in the world. Certainly (as S. Austin speaketh) these words need no witty interpreter, but only an attended hearer.  
11. Whereby also it is evident, 
Protestant's untrue shifts refuted.  that D. White in the defence of his way cap. 38. and 40. said untruly, that Protestants imagine not the Church to have been at any time simply invisible. For as we have heard, they oftentimes profess openly the contrary. Untruly also D. Whitaker avoucheth Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 472. that we slander them, when we say they make such a Church, as sometimes can be seen of none. For as hath been seen, many, 
Num. 5.6.  and he amongst the rest, have taught so. But D. Whitaker by the name of a visible Church, understandeth not a company visibly professing their faith, but one or two, or some few visible men, who keep their faith secretly in their hearts. But this, is not the church to have been visible, but the men to have been visible. Besides that, it is enough for us, that the Protestant Religion and manner of worshipping God was before Luther's time altogether invisible, and only secret in the hearts of some few. For thence it will follow, (as shall appear hereafter) that it is not the religion of God, which can never be kept so secret and invisible. Untruly also saith junius Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 16. when he writeth: This only we say, the visible manner of the Church may lie hid, or fail to the ungrateful world, not that it can become invisible in itself. For that which is so invisible, as the Protestants have said the Church may be, is in itself invisible. Lastly some do untruly expound the foresaid words of Protestants, as if they had only said, that their Church had been invisible in some sort, not simply and absolutely; because their words were most absolute: and it is sophistical to expound so many absolute speeches, only in some sort: Besides, hereafter we shall see, that sometimes they confess, that their church was so invisible, as it employed contradiction to have it seen, and those who limitate the former speeches, agree not together in their expositions; For D. Whitaker loc. cit. saith they only mean, that the Church is not always to be seen glorious and of every one. D. White lib. cit. cap. 37. that they mean that the Church is not always to be seen a part and free from all error. D. Morton Apol. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 13. that they only meant, that the church is not always to be seen publicly of all men by her visible rites, and visible succession: which shift he calleth the Bulwarck of Protestants. But this Bulwarck is built of him without all foundation, and is manifestly overthrown by the former Confessions. D. Feild saith they mean not, that the Church is wholly invisible, at any time; but that it is not always to be esteemed by outward appearance. But what more manifest; then that they teach that the Church may be wholly invisible, as appeareth by their words already rehearsed, 
The Protestant Church impossible to have been seen.  and shall yet more appear by and by?  
12. For they not only confess that their Church was altogether invisible before Luther arose, but also they affirm, that it is a most unjust and impudent demand, to request them to show it before that tyme. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg pag. 448: 
Impudent demand.  It is an impudent demand of the Romanists, to request to have showed unto them such a church in former ages, which touching the public ministry and visible form, agreed in all things with Luther. For we have demonstrated that the true Church then lay hid. D. Fulke in his book of Succession pag. 19: But you bid me bring forth those elect (Protestants) which lay hid through all the world. Good God how unjust a thing do you demand, 
Unjust.  that I should bring forth them, whom I say lay hid? And Sadeel to the Repetition of Turrians Sophisms pag. 766: But I promised not as you say, that I would answer to this your question, where those invisible remnants lay hid? as if I had not sufficiently answered, when I said that they lay hid by the unsearchable counsel of God. And in his answer to Theses Posnan. cap. 8. He will have them to have laid so closely, that it cannot be known what they did. And in his book of Vocation of Ministers pag. 551: At last came that general Apostasy, which the Apostle foretold. For then the outward light of the Church being quite extinct, 
Only shadow and name of visible Church.  there remained the only shadow and name of the visible Church. The same also intimateth Plessy Mornay in the Preface of his Mystery of iniquity, when he saith: We are not bound to show the Church, it sufficeth that God knew his own. And john Regius in his Apology pag 176: You deny that Luther sound a company of his sect. I say there was an ecclesiastical company of true religion, and which agreed with Luther in all points. But when the jesuits urge to show a follower of religion, they would that Luther show, that which implieth, 
Implied to be visible.  and prove the invisible to be visible. Napper upon 12. cap. Apocal. pag. 294: From the year 316. God with drew his visible Church from the open assemblies of men, to the hearts of particular men, and from that time the Church lay hid and was invisible. The same he saith pag. 188: But if so it be an impudent and unjust demand to have their Church shown before Luther, if it were withdrawn from open assemblies to the hearts of some, if her outward light were quite extinct, and the only shadow and name of the visible Church remained, and lastly if it employed contradiction that she should be showed; it is most evident, that she was altogether invisible. The same also they intimate, when they say, that the Church either hath been at any time, or may be thus invisible. Luther upon the 90. psalm tom. 3. fol. 495: 
Church no where but in the sight of God.  The Church was then (in Elias time) but so hidden, as it was no where, but in the sight of God. Hyperius in his Method of divinity, lib. 3. pag. 349: Was not the true Church at that time (of Elias) altogether invisible to men, and known to God alone? The Swissers Confession cap. 17: The Church hidden from our eyes, and known to God only, 
Known to God alone.  doth often fly the judgement of men. Besnage in his book of the state of the visible and invisible church, cap. 4: The Church is eftsoon known to God alone. Son is in his answer to Sponde cap. 2. pag. 32: We say the state of the Church is such, as is sometimes known to God alone. And D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 478: We say that the external state of the Church doth cease, and that the faithful and godly may be so scattered, that they worship God only in heart and mind. 
Worship God in heart only.  But who seethe not, that it implieth manifest contradiction, that a Church which is no where but in the sight God, which is known to God alone, which flieth man's judgement, and which worshippeth God only in heart and mind, should be visible or seen of man? 
How long the Protestant's Church was invisible.   
13. If any ask them, how many ages their Church was thus invisible? Luther upon the 1. cap. to the Galat. tom. 5. fol. 214. saith that she lay hid above 300. years. To whom cometh near Danaeus in his 3. book de Roman. Pontif. cap. 8. saying, the Church was in banishment 350. years. But Luther better thinking on the matter, in his book of the Popery tom. 7. maketh her to have lurked 600. years. And with him agreeth Hospinian in his epistle dedicatory of the 1. part of his History. Melancthon in his oration for Luther tom. 2. will have this lurking to have been 400. years. But Caluin his book of Scandals, Perkins and Bale in the places before cited, will have it to have continued 900. years. Parcus above cited will have it to have begun in Constantine's time; and Napper from the year of our Lord 316 With whom consenteth Brocard upon the 11. Chap. Apocal. pag. 110. Fuccius in his Cronology fetcheth the beginning of this lurking a little higher, from the year 261. and finally Curio of the largeness of God's Kingdom pag. 33: Almost from the Apostles ages even to our tym. Which they also intimate, who say that Popery began in the Apostles tyme. O Christ most patiented Lord (that I may cry out with Tertullian) who so many years (yea so many ages) didst suffer thy doctrine to be turned upside down till Luther came to help thee.  
14. 
Luther Author of the visible Protestant Church.  Of all things which have been related in this Chapter, it is most clear, that Luther was at least author of the Protestants visible Church, and if not the first which founded it, yet the first which after it was fallen & in substance perished, did raise and restore it again. For when Luther began first to preach, there was no visible Protestant Church at all, and by his preaching there became such a visible Church. Therefore undoubtedly he was the author thereof. And if any Protestant against so many and so open Confessions of his Fathers and brethren, will say that there was a visible Protestant Church before Luther, he shall first gainsay so many witnesses without all exception in this matter, who having searched all corners, and enquired of all men have nevertheless confessed, that at that time no such visible Church appeared. Besides, he shall say that, without all either divine or humane testimony; which to do of times before his age, is to play the Prophet, or rather the mad man. For it is not the part of a man in his wits, to affirm without all kind of testimony, especially such a thing and so manifestly false, as that so many, and such kind of men, as had most need to affirm it, were nevertheless forced to deny it. That it wanteth all sufficient humane testimony is evident, because neither the foresaid Protestants, nor any yet to this day, could bring forth any sufficient witness, who would depose that he had seen such a Church before Luther's revolt. That also it is destitute of divine testimony, is manifest by what hath been before rehearsed. For Protestants (at we have heard) teach, that the promises of perpetuity, which in the scripture are made to the church, 
Sup. num. 7.  are made only to the invisible church, that is to a society of men in election and justification, out of which Church they exclude the reprobate and wicked; and not to the visible Church, that is, to the society in Profession of true doctrine and lawful use of Sacraments. And in truth they most needs say so, sith they commonly teach, that the invisible Church, whereof the elect and just alone are members, is the true Church before God: and that the visible Church, whereof the wicked & reprobate may be members, is but a Church in sight of men, that is a shadow and outward show of the Church. And it is clear, that God promised perpetuity to that Church only, which in his sight is the true Church; and not to her which is no Church, but only in sight of men. When as I say they teach that God promised perpetuity and continuance only to the invisible Church, out of his promises they cannot infer, 
Lib. 2. cont. Maxim. c. 3. l 3 c 176  that the visible Church hath or shall ever continue. Of whom therefore (that I may use S. Augustins words) hast thou heard this? whence didst thou learn it? where hast thou read it for to believe it? whereupon hast thou presumed for to affirm it, where there is neither any authority nor reason? If Protestants cry out, 
Whitak. cont. 2. q. 3, c. ●.  that it is most absurd, to say in Elias his time there was any Church visible amongst the Gentiles beside the Synagogue, which now after so many thousands of years we cannot name; how much more absurd aught they think it, to say that before Luther arose, there was a visible Protestant Church, which yet none neither of that Church, nor out of it, neither at this time, nor at that, could ever name?  
15. It being thus manifest, that Luther was the Author of the visible Protestant Church, it followeth likewise that he was the author of all and Every Protestant Church. For (as shall be showed hereafter) there can be no such invisible Church as Protestants mean, that is, such as believeth and worshippeth God only in hart and mind, and no way professeth outwardly her faith and religion. Yet before we come to that, we will first refute those, who when they consider how absurd a thing it is to affirm such an invisible Church, especially for so many ages, they begin to shuffle and either send us to others, or themselves name us such, as only in part or in some sort held Protestantisme, but embraced not all the substantial points thereof, and therefore were but half Protestants. For to us it sufficeth, that we show Luther to have been the Author and beginner of whole and true Protestants, such as held all points that are necessary to the making of an absolve Protestant.   

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

What a man Illyricus was.  1. SOME Protestants, when we ask of them who were the visible Protestants before Luther began, do not themselves name any, but send us to Illyricus or M. Fox. So playeth D. Whitaker lib. 3. against Duraeus sect. 12. 
Colloq. Aldeburg Hos●. part 2. fol. ●c 4. Beza epist. 55. in Mat. 20 ver. 15. in 4. Ephe. S●uitet. Praefat. in tom. 1. Pareus lib. 5. de Am●sl. great. cap. 1 Melanc●h. tom. 2. Hesk. in Antid. Sch●sselb. Praf. to. 2. Kemnit. loc. p. 261.  and lib. 7. sect. 1 D. Fulke of Succession pag. 324. Schusselburg in 8. tom. of his Catalogue of Heretics pag. 365. Vorstius in his Autibellarm. pag. 159. Lubbert lib. 5. of the Church c. 2. and others: These men do manifestly show that themselues know not of any such visible Protestants. For they would never lay the burden of answering this question upon others, if they could have answered it themselves. And beside, they declare that they know no author worthy of credit, to whom they might send us, for the answer of this so important demand, else they would never have referred us to Illyricus or M. Fox. For Illyricus in the judgement of most Protestant's both Lutherans and Sacramentaries, was a vagabond, a hell hound, an heretic, a Manichee, deceitful, a liar, an impostor, a falsifier, a Caviller, a slanderer, a singular inventor of slanders, a sycophant in his own judgement, impudently blasphemous, a broacher of doctrine which bringeth in Epicurism and mortality of the soul, and overthroweth all religion; and who had nothing to impugn truth withal, besides an audacious ignorance, and a very divilesh spirit. This and much more write the Protestants themselves of Illyricus; wherefore to send us to such a man, is plainly to confess that they know no man of credit to whom they may refer us. And of the like stuff is Fox, a most impudent patcher of lies, who in his false martyrologue proposeth thiefs, traitors, sorcerers, murderers of themselves, Anabaptists, Papists, professed enemies, and some then alive, for Protestant Martyrs, as Allen Cope showeth in the sixth book of his dialogues. Beside, those whom Illyricus nameth before Luther, himself dares not call Protestants, but Witnesses of truth; because forsooth they disliked some doctrine or fact of the Pope. And such witnesses also they are, as some of them be Popes themselves, as 
(a) Lib. 19  Pius 2. some famous Papists, as 
(b) Lib 15.  Peter Lombard, and Gratian, whom himself calleth the 
(c) Lib. 15. & 16.  Pillars of the Religion of the Roman Antichrist, and saith they renewed Popery even from the foundation; some professed adversaries of Protestant's, as 
(d) Lib. 19  Clichtoucus; some of the holy Fathers, who (as before was seen) condemned the very soul and sum of Protestancy; some those, who only disliked the corrupt manners of some Popes, as 
(e) Centur. 6 cap. 1.  Richard Hampell; some Atheists, as 
(f) Lib. 19  Machiavelli; some who any way 
(g) Praf. Catal.  gainsaid either the doctrine or deed of any Pope. Surely for Illyricus to bring such witnesses, after he had searched in all corners, and raked in all channels, doth manifestly bewray, that there can no true Protestants be found before Luther's tyme. For Illyricus, though never so impudent, would have been ashamed to have bragged of such silly witnesses, if he could have found any true Protestants whatsoever. Besides, such fellowe●, may be only said to have been Protestants, and can no way be proved to have been simply and absolutely Protestant's, such as we speak of. And we care not whom any one may say to have been Protestants (for as Luther saith, 
Tom. 2. fol, 437.  what is more easy then to say any thing?) but whom he can prove & convince to have been such; without which his saying is but voluntary and ridiculous, and the belief thereof rash and unreasonable.  
2. And as for those, which M. Fox produceth for Protestants before Luther, they lived in the year of our Lord 1521. as himself writeth pag. 749. in the edition of 1596. that is, in the 4. year of Luther's new preaching, and we ask for Protestants before Luther. Besides they all abjured their faith, as himself confesseth pag. 750. and soon after died for sorrow, or lingered away with shame; and we ask for Protesters not Abiurers. Moreover no one of them is found to have held that chief and fundamental article of Protestancy of justification by special faith, albeit, as Fox writeth pag. 550: There was such diligent inquisition made as that no article could be so secretly taught amongst them but it was discovered. Wherefore these wretched Abiurers were no Protestant's, but some relics of the Wiclifists or Lollards, whereof we will entreat anon.  

The waldenses were no Protestant's  3. Others say, that the Waldenses were the visible Protestants before Luther's rising, but there is no apparent reason to say, that they were true & absolute Protestants, to wit, such as held all the whole substance necessary to a Protestant. For first, there is no writer before Luther's time who saith that they believed to be justified by only faith. Neither can any such thing be gathered, either out of their own opinions, or out of the writings of Catholics against them at those times. And Illyricus in his Catalogue of witnesses printed at Geneva 1597. lib. 15. pag. 544. writeth their opinions out of an ancient Catholic writer, and pag. 559. out of Aenaeas Siluius, and pag. 539. relateth their Confession out of Sleidan, and himself pag. 536. reckoneth 13. of their articles, of which he hath these words: These are the articles of the Waldenses, albeit others part them into more branches, and make them more. But in none of them is there any trace of only justifying faith. The same I say of their Confession which the said Illyricus hath in his Catalogue printed at Geneva 1526. yea there col. 1832. he saith, that hus and Hierome of prague did add unto the doctrine of the Waldenses the article of free justification by only faith, as (saith he) Silvius intimateth: wherein albeit he belie both hus and Hierome & also Silvius, 
Num. 7.  because neither they knew of any such justification, (as shall strait appear) neither Silvius intimateth any such matter; yet it clearly bewrayeth, that the waldenses believed not justification by only faith. Moreover Luther (as we shall now rehearse) confesseth that the Waldenses knew nothing of his imputative justice by only faith: How then can they be said to have been true and absolute Protestants, who wanted the very soul, sum, and definition of a Protestant? Secondly they not only believed not justification by only faith, but believed the contrary; that is, to be justified by good works. For thus saith Luther of them in his table-talkes chap. of Suermers: The Waldenses are holy workmen and believe not that saith without works doth justify, and know nothing at all of imputative justice. 
Cocciu● 10.1. lib. 8.  And Bennet Morgenstern in his treatise of the church p. 1●4. speaketh thus unto them: Ye confirm the doctrine of Antichrist, touching good works, justification, etc. And themselues in their Apology printed at Hanow together with the history of Bohemia pag. 256. plainly show, that they believe a man to be justified by faith, charity, hope, penance, and works of mercy, and do say: That devout prayer doth purge, and penance cleanse a man.  
4. Thirdly, the Waldenses are condemned of Protestants, both Lutherans and Sacramentaries. Melancthon in his Counsels part. 2. pag. 152. writeth: 
See Refut. Orthod. Consensus pag. 418.  I rejoice that you agree with us in the sum of doctrine. I know the Waldenses are unlike. And in Carrions Chronicle printed at Paris 1357. he saith that they sowed errors, denied all oaths, and all form of prayer, besides the Lord's prayer. Morgenstern in his fornamed book pag. 79. giveth this verdict of them: They have proudly neglected the light of doctrine which is kindled from heaven in this age; & have with tooth and na●le by writing among their own men secretly defended those most gross erroes, which in the year 1523. were discovered by Luther. Besides Selnecer (as he reporteth) affirmed, that they had gross errors, and such as were not to be borne withal. Leonicus Antisturmius also in Danaeus in his answer to his Sonde pag. 1516. pronounceth them to be impious; and Schusselburg in his 3. t●me of the Catalogue of heretics pag 188. rejecteth them as heretics. Camerarius in his book of the Church in Bohemia, Poland. etc. pag. 273. writeth thus: We can say that the Waldenses were never one with our Churches, nor our men would ever join themselves to them. Whereof he giveth these two reasons: because the Waldenses would not have extant any public declaration of their faith; and for peace sake did use the Popish mass. For these two causes (saith he) our men did not join themselves to them, neither did they think that they could so do, with good conscience. Caluin also epist. 278. thus writeth to the Waldenses themselves: We abide in one opinion, that the form of your Confession cannot be absolutely admitted without danger. And M. jewel also in defence of the Apology part. pag. 48. saith plainly of the Albigenses: They are none of ours. D. Humphrey to the third Reason of F. Campian pag. 371: They are not wholly ours. And Osiander in his 13. Century lib. 1. cap. 4. Pantaleon in his Chronicle pag. 98. & Melancthon in the foresaid Chronicle of Carrion, reckon them amongst heretics: But the Albigenses were all one for religion with the Waldenses, as D. Fulke saith in these words, lib. de Success. pag. 332: That epistle of the Archbishops, doth prove that the Albigenses & Waldenses were all one. The same also confesseth Illyricus in his Catalogue in 4. to. pag 536. Where also pag. 561. he speaketh in this sort: The Waldenses or Albigenses. Yea the Waldenses themselves, in the Bohemian Confession (if it be theirs) do insinuate that they are condemned of the Sacramentaries, whereas they say in the 13. article, that they, who deny the supper of the Lord to be the true flesh and blood of Christ, do call them Idolaters, Antichrist, and men branded with the mark of the beast. Besides Illyricus in his forecited catalogue writeth, that the Thaborites, who indeed (saith he) followed the opinions of the Waldenses, were grievously vexed and persecuted of Rokesana and other Hussites. Wherefore; sigh Protestants commonly challenge the Hussites for their brethren, they ought not to claim also the Waldenles, whose doctrine the Hussites did persecute. Certainly the Confession of Bohemia (which is said to be theirs) doth plainly distinguish them from Protestants, especially from Sacramentaries. For art. 2. they say: We must keep the commandments in hart & deed. Art. 5. that those which repent must confess their sins to a Priest, and ask absolution of him. Art. 9 that Priests ought to be single. Art. 11. that Sacraments are necessary to salvation. And art. 13. that the Eucharist is the true body of Christ, as (say they) Christ plainly saith: This is my body; of which word: we ought to believe the plain sense, not decliming to the right or left. Whereupon it is no marvel, that Caluin in his 249. epistle denieth it to be lawful for a Christian man, to embrace the Waldenses Confession, in these words: Consider you whether it be lawful for a Christian man to embrace the form of the Confession (of the Waldenses) who without any distinction bind up all in one bundle of damnation, who precisely confess not, the bread to be presently the body of Christ. Surely we think not.  
5. Fourthly I prove the same, because the Waldenses hold many errors, which the Protestants condemn. Illyricus in his foresaid Catalogue pag. 545. relateth out of an ancient writer above 300. years ago, that they taught, that a Priest being in mortal sin could not consecrate the Eucharist; that every oath is a mortal sin; that they disallowed matrimony. And likewise out of Aeneas Silvius, that they said it was lawful for every one to preach; & that he who was guilty of mortal sin, was not not capable of any secular or ecclesiastical dignity. Neither availeth it any thing, that now in the Confession of Bohemia (which is said to be the Waldenses Confession) there is found the article of justification by only faith, because that Confession was presented in the year 1525. as the very title thereof declareth, & in the Preface mention is made of Charles 5. Emperor, which was after Luther had preached some years. As also because Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol. 11. saith, 
Sacramentaries have corrupted the Waldenses Confession.  that the Waldenses Confession was renewed or rather corrupted by the Sacramentaries, as the Waldenses themselves say in the Preface of their Confession printed anno 1538. as witnesseth Schusselburg, lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. art. 6. fol. 55. Moreover Illyricus in his Catalogue in fol. col. 1502. writeth, that after Luther was known, the Waldenses did greedily purchase greater knowledge. Morgenstern in his foresaid book pag. 79. saith, that they borrow the best part of their doctrine from the Lutherans. And D. Fulke in his book of Succession pag. 360. that they learned of those of Basle, to amend certain errors, which they had received from their ancestors. Why then shall we not think, they received the doctrine of justification by only faith from Luther especially sith (as I before said) there is no mention of it amongst them in former times? Again jurgenicius in the 2. chap. of his war of the 5. gospel, affirmeth that the Authors of the Bohemian Confession do profess in the beginning thereof, that they would never conjoin themselves to the Waldenses; and therefore the Bohemian Confession is not the Waldenses Confession. Nor albeit therein be mention of justification by only faith, can it be inferred, that therefore the Waldenses did believe it. Finally (as I have often said and it must be always inculcated) I regard not, whom any one saith to have been Protestants, but whom he proveth to have been such. Neither whom he can prove to have been Protestants in part and in some sort; but whom he can prove to have been absolutely and wholly Protestant's, at least for the substance of Protestancy. Neither will it avail any whit, to complain, that we have burnt the writings of the Waldenses, by which they might prove that they were true Protestants. For if they have nor wherewithal to prove they were true Protestants, they in vain do feign it. Besides, we asked of Luther & his followers to produce one man, Waldensian or other, who had been a true Protestant, before Luther's preaching; for which end there was no need of writings, but of living men.  

Wiclif was no true Protestant.  6. In like sort I prove that Wicliffe and his followers were not true and absolute Protestants. First because the Wiclifists are by name condemned together with other heretics of Protestants in their Apology of the Confession of Auspurg, chap. of the Church in these words: We have plainly enough said in our Confession, that we disallow the Donatists and Wiclifists. Secondly because neither in Wiclifs book, nor of any of his scholars, is there any sign of sole justifying faith; neither did ever any Catholic writer contend with them there about. Thirdly, because as Melancthon writeth in his epistle to Myconius in his 1. tom. printed at Bustle pag. 416: Wiclif neither understood, nor held the justice of faith. Yea Husse his principal follower, (as we shall anon rehearse) believed that works did justify. And Wiclif himself in Thomas Walden. tom 3. tit. 1. cap. 7. bid every one hope in the proper justice of his life, and men to trust in their merits: which thing alone doth separate him fare enough from the Protestants camp. Fourthly, because the Wiclifists are reckoned amongst Heretics of many Protestants, as of Schusselburg tom. 3. Catal. pag. 190. of Kemnice in fundament is Coenae pag. 114. of Pantalcon in his Chronicle, and of Mathias Hoe disput. 27. they are termed most monstrous monsters. And D. Cay in his 2. book of the antiquity of Cambridge, objecteth Wicliffe to the Oxford men, as a slain of their university. Fiftly wiclif taught diverse things, which Protestants dislike. And to omit these things which Catholics object unto him, 
Canisius to. 3 antiq. lectionum.  Rokesana Prince of the Hussites, in his dispute with Catholics before the King of Bohemia, hath these words: These are the articles of Wiclif: That tithes are mere alms: That the Clergy ought to have no civil government: If a King be in mortal sin, that he is no more a King: Which last article Osiander in his 15. Century repeateth thus: There is no temporal Lord, no Prelate, no Bishop, whiles he is in mortal sin. And Melancthon in his foresaid epistle: Wiclif doth plainly, sophistically and seditiously wrangle upon civil dominion. And in his dispute of the right of Magistrates: Wiclif is mad, who thinketh the wicked to have no Dominion. And in his Commentaries upon Aristotle's Politics: Wiclif would have those, who have not the holy ghost, to lose their Dominion. So that I marvel how D. Andrews in his answer to the Apology of Bellarmine, could say that it is a slander, that Wiclif taught so, when as not only catholics, but even Hussites and Protestants do affirm it. Moreover Wiclif (as Osiander reporteth in the place aforecited) did condemn lawful oaths, and taught, that all things fell out according to absolute necessity. And Melancthon in his said epistle giveth this sentence of him: I have looked into Wiclif, but I have found in him many other errors, 
Wiclife held not justice of sole faith.  by which one may judge of his spirit. He at all understood not, nor held the justice of saith. He fond confoundeth the gospel and politic affairs; would have Priests to have nothing proper, etc. And in his common places chap. of Ecclesiastical power: That superstition of Wiclif is pernicious and seditious, which driveth the ministers of the Church to beggary, and denyeth that it is lawful for them to hold any thing proper. M. Stow also in his Chronicle anno 1376. writeth, that he taught that, Neither King nor lay man could give any thing to the church for perpetuity. Finally Vadianus in his fi●t book of the Eucharist, pag. 168. confesseth that in many things he foully erred.  

Hussites no Protestants.  7. hus likewise and his partners we prove, not to have been true and absolute Protestants. First, because it cannot be proved, that they held the foresaid article of justification by only faith, and the other fundamental points of Protestancy. Secondly, because hus is by name rejected of Luther, who in the defence of his 30. article tom. 2. thus writeth of him: He agreeth not with me. He gave not a little to the idol of Rome. He seemeth not to repugn against the Pope's Monarchy. And upon the 2. psal. tom. 3. fol 395: hus did not condemn the sacrifice of Mass, as we do. And upon the 9 chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 108. he saith, that Husse held a doctrine most pestilent, most pernicious, horrible, and wholly impious, yea very devilish. And in his lypsical dispute tom. 1. fol. 260: I know, and that very well, that an evil Prelate is not to be rejected, and therefore I damn the article of hus. And both there and other where, 
Tom. 1. fo. 30. 291. 292. 251.  oftentimes denieth himself to be a Bohemian, by which he meant an Hussite. And in his table-talkes chapter of S●ermers saith: Husse believed that works with faith do justify; which point alone excludeth him from the number of Protestants. 
Husse believe not sole faith.  And in the chapter of Antichrist: Husse departed not one jot from the Papists, but only reproved vices and naughty life. Which also affirmeth Hierome of prague, Husse his fellow, in M. Fox, upon the 11. chapter of the Apocal. Where also M. Fox himself writeth, that Husse agreed with the Papists touching transubstantiation, Mass, Vows, Predestination, Free will, form faith, cause of justification, and merits of works: which plainly declare how little he held of Protestancy. Lastly when Bellarmine wrote, that there was not in the world, when Luther began, any religion but Paganism, judaisme, Mahometisme, Grecisme, Nestorianisme, Hussites heresy, and the Roman faith; D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 502. denyeth these to have been all; For (saith he) our Church was then. In which words he professeth the Protestants to be a different church from the Hussites. junius also lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 6. acknowledgeth that some Protestant deny Hussites to be of their Church. And Luther upon the 53. Chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 220. thus writeth: There is no religion in the world which receiveth this opinion of justification (by only faith) and we ourselves in private do scant believe it, though we publicly defend it. By which words he showeth, that neither hussites, nor Waldenses, nor any Christians besides Protestants, and scarce they also, do believe the principal and most fundamental article of Protestancy, howsoever openly they profess it.   

That the Church cannot be so invisible, as Protestant confess theirs to have been before Luther's tyme. CHAP. VI  
1. BY the name of the Church, we understand not (as I said before) only the men, but men sociated, or the society of men, in the faith & worship of God. Wherefore that a church be said visible, not only the men, but their worship of God must be visible. Neither by this word visible, do I understand here, that only which can be seen, but whatsoever is sensible; according both to the vulgar phrase of speech, wherewith we say: See how it soundeth, as S. Augustine noteth, and also after the phrase of scripture, 
Lib. 10. Confess. c. 35.  wherein, as the same holy Doctor observeth: All sensible things are called visible. And Protestants, (as is before shown) do confess that before Luther's rising their Church was simply invisible, 
Lib. 1. de mor. Manich. c. 20.  and unseen of any, either of those within or without her. And necessarily they must say so, because they can name none at all, who before Luther arose, did see a company of men, who professed to believe justification by only faith, and the rest of the fundamental principles of Protestancy: yea they affirmed, that it was so invisible, 
Ca 4. n. 11.  as it employed contradiction to have been seen of any.  

That the Church cannot be invisible.  2. Now that the Church Militant or living on earth cannot be so invisible, I prove; first, because it is against an article of faith of diverse Protestants. And if perhaps any hereupon imagine, that either Protestants never granted the contrary, or that if they did grant it, their testimonies against themselves are not to be accepted; let him read what hereafter I writ touching that matter, in the last chapter of this book. Wherefore in the Confession of Saxony cap. 15. they profess in this sort: God will have the Ministry of the gospel to be public, he will not have the voice of the gospel to be shut up only in corners; but will have it beard of all mankind. Therefore he will have public and seemly meetings and in them he will have the voice of the gospel to sound. He will also have these same meetings to be witnesses of the Confession and separation of the Church from the sects and opinions of other Nations. God will have his Church to be seen and heard in the world, and will have her divided by many public marks from other people. And the same they repeat in the Consent of Polony cap. de Coena. And the same Confession of Saxony cap. of the Church: We speak not of the Church as of a Platonical idea, but we show a Church, which may be seen and heard. The eternal Father will have his Son to be heard in all mankind. Wherhfore we say, that the Church is in this life a visible company etc. Secondly it is against their own definitions of a militant Church. 
Protestant's definitions of the Church.  For the foresaid Confession of Saxony defineth the Church in this life to be a visible company. The Magdeburgians in their 1. Century lib. 1. c. 4. col. 170. do thus write: The Church may be thus defined: The Church in this life, is a company of those, 
The church in this life.  who embrace the sincere doctrine of the Gospel, and rightly use the Sacraments. And the very same definition giveth Melancthon tom. 4. in cap. 3.1. ad Tim. pag. 398. Hutterus in his Analysis of the confession of Auspurg pag. 444. saith: This Church, which is said to be, and to be believed, 
The Church which we believe.  is not a Platonical idea, but the visible company of those, that are called. Zanchius also in his treatise of the Church cap. 2: The militant Church is the company of the elect, and truly faithful, 
Church militant.  professing the same saith, partaking the same Sacraments, etc. Hereof properly speak the scriptures, when they call the Church the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ, redeemed with the blood of Christ, sounded upon a rock. Gerlachius tom. 2. Disput. 22: Defining the Church, as it is on earth, we say that it is a congregation of men, 
Church on earth.  who called by the voice of the Gospel, hear the word of God, and use the Sacraments instituted of Christ.  
3. Thirdly it is against the properties and marks of the true Church assigned by the Protestants themselves, to be altogether invisible. For thus their Confession of Auspurg cap. 7: The Church of Christ properly so called, 
The proper Church.  hath her marks, to wit, pure doctrine, etc. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: The true church is discerned from other nations, by the voice of true doctrine, and lawful use of Sacraments. 
The true Church.  The French Confession art. 27: We believe that the true church ought to be discerned with great care. Wherhfore we affirm out of the word of God, that the Church is the company of the faithful, who agree in following the word of God, and embracing true religion: wherein also they daily profit, growing and confirming themselves mutually in the fear of God. The Confession of the Low Country's art. 29: By these marks the true Church shall be discerned from the false, if in her the pure preaching of the Gospel be of force: by these marks it is certain that the true Church may be distinguished. The Confession of Scotland art. 18: It is necessary that the true Church be discerned from the false, by evident marckes, least being deceived we embrace the false for the true, to our eternal damnation Again: We believe the marks of the true Church to be true preaching of the word, etc. Melancthon in his answer to the Bavarian articles tom. 3. fol. 362: It is evident, that the true Church is a visible company. And upon the 16. to the Romans tom. 1. pag. 486: She is the true Church, who teacheth the Gospel aright, and rightly administereth the Sacraments. Danaeus in his book of Antichrist, cap. 17: 
The proper definition of the Church.  This is the proper definition of the Church, that the true Church is the company of the faithful, who serve God purely, and keep the notes of adoption instituted by him, such as are the heavenly word, the Sacraments and discipline. By these 3. marks the false Church is distinguished from the true. Lubbert in his 4. book of the Church cap. 2: We say that the Church doth show herself to be the true Church, by the sincere preaching of the word of God. And Beza wrote a book of this title: Of the true and visible marks of the Catholic Church. D. Whitaker in answer of the 3. reason of F. Campian: That we judge to be proper to the true Church, that it increase and conserve Christ's word, that it use the Sacraments entirely and purely. These we defend to be the most true and essential properties of the Church. Take these away and you will leave nothing but the carcase of the church. Again: They contain the true nature of the church, which if they be present, they make the church, and take it away, if they be taken away And D. Feild in his 1. book of the church cap. 11: We say, that that society wherein that outward profession of the truth of God is preserved, is that true church of God, etc. Finally to omit the words of others, the same teach Wigand in his method of doctrine cap. 19 Gesner in his 24. place of the Church, The Magdeburgians in the Preface of their 6. Century, Heshusius in cap. 1.1. ad Cor. Soterius in his method, title of the church, Pelargus in his Compend. of divinity loc. 7. Sohnius in his Thesis of the Church, Bullinger in his Catechism fol. 44. Aretius' in his places part. 3. fol. 50. Theses of Geneva disput. 74. 
Summeoin Protest. former Concessions.  Thus thou seest (good reader) that according to the manifold judgement of Protestants, a part of the definition, of the essence, the mark of the Church in this life, of the Church militant, of the Church which is believed, of the proper Church, of the Church whereof the Scripture properly speaketh, when it calleth her the spouse of Christ, the body of Christ; of the true Church, of the Church properly so termed, and finally of the Catholic Church; that (I say, it is of the definition and essence, a mark of this church, to be a visible company professing the faith, partaking the Sacraments, mutually confirming themselves, and that otherwise it is (as they say) but a carcase of the Church. Wherefore it implieth manifest contradiction, that there should at any time have been a true Church, and not a visible company: because nothing can be without all its essential parts. The Protestant Church therefore, which (as we head) was before Luther's time altogether invisible, was no true and proper Church, but (to use their terms) a Platonical idea, or a carcase of a Church. If any reply, that when Protestants affirm the foresaid definitions, properties, and marks of the true Church; they mean not by the name of the true Church that which is simply and absolutely the true Church, but that which is the true visible Church; I ask, why then do they simply call it the true Church, if they do not so mean? why are not their words conformable to their meaning? Besides, the Church whereof they give the foresaid definitions and marks, they call not only the true Church, but also the Church properly so termed, the spouse and body of Christ, the Catholic church, and such like, which cannot agree to any, which is but a Church in appearance only, and in the sight of men, but only to that which is the Church in very deed, and in the sight of God. Further more, according to the opinion of Protestants these two terms True and Visible, in the nature of the Church do one destroy the other; as these two, True and Painted, exclude each other in the nature of a man. For they imagine that the true Church is a society in something that is invisible, to wit in justification and predestination. Whereupon they deny any ill or reprobate Christians to be of the true Church. Wherefore, as he should speak fond, who should say A true painted man; so, according to their own opinion, they speak as fond, when they say The true visible Church. But as we can only say, the true picture of a man, attributing the word True, to the picture, not to the man; so they should only, The true appearance or show of the Church, gluing the word True to the show, not to the Church itself. But they are ashamed to speak so, lest when they inquire the marks of the true visible Church, 
Why Protestant's sometime call the visible visible Church the true Church.  it should appear, that they seek not the marks of the true Church indeed, but only of the show, shadow, or shape of the Church. And yet in very truth they seek but the marks of the shadow of the church. For the invisible Church, consisting only of the just and elect, which alone they will have to be the true Church; hath no certain marks; else we should know certainly who were the just and elect. And this themselves confess; for thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 8: 
Protestant's give no marks of the true & Catholic Church.  The question is not of the marks of the invisible Church. Again: We say the marks of the Catholic Church simply so called, are known to God alone. And D. Humphrey to 3. reason of F. Campian pa. 281. saith that the marks do not reach unto the nature of the true Church. And the reason is manifest, because (as I said) otherwise we should know who were the just and elect.  
4. If any again reply, that when Protestants say, The true visible Church, they mean the visible Church true in doctrine, in which speech there is no contradiction according to their own opinion, because they admit, that the visible Church, (that is, the society in true doctrine and right use of Sacraments, into which Church or society the wicked or reprobate may enter,) may be true in doctrine, though they grant not, that such a Church or society be the true Church in nature or essence. Which perhaps Vorstius meant, in his Antibellarm. pa. 180. when he said: The outward Church is not without cause called the true church of Christ by reason of the procession of true doctrine. I answer, if they so meant, why did they not speak so? were they ignorant, that it is one thing to be true in doctrine or in speech, and another to be true in nature? as a liar is a true man in nature of man, but not true in his speech. Or if they did know this, why did they abuse the words and their hearers? Moreover, though in this sense their words did not destroy themselves, as they did in the former, yet fond should they (as they use to do) assign the truth of doctrine for the mark of the true Church in doctrine. For this were to assign a thing for a mark of itself; as if to know a true man of his word, one should give this mark, that it is such as speaketh truth. Besides this were rather to define what is a true man, then to give the mark to know who is a true man. And yet marks are given to know which is the true Church, not what is the nature of the true Church.  
5. If yet any reply, that the visible Church or society in profession of true doctrine and right use of Sacraments, is termed of Protestants the true Church, not because this Church or society is of itself the true church or the society instituted by God, but because always in, or under it there is the true Church, to wit the society in justice and predestination; by reason that in every company of them that profess true doctrine and rightly use the Sacraments, there are some, who are sociated and united in justice and predestination. Which D. Whitaker intimateth, when Cont. 2. quest. 4. cap. 1 pag. 485. he saith: The visible Church, which holdeth and professeth true saith, is the true Church only of the part of the elect and predestinated: I answer, that this supposeth a thing doubtful, and perhaps false. For what certainty can there be, that in every particular company of them who profess the true faith & rightly use the Sacraments, there is always a company of the just and elect; when as Christ saith: Many are called but few are chosen, 
Matt. ●0.  especially, if (as Protestants say) one or two make a church. Surely Danaeus Cont. 4. pag. 689. seemeth to deny this, saying: These visible companies are sometimes a part of that (true) Church, sometimes none. But admit that in every company of true professors there be always a company of just and elect, what reason were this, to term the society in profession of true faith, the true Church, if in deed the society in justice & predestination be the only true Church. This would suffice to say, that the apparent Church could never be separated from the true Church, but not to call that society the true Church, which indeed is only the outward appearance of the true Church. And much less would it suffice, to call it the church properly so termed, the spouse and body of Christ, the Catholic Church, the Church which we profess to believe; as the Protestants have termed the visible Church. Neither can these epithets or names be given to any other society, then to that which hath the true nature and substance of the Church indeed; because they signify as properly and expressly that only Church; as she can be expressed of us by any words whatsoever. And sith Protestants have given them all to the visible church, they must needs confess that she hath the nature and substance of the very true Church indeed; and consequently that an invisible Church is no true Church indeed.  
6. Fourthly I prove that the Church cannot be invisible, 
Protestant's somtyms say that the church cannot be invisible.  because oftentimes Protestants do confess it. The Apology of the Confession of Ausburg chap. of the Church: The Church is principally the society of faith and of the holy Ghost in the hearts, which yet hath her outward marks, that she may be known. Luther upon the 4. chap. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 56: The Church was never so void of external marks that it could not be not known where God was certainly to be sound. And upon 51. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 474: For Christ will not lie hid in the world, but will be preached; not between walls, but upon the house top. Melancthon upon the 11. of Daniel tom. 2. pag. 511: It is necessary, that the Church be a visible company. Again: We seigne not an invisible Church, like to a Platonical idea. And in the Preface of his 3. tome, he thinketh it so absurd to put an invisible Church, as he saith: To what tendeth that perdigious speech, 
Monstruous to say the Church was invible.  which denyeth that there is any visible Church. We must needs confess a visible Church. And upon the 3. chap. 1. Tim. tom. 4. pag. 398: Others (saith he) setting aside wholly the external show, do speak of an invisible Church, as of a Platonical idea, which is no where seen or heard. Kemnice in his common places title of the Church cap. 3: God will have us to know, where and which is the Church. Therefore she must be known, not to God only, but also to us; and thereupon is defined to be the visible company of them, who embrace the Gospel of Christ, and rightly use the Sacraments: james Andrews in his book against Hosius pag. 210: We are not ignorant, that the church must be a visible company of teachers and hearers. Again: The Church is, and is called a company of men, chosen of God, in which the word of God soundeth incorrupt, etc. Hunnius in his treatise of Freewill pag. 91: God in all times hath placed his Church as in a high place, and hath exalted it in the sight of all people and Nations. Hutter in his Analysis of the Confession of Auspurg, pag. 430: The elect are not the whole Church, no if you speak only of the true church. For the church consisteth not only of inward saith in Christ, but also of the outward administration of the word & Sacraments. Now as fare as this in outward rite is performed, so fare the true Church truly is visible. Beurlin in the Preface of his Refutation of Sotus: I confess the Church of Christ is always to be acknowledged visible. And he addeth, that all confess the same. The same doctrine is taught by Gesner loc 24. by Adam Francis in his 11. place, and by other Lutherans. Amongst the Sacramentaries thus writeth Vrsin in Prolegomenis ad Catechcsin pag. 2: The Church must needs be seen in this world, that the elect may know unto what company they must adjoin, themselves in this life. junius Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. affirmeth, that it is impious to say that the Church can wholly want a visible form. Keckerman in the 3. book of his Theological system writeth, that the Church must always be sensible, that other nations may know to what church they ought to adjoin themselves; and that Confession of sincere doctrine can never fail wholly, nor the visible church wholly err. Danaeus in his book of the visible Church dareth to say, that who denieth the true church of God, and that visible, to have been from the beginning of the world, he without doubt showeth himself to be ignorant in holy scripture. Amongst our English Protestant's M. Hooker in his 3. book of Ecclesiastical policy pag. 126: God hath had ever, & ever shall have some Church visible upon earth. D. Field in his 1. book of the Church cap. 10: For seeing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saved, and no man can be saved unless he make Confession unto salvation (for faith hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice) it cannot be, but they that are of the true Church, must by profession of the truth make themselves known, in such sort that by their profession and practice they may be discerned from other men. And D. White in defence of his Way cap. 4. pag. 390: I acknowledge the providence of God, who hath left the records of history to confirm our faith, and freely grant our religion to be false, if the continual descent thereof from Christ cannot by such record be showed. Moreover at sometyms they not only confess that the Church is always visible, but also grant that the scripture teacheth the same in those parables of the barn and the net. For out of them Caluin 4. 
Protestant's confess that the Scripture affirmeth that the Church is always visible.  Institut. cap. 1. § 13. inferreth that the Lord pronounceth, that the church shall be vexed with this evil till the day of judgement, to be burdened with the mixture of the wicked. Of the same opinion is D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 471. and others. But that church which containeth the wicked, is the visible Church, for the invisible they will have to hold only the good. The Scripture therefore testifieth that the visible Church shall ever be. Yea Protestants now and then take it so ill, that it should be said, that they teach that the visible Church perished for many ages, that D. Sutlive in his answer to Exceptions cap. 7. saith that Bellarmine lieth in saying so. And D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag 472. saith, we slander them, when we affirm they put such a Church, as at sometimes can be seen of none. And saith, that in this matter there is no controversy about the thing, but about the manner, to wit, no question whither the Church be always visible or no, but in what manner it is visible; because forsooth we will have the Church to be at all times visible clearly, and of all men; and they will have it to be at sometimes visible but obscurely, and of few. The like saith Kemnice in his Common places title of the Church cap. 3. Reineccius in the 4. tome of his Armour cap. 8. and D. Morton in the 1. part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 13. But yet that in this matter we neither belly nor slander them, is manifest by what we have rehearsed in the 4. chapter before going in the 5. number, and those that follow. To which I add, that Caluin in the Preface of his institutions setteth the state of this question betwixt us & Protestants in these words: Upon this hinge hangeth our controversy, that they (Papists) will have the form of the church to appear and be visible at all times: On the contrary we say, that the church may consist of no apparent form. And I would to God, that Protestants would constantly agree, which us in this matter of doctrine, that the church of God is always visible to some, either of those that are in it, or out of it; that the debate might remain only about the matter of fact, 
Why Protestant's contradict themselues about the invisibility of the Church.  whither the Protestant Church before Luther appeared, were seen of any either Protestant or other. But Protestants standing betwixt truth and lies, whiles they consider the nature of the Church of God, especially as it is described in scripture, confess that it must needs be visible, not only to her children but to others also. But when they look back upon the state and condition of their own church before Luther began, are compelled to deny the same, as before we most evidently showed: which thing alone, if it were well considered, would discover sufficiently, that in their own consciences they acknowledge their Church not to be the true Church of God.  

Inuisibility contrary to the ends of the Church.  7. Fiftly, I prove that the Church cannot be invisible, because that were contrary to the ends for which the Church was instituted of God: whereof one was, that men should worship him after that entire manner of worship which man is to give, which is to honour God not only with heart and mind, but also with tongue and deed, as it is evident; and Caluin in his Confutation of a Hollander, many ways proveth that the Church must render to God, not only inward but also outward worship. But an invisible Church worshippeth God only in heart and mind, as whitaker's words are. Another end of the Church is to feed her children with the word and Sacraments, to correct and govern them by discipline, and to defend them from enemies; as also is manifest and scripture teacheth. Which offices, a Church, which neither seethe her children, nor is seen of them, cannot perform. Likewise another end is to convert the world, and those who are out of her, to the faith and worship of God; which she can no way do, if neither her doctrine nor example be seen of them. And yet as Luther saith upon the sixth chapter of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 234: The Church is in perpetual practice of converting others to the faith.  

Inuisibility against the nature of human societies.  8. Sixtly, it is against the nature of a society of men amongst themselves, for to be invisible. For as men consist of a body which is visible by the colours, and of a soul which is seen by the actions thereof; so it is necessary that the society in which they join, be visible, either by itself, or by some other thing. Whereupon well said S. Augustin: 
Li. 19 cont. Faust. c. 11.  Men cannot join in any religion true or false, unless they be bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or Sacraments. And the same, confesseth Gerlachius in his 23. disput. of the Church pag. 995. saying: We willingly confess & grant, that the church cannot be, except there be some outward and visible signs, by common communion and participation whereof society amongst men may consist. And seavently it is contrary to the example of all other societies amongst men whither religious or profane, whereof none consisteth in a thing which is altogether invisible, and whereby the members of that society cannot be known the one to the other.  
9 Seaventhly, 
Against the perpetuity of the Church.  it is contrary to the continuance and conservation of the Church on earth to be visible. For if the Church which was in the former age had not been seen of that which is in this age, how could the Church of this age have received the faith? We ask therefore, how the Protestant Church of our age learned the faith of the Church of an other age, if in the ages before Luther she were so invisible as you have heard them confess: Protestant's scared with this question like men with a thunder clap, leap a sunder, and every one answereth, not what he knoweth or can prove, but what seemeth to him least absurd, that hereby we may perceive, that all their talk of their Churches being before Luther's time, is but as the scripture saith, fables and vain speeches, or fancies and fictions of men, speaking without either testimony or reason. Some of them say, that before Luther their Church received the faith immediately from God alone. During Popery (saith Boysseul in his Confutation of Spondé pag. 75) the holy Ghost taught faith without a preacher. 
Protestant Church taught miraculously.  The same also intimate junius Cont. 4. lib. 3. ca 13. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed Col. 788. The Author of the church in Danaeus Opuscles pag. 1029. D. Fulk of Succession pag. 320. and others, who say, that the Church Was propagated and received faith by extraordinary means. And they also, who writ, that their Church was preserved miraculously, marvelously, by wondrous means, or by mere miracle; as Luther of private Mass tom. 7. fol 240. Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 1. §. 2. Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 763. Danaeus of Antichrist pag. 1021. & Son is against Spondé cap. 2. pag. 36. But this their assertion they neither do, nor can prove otherwise, then because God can in such manner preserve the church.  
10. Thou seest (gentle reader) upon what a vain foundation this imaginary church is built, for the space of many ages, in which it lay invisible and lurking in holes & corners. For they confess, that for many ages it was not seen of any man; and if at any time they confess not so much in words, in deeds they confess it always; because they can never name any, whom they can prove to have seen it in former ages; and nevertheless they will, that for all those ages it learned their faith miraculously and immediately from God alone. When we ask testimony hereof, they produce neither divine nor humane worthy of credit; when we demand proof, they give us no other than this, 
Verstius Antibel. pag. 468. Fulke de Success. pa. 74.  that God could so teach it faith. As if God did, or doth all that he can do. We speak of an effect, or a matter of fact, of God's will; and they answer of his power. When we affirm any thing, they exact demonstrations, that is, plain testimonies of Scripture, or at least pregnant proofs deduced thence. And when they affirm a matter of so great weight and so incredible, as is that the church was so many ages taught her faith of God alone, they will have us to believe it, not only without any testimony of God or man, but even contrary to the testimony of them both, for one silly sophism, ridiculous to the very children, and scorned even of themselves in other matters, as shall by and by appear. Surely that I may use Saint Augustins words: They seem to think, that they have not to do with men, 
Cont. Adimant. c. 4.  but as if they were mere beasts, who hear them or read their writings, they abuse the ignorance or dulness of them, or rather their blindness of mind. Or as Caluin saith: 
Antid. ● Conc. c. 15.  These masters need have a heard of Oxen, if they would have auditors to whom they may persuade what they will. But to their Argument I say with Tertullian against Praxeas cap. 10: Surely nothing is hard to God. But if in our presumptions we will so rashly use this sentence, we may feign any thing of God; as if he had done it because he could do it. But we must not believe he hath done that, which he hath not, because he can do all things: but we must seek whether he hath done it or no. Luther also upon the 46. cap of Genesis tom. 6 fol. 624. saith: God can govern the church by the holy Ghost, without the Ministry; but he will not do this immediately. And upon the 32. chap. fol. 454: He could by the holy Ghost inwardly enlighten the hearts and forgive sins without the Ministry of the word and Ministers; but he would not. And the Confession of Suitzers cap. 18: God by his power can immediately gather a church of men, but he chose rather to deal with men by the ministry of men. Caluin upon 3. chap. 1. Cor. v. 6: Nothing hindereth God that he may not inspire faith into men asleep; but he hath otherwise determined, to wit that, that faith should come by hearing. And upon 1. chap. of S. Luke v. 37: They rave perversely who imagine of God's power without his word. It is a dangerous dispute what God can do, unless withal we find what he will do. And 4. Institut. cap. 17 §. 24. he saith: We ask not here what God could, but what he would do. The like words he hath cap. 1. §. 5. lib. 2. cap 7. pag 5. and de vera Eccles. Reform. pag. 326. Beza in the 2. part of his answer to the Acts of the Conference at Montbelgard pag. 97: An argument taken from the power of God needeth no answer, unless his will also appear to us by his word. The Author of the orthodoxal consent in the Preface: It is ridiculous to urge the omnipotency of God, where we know not hi● pleasure. Sadeel of Sacramental manducation pag. 272. setteth down this as a Theological principle: We may not in divinity argue from the omnipotency of God, unless his will be before declared by his express word. Let Protestants therefore produce Gods express word, wherein he saith, that he hath, or will for many ages miraculously by himself alone teach the Church her faith. Danaeus also in his 4. book deamiss. great. cap. 15: It little availeth to prove God's power, unless his will also be proved. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 6. cap. 1 p. 617: What a kind of argument is this? This may be done, because nothing is impossible to God, therefore it is done, or sometimes hath been? Doth our faith rely upon such foundations? Finally Casaubon in his 7. Exercitation against Baronius: It is a saying of the Fathers that God's power is the refuge of Heretics. Thus thou seest how vain, even by the Protestants judgement, is this proof of the Church's learning immediately from God. They are wont to scoff at the Miracles done by Saints, albeit we prove them by sufficient testimony of man: & themselves feign a continual miracle, yea so many miracles, as they feign men, whom they say for many age's learn● their faith immediately of God; which they can prove by no sufficient testimony, either of God or man. Yea we will most manifestly hereafter disprove it. Here I will only note, that those Protestants seem to have been some Enthusiasts or heavenly Prophets, as Luther scoffingly termed some, who in his time challenged such immediate learning from God; and that the Protestants themselves do sometimes condemn this immediate learning from God, as Fanatical, anabaptistical, Suenckfeldian, and enthusiastical.  
11. The Confession of Auspurg art. 5. 
Protestant's reject immediate taeching of God.  (as Fabritius relateth out of the original copy) saith thus: They condemn the Anabaptists and others, who think that the holy Ghost cometh to men without the outward word. Martin Luther upon Genesis tom. 6. fol. 117: The holy ghost doth not teach new revelations besides the ministry of the word, according as the Enthusiasts and Anabaptists true Fanatical Doctors do dream. And in the 8. art. of Smalcald: In this we most constantly stand, that God will not otherwise deal with us then by the vocal word and Sacraments. Schusselburg also in the 10. tom. of his Catalogue pag. 30. rehearseth it is an error of Suenckfeld, that men may be saved without the outward word of God and Ministry. And Melancthon in his answer to the Bavarian Articles tom. 3. fol. 372. affirmeth, that it is the opinion of Suenckfeld and the Anabaptists: That God communicateth himself to men without the ministry of the word. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen title of the Sacrament of Orders pag. 391: justly we disallow of Enthusiasts and Anabaptists, who imagine the exercise of the outward ministry not to be needful. And title of Penance pag. 316: The Enthusiasts are condemned, who feign that God forgiveth sins immediately, and without the use of the ministry. D. Whitaker Count 2. quaest. 3. c. 11. pag. 328: We wholly reject revelations, which are beside the word, as Fanatical, anabaptistical and altogether heretical. And in his 1. book of the Scripture cap. 3. sect. 1. pag. 44: We must expect no more immediate revelation. It is so. And he addeth, that Protestants hisse out all those who pretend these kind of revelations. And in the 2. book cap. 10. sect. 4: Why are the Anabaptists held for Heretics, if the church do know matters of faith without all external means by the only instinct of the holy Ghost? Pareus in his 3. book de justificat. cap. 3: The exception which they make of special revelation, is a mere jest. For besides the Prophets, Apostles, & some few Apostolical men, God doth not deal, nor hath dealt with special revelations; but with ordinary, and will have the Church to be content with the word and the holy Ghost working in the hearts of the faithful. And cap. 8: God will not have his church to be taught and confirmed by enthusiastical revelations; but by bearing of his word and ordinary use of the Sacraments. Finally Beza in the Conference of Montbelgard pag. 407. saith: That we have no testimony in scripture of extraordinary means of infusing faith. Besides, it was the fashion of both old and new heretics to boast of special revelations. Of old heretics witnesseth S. Augustin in his book of heresies; and Caluin in his book of true Reformation pag. 322. Of Munster, Carolstade, and the Sacramentaries Luther testifieth the same upon the 22. of Esaiae tom. 4. fol. 280. Of Gentilis, Caluin in his book against him. Of Storcke, Manlius in his Common places pag. 482. Of Peucer and Bergius, Schusselburb. lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 1. pag. 172. that I may say nothing of Luther, 
The Protestant Church not taught by ordinary means.  Zuinglius, and Caluin.  
12. Others therefore teach that the Protestant church before Luther, received the faith, not by any extraordinary way, but by ordinary means, to wit, by hearing some true doctrine of Popish preachers, and some by reading scriptures: Thus D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 424. Behold new fables and fictions (for we are like to hear no other kind of stuff of Protestants in these matters of fact) not only less proved than the former, but also less probable or possible. For it was at least possible, that God alone should have taught his church; but that before Luther's revolt either Popish or Protestanticall preachers, or the Scripture should have taught Protestancy, hath neither show of probability nor possibility. Not Protestant preachers, because before Luther there were none at all, as hereafter both D. Whitaker and others shall confess. For the present it may suffice, that Luther upon the 22. psalm. tom. 3. fol. 344. writeth: That there was lest only the scripture, and that comprised not in voice, but in letters, by which we might restore ourselves to the faith. And Against Catarine tom. 2. fol. 140. he saith, that the vocal gospel, being choked and extinguished by Papists, was silent in all the world. Neither could the Scripture teach Protestancy, not only because it teacheth no such doctrine, but also because it plainly professeth, 
Rom. 10.  that none can come to faith but by bearing of preachers lawfully sent, as hereafter we shall see Protestant's do confess. In the mean time it may suffice, that Danaeus in his book of the visible church pag. 1069. writeth, that S. Paul saith that faith cometh by hearing, not by private reading; and that we open a gap to Fanatical spirits for to contemn their Pastors, if we say that reading alone will suffice to get faith; which Protestants have experienced. For thus writeth Luther in the Preface of his Catechism tom. 5. fol. 645: There are found some this day even of the Nobility, who dare say, we need no more Pastors or preachers; that books suffice out of which every one may learn the same things by himself without any man's teaching. And Caluin upon the 2. Thess. cap. 4: Certain fanatical fellows do brag, that they need no more the help of teachers, because reading may abundantly suffice.  
13. Neither could those imaginary Protestants learn Protestancy of Popish preachers. First, because Protestants, (as before his shown) complain, that Papists had extinguished all their faith. Again because now no man learneth Protestancy of Popish preachers, and beside because Papistry and Protestancy are directly opposite, as Luther saith in cap. 3. Micheae tom. 4. fol. 446. and tom. 7. epist. ad Eslingenses, and against King Henry tom. 2. fol. 497: Or (as Brentius speaketh in his Apology of the Confession of Wittenberg pag. 703) they differ in the very principles: or (as Beza writeth in his Confession cap. 7. pag. 56) In the very sum of salvation. And as D. Whitaker affirmeth in his oration that the Pope is Antichrist, 
Protestancy & Popery quit opposite.  Papistry is more repugnant to Protestantisme, then hot to cold, black to white. How then is it possible that they should have learned Protestancy of Papists, who teach so contrary doctrine. Lastly because Protestants themselves deny it. For Luther upon the Gradual psalms tom. 3. fol. 516. thus writeth: In Popery there was never heard one pure word of sin, of grace, of the merit of Christ. And fol. 568: Under the Pope all pulpits, all Churches did sound out nothing but wicked doctrine. And in cap. 2. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 297: Seeing Papists know not what faith is, it is impossible that they should have faith, and much less teach it to others. And the Apology of the Confession of Auspurg in the Preface: No man taught, that sins were remitted by saith in Christ. Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 2. §. 2. saith, that in Popery the doctrine without which Christianity cannot stand, was all buried & cast out. And in Respons. ad Versipellem pag 360: In Popery there soundeth the bare and empty name of Christ. And upon the 2. cap. 2. Tim: There is a horrible destruction of the gospel in Popery. Wherefore none learned the Protestant Gospel either in Popery, or of Popish preachers. Besides although they could have learned the faith of Popish preachers, yet they should be ashamed to say, that they had learned it of them, whom they account the bondslaves and ministers of Antichrist.  
14. Ninthly, 
Nothing can make the church invisible.  I prove that the Church could not be invisible, because there is nothing which can make that the Church profess not her faith. For if any thing, most of all persecution. But as the waters did lift up the ark of Nöe, which was a figure of the church; so do persecutions raise up the church, and make her more known. And as the heaven in day time all shineth, but at might glittereth in the stars, so the church in time of peace flourisheth in all her members, but in time of persecution is most glorious in her constant soldiers. And there are many and most excellent testimonies of the holy Fathers, how that the Church is by persecution made more pure, more famous, and more plentiful, which one may read in SS. justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustin, Leo, Theodorete, Gregory the great, & others. I according to my purpose will allege only the testimonies of Protestants. Luther upon the 1. psalm tom. 3. fol. 125: The faithful, whiles they are killed do increase, while they are diminished do multiply. And upon the 9 of Isaias tom. 4. fol. 84: The Church is made fruithfull with the blood of the Godly, and increaseth. Caluin against Seruet. pag. 595: The true and proper church rising under persecution, flourished under the same. The like he hath upon the 2. Tim. cap. 2. and Philip 1. Lubberia lib. 5. de Eccles. cap. 3: The true Church grew under suffering persecutions. And the Apology of the English Church in the end: This flame the more it is kept down, so much the more with greater source and strength doth it break out and fly abroad. D. Fulke of Succession pag. 255: I acknowledge that the Church is so fare from being extinguished by the persecution of the material sword, that I grant it giveth her occasion to delate and extend her bounds. For so, as Tertullian saith well, the blood of Martyr's is the seed of the Church. This all that are not stark blind do see to have happened to our Church. For how much the more Antichrist raged with fire and sword, so much the more famous she became. And D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 501: Persecutions destroy not the Kingdom of Christ, but make it more famous. And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 2. pag. 669: When tyrants ra●ed against the church, religion suffered no loss; yea then most of all flourished How then could the Protestant church, if it were the true church of God, become invisible before Luther arose, by persecution?  
15. If any reply, that this is true of violent persecution of the heathens, but not of persecutions by fraud & deceit, as is the persecution of Antichrist, which made the Protestant Church in former times to become invisible: I answer that first he speaketh voluntary without all proof. Again, that the English Apology and D. Fulke speak namely of Antichrists persecution, meaning the Pope, which they say hath since Luther's time made their church more famous. How then could it before his time make it invisible? Moreover, the scripture and holy Fathers teach, that Antichrist shall rage's most cruelly against the Church: and Protestants affirm that the Pope, whom they will have to be Antichrist, hath been so cruel against Protestants, as any Herode, Nero, Domitian, may seem to have been mild if they be compared to him. Finally, heretics do by fraud persecute the Church, and nevertheless the Apostle saith: There must be heresies, 
1. Cor. 10.  that those who be tried may be made manifest. So fare is fraudulent persecution from making the Church invisible, as it maketh the tried faithful to be manifest. And both S. Augustin oftentimes, & others observe, that heresies have been occasion of great increase of knowledge unto the Church.  
16. Tenthly I prove, 
Protestant's infer an invisible Church to be no Church.  that the Church cannot become invisible, because Protestants do often infer such and such a Church or company not to have been, because it was not seen; as in the Preface of the protocol of Frankentall, they prove the Anabaptists were not before the year 1525. Because (say they) if you read all stories you shall find no people from the beginning of the world, who had a Confession of faith like unto yours. But by the same manner it were easy to prove that Protestants were not before Luther. For as Spalatinus in his relation of their Confession of Auspurg boasteth: One shall not find such a Confession neither in any history, neither in any ancient Father or Doctor. 
In Luther tom. 9 German.  And Fox in his Protestation before his Acts saith, that of their Church there is no mention made in Histories. Luther also upon the 3. chap. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 358. writeth that of his principal opinion nothing is read in books of Monks, of Canonists, of Scholmen, yea nor in the books of ancient Fathers. There was a wonderful silence of it for many ages in all schools and Churches. Likewise, when one said, that the Roman Church was a member of the Catholic Church, Caluin in his Answer ad Versipellem pag. 359. said: I do not gainsay that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholic, if he could show a Church at Rome. Which supposeth that no Church is where it cannot be showed. When Bellarmine said, that beside the Synagogue of the jews there were in Elias time Churches amongst the Gentiles, D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475. thus answered: If they say that God had other Churches, let them show them, and tell which they were, and where they were. And D. Rainolds in his 12. Prefection upon the scripture col. 106. inferreth, that none of the Synagogue did believe those books of Scripture which they deny to be canonical, because we cannot name any. When D. Harding said that there was such an heresy, M. jewel art. 2. diuis. 8. pag. 75. denying it, saith: It must needs be a very strange heresy that never had neither beginning nor ending, nor defender nor reprover, nor mouth to speak it nor ear to hear it, nor pen to write, nor tim to last in, nor place to rest in. And if an heresy must be heard of, certainly much more the Church of God. When Beza impugned the Arians, thus he discourseth epist. 18. pag 98: If their opinion be true, we bid them show where there Church hath been, sith from the propagation of the gospel it is easy to demonstrate, that never any one held any such thing, who was not condemned by the perpetual consent of the Church. And he addeth epist. 81: Certainly there hath been no true Church, if these men teach truth. When the Bohemians would prove that they had borrowed nothing of the Anabaptists, thus they writ in the Preface of their Confession: Our Congregation was long time before any thing was heard of the Anabaptists, or their name known in the world. Finally M. Bancroft in his Survey of the pretended discipline cap, 2. avoucheth, that the Genevian discipline began of Caluin, because before him it was never seen or heard of. And if they think that a discipline, or an heretical company could be, and not be seen or heard of in the world; how much more ought they to think the same of the Church of God?  
17. Lastly I prove that the Church of God could not be invisible, 
Absurdities follow of the invisibility of the Church.  because thereupon would ensue many and great absurdities. For first, if the visible Church should fail, it is manifest that it is not the Church of Christ, against which he hath promised, that the very gates of hell shall not prevail. And if it be granted, that the visible Church is not the Church instituted by Christ, it must needs be but a humane society instituted by man. How then should it come to pass, that one cannot be saved, unless he be in the visible Church, if so he can be, as commonly all Protestants do teach? Who contemn all ordinances of men as unnecessary to salvation, why make they such account of this humane institution? At the last the Protestants have felt this mischief, as ye may see in Caluin in his 3. homily in his Opuscles pag. 548. and Danaeus in his book of the visible church; where they bring many reasons to prove, that it is necessary to be of the visible church. But seeing themselves do teach that the visible church is not the true Church in the sight of God, and consequently a humane institution, how can they prove, that God hath commanded, or men can appoint so strictly to observe this one humane Institution, under pain of damnation? Another inconvenience is, that Christ's promises touching the continuance of his church are exposed to the laughter and mockery of jews and Infidels. For sith (as the Law saith, and Protestants acknowledge) among men, there is no other account made of things that appear not, then of things that are not; what man will reasonably persuade himself, that Christ's Church hath ever continued in the world, if she for many ages appeared in no one corner of the world? Surely this seemeth so incredible, that I think not, that any man well in his wits believeth it, howsoever for to defend the Protestants Church he may say it. But farewell rather such a Church which cannot be defended but by such improbable paradoxes.  
18. The 3. inconvenience is, that the church of God should have been much more miserable than hath been the Synagogue of the jews, even since it hath been forsaken of God. For the Synagogue hath ever since Christ's time been visible unto the world, and professed her faith both before her own and others. 
Lib. 12. cont. Faust. c. 11.  The jewish nation (saith S. Augustin) whether under Pagan or Christian Kings, hath not lost the sign of her law, wherewith it is distinguished from other nations and people. The same testifieth S. Hierome epist. 129. ad Dardan. And Peter Martyr in his Common places title of the jews §. 47: The Hebrews, albeit subdued of the Romans, yet never took their laws, rites and customs; they keep their own yet as well as they can. And Sadeel in his Answer to Theses Posnan. cap. 8. granteth the same. And the Magdeburgians in every Century make special mention of the jews. To this some Protestants say, that it is no marvel that the external condition of the Church was more miserable than of the Synagogue. 
junius & Daneus l. 4. de Eccl. c. 5.  But whosoever shall read the Prophecies of the glory and amplitude of the Church, will think this strange. But beside, not only the external, but also the internal state of the Church was more miserable than the Synagogue, if the Synagogue durst in all ages, even before her enemies, profess her faith; and the Church of Christ for long time durst mutter nothing even before her own children; yea (as we shall hereafter hear the Protestants teach) adored Antichrist, and observed Antichristian and idolatricall rites & worships. The 4. inconvenience is, that if we say that the Church may be, and yet not be seen of any, we give occasion to every new start up heretic, to say, that his church hath ever been: neither can we refute this his dotage, unless we do maintain that the church must be evermore visible, & profess her faith; which (as we have seen) Protestant's themselves do suppose, when they prove that any Church or company hath not been in former times.  
19 Out of all which hath been said in this chapter, it appeareth evidently, that whither we put the form of the Church in some visible thing or invisible, whether we say that the only elect and just be of the church or not they alone; of what kind soever (I say) the form of the Church be, and whosoever be of the Church (of which matter I disput not now) it is evident I say, that the Church of God never is at any time, but she professeth her saith before her children and before the world; and consequently that the Church her profession of faith, or (which comes all to one) that the Church according to her profession of faith, is evermore visible, or sensible, which sufficeth to my purpose; because before Luther arose, there was no Church visible in profession of Protestant faith. Wherefore I frame my 3. demonstration for to prove Luther to have been the Author of the Protestant Church in this sort: Whensoever the Church is, she is visible in profession of her saith: (whether this profession be an essential form, or a property or accident inseparable) But the Protestant Church immediately before Luther arose was not visible in profession of her saith: Therefore immediately before Luther she was not at all. And by his preaching became to be: Therefore he was the Author thereof. The Mayor or first proposition of the Syllogism is evident by all that hath been laid in this chapter. And the Minor or second proposition by all the verbal Confessions which we have reheased in the former chapter, & by real confessions of all Protestants whatsoever, who neither in Luther's time nor since, could bring forth any man worthy of credit, who had seen any company professing Protestancy before Luther began to preach it. Then the which yet nothing had been more easy to do, especially in Luther's time, if any such company had been extant.   

That Protestants confess, that before Luther their Church had no Protestant Pastors. CHAP. VII.  
1. THE 4. demonstration for to prove that Luther was the Author of the Protestant church and Religion, we will take out of that Protestants acknowledge their Church before his time to have wholly wanted Pastors. First therefore they confess, that their Pastors in former times were unknown to the world, 
Protestant's Pastors unknown to the world.  and to Protestants themselves. D. Fulk in his book of Succession pag. 26: God hath raised up Pastors in all ages, howsoever they were unknown to the world. And pag. 22: I deny (saith be) this Succession (of Pastors) to be always notorious to the world. And in his answer to Stapletons' Cavillat: who will acknowledge that she alone it the true Church, who can show her Pastors in a continual succession? D. Humphrey to 3. Reason of F. Campian p. 288. confesseth, that not so much as the names of the Pastors, who taught their Church, were extant. D. Whitaker Cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 6. page 508. thus writeth: What then? was the succession of our Pastors always visible? No. For this is not needful. Though therefore our Pastors were not in times past manifest, neither can we name then, yet etc. D. Morton in the first part of his Apology lib. 1. cap. 21. saith, that the Catholic church cannot always show the ordination of Pastors. D. White in his way to the church pag. 410: I have showed the teachers of our faith do lawfully succeed, and so always have done, though not outwardly and visibly to the world. The like he hath pag. 411. and 436. saddle wrote his book de vocatione Ministrorun against such Protestants, as thought that their ministers wanted all lawful calling, because (said they) they have no perpetual visible succession from the Apostles unto these times. And himself there pag. 560. confesseth, that visible succession hath been broken of, for many years in the church. Thou seest (good reader) how they plainly confess, that before Luther start up, their Pastors were unknown to the world, not manifest, their succession not always visible, their names not extant, nor they can be named of Protestants. And indeed and effect they all confess the same, when as none of them can produce any one man worthy of credit, who heard any Protestant preacher, who before Luther arose preached justification by only faith, and the other fundamental points of Protestancy.  
2. Secondly Luther either complaineth or boasteth for sometime he alone preached Protestancy. In his Preface upon his 1. tome: At first I was alone. 
Luther alone.  And in his book of the captivity of Babylon tom. 2. fol. 63: At that time I alone did role this stone. And against the King of England fol. 497: I alone stood in the battle. I alone was compelled to cast myself upon the weapons of the Emperor and the Pope. I stood alone in danger forsaken of all, helped of none. And upon the gradual psalms tom. 3. fol. 5●5: In the beginning of my quarrel I took all the matter upon myself, and did think that by God's help I alone should sustain it. And otherwhere, (as before is reported) he saith, that without him others should not have known one jot of the Gospel. Melancthon in the Preface of the Acts of Ratisbon tom. 4. pag. 730: saith: Luther alone durst meddle with the errors of the Popes & schools. Zuinglius in his Exegesis to. 2. termeth Luther jonathas, who alone durst set upon the camp of the Philistians. And Caluin in his Admonition to Westphalus pag. 787. saith: Luther alone doubted not to set upon all Popery. Besides, Luther (as before we have rehearsed) writeth, that the only scripture was left, whereby men might recover the faith. But if at that time there had been other Protestant Pastors, the scripture had not been alone; and without Luther men might have learned the gospel. Neither had Luther been left alone and forsaken of all, 
The Protestant Ministry wholly perished.  but some of them would have stepped out and seconded him especially after they saw that the preached without all danger.  
3. Thirdly Protestant's do sometime plainly say, that their ministry was wholly perished before Luther arose. 
Taken away.  Luther in his book of private Mass tom. 2. fol. 249: Papists have taken out of the Church the true Ministry of the word. And of the Institution of Minister's fol. 372. 
Aboloshed.  he writeth, that Protestant ordination was by Papists abolished and extinguished. And upon the gradual psalm. tom. 3. fol. 568: The Church had no true Ministry under Antichrist. 
No true Ministry  Upon the 25. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 319: In our time after those Popish monsters the true knowledge of the word, and of divine ordination was extinguished. And upon the 49. chap. fol. 655: 
Extinguished.  We are not the church for any ordinary succession. Caluin epist. 290: Because the true rank of ordination was broken of, by the tyranny of the Pope, now we need have new help to raise again the Church. 
Broken of.  And in Answer to Sadolet pag. 132. he writeth, that when the supremacy of the Pope was set up, the true order of the Church perished. 
Perished.  And of true reformation p. 322: Not without cause do we avouch the Church of God for some ages to have been so io●ne and scattered, that is it was destitute of true Pastors. Beza in his Catechism, 
Destitute of Pastors  title of the Church, cap. 5 sect. 18: In our time it came to pass, things being so fallen down, that there was left no place for ordinary vocation. And epist. 5. pag. 39: In our time ordinary vocation, 
Ordinary vocation no where.  which no where was, neither could, nor aught to be expected. And Epist. 24: Ye know, being taught by fresh examples, how the public ministry being as it were overwhelmed for a time, yet the church of God remaineth. And epist. 81: The matter came to that pass, 
Overthrown to the ground  that the Ecclesiastical order was wholly overthrown even to the foundation, the vain names thereof only remaining. And lib. de Notis Eccles. pag. 82: They, who in our memory have freed the church from the tyranny of Antichrist, had none of whom they might lawfully ask or receive imposition of hands. And epist. 86: It is manifest, that for some ages lawful order was quite abolished in the Church; 
Quite abolished.  none not so much as the slenderest shadow of the chiefest part, of ecclesiastical calling, remaining. The French Confession art. 31: Sometimes, as in our age, the state of the Church being interrupted, it was needful, that some (Pastors) should be extraordinarily raised of God. Sadeel also de Vocat. Ministrorum p. 556. saith, that true Order (of Pastors) was interrupted. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 510: We say, that our men's calling was not ordinary, but extraordinary; 
Wholly corrupted  because ordinary calling was wholly corrupted. Again: The state of the Church was fallen and wholly overturned. And pag. 612: When ordinary succession was corrupted, God found an extraordinary way, by which the Church might be restored. For God would that this restauration should be made, not in the old foundation, that is in succession of Bishops, but after a certain new extraordinary manner. And D. White in defence of his way cap 49. pag. 421: Finding no other kind of Pastors, saith, that the Protestant Pastors were even those, who lived in communion of the Roman, Greek, Armenian, and such like Churches; and addeth that his adversary doth deceive the reader when he intimateth, that Protestants go about to show any other kind of Pastors. Finally all those, who affirm that the vocation or Mission of Luther and their first Ministers was extraordinary, must needs say, that there were no former Protestant Pastors, of whom they could have been sent or approved.  

Protestant's say the Church may be without Pastors.  4. The same also they insinuate, when they teach, that the Church may be without Pastors, which they affirm, that thereby they may defend the being of their own Church before Luther, when it had no Pastors. Luther in cap. 4. Oseae tom. 4. fol, 295: As if the Church were tied to any certain order (of Ministry) The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: God eftsoons restoreth the Ministry. Caluin of true Reform. pag. 332: I grant indeed that it can never fall out that the Church perish; but when they refer that to Pastors which is promised of the perpetual continuance of the church, in that they are much deceived. For the Church doth not perish straight, if Pastors he wanting. Beza of the notes of the Church pag. 55: Ordinary succession and vocation of Pastors was not always needful or perpetual. Sadeel in Answer to the abjured articles pag. 533: It is false that the outward Ministry must be perpetual. The same he hath in Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 763. junius and Danaeus lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 8. Bucan. in his 41. place de Eccles. quest. 19: Sometime the outward and usual ministry of the church being interrupted, the Church is extraordinarily nourished of God, as it were in the desert. Keckerman in his Theological Systeme lib. 3. pag. 397: The Church is often pressed so, that the order of succession (of Pastors) must be somewhat interrupted. And Vorstius in his Antibellarm. pag. 158: The ordinary succession useth oftentimes to be interrupted for some tyme. Lu●bert in his 5. book of the church cap. 5: We say that the church may for a short space be deprived of Pastors. D. Whitaker c. 6. before cited, pag. 510: I gather that true and lawful succession may be broken of, and that it is not a true, but only an accidental note of the Church; because it pertaineth not to the essence of the Church; but only to her external state. And pag. 512: We say that ordinary succession hath oftentimes been interrupted, and cut of, in the true Church. D. Morton. lib. cit. cap. 17. writeth thus: The matter of the proposition, to wit, where there is no succession there is no Church, ye know to be weak. And cap. 18. he affirmeth this saying to be false: Succession of doctrine cannot be divided from succession of persons. And cap. 23. saith: Succession of faith may be without succession of doctrine; and succession of doctrine without succession of persons. D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 319: Yea even the very public preaching of the word may be silent for a time; and the Church being deprived for a time of this ordinary means of her salvation, may be preserved so long of God. And D. White in his way to the Church pag. 87: All the external government of the Church may come to decay, in that the local and personal Succession of the Pastors may be interrupted. And pag. 403: For the external Succession we care not; it is sufficient that in doctrine they succeeded the Apostles and primitive Churches, and those faithful witnesses, which in all ages since embraced the same.  
5. By the foresaid Confessions of Protestants it is most clear, that when Luther began to play the Pastor, there was no Protestant preacher at all. For they acknowledge, that they are no Church for any ordinary succession; that the true order of the church perished, that the true Ministry was taken out of the Church, true knowledge of divine ordination was extinguished, and ordination abolished and decayed: That the Church had no true Ministry, and that she was destitute of true Pastors. And that they mean these words both of a substantial & universal destruction of true Ministry, is manifest both by the self same words and others also. For they add withal, that the state of the church was quite overthrown, ordinary vocation wholly corrupted, that ordinary vocation was no where, no place left for ordinary vocation, and there were none, of whom those who freed their Church from Popery, might receive imposition of hands: that the state of the Church was so interrupted, that God must raise up Pastors extraordinarily, that the true rank of ordination was so cut of, as that their needed a new succour and a new foundation; lastly that the Ecclesiastical order, the vain names thereof only remaining, was overthrown from the foundation, and lawful order quit abolished: that there was not left so much as the slenderest shadow of the chiefest parts of ecclesiastical vocation. In which words either they say that there was never a Protestant Pastor at all, or that can be said by no words whatsoever. And such was the state and condition of the Protestant church, not for a small time, but as themselves say, for some ages. And for this cause usually they call Luther & his first partners, their 
(a) Plessie l. 1. de Eccl. c. 11. Napp. in 14. Apocal.  first ministers, first 
(b) Sadeel de Vocat. pag. 556.  teachers, first 
(c) G●alt. Praefat. in ep. ad Rom  restorers of the gospel, first 
(d) Perk. in ●. Galat. cap. 11.  preachers of the gospel, first restorers of the house of God, Apostles and Evangelists.  
6. Finally I prove that there was no true Protestant preacher before Luther, out of the real confession of all Protestants. For none of them all can by any sufficient testimony or argument prove, that there was any such Pastor. Wherefore this is rashly affirmed and fond believed. 
〈◊〉 Marc. ●  Either prove (saith Tertullian) that which thou believest, or if thou provest it not, how dost thou believe it? And that common argument of theirs, wherewith they use to prove, that they had a Church and Pastors at all times, because they bring the Scripture to prove their doctrine to be true; we shall hereafter show to be a most vain Sophism. And besides themselves do overthrew it, in teaching as we have seen, that the Church may be without Pastors; whereby it would not follow that they had Pastors, albeit they could by the Scripture prove that before Luther they had a Church. Moreover than those who endeavour to name some Protestant preachers or Pastors before Luther's time, do plainly show that there was no true and absolute Protestant Pastor, to wit such as taught justification by only faith, and the rest of the fundamental opinions of Protestancy. For the Apology of the Church of England pag. 103. saith, That they gave not so clear a light, but lightened as it were some sparck. The Confession of Saxony cap. 12: That they joined stable unto the foundation. Cruciger and Rorarius in Luther. tom. 1. fol. 202: That they had some little light. D. Fulke of Success. pag. 131: That perhaps in all points they knew not the Apostolical doctrine. And D. Whitaker de Scriptura lib. 2. cap. 8. sect. vlt: Howsoever they were environed with most gross darkness, yet they told some sparks of truth, and shown them to others. And what other thing I pray you is this, but to confess, that such were but Protestants in part and in some sort. Yea they name some, whom they confess to have reprehended only certain abuses amongst the Papists, as Melancthon in his Answer to the Bavarian articles tom. 3. fol. 369. and Illyricus in his Catalogue lib. 15. confess of Hilten. It remaineth yet for the accomplishing of this demonstration, that we also show by the Confessions of Protestants, that the true Church of God can never want Pastors, as they have confessed theirs to have wanted for the space of some ages.   

That the true Church cannot be without Pastors. CHAP. VIII.  
1. THAT the Church can never be without Pastors, I prove first out of the Confessions of the Protestant faith. For thus profess they to believe in the Confession of Saxony cap. 12: The Son of God hath given ministers of the Gospel unto the Church, to the end it do not quite perish. Again: He would have always a company in mankind, in which the Son himself appointed and conserved the Ministry of keeping and spreading his doctrine. The Confession of Suitzers cap. 18: God hath always used ministers for to settle and gather him a Church, and also for to govern and preserve it; and useth the same now, and further will use them whiles the Church shall be on earth. The French Confession art. 25: We believe the Church cannot consist if it have not Pastors, who have the office of teaching. The Confession of the low Country's art. 30: We believe that the true Church ought to be governed and ruled by that spiritual policy, which God hath taught in his word, so that there be Pastors and ministers in it. And the Confession of Strasburg:  the church is the Kingdom of God, it hath diverse functions of ministers.  
2. Secondly I prove it, because for the church to be without Pastors, is to want some part of the essence and definition given by the Protestants themselves. For Luther Proposition 15. to. 1. fol. 385. thus defineth a Church: It is a number of baptised persons and believers under one Pastor. And tom. 2. fol. 366. he saith: The public Ministry of the word whereby the Mysteries of God are dispensed, must be instituted by holy ordination, as the thing which in the Church is the chiefest and principallest of all. Kemnice in his Common places title of the Church pag. 146: The Church consisteth of Pastors and learners. Gerlachius in his 22. Disput. pag. 966: The Church is not a company meeting by chance or disordered, but called by the voice of the criers of the word for to hear the doctrine of the Gospel. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 7: The Ministry is the chiefest sinew and soul of the Church. Beza of the Notes of the Church pag. 9: By the name of the Church properly taken, it is certain that not only Pastors but also stocks are understood. junius Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 15: God instituted orders in the Church, for the essential outward constitution thereof. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: The Church cannot subsist without Pastors of whom it is taught. For doctrine doth make and constitute the Church, and is her soul and life. And cap. 18. pag. 546: The Church is no other number, then that which holdeth the pure preaching of the word and right use of the Sacraments. And cap. 17. dag. 541: Sincere preaching of the word and lawful administration of the Sacraments do make the church; in so much as wheresoever they be, there the Church is; and where they be not, the Church is not. D. Field in his 2. book of the Church cap. 6: The Ministry of Pastors and teachers is absolutely and essentially necessary to the being of the Church. And lib. 1. cap. 10: Bellarmine laboureth in vain in proving that there is and always hath been a visible Church, and that not consisting of some few scattered Christians without order of Ministry or use of Sacraments; for all this we do most willingly yield unto. Yea the Philosophers by the light of reason perceived, that it is impossible they should be a Common wealth without Magistrates. This same also is manifest by many other definitions which Protestants have made of the Church, and we have rehearsed them before, in which they place true preaching and administration as essential parts of the true Church; which yet cannot be without Pastors.  
3. Besides, this were against the definitions of the Church given by the holy Fathers. For thus writeth S. Cyprian epist. 79: The Church is the people united to the Priest, and the flock cleaving to the Pastor. And this he proveth out of those words of our Saviour Math. 16: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. S. Hierome also in his dialogues against the Luciferians: It is no Church which hath no Priest. S. Ignatius in his epist. ad Trallianos: Without these (Priests) the elect Church is not, no congregation without these, no meeting of Saints. And whereas Danaeus lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 8. saith, that these Fathers define only a visible church, that availeth nothing: because indeed there is no Church on earth which is not visible in profession of faith. Again, Pastors shall be at least of the essence of the visible Church, and consequently the Protestant Church, which before Luther wanted Pastors, was no visible Church. Furthermore, S. Cyprian proveth his definition out of those words of Christ Matt. 16. which (as is certain and Protestants confess) are spoken of the true Church in the sight of God. And S. Ignatius saith, that there is no elect church, no congregation of Saints, without Priests: which he must needs mean of the true Church. And Saint Hierome simply saith it is no Church, which hath no Priests: which he could no ways say, if the true Church in the sight of God could be without Priests. And hereby also is refuted Sadeel in Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 652. when he saith: The definition of S. Cyprian is not essential, nor properly teacheth what the Church is, but what a one it ought to be. For S. Cyprian inferreth out of his definition, that if one be not with the Bishop, he is not in the Church. And Saint Hierome pronounceth one Hilaries sect to have perished with him, because he left no Pastor behind him. And for this cause the Fathers do still object unto heretics the want of succession of Pastors, as an evident mark that they are not the Church; as even Protestants themselves confess. For thus writeth D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 509: The Fathers rebuked heretics that they wanted succession of Bishops. Sadeel of Vocation of Ministers pag. 546: S. Augustin oftentyms opposed this succession against the Manichees and Donatists. Zanchius of the Church pag. 138: I admit that succession of true Bishops is a mark of the Church; and of this speak the Fathers. The like confess Caluin Respons. ad Versipellem pag. 358. and 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 3. Beza epist. 1. Plessy de Eccles. cap. 3. Fulke de Success. pag. 36. D. Morton Apol. part. 1. lib. 1. cap. 13. james Andrews count. Hosium pag. 89. and others. Neither is it true which D. Whitaker and Sadeel say, that the Fathers did not think that they convinced the Heretics not to be the Church, because they wanted succesion of Pastors. For S. Irenaeus saith that hereby he confoundeth heretics, and that this is a most full demostration. S. Augustine writeth, that this argument of succession held him in the Church. S. Athanasius calleth it a notable and admirable argument. And Sadeel himself loc. cit. saith that with this battering ram S. Cyprian did especially vanquish the Novatians. And Peter Martyr in his Common places tit. de Schismate, writeth that S. Augustine's argument taken from the succession of Pastors was very evident against the Donatists.  

Protestant's confess necessity of Pastors  4. Thirdly I prove that the Church cannot be without Pastors, because eftsoons the Protestant's confess it. Luther upon 10. chap. of Genesis tom. 6. fol. 125: The Church cannot consist without continual use of the word. And of the Notes of the Church tom. 7. fol. 151: The Church cannot be without Pastors. Melancthon upon the. 3. cap. of Math. tom. 1. fol. 258: God will always have some public Ministry. He will not suffer the public ministry to be destroyed. And in cap. 16. pag. 489: There is no Church where there is no true Ministry. And ibideth in his sermon upon the rock pag. 176: The Church is built upon the Ministry. And tom. 1. in loc. cap. de Eccles. fol. 227: We must not seigne a Church without the Ministry. And cap. de numero Sacramentorum. fol. 334: The Ministry cannot be quite destroyed. And in his dispute of Ecclesiast. policy tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 442: The Church cannot exist. this ministry being extinguished. Kemnice in his Common places tit. of the Church cap. 4: There are promises extant of the perpetual conservation of the Ministry in the Church. Gerlachius Disput. 22. pag. 940: The public Ministry is always conserved. james Andrews against Hosius pag. 330: No man denieth that the Church cannot be without Bishops Oecolampadius upon the 62. cap. of Isaias pag. 30●: God raiseth up at all times Apostles and preachers. Bolanus in his Syn●agme lib. 7. cap. 11: The function of ordinary Ministers after the Ecclesiastical order is one settled, is perpetual, and to endure to the end of the world: Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 4: For neither the light and heat of the Sun, nor meat and drink are so necessary to cherish and sustain the present life, as the Pastoral function is for to conserve the church on earth. And §. 3: God hath settled forever the way of governing and holding his Church by Ministers. And §. 4: The church can never want Pastors and teachers. Beza de Notis Eccles. pag. 60: The church can never want either the seed of the word, or sowing, or sowers. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 197: The Ghospellers acknowledge the 3. other orders to be perpetual in the Church, to wit, Pastors, Priests, and Deacons. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3, cap. 2. pag. 469: I answer that there were always Pastors and sheep, and that there shall be ever Pastors to the end of the world. And quest. 5. cap. 6. pag. 508: I confess the succession of Pastors to be necessary. Again: I answer that the Church cannot stand without Pastors. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 22; I grant that the succession of Pastors is necessary in the church. And pag. 95: The true doctrine of Christ and the Apostles never wanted criers. D. White in defence of his way cap. 35. pag. 381: The Church shall never want Pastors. And his Majesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 61: Neither can hell stand without some order and distinction. The Devils are divided into Legions and have their Princes, how then can any compa●●on earth stand which is confused and disordered without all difference of orders or dignity. You see how confused a thing Protestant's account the Church to be without Pastors, and that they speak far otherwise of the Church, when they consider the true nature thereof, then when they look upon the condition of their own Church in former times before Luther. Neither do they only sometimes confess that the Church cannot be without Pastors, but also acknowledge that Scripture ●o●h teach so. For thu● Melancthon in his foresaid dispute fol. 483: 
Scripture requireth. Pastors.  Where the Church is, there must needs be lawful ordination of Ministers; which ordination is one of the proper gifts of the Church, according to that of the 4. chap. to the Ephesians: He hath given Pastors etc. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen tit. de Sacramento ordinis pag. 192: The Son of God himself will conserve in the Church with perpetual calling the Ministry of those who teach the Gospel. So saith Paul Ephes. 4. Caluin. 4 Institut. cap. 3. §. 2: In these words (Ephes. 4) he showeth the Ministry to be the chief sinew, wherewith the faithful hung together in one body, and insinuateth also that the Church cannot otherwise be safe, unless it be propped with these helps, in which God would place her safety. The like he hath in cap. 4. Ephes. and 1. Cor. cap. 6. and 12. and 1. Tim. cap. 3. D Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 19 pag. 549: This place of Esay cap. 59: My spirit etc. showeth that the true preaching of the word shall be perpetual in the Church. D. Whitgift in his Answer to the Admonition pag. 17: The place of Matthew 9 showeth that Ministers are necessary in the Church. D. Fulk ad Cavillat. Stapl: You do that which is done already, whiles you prove out of the Apostles writings that the continuance of the Pastors and Doctors is of no less certainty, than the continuance of faith and doctrine. And de Success. pag. 180: The Scriptures promise perpetual succession of Pastors and Doctors.  

Preaching necessary to faith,  5. Fourthly I prove this same because Protestants sometimes do teach, that preaching (which cannot be done without Pastors) is necessary to engraft faith in men. For, as before we rehearsed, they condemn the Anabaptists and Suenckfeldians in that they teach, that men can come to faith without preaching. And Luther tom. 1. fol. 54. writeth that the administration of the word by a Priest is needful for faith. And Cont. Caterin tom. 2. fol. 140. saith, that by the vocal word the Church is conceived, form, nourished, begotten, and conserved. And de instituendis Ministris fol. 372:  the church is brought forth, nourished, and conserved by the word of God, it is manifest that she cannot be without the word; or if it be without the word, that it leaveth to be a Church. In cap. 17. joannis tom. 5. fol. 203: For God hath not determined to conserve them (the faithful) without outward means, albeit he could do it. Also upon the 1. chap. of Zacharias: Although God can teach men the Gospel without sermons, yet he will not do it. And of the Notes of the church tom. 7. fol. 149: What could or would the people of God believe, unless the word of God sounded there. Melancthon in locis tom. 3. cap. de libero arb. fol. 311: God gathereth a true Church by the voice of the Gospel and not otherwise. Kemnice in the 2. part of his examen tit. de Sacramento ordinis pag. 391: God by his certain counsel hath determined, that he will dispense those things, which belong to the matter of our salvation, not immediately by infusing new and peculiar revelations into the minds of men without any means, but by the outward Ministry of the word. Caluin. 4 Institut. cap. 1. §. 5: Howbeit God's power be not tied to outward means, nevertheless be hath tied us to the ordinary means of Preaching. Many are pushed on by pride, disdain and emulation to persuade themselves that they can profit enough by private reading and meditating. And §. 4: The knowledge of her (the visible Church) is profitable to us; yea necessary, for we cannot come to life unless she conceive us in her womb, bear us, nourish us with her duggs. And in 1. Tim. cap. 3: The office of preaching which God hath left in his church, is the only instrument of truth, that it go not out of men's minds. The Ministry of the word being taken away God truth will fall down. Beza epist. 20: It is clear that faith cometh of hearing, and therefore preaching must go before faith. Tayé in his Enchiridion disput. 60: The necessity of ecclesiastical Ministry appeareth in that without it we can not know the word of God, nor his will therein revealed unto us. D. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scriptura cap. 9 sect. 9 pag. 106: The ministry being taken away, neither faith, nor Charity, nor obedience, nor any virtue will remain safe. And cap. 2. sect. 6. pag. 37: We cannot at all believe without the Ministry of the church. And lib. 3. cap. 15 sect. 20. pag. 478: I affirm, determine, and hold, that there is no entrance to salvation without the Ministry of the word. Again: by the Ministry of Pastors we believe the Scripture, neither is it to be hoped that without this Ministry saith can grow in our minds. And cap. 5. sect. 2: I confess the Ministry of the Church to be most necessary. And Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 19 pag. 550: We never come to faith without preaching of the word. D. Fu●ke de Success pag. 30: The people's salvation cannot be procured without preaching. And pag 162: No Christian will deny preaching of the word to be necessary for the edification of the church. M. Latimer in his sermons fol. 38: Take away preaching and take away salvation. Fol. 99: The office of preaching is the only ordinary mean, whereby God hath determined to save us. M. Cartwright in M. Hooker lib. 5. of Ecclesiastical policy p. 41: Reading may set forward, but not begin the work of salvation, saith may be nourished therewith, but not bred; herein men's attention to the Scriptures and their speculation of the creatures of God have like efficacy, both being of power to augment, but neither to effect belief without sermons. And the Puritans in D. Whitgifts' Answer to the Admonitions: Reading is no feeding. How then could there be any Protestant Church or faith at all before Luther, when (as we heard before) there was then no Protestant preacher? 
Scripture requireth preaching  And in like sort sometimes they confess, that the Scripture itself teacheth, that preaching is necessary to have faith. The Confession of Auspurg. cap. de potest. Eccles. pag. 59: Everlasting justice, the holy Ghost, eternal life, cannot be had but by the ministry of the word and Sacraments, as Paul saith. The Confession of Bohemia art. 10: They grant that none can attain to right saith, unless he hear the word of God, according to that of S. Paul; Faith is of hearing. And again: How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard. And the Protestants in their conference at Marspurg agreed, as reporteth Hospinian part. 2. Histor. fol 77: That the holy Ghost, if we speak of the ordinary course, giveth faith to none, unless preaching or the vocal word go before; but by and with the vocal word he worketh and maketh faith, where and in whom it pleaseth him, Rom 10. Caluin also 4. Institut. cap. 1. §. 5: God inspireth faith into us by the instrument of his Gospel, as Paul admonisheth, that saith is of hearing. Again: We must hold that which I have set down out of Paul, that the Church is not otherwise edified but by outward preaching and in 1. Tim. cap. 3: Paul meaneth simply that which in other words he delivereth Rom. 10. because faith is of hearing, that there will be no saith unless there be preaching. The like he hath 1. Cor. 3. v. 6. Heb. 4. v. 12. and Ephes. 4. v. 12. Beza in the Conference at Montbelgard pag. 407: The ordinary manner whereby faith is infused, is by hearing the word, Rom. 10. And Bucer in cap. 10. Rom: The Apostle knew that God could call men without the ministry of men, nevertheless he absolutely wrote: How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard. Hyperius also upon the same place: That is, that all believe and call upon God, it is needful that before they hear the Gospel and be taught. D. Whitaker lib. 1. de Scrip. cap. 2. sect. 4: That of the Apostle, how shall they believe without a preacher, convinceth this much, that preaching is necessary to conceive assured of faith God. And c. 10. sect. 4: The Apostle doth plainly say, that faith is of hearing. And Cont. 2. quest. 5. c. 19 pag. 549: This place (of Isay 59) showeth that true preaching of the word shallbe perpetual in the Church. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 787: I answer that place Rom. 10. Faith is of hearing, to be understood of justifying faith. So that neither the visible nor invisible Church could ever have been without preaching.  
6. Out of all that hath been said in this and the former chapter I thus make my fourth demonstration, for to prove that Luther was Author of the Protestant Church. If before Luther the Protestant Church had no Pastors, she was not then at all: But then she had no Pastors at all: Therefore than she was not at all: And by him she came to have both Protestant Pastors and sheep: Therefore by him she had her beginning. The Mayor is evident by those Confessions of Protestants which we have rehearsed in this chapter; and the Minor by those that were repeated in the former.   

That the Protestants Church and Religion before Luther was no where. CHAP. IX.  
1. THE first demonstration, for to prove that Luther was Author of the Protestant church and Religion, 
Protestant's name not the place.  shall be taken from want of place; to wit, that it was no where before Luther began. And this I prove, first, because they oftentimes say, that before Luther's time their Church was in the desert, in darkness, in lurking holes, in Trephonius den; nevertheless they tell not where this desert, this darkness, this lurking hole, this den was. Secondly, some of them confess, that they know not where their Church was in time pa●t. D. Whitaker Cont. ●● quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 475: 
Know not the place.  They are angry with us that we cannot ●hew, and as it were point with our finger where our Church was in times past. The same insinuateth Sadeel ad Repetit. Sophism. Turriani pag. 766. saying, that he answered this question, Where there Church lurked, when he said, That it lay hid by the unsearchable judgement of God; as if he said: It lay so close hid, that it cannot be known where it lay. Also D. Hall in his Rome Irreconcilable sect. 1. when he calleth this our demand, Where their Church lurked, an idle demand of Pettifoggers. But that it is no idle demand, is manifest. For first, what man in his wits seethe not, that she, who is pretended to be the Catholic Church, that is, spread over the world, was not at all, if no place can be found where she was for many ages. Again, because the holy Fathers and Protestants themselves demand this of heretics. Who are ye (saith Tertullian) when, 
Praes. 32.37.  and whence come ye? where lurked ye so long? Again: Let them bring forth the o●spring of their Churches. S. Athanasius: Whence came these things? yea what hell hath vomited them out? 
Lib. de Nicen Synod. & de Syn. Selenuc. Lib 3 de Bapt. c. 2.  And S. Augustine: Where appeared Donatus? Out of what ground sprung he? Out of what sea arose he? from what heaven fell he? And Beza epist. 18. demandeth the like of the Arians saying: If their opinion be true, we bid them show then where was their Church. Besides, the Confession of Saxony chap. of the Church, professeth, that the true Church knoweth where the is. And Kemnice in his Common places tit, de Eccles. cap. 3: God will have us to know which, and where is the true Church. Wherefore it is no idle but a most necessary thing, to know where the Church is: and if Protestants immediately before Luther arose, knew not where the Church was; it must needs follow that she was not the true Church.  

Catholics always asked where was the Protestant Church.  2. Thirdly I prove it, because even those who take upon them to tell where their Church was in former times, do show indeed, that they know no place where she was. For as M. jewel saith art. 1. diuis. 7. pag. 10: Eckius, Pighius, Hosius and others have often cried out a main in their books and pulpits, where was your religion before Luther first began to preach? And that the same hath been demanded by Catholics, confesseth Peter Martyr in locis tit. de discessu ab Eccl. Rom. col. 1492. Beza de Notis Eccles. pag. 78. and in his 132. question. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. M. Perkins in his Reformed Catholic tract. 22. cap. 1. and others. And it is manifest by the writings & speeches of all Catholics. Yea Luther in cap. 19 Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 125. writeth, that this was our first argument against them, and will be our last: Art thou alone wise, or dost thou think that all our ancestors saw nothing? Did all those, who were before thee, err? Because he saw, that this argument did most press him, and that he could never answer it. Let us see therefore, what they answer to this our first and last demand so often and with such earnestness and so great cries proposed of us. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. proposeth their answer in these words: 
Protestant's answer.  Stapleton saith that Caluin and we say, that the true Church was in Popery, but that Popery was not the church: That indeed we all say. And the same in substance answereth Luther lib. de seru. arbit. tom. 2. fo. 438. in psalmos graduales to. 3. fol. 589. And de Missa privata tom. 7. fol. 236. james Andrew's cont. Hosium pag. 326. Herbrand in Compend. Theol. loc. de Eccl. pag. 502. Hunnius Praefat. tract. de justific. Huberus in Antibellarm. lib. 4. cap. 2. Hutter in A●alysi Confess. August. p. 447. Gerlachius disput. 22. p. 952. Lobechius disp. 10. pag. 202. Gesnerus loc. 24. Reineccius lib. 4. armaturae cap. 3. And amongst the Sacramentaries Caluin 4. Instit. cap. 2. §. 11. Peter Martyr, Beza, and M. Perkins locis cit. Sadeel in Refut. Thes. Posnan. cap. 8. Polanus part. 3. Thes. de Eccl. Daneus de Antichristo cap. vlt. junius lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 166. Vorstius in Catechism. quest. 54. art. 2. Sohnius in method. Theol. pag. 213. Bucanus loc. 4. de Eccl. and others commonly.  
3. But this answer satisfieth not our question, for many causes. First, because to say that the Church was in Popery, but Popery was not the Church, doth not seem an answer, but a riddle, & perhaps put of purpose, because as Bucer said: 
Lib. 1. epist. Zanchii.  Protestant's mysteries must not be expounded to Papists. Secondly they agree not among themselves what they mean by Popery. For Boysseul in his Confutation of Spondé pag. 723. will have it to be Popish doctrine, saying: He knoweth not what we call Popery. He imagineth, that it is men. But we say, that it is heresies and errors, the abuses & idolatries of the Roman Church. And D. White in defence of his way cap. 32. pag. 305: The Papacy is nothing else but a disease or excrement breeding in the Church. Moulins of Arnolds' flights cap. 6: Popery is a mass of errors, and corruption of Christianity. And Caluin in 1. Galat. v. 9: Popery is a horrible overthrow of the Gospel. Others by Popery understand the company of Papists. Schusselburg tom. 8. Catal. heret. pag. 480. writeth that Popery signifieth a company. And james Andrew's Cont. Hosium pag. 326. saith: Popery, that is, the Pope, Bishops, and they who consent to their impiety. Thirdly Popery whereby you understand such a company, or such doctrine, is no place; & we ask for the place wherein Protestants were before Luther's tyme. Fourthly, because we ask not where only they say their church was, (for what can they not say?) but where they prove their Church to have been. 
Lib. 1. cont. Gaud. c. 33.  Wherefore that I may imitate S. Augustins words, I demand whither God told them that their Church was in times passed in Popery, or man? If God, let them read it out of the Scripture. If man, let them bring him forth that we may judge, whither he be worthy to be believed or no. If neither God nor man told them this, than it is, 
2. Pet. 1.  (as the Scripture speaketh) an unlearned fable, which cannot be proved by any divine or humane testimony, a fiction, a dream, which they would be ashamed to utter, if they were not compelled by necessity to say somewhat. But (as S. Hilary saith) he is not ashamed of folly, who hath lost religion. Fiftly I prove this, 
Lib. 7. de Trinit.  because Protestants even by their manner of speech do be wray, that they are not certain that their Church was in Popery. For D. White in his Way cap. 33. pag. 338. saith: It is more than probable. Osiander in his Manuel englished pag. 65. saith: It is Credible. Gerlachius tom. 2. disput. 22. saith: How many shall we think there were. Others confess, that they know not those Protestants whom they say to have been in Popery Luther in psalm. 45. tom. 3. fol. 447: Under Popery there were always and yet are some believers, whom we know not. 
Know not.  D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 476: We say there were in times past many thousands of men in Popery, who professed our faith and adored not the beast; whom albeit we cannot name, 
Can not name.  yet God knew. Besides, some of them say, that there was no face or show of their Church in Popery. D. Whitaker loc. cit. p. 477: We say, that there were so few good in Popery, as they appeared not. 
Appeared not.  And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682: We surely say, that in times past the Church lay hid in Popery. And Luther upon the 90. psalm. fol. 495: The Church was in Popery, but truly so hidden, as to him, that would judge of the outward appearance, it might seem to be no where. Caluin also 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 12. speaketh in this sort of his Protestants, who●e ●he imagined in Popery: In whom all things are so out of order, as there may rather seem the face of Babylon then of the city of God. By what appearance then judge they, when then say that their Church was in Popery.  
4. Sixtly, 
What kind of Persons they challenge.  I prove that the Protestant church was not in Popery; by the Persons whom they challenge. Luther cont. Caterin. tom. 2. fol. 140. writeth thus: Where ye see no gospel, as we see none in the Synagogue of the Papists, there doubtless is no Church; unless you except infants and simple folk. And fol. 155: whom in all the world hath not the Pope subdued, 
Infants & silly ones.  except perhaps infants and silly persons, saved by an unknown Counsel. M. Bale Cont. 1. cap. 74. writeth, that their Church since Phocas the Emperor's time, Was in lurking holes and amongst idiots. Gerlachius disput. 22. 
Idiots.  saith that Infants were no small part of their Church Osiander loc. cit. pag. 65. that they were a great part. And as Lobechius addeth disput. 10. pag. 202: The noblest part. A worthy Church undoubtedly, which for many ages consisted of infants, idiots, and such silly persons. And they more silly who give credit to so silly an affirmation of Protestants without all proof; and they most silly of all who relinquishing the Catholic Church, adjoin themselves to such a childish and silly Church, so sillily affirmed and without proof. Seaventhly Protestants themselves do plainly profess that the entire substance and essence of their Church was not in Popery, but only some part thereof. And we, (as hath been often said) speak not of a Church in part, or in some sort, but of a Church which hath all the essential and substantial parts, 
The whole essence of a protestant Church not in Popery.  and may be simply and absolutely termed a Church. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. after he had said §. 1. that it is certain there is no Church where lies and falsity have gotten the upper hand; he strait saith §. 2:  matters go so under Popery, We may gather how much of the Church remaineth there. And addeth, that under Popery. That doctrine without which Christianity standeth not, is all buried and thrust out. And Respons. ad Sadolet. pag. 128. writeth: That in Popery there appeareth scarce any scattered and torn remnants of the church. 
Scarce any remnants. Only rubbish.  Peter Martyr in locis tit. de discessu a Rom. Eccl. col. 1493: Now there are left among Papists only some rubbish and parcels of old walls, together etc. Sonis Resp. ad Spondeum cap. 2. pag. 32: Antichrist hath left nothing in all the building, but some old walls. 
But old walls.  Sadeel Praefat. lib. de Verbo scripto: The Roman Church is so depraved and corrupted, that whiles we seek the Church, in the church; we are forced to behold only ashes of the Church. 
Only ashes.  The Apology of the Church of England part. 4. cap. 9 diuis. 3: These men now have left nothing remaining in the Church of God that had any likeness of his Church. 
Nought but ruins.  And part. 6. cap. 17. diuis. 1: When we saw that nothing remained in the temple of God but pitiful spoils and decays, we &c. Finally Luther in Psalm. 22. tom. 3. fol. 132. 
No trace.  saith, that in Popery there was no trace of the Church. And in psalm. 17. fol. 285: They have brought matters to such pass, 
Name only.  that where the Church of God was heretofore, there is nought but heathenish superstition and the name only of the church remaining; the substance is quite lost. The same also mean those, who say that in Popery were some small footsteps, some relics, and parcels of the church, albeit they had not this exclusive term, Only. But if in Popery the doctrine without which Christianity cannot stand were wholly buried and shut out; If therein scarce appeared torn parcels of the Church, only ashes thereof were seen; if nothing remained but old walls, rubbish and ruins; nothing entire and like to a Church; and the name only remaining, the substance were quit lost, doubtless there was no absolute and true Protestant Church in Popery, but only in part and in some sort. Which Daneus plainly intimateth when he saith Cont. 4. lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 387: Some footsteps of the Church remain yet in that (Popish) company, as if the ruins of a house cast down and the bare walls were called a house equivocally. Or as Caluin speaketh Respons. ad Versipellem pag. 357: In some part the Protestant Church was heretofore in Popery.  
5. That I may therefore gather together all that Protestants say of their Church in Popery before Luther's time; Concerning the persons whereof it consisted, they were infants, idiots, silly ones, and perhaps not they neither; Concerning the substance, it was only ruins, rubbish, old walls, ashes, and name only of the Church. Concerning the number, it was 
(a) Luther in psalm. gr●●t. f. 368 de Missa loc. 7. fol. 236. Gerla. disput. 22. Acontius l. 1. Strat. p. 25. Sade●l ad Sophis. pag. 596. ad Thes. Posnon. 18.  Very small, slender relics, few remnants, and scarce a few relics, so small relics, one or two persons. Touching the place wherein she was, that was lurking holes, or rather none at all. For so saith D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 468: The holy and pious men were together with their Pastors dispersed into this or that place without any certain abode or Succession. And quest. 5. cap. 4. pag. 503: Our men were in times past scattered here and there. Touching the state of their Church, that was 
(b) ●up. c. 2.  quite fallen down. Munching the face or show thereof, that was rather of Babylon then of the Church. As for the Condition, it was afflicted of Antichrist, with savage domination, was miserably brought to naught, and all her affairs most desperate. For profession of faith, she made none at all. For external rites and worship, she was compelled to keep very babylonical, heathenish, idolatricall, and Antichristian rites. For piety, that was all driven out. Touching faith, that was quite extinct. As for her Conservation, that was by marvellous and miraculous means, & by mere miracle. And lastly for the testimonies whereby either her being, are any of these points are proved, they are pure Pythagorical, that is, their own words, which is (as themselves say) arguments of fools, or rather lies, for who so speaketh of himself speaketh lies.  
6. My eighth reason is, because Protestants should have said that their Church had been in any company rather than in Popery. For Luther lib. cont. Regem Angliae tom. 2. fol. 334. writeth, that Popery is the most pestilent abomination of Satan, which hath been, or hereafter shallbe under heaven. And in cap. 25. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 342: Popery is a Congregation of devils and of most wicked men. And lib. cont. Papatum. tom 7. fol. 479. saith: It is the last mischief of the world, and to which all the Devils with all their cunning & power cannot bring a greater. 
Caluin ad Vs● sipel. pag. 360. Whitak. cont. 2. q 6 c. 1. Ochin. di●l. 25. Horn of the su●r. p. 101.  Others say that Popery is the body of Satan and Antichrist, the dungeon of errors & heresies, that it is worse than any sect of heretics, yea then Paganism, or Turkism; And almost all of them cry that it is the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist. Moreover Luther in Acts exustionis decretalium tom. 2. fol. 123. pronounceth, that it were safer living in the wilderness, to see no man, then to converse in the Popish Kingdom. And in cap. 2. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 327: Whosoever is earnestly affected towards Godliness, let him tremble at the name of Popery. And Protestants commonly gather out of that saying of the Apocalips: Go out my people, that it is the commandment of God, that all pious men should go out of Popery. If then Popery be the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist, & worse than any heretical, Turkish, or heathenish company; or any other, whom all the devils which all their cunning could raise; If all pious men ought to tremble at the hearing of the name thereof, and rather live in a desert then therein; If finally it be the Commandment of God, that all godly men should go forth of Popery, how came it to pass, that in former times the godly (forsooth) Protestant's lived in Popery, and in Popery alone, & that for so many ages? Would godly men abide in that company, and only in that company, and so long time, which was the worst that could be, before which they should have preferred the wilderness, have shaken at the name thereof, & were commanded to come out from thence by God's express commandment? Surely the Protestants must not only have been children and simple, but also impious and . What I could not, or would not the spouse of Christ lurk for so many ages, but in the stews of the devil? Can Christ be no where, but with Antichrist? Would only Antichrist for so many ages afford Christ and his church a harbour or lurking place? 
l. 1. de mor. Manich. c. 16.  O straits (saith S. Austin) O incredible absurdities! For what greater straits, what more incredible absurdity can there be, than to thrust Christ and his Church into the devil's stews, and that for many ages together? 
4. Instit. c. 16. §. ●●.  But as Caluin himself saith: There is no marvel if these reprobate spirits, as if they were frantic, do thrust in most gross absurdities for to defend their errors, for God justly punisheth their pride and obstinacy which such giddiness.  
7. Ninthly, I argue, and ask what is the meaning of the foresaid riddle: The Church was in Popery but Popery was not the Church. First, I suppose that by Popery here, they mean not (as did Boysseul) popish doctrine; as if the sense were, that the Protestant Church consisted of Popish doctrine, as we say that the Popish Church consisteth (to wit formally) of Popish doctrine; the jewish Church of judaisme, & the Turkish of Turkism; because this sense were too far from the question, which demandeth the place, and not the form, or doctrine of the Protestant church in former times. Besides, it were too too absurd to say that the Protestant Church consisteth in the contrary doctrine, which he condemneth. Supposing therefore, that hereby Popery they understand the company of Papists, their meaning cannot be, that their Church was in the company of Papists, as in a multitude of men amongst whom they lived only, but did no way participate of their doctrine or worship; both because in this manner, it had been known to Papists, which notwithstanding they deny, as before we shown, and anon shallbe proved to be false; as also because in this sort their Church may be said to be in judaisme, Turkism, & the like, if they live among jews or Turcks; which is so absurd as Protestant's deny their meaning to be such. For thus Beza epist. 10. quest. 4: The Church was in Popery, which can no way be said of the Turks. And M. Perkins lib. cit. after he said that the Church was long time in Popery, addeth, Which cannot be likewise said of Turks and other Infidels, that the Church was conserved, or that yet any hidden Church is conserved among them. Neither can their meaning be, that the Protestant church was in times passed in Popery, as a part in the whole, to wit, because it consisted of some that believed both Protestancy and Popery, or if they did not believe Popery, yet they professed it; because after this manner Popery should no less have been the Church, the Church should have been in Popery. For as the church should have been in Popery, because it consisted of such a part of Popery; so Popery should have been the church because such a part of Popery had been the Church. Besides, it implieth contradiction, that one should believe both Popery and Protestancy, which as Protestants say, are right opposite in many fundamental points. If any reply, that those Papists in whom the Protestant Church of old time did consist, did not believe all fundamental points of Popery, nor were absolutely Papists, but only in part and in some sort: first he mocketh the Reader in saying absolutely, that the Protestant church was in Popery, because Popery absolutely taken, doth signify absolute Papists or Papistry. Besides he feigneth and deviseth those Papists in part & in some sort, and cannot prove by any sufficient testimony that there were any such; Whereas according to S. Augustin, He must prove, not speak at random. Nor can he say, 
2. Cont. Petil. c. 18.  that the Protestant Church consisted of such, who though they believed little or no Papistry at all, yet outwardly professed it. For if outwardly they professed only Papistry, how know you that inwardly they believed Protestancy? Will you, as S. Augustin said to the Donatists, 
Lib. 2. de Baptis. c. ●  judge of men's hearts and not of their open deeds? Besides such Papists are feigned and not at all proved. And if there had been any such, they should have been termed Denyers not Protesters. Lastly such men could not have been the visible Church of Protestants, because they denied their faith and professed Antichristianity; and consequently were no holy men, of whom only their invisible Church consisteth.  
8. Tenthly I argue by enquiring the manner, how the Protestant church in former times was in Popery; to wit, whether it professed the substance of the Protestant faith, or no: and whether it communicated with Papists in their Popish worship or not? Protestants, like men uncertain answer diversely to this question. D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474. saith: Our Churches were always in the midst of Papists churches, distinct from Papists in Communion and Profession. But this is soon refuted. First, because it cannot be proved. 
Cont. Parmen. ca 38.  And to cast out words and prove naught, what is it (as S. Augustin saith) but to dote? Besides if the Protestant Church had professed Protestancy, she had been known to Papists; and the same had also been if she had not communicated with them. For as D. Andrews writeth of the Catholics in England: They come not to service, they hear not sermons, they refuse to take the Communion, without this or any other oath one may know them to be Papists. But she was not known to Papists, because not only all Papists, but also Protestants deny that. Besides otherwise catholics would not have so earnestly enquired of Protestants, where their Church had been heretofore. Moreover Catholics had persecuted them as they persecuted Luther, so soon as he was known for a Protestant. Lastly, because Protestants cannot name any Papists, who knew of their Church before Luther's tyme. Others therefore say, that those imaginary Protestants professed their faith, if not at other times, yet at least at the point of death. D. Whitaker loc. cit. pag. 473: Many at the point of death, if not before, processed their faith. The same saith Luther of private Mass tom. 7. fol. 237. and Lobechi is Disput. 10. To which D. White in defence of his way cap. 4. pag. 424. addeth, that they renounceth Papistry also in the agony of their conscience. And Hunnius before cited, not knowing what certainly to determine, saith: that they did either openly gird at Papistry, or secretly with themselves detest it, or at least in the last examen of tentations (the stubble of error being fired) did hold the foundation of salvation. But to speak with S. Augustin: Who saith this, but he that saith what he will, 
lib. 5. cont. jul. c. 4.  and will not hear what is true? They say that in the Scripture alone that saying of Pythagoras Scholars (he said it) taketh place. 
Bulling. in Compend. fidei ●. 1. c. 3.  But if they used not this Pythagorical privilege, they would be more dumb than fishes. What man or devil told them this profession of their men at the hour of death? How learned they that, which at that time no man could fish out? Again, if only at the hour of death they professed Protestancy, they were Protestants no longer than they lay a dying; and consequently the Protestant church endured no longer than some of her children were dying. A strange Church certes, that lived no longer than her children died; nor at any time drew breath, but whiles they gave up the ghost. Wherefore they find out other devices to say, that those feigned Protestants communicated with Papists and professed their faith in things lawful, as in Baptism, reading of the Scripture, and such like; but not in things unlawful. Thus Reineccius in the 4. tome of his armour cap. 4. Thou seest reader, that as these Protestants had their being only by these men's imaginations, so they did, or did not, what, or in what manner they will have them. O great fabulosity, (that I may cry out which S. Epiphanius) of them, who utter these things? so manifest it is, that this is a shop rather of jugglers, then of those who have the shape of the promise of life and of understanding. For who besides his own imagination, told Reineccius, that those Protestants divided thus their Communion with Papists? who besides himself heard ever of such a halfe-communion?  
9 Wherefore others of them do absolutely say, that their imaginary Protestant Church in Popery communicated with Papists, 
How impious their church in Popery was.  and professed their faith. For thus writeth Luther in psalm. Grad. tom. 3. fol. 568: The Church under Antichrist had no true Ministry or worship, but was forced to keep the very babylonical and heathenish rites of Papists. The same he intimateth tom. 7. lib. de Missa privata fol. 236. & 237. and lib count. Papatum fol. 456. Osiander also in the epist. dedicatory of his 8. Century saith of those Protestants, that although from their heart they disallowed the Popish errors, yet they durst not profess their own opinions; but neglected not the external rites, and were carried away with the common custom as it were with a torrent, for to do those things which others did; whose weakness (saith he) God did bear withal and pardon. And the same pardon Luther de Missa privata fol. 237. bestoweth upon them saying: No sin could hurt them; but God must pardon the miserable, afflicted, oppressed and captive Church. Thus these men have Gods pardon in their hands, that when they please, God must pardon those, who all their life time denied their faith and served Antichrist and idolatry. junius also lib. 4. de Eccl. cap. 5. saith, that the Church in former times was all one with the Roman. Again: She communicated with the Roman Church in worship of God every where, so long as she was suffered to communicate in pure worship, in right faith, and good conscience. Forsooth the Synagogue of Antichrist, (as they account the Roman church) useth pure worship, or the Church of Christ communicateth with her in right faith, and good conscience. And D. Whitaker Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 682. writeth, that those feigned Protestants, Perhaps used Popish ceremonies for customs sake. And pag. 689: Antichrist deceived the elect and seduced them. The very elect erred. And Cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. pag. 474: In Popery there were many (Protestants) who communicated with Papists. Gerlachius tom. 2. disp. 22: They were driven into the common opinions with an universal and fatal overflow of superstitions. And Casaubon epist. ad Peron pag. 10. writeth, that the godly communicated with Babylon. D. Feild lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 13: The authors of those (Popish) errors, and those that were free from them were of the same Communion. D. White in his way pag. 171: The children of God abode in the communion of the Roman Church. And in the defence cap. 44. pag. 394: We do not hold a definite number of persons, distinct from the members of the Church of Rome, and living apart in another society by themselves in secret, as it were the 7. sleepers lying hid in a mountain: but we affirm this company lived in the midst of the Church of Rome itself, and were the visible Prosessors thereof. This also is that, which Caluin would, when 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 12. he saith, that his Churches in Popery were profaned with sacrilegious impiety, corrupted and almost killed with pernicious doctrines; in which lay half buried, the gospel overwhelmed, godliness banished, and all things so out of order, as there seemed rather the face of Babylon then of the city of God. And upon the 23. of the Acts: We complain that the Church was corrupted of them (Papists) the temple of God profaned, 
Li. 2. cont. Cresc. c. 17.  that it differed little from a swinescot. See. saith S. Augustine, to what a precipice, the difficulty to find where to get out hath brought these men. They said their Church was in Popery, and afterward found not how to creep out, but by this most steep & craggy precipice. For what steeper precipice, what greater absurdity can there be, then to say that the church of God (which the Protestants will have theirs to be) for many ages denied her faith, professed infidelity, forsook Christ, worshipped Antichrist, or to use their own words, Did use very babylonical and Antichristian rites, was corrupted with pernicious doctrine, profaned with sacrilegious impiety, 
Epist. 40. Epist. 27.  and out of which godliness was banished? God forbidden (saith S. Cyprian) that a company of fallen persons should be called the Church. Again: God forbidden, & his mercy and invincible power never permit, 
Epist. 1.  that a company of fallen persons be called the Church. And Beza himself: The Church is a community of Saints, not a company of excommunicated or sacrilegious persons. And shall we think, that before Luther arose the Church of God for many ages was nothing else but a company of fallen, sacrilegious, hypocrites, deniers of Christ, and worshippers of Antichrist? Is such a company the holy Church? Is the Communion of such, the Communion of Saints which we believe in our Creed? Is such a society the spouse and mystical body of Christ, the wife of the lamb, the Kingdom of God? Surely a fit Church for protestants, and a fit company, to which the forsakers of the Catholic Church may adjoin themselves, and most worthy to be eschewed & detested of all that love Christ's or their own honour. For who is he, either pious or well in his wits, who will make himself of that company which for many ages consisted all of lapsed Hypocrites, deniers of Christ, and worshippers of Antichrist? The whole Scriptures and Fathers say that the spouse of Christ is honest and chaste, and cannot be deflowed. But this protestant harlot did for many ages prostitute herself to Antichrist.  
10. Moreover this kind of company which thus communicated with Antichrist and professed his doctrine, could not be the visible Protestant Church. 
Conf. Anglic. art. 19  For her they define to be a company which professeth Christ's true doctrine, and rightly useth his Sacraments. But this foresaid company, as themselves write, Durst not profess their opinion, had no Ministry, & did observe babylonical and heathenish rites. Nor were they their invisible Church, which alone they will have to be the true Catholic and proper Church, because she according to all their opinions, is the company of Saints & elect only. The Confession of Auspurg. art. 7: The Church properly so called, is the congregation of Saints, who truly believe and obey Christ. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 1. cap. 3: Thus we define the Catholic Church; It is a company of holy men, whom God hath chosen in Christ, to everlasting life. This definition (saith he) excludeth all hypocrites. But those who worshipped Antichrist were no Saints, obeyed not Christ, were hypocrites. Therefore they were no Catholic or true church. Again, it is the common doctrine of Protestants that naughty & great sinners are no members of the true church. For thus the Confession of the Low-countries art. 29: Hypocrites belong not properly to the Church. Caluin 4. 
Ill men not the true church by Protestā●  Institut. cap. 1. §. 7: Into that Church, which is indeed before God, none are admitted but such as both by grace of adoption are the sons of God, and by sanctification of the spirit true members of Christ. Peter Martyr in his places tit. de Eccles. col. 1368: We affirm that such (wicked) men are not indeed & before God members of the Church. Arctius in locis part. 3. fol. 50: The Church, properly so called, consisteth only of the true members of Christ. Bucer lib. de vi & usu Ministerij pag. 558: The true Church consisteth only of those that are borne a new. D. Whitaker cap. 3. cit: We all believe that Catholic Church, which we profess in our Creed, to consist of no evil or reprobate persons, but only of the elect, just, and holy. And c. 7: We deny ill men to belong to the Church, which is the body of Christ. M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed col. 795: An ill man cannot be a member of the Church. Adam Francis loc. 11. de Eccl: Ill men are only in name members of the Church. And finally Musculus in locis tit. de Eccl. pag. 299: Not so much as the name of the Church ought to be given to the wicked. But they who were such as the Protestants before described, were no Saints, were not just, were not sanctified; but ill, wicked, hypocrites, if ever there were any: therefore they could not be the true Catholic and proper Church before God. Furthermore Protestants use to teach, that those who communicate with Papists do cut themselves from the true Church. The French Confession art. 28: We think all those who adjoin themselves to these (Popish) actions and communicate with them, do separat themselves from the body of Christ. Luther in cap. 13. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 163: Who acknowledgeth the Pope for master, he hath no part with Christ. And in cap. 28. fol. 396: If the Pope must be worshipped, Christ must be denied. And de Missa privata tom. 7. fol. 475: Whosoever is under the Pope and obeyeth him cannot be saved. Caluin against server. pag. 607: Is it not a profanation of the sacred unity, to profess one God and faith with an impious and profane company? And Respons. ad Versip. pag. 362: How wicked and soul treachery is it to abide in that sacrilegious company (of Papists)? And D. Whitaker ad Rat. 3. Campiani: None abide with the lamb in the mountain, who have any commerce with Antichrist. And Caluin in Confutat. Hollandi & lib. de vitandis superstitionibus, bringeth many proofs to show that the faithful may not communicate with the false Church, and thereto citeth the letters of Melancthon, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and those of Zurich: and the same is commonly taught of Protestants. How then did not those Protestants separate themselves from the body of Christ? how were they saved, who in times past communicated with papists? How were they saved unless God be an acceptour of persons and times, that he will cut of some from his body, and from hope of salvation, who communicate with Antichrist, and not others, at these and not in former times. Again, Protestants teach that the Church ought to profess her faith, as besides the testimonies before repeated, the Preface of the Confession of Saxony saith: They that are demanded must needs tell the doctrine. And the Confession of Bohemia art. 2: They teach, that they must undoubtedly believe all the articles of the Creed, and confess them with the mouth. Luther in 1. Petri cap. 2. tom. 5. fol. 464: If any now, as the Emperor or other Prince, should ask me my faith, I must plainly confess it to him. And de Scru. Arbit. tom. 2. fol 432: Truth and doctrine must always be preached openly, and never kept secret or crooked and turned awry D. Feild lib. 1. de Eccl. cap. 10: For seeing the Church is the multitude of them that shall be saved unless he make confession unto salvation, for faith hid in the heart and concealed doth not suffice, it cannot be but they that are of the true Church must by the profession of the truth make themselves known in such sort that etc. And the Preface of the Syntagme of Confessions: When every one ought, according to the Apostles precept, give a reason of his hope; how much more the Church? And D. Whitaker Cont. 4. quest. 6. cap. 2. pag. 696: True saith can no more be separated from confession with the mouth, than fire from beat, or the sun from its brightness and beams. What faith then had those protestants, which, as is said, durst not profess their mind? And Cont. 2. qoest. 3. cap. 2. pag. 472: It is not lawful for the godly to dissemble true Religion, or make show of false; nor to conceal what they think of Religion, if they be examined of them who have authority to ask them of their faith. But it is not credible that in so many ages, in no part of the Christian world, no Catholic Magistrate should ask any protestant of his faith, especially if it be true that Luther writeth in psalm. 22. tom. 3. fol. 344. that Papists do so examine the body of the Church, that all her bones may be counted, that is, none of them can by hid. Wherhfore we must not imagine that there are any hidden bones of Christ, all are bewrayed and counted, wheresoever they are, either by the espials of secret confession, or by the tortures or examiners. Which showeth, that if there had been any true protestants heretofore, they would have been discovered.  
11. Finally they are brought to these straits, that sometimes they say, that the protestant church, (which they imagine was heretofore in popery,) did consist of those who were papists both in opinion and profession. This Caluin intimateth in the words before cited, when he saith that his church was corrupted with pestilent doctrine. And Luther de Missa privata tom. 7. fol. 231. saying: The very elect were seduced in that great darkness. And in cap. 9 Isaiae tom. 4. fol. 95: Behold (saith he) the whole face of the Churches under Popery. Did not they all who truly felt the burden of sin imagine that they should by good works satisfy for their sins? Which thing alone would suffice to blot them out of the role of protestants. D. White in defence of his way cap. 36. pag. 350. saith those imaginary protestants were corrupted, some more some less, with those errors, which (saith he) now we fly. And cap. 40. pag. 394. granteth, that they were infected with damnable heresies. D. Whitaker lib. 2. de Scriptura cap. 8. sect. vlt. saith: They were beset with most thick darkness. Napp●r in cap. 12. Apocal. pag. 195. that their visible Church in times past: Wholly embraced the errors of merits and indulgences etc. And Morgerster●● tract. de Eccl. pag. 41: These things were in times past to be forgiven the godly, that they believed the Pope to be christs vicar, and head of the church, Popery to be the church, Saints to be prayed unto, Mass to be the Lords supper. Are these men (think you) in their wits, who call them godly, and say they must be pardoned, who believed Antichrist to be Christ's vicar, Antichrists Synagogue to be the Church of Christ, and horrible idolatry (such as they account Mass & prayer to Saints) to be service of Christ? The same also they mean, when they challenge the simple & ignorant Papists for theirs, or confess the vulgar Roman Church to be the true Church, or (as others of them speak) grant the Roman Church, but deny Popery, the Popish, or Roman Popish Church. For they imagine, that the simple Catholic people neither doth now, nor in former times did believe those points of faith, which themselves deny. But this they feign of the simple Catholic people, and cannot prove it. Besides, there is no Catholic ●o simple, as doth not virtually believe all points of Catholic faith, which Protestants deny, sith he actually professeth to believe whatsoever the Catholic Church teacheth. Neither is there any at all, who doth not believe justification by good works, which point alone would suffice to make them no Protestants. Besides, Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 8. saith that we affirm him to be no Christian, who doth not undoubtedly agree to all points of doctrine, as well affirmative as negative. And the same saith D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 8. pag. 519. D. Morton part 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 9 and D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis. Yea, as before we rehearsed, 
Cap 2.  they confess that before Luther's revolt all from head to foot were drowned in the puddles of Popery, that none dreamt of that which is the chiefest point of Protestancy. Wherefore Schusselburg tom. 8. Catal. Haeret. pag. 440. seemeth to say. That before Luther arose Popery was the true church like as the Synagogue of the jews was before the coming of Christ, for thus he writeth: Popery, as judaisme heretofore, signifieth that company, which at least in her time had the true Church with it. Such were the jews before the coming of Christ, and the Papists before the coming of Luther. His meaning, (as I suppose) is that as the Christian Church is in state another church from the Synagogue; because it hath other Sacraments, other Sacrifice, and more points of faith, and Christ another founder of the Church distinct from Moses; so the Protestant Church is a distinct Church from the ancient Christian Church, and Luther not only another Elias, as they call him, but also another Messiah, a founder and beginner of another Church, distinct from that of Christ, at least as far as his church differed from the Synagogue. Behold Christian Reader whereto all their winding, turning, and doubling about the being of their Church in Popery, is come. Surely (as S. Augustin said, 
L 20. cont. Faust. c. 12.  against the Manichees) their imaginations have lost all ways. For they are nothing, b●● the visions of frantic men. For their remaineth no probable way to defend, that their Church was heretofore in Popery. It is mere frenzy to think, that it wa● in Popery virtually and implicitly, like as a plant i● in the seed, or a man in a child, at the Christia● Church once was in the Synagogue, or that it wa● openly distinct in Communion and Profession fro● Papists: or that it consisteth of such, which either i● hart, or at least in Profession were Papists; or finally that the Church of God (such as they will ha●● the Protestant to be) was for many ages in a different, yea a most opposite church; where neither by divine nor humane testimony it can be proved to have been; neither can there any way be imagined, by which it may with any appearance or probability be said to have been there, Thus (saith S. Augustine) do they dote, 
lib. 20. cont. Faust. c. vl.  who not abiding true doctrine, turn to fables.  
12, And out of these, wherewith we have showed, that the Protestant Church heretofore was not in Popery, is refuted also Zanchius Praefat. lib. de Natura Dei, where he saith that their brethren in times past lived in some obscure valleys and Mountains, and met at night. And D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 324. saying, that in Europe the Church was by Antichrist thrust into obscure places; but lest they should be tripped in their lying, they name neither those mountains, nor valleys, nor places, nor their night-owle-brethrens, nor finally prove any thing. 
L. 14. cont. Faust. c. 9  But as S. Augustin said of Faustus: They say it & away, they never seek to prove it. Or as Christ said of the adversary man, they sow cockle and departed. It sufficeth for these new Pythagorians, to pour out lies like oracles: for they assure themselves that with reckless men they will find credit of themselves, & like weeds grow without tilling. Hence also is refuted the same Fulke in cap. 10. Apocal. Where he affirmeth his brethren heretofore have lived in the Alps, in the Apennine Mountains, and in the Hereinian Forest. He might better have said they lived in the Wilderness of Utopia, for he proveth nothing. 
L. 16. cont. Faust. c. 26  O man (that I may cry out which S. Augustine) thincking only of his own talk, and not thinking of any gainesayer! Again: Dost thou not know, 
lib. 4. cont. Cres. c. 54.  or dost thou not feel with the heart of what man soever, that in dispute where truth is sought, where proof followeth not, the talk is vain and foolish. Wherefore now let us hear their arguments, or rather Sophisms, wherewith sometimes they endeavour to prove, that their Church was in times passed in Popery.   

The Sophisms, wherewith some Protestant make show to prove that their Church was heretofore in Popery, refuted. CHAP. X.  
1. THE first argument, wherewith Protestants would seem to prove, that their Church in former times was in Popery, is grounded upon that saying Apocal. 18: Go out of her (Babylon) my people. Therefore God's people were in Babylon, that is, (say the●) in Popery. Thus argueth Luther in cap. 12. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 144. And in cap. 19 fol. 234. The Magdeburgians in Praefat. Centur. 8. Plessy lib. de Eccles. cap. 10. and others commonly. Yea M. Perkins in his reformed Catholic tract. 22. writeth that by this commandment, it may be gathered that the true Church is, and was long time in the Roman Church. Wherein he speaks more truly than he meant. For the true Church is and was always in the Roman; but the Protestant, neither is, nor was there. To the argument I answer, that this place can be no sufficient ground of faith among the Protestans, because their Angel, their Apostle, and Evangelist Martin Luther, denyeth the Apocalypse to be Canonical Scripture. Again, though indeed it be canonical Scripture, yet for the most part it is so obscure, as but very few places thereof are fit to ground any point of faith; as is evident both by the book itself, which is well nigh all Mystical and allegorical, and by the judgement of the Fathers and confession of Protestants. 
Euseb. l. 7. cap. 20.  For thus saith S. Denis Patriarch of Alexandria of the Apocalypse: I verily think that almost in every sentence there lieth some mystical and marvellous sense. Likewise S. Hierome: 
Epist. ad Paulin.  The Apocalypse hath as many mysteries as words. And S. Augustin: In the book of the Apocalypse many obscure things are told, and there are few things therein, 
lib 20. de Civit. c. 17.  by light whereof the rest may be sought aught with labour And with Protestants D. Andrew's in his answer to Bellarmine's Apology cap. 9: Is he ignorant, that concerning the Apocalypse nothing certain or of faith is yet prescribed by the Church, that it may be lawful to use one only kind of interpretation and no other; as if it were so clear and evident that it were a heinous offence to leave it, or to descent any way from it. Yea as any may with greatest probability show the prophecies there to be fulfilled, so is it free for any to use his judgement & to follow his own opinion in explicating them. And D. Whitaker Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3 pag. 677: It is well enough known that john in the Apocalypse speaketh not of clear and open matters, but of obscurt and hidden. M. Brightman in his Preface of the Apocalypse: In so great abundance of ancient and new expositions, the Apocalypse yet, as all agree, needeth an Apocalypse. And M. Sheldon in his book of the miracles of Antichrist cap. 4. pag. 54 calleth it a dark & Mystical prophecy, in which (saith he) quot verba, tot latent Mysteria. And pag. 226: The Apocalypse is a book wholly mystical, which doth (excepting some few doctrinal rules and exhortations to virtue) in types, figures, forms, and resemblances, describe and foretell the future events of the church. How then can Protestants gather certainly out of the Apocalypse, that their Church heretofore was in Popery? But, as Luther in cap. 9 Genes. tom. 6. fol. 114. speaketh of the Anabaptists and others: 
Why Protestant's accounted to much of the Apoc.  The Anabaptists make so much of obscure books as the Apocalypse, because there they may seigne any thing. And in cap. 11. fol. 136: Ambitious heads think it a great matter, if they give their judgement freely of obscure places, and after stubbornly maintain their opinion. And Praefat. in Cantica tom. 4. fol. 47: Some do put all their labour in hard places, thinking it a commendation of their wit to meddle with those matters, which others by reason of their obscurity do fly, & because in obscure places every one may divine and follow his own head.  
2. Thirdly I answer, that the foresaid place is allegorical, mystical, and obscure, and therefore not fit to ground faith upon. That it is mystical and allegorical, is manifest, because Babylon doth not literally, but at most mystically signify Popery. That also the sense which Protestants frame thereof is obscure, is evident, because they cannot either by any part or by any circumstance thereof, clearly show, that by Babylon is meant Popery. Besides, neither any of the Fathers, nor of those imaginary Protestants before Luther, did perceive this sense; otherwise some of them would have obeyed God's commandment, and gone out of Popery. But it were plain madness to urge an incredible thing, (as is that Protestants were heretofore in Popery) to be believed certainly, for one mystical & obscure place. Who (saith S. Augustin) without great impudence will go about to expound for himself, 
Epist. 48.  any thing spoken in Allegory, unless he have manifest places, by which the obscure may be lightened. Let them bring therefore some evident place, 
Morton part. 2. l. 2. c. 5.  wherein Babylon signifieth Popery. Luther also saith: If in the new testament the signification of a figure be not clear, we must not rely upon it, because the devil, an excellent craftsman, playeth with figures, & if he catch a soul which without certain ground wresteth the Scripture to Allegories he useth to cast him here and therelike a die. Bnd in cap. 3. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 52: An Allegory serveth nothing for proof. Kemnice also 1. part. exam. tit. de epist. Apost. pag. 79: We say, that a sentence is not to be builded upon any obscure places of Scripture, which cannot de proved out of other clear places. Peter Martyr in locis tom. 2. tract. de Missa: An opinion is not to be founded in doubtful words, Sadeel ad Sophism. Turrian. loc. 11. pag. 597: The most learned interpreters do teach that Anagogical arguments must rely upon clear and express testimonies, if they will breed saith. And Pareus lib. 4. de justificat. cap. 15. pag. 1120: Testimony for a false opinion is in vain sought out of an Allegorical and most obscure place. But as the Fathers have noted, it was ever the humour of heretics, to seek some pretext of allegorical and obscure places. Of the Gnostics, thus, writeth S. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 1: 
Heretics seek out obscure places.  Whereas many parables and Allegories are recited, which may be drawn into divers senses, they craftily accommodating that which is ambigious unto their devise, do lead into captivity from the truth, those which have a weak faith in Christ. And S. Augustin lib. de Vnitat. ca 24. saith to the Donatists: Ye willingly abide in obscure matters, that you may not be compelled to confess clear matters. And of heretics in general thus speaketh Tertullian: 
Praes. c. 17.  divers presumptions of necessity will not acknowledge those things, by which they may be overcome; and rely upon those, which they have falsely forged, and have taken out of uncertainetyes. Again: 
De pud. c. 16.  This is the custom of froward men, idiots, and heretics, by occasion of some doubtful passage to arm themselves against an army of the whole testament. And Clement 7. Stromatum: They seek out doubtful speeches, and turn them to uphold their opinions. The like writeth Luther of anabaptists. And others, as hath been now rehearsed. Wherefore Protestants do follow the custom of Gnostikes, Donatists, Anabaptists, froward idiots, and heretics, whiles they fit the Allegory of Babylon to their turn, whiles they willingly abide in obscure matters, and make such account of the Apocalypse because there they have leave to feign any thing, whiles they rely upon those things which they take out of uncertainties, and by occasion of one ambiguous and doubtful place, are armed against an army of sentences of the Scripture, which teach that neither Popery is Babylon, nor Protestants the people of God. Moreover Donatists for the very like place Isaiae 52: Go back again out of the midst of her, 
lib. de vnic. bapt. c. 14. L 2. cont. Parmen. c. 28. l. 2. cont. Gaud. c. 9  would prove that they ought to go out of the Catholic Church of their time, as witnesseth S. Augustin, and Danaeus confesseth lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 9 who also in lib. 1. August. count. Parmen. hath these words: The argument of the Donatists out of Isay the 52. was, That we ought to go back and go out of the midst of Babylon. And the Anabaptists in Zuinglius tom. 2. in Elencho fol. 21. Out of this self same place of the Apocalypse, did gather that they ought to go from Protestants. Why then may we not say with D. Whitaker: 
Cont. 2. q. ●. c. 23.  Our adversaries serve themselves of the same weapons, whereof most wicked heretics did; and herein show themselves to be nothing less than Catholics. Moreover I say, that if I list to expound Scriptures at my pleasure, I might say, and more probably too than Protestants, that by the foresaid words God commandeth Protestant's to go out of Protestancy. For Protestancy may well be called Babylon, because it is a Mass and confusion of opposite heresies, where almost every one hath a faith of his own, and speaketh a peculiar language, nor understandeth the tongue or doctrine of another. And Protestants may be called the people of God in that they are baptised, and therein dedicated to his service; and pretend the faith of Christ as did Israel even after it had forsaken the Synagogue: 
De provide. art. 22.  And as Caluin saith that God calleth even the disobedient, his servants, as Nabuchodonozor in Hieremy, and as God hath both good and faithful servants, and naughty and unfaithful; so hath he good & naughty people.  
3. Secondly I answer, that the argument which can be framed out of this place, to prove that which the Protestants writ of their churches being in Popery before Luther arose, to wit: Go you my people out of Babylon. Therefore before Luther's time the church was in Popery, and so secret as for many ages she was not seen either of her own or of others; is a mere Sophism. First because one unknown thing is here proved by another more unknown, a false thing by another not only false, but also impossible. For more unknown it is, more incredible, more impossible that the Protestant church should be the people of God, or that Babylon, out of which Gods people is bidden to go, Popery: then that Protestants have been heretofore amongst Papists. For this, although it be both false and incredible, yet it is not impossible, as the other is. How then can they prove unto us, that they were heretofore in Popery, by affirming that they are that people of God, and Popery that Babylon, sith this is to us fare more incredible, than the other. Let Babylyn sometime in Scripture mystically signify the city of Rome; let it also signify the number of the wicked both faithful and Infidels; but in Scripture it never signifieth a certain religion, and least of all Popery. Besides his Majesty in his Epistle to Cardinal Peron, hath those words: What that Babylon is, out of which Gods people is commanded to go, the King enquireth not in this place, nor pronounceth any thing of that matter. And if his Majesty will not pronounce what that Babylon is, why should Ministers do it? Secondly, it is a Sophism, because there are many things in the consequent, which are not at all in the antecedent, although it be understood as Protestants would. And therefore herein they not only prove an unknown thing by another more unknown; but some things they prove only by themselves, that is, they affirm them, and prove them not at all. For let the protestants be the people of God; and let Popery be that Babylon (which they can never prove) nevertheless that the Protestant Church had been in Popery so long time, to wit, so many ages, and in such manner, to wit so secret as she was altogether invisible either to her own or to others, can no way be gathered out of the foresaid words, though they were expounded according to the Protestants mind.  
4. Their second argument they ground upon that, 2. Thessal. 2. that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God, which they expound, as that the Pope should sit in the true, that is, according to them, the Protestant Church, and consequently that heretofor the Pope ruled over Protestants. To which I answer, that this argument is a Sophism like to the former. First, because it proveth an unknown thing by another more unknown; and one untruth, by another both untrue and impossible. For it is more incredible to us, that Protestants are the temple of God, or the Pope Antichrist, then that they were heretofore amongst Papists. Secondly if hence they Infer, that their Church was so long in Popery, and in such manner as we have recited out of their words, they will infer that in the consequent, whereof there is no sign in the Antecedent, although it were expounded to their desire. Thirdly I say, that there can be no certainty gathered out of this place, because it is obscure, as appeareth both by itself, and by the different expositions thereof, 
Lib. 20. de Civit. c. 29.  and by the judgement of S. Augustine, who writeth thus: In what temple of God Antichrist is to sit as God, it is uncertain, whether in that ruin of the temple which Solomon built, or in the Church. Again: I truly profess myself not to know, what he said; yet I will relate the suspicions of men, which I have heard or read of this matter. And again: One in this sort, another in that, ghesseth at the obscure words of the Apostle. Yea D. Andrews intimateth, 
Respon. ad Apol. Bellar. c. 5.  that it cannot be certainly gathered hence, that the Pope is Antichrist, when he saith: It is probably gathered out of the 2. chap. 2. Thessaly. That the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist. But we regard not, whence they probably gather what they please, but only whence they can certainly & undoubtedly prove what they say. Fourthly I say, that whatsoever is the temple of God wherein Antichrist shall sit, this place itself showeth, that the Pope is not Antichrist, because he sitteth not in the Church of God as God, but as Bishop, and as God's vicar. Fithly I add, that the Protestants themselves do not firmly believe, 
Protestant's not certain that the Pope is Antichrist.  much less as a point of their faith, that the Pope is Antichrist, howsoever they use the name of Antichrist as a bugg to fear children. For Melancthon, as Schuffelburg reporteth, seemed to doubt whether the Pope were Antichrist, or no. D. Whitaker lib. 1. cont. Dureum sect. 33: saith: In the mean time, 
l. 4. Theo● Cal. p. 166  we must needs probably and justly suspect the Pope to be Antichrist And Cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3: Many who care not much for the Pope, do not think, that it can be proved that he is Antichrist. And his Majesty in his Monitory epistle pag. 70. Surely for so much as pertaineth to define Antichrist, I would not urge a thing so obscure and hidden as a matter necessary to be believed of all Christians. And the same saith Moulins in his defence of that Epistle. To which his Majesty addeth pag. 142. these words: If any list to refute this my guess concerning Antichrist, etc. Behold how the Protestants themselves doubt, account it but a suspicion, a guess, an obscure matter, and not needful to be believed, that the Pope is Antichrist. How then can they certainly gather out of the foresaid place, that the Pope sat among Protestants? Yea some of them deny the Pope to be the true Antichrist. For thus Luther in cap. 9 Genes. tom. 6. fol. 122: We hold the Turck for the true Antichrist. Zanchius lib. 1. Epist. ad Stuckium: I am persuaded that the name of Antichrist agreeth rather to the Turck then to Pope. And in his answer to an Arian, Antithes. 21. col. 879: The Bishop of Rome is not that Antichrist whereof is meant 2. Thessaly. 2. And in his Disceptation betwixt two Divines pag. 637. and respon ad calumnias pag. 217. he plainly denyeth, that the Pope is that notable and singular Antichrist, whereof the Fathers speak. And his opinion herein many Protestant universities do judge probable, namely the university of Marspurg, Heidelberg, Zurich, & Basle, among which, that of Zurich hath these words: The 2. Thesis' of Antichrist, cannot be rejected as heretical, seeing it is very probable. For almost all the Fathers are of that mind. Again: Since malice daily increaseth, nothing letteth but at the last some notable one may come who in impiety surpasseth all the enemies of the Gospel. Vorstius also in his Antibellarm. pag. 79: Who discourse more advisedly of this matter, do grant that it is very likely, that yet some one shall arise, to whom all the qualites of Antichrist may agree in the highest degree. What certainty then can Protestants have out of the foresaid place, for their purpose, sith some of their best learned do but doubt, and others deny, that the Pope is that Antichrist, whereof S. Paul speaketh?  
5. The third argument they wring out of the 12. Apocal. where it is said, that the dragon shall cause the woman, that is, the Church, to fly into the wilderness. This also is a fallacy, not unlike to the former. First, because it is more unknown that the Protestant church is the woman, or the true church, or the Pope that Dragon, or the Popery the desert, hem that Protestants were heretofor amongst Papists. Again there is no speech at all, that the Church should be so long time and so secret as Protestants say their church was in Popery. Yea the time which this woman was to abide in the wilderness, is set down, to be 1260 days, or (as it is said cap. 20.) a small tyme. And as Luther upon Daniel tom. 4. fol 265. and Bullinger conc. 46. in Apocal. write: Almost all Doctors attribute but 3. years and half to the persecution of Antichrist. Wherefore these kind of testimonies, by which Protestants make show to prove that their Church was heretofore in Popery, are but as S. Augustin speaketh of the like testimonies used by Donatists: 
De unit. c. 19.23.  Slender snares of delays, wherewith you underprop an evil cause, by delaying. But we demand some manifest testimony. Therefore bring out some manifest, produce some thing that needeth no interpreter, or if you cannot perform that which so justly we demand of you, believe truth, hold your peace, sleep a nap, and after waken to salvation.  
6. Their 4. Sophism they draw out of reason in this sort: As soon as Protestancy was publicly preached, many came out of Popery, and followed it. Therefore there were who in Popery did believe it. This fallacy is nothing better, than the former. For if it be reduced to a Syllogism, it will be found to rely upon this principle: If any in a company do follow the preaching of a new doctrine, there were some therein, that before tim believed it; which principle is manifestly false. For never any heretics preached, whom some unsettled Christians did not follow; and yet who will say that there was never any heresy preached which before had not been believed of some Christians. 
Epist. Monitor. pag. 107. Whitak. cont. 2. q. 5. c. 6. Pless. de Eccles. c. 11. Sadeel. Refutat. Posnan. c. 10.  Besides Protestants account it for a wonderful miracle, that at the beginning so many Papists came out of Popery unto them; but it had been no shadow of miracle, if before they had been Protestant's. Morover the number of Papists forsaking Popery argueth not, that before times they had been Protestants, but that they were unsettled Papists, who as the Scripture speaketh, were carried about with every wind of doctrine; 
Ephes. 4.  and that protestancy is a voluptuous and licentius doctrine, because (as Caluin saith) deceitful doctrines do soon bewray themselves, whiles they are admitted of all men with gentle cares, 
Praef. Inst.  and are heard of the world applauding thereto.  
7. Of all which hath been said in this and the former chapter I frame my fift demonstration in this manner: If the Protestant Church and Religion were no where before Luther arose, it was not all. But before him it was no where. Therefore not at all. And by him it got to be some where. Therefore by him it got to be. The minor is manifest by all that hath been said in the former chapter. 
The case of the protestant Church before Luther.  And the mayor is evident by itself. For no company of men, much less a Catholic or universal Church, can be, and be no where. And these 5. demonstrations which hitherto we have made, have been taken out of the state wherein the Protestants confess their Church to have been before Luther arose. For by them hath been showed, that before him according to the most free, most frequent, and most evident confessions of the famousest Protestants, it had no 
(a) Cap. 8.  Pastors to govern, no 
(b) Cap. 3.  sheep to be governed, no 
(c) Cap. 5.  appearance to be seen, no 
(d) Cap. 9  place to abide, no 
(e) Cap. 1.  being to be. What then could it be but a fiction of lying men, or an imagination of phrantike men, vainly devised, untruly avouched, and fondly believed.   

That all the Protestants first heard of, had been in former times Papists. CHAP. XI.  
THE 6. demonstration for to prove Luther to have been the Author of Protestancie shall be grounded upon that all Protestant's who were first heard of had been all Papists before Luther began to teach. 
Luther before a Papist.  Of himself, thus writeth Luther Prefat. in tom. 1. Before all things I request the godly reader, that he read all with judgement, and consider that I was once a monk, and a most mad Papist, when I began this cause; so drunken and drowned in Papistry, that I was most ready to kill all, if I had been able, etc. And in psalm. 45 tom. 3. fol. 441: I was baptised in the Pope's house, I was catechised, &c And in psalm. 51. fol 476: I wholly lived so in trust of my justices, as if any had then ●aught that which I now teach, I think I should have torn him with my teeth. And in cap. 1 Galat. tom. 5. fol. 291: If any at anytime, surely I before the light of the gospel, did think piously, and was zealous for Popish laws and traditions of Fathers, and did in great earnestness urge and defend them as holy, and the observation of them as necessary to salvation. I purely adored the Pope, and what soever I did, I did of a simple heart, a good zeal, and to the glory of God. The authority of the Pope was so great with me, that I judged it a crime worthy of eternal damnation to descent from him; and would have subministred with fire and sword for the defence of the Pope's authority.  
2. Melancthon, who, as Caluin writeth, was a principal Minister of God in doing great matters, and was indeed Luther's chiefest instrument, in his dispute of Matrimony tom. 2. Luther. fol. vlt. giveth God thanks, 
Melancthon first a Papist.  that he was delivered out of the kingdom of Antichrist and Poposh errors; and saith, as reporteth Scusselburg tom. 13. Catal. Haer. pag. 625. of himself: I moved not these controversies, but fell into them after they were moved, which being many and not explicated, I began to consider them with a desire of truth And the Saxonicall Ministers in the Conference of Alburg. Scrip. 7. pag. 349. writ that Melancthon of his own accord acknowledged himself a scholar of Luther. yea the whole University of Witterberg, 
The University of Witterberg first Papist.  out of which almost all Luther's first champions came, was in former times Popish; as appeareth by their epistle ad Milititium tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 205. where thus they writ: We are so affected both to all the Christian Religion and the sea Apostolic and holy Church of Rome, that if we were certain, that D. Martin Luther were fallen into so foul and impious errors, we first of all would not only yield him up to the law, but also would punish him and cast him out. And in their Epistle to Pope Leo 10. ibid. fol. 206. Most holy Faoher we devout and obedient children of your Holiness, do most humbly & earnestly beseech etc. And below: Neither would we ever seem such, as would pertinaciously hold any opinion contrary to the Catholic doctrine, ready at all times to obey yours and the holy Church's behests in Christ. And in another letter to Frederick the Elector fol. 227. Above all things we exceedingly like that your highness simply and purely honoureth the holy Church and the Pope. Neither will we ever be of any other mind. We prefer nothing before the judgement of the Roman Church. And not only the University, but the people of Wittenberg were also catholics, as Luther declareth in these words, to Frederick Elector fol. 330. It cannot be denied that the Reformation of doctrine and religion in this Church (of Wittenberg) began by me.  
3. Frederick also the Elector 
Fredrick Elector first Catholke.  and Luther's chief Patron was a Papist. For thus himself writeth to Cardinal Raphael. tom. 1. Lutheri fol. 228. Your kindness God willing shall never see that I have any other mind or will then to show myself obedient and officious unto the Catholic Church. And his Counsellors tom. 2. fol. 116. profess that he is an obedient son of the Holy Catholic Church. And likewise tom. 1. fol. 101. Frederick the Elector above all loveth the Catholic and Apostolic truth. Besides (as Luther writeth tom. 7. sermone de simulacris) he put silver statues in the Church, thinking thereby to merit at God's hands. And tom. 2. lib. de abroganda Missa fol. 268. He deceived by Papists, did greatly increase and adorn the house of All Saints. He founded also a College of Canons, where he kept Mass until the end of the year 1524. as Chytreus testifieth lib. 11. histor. Saxon. and Luther intimateth in formula Missae tom. 2. fol 387. saying. Be not you or any other afraid, that in our Wittenberg that sacrilegious Tophee remaineth as yet, which is the wicked and lost money of the Princes of Saxony, I mean the temple of All Saints.  
4. 
Pomeranus.  Bugenlage the Pomeran and first Protestant of Wittembrge had been before a Papist. For as Scultet. concione saecul. pag 15. reporteth when he first read Luther's book de captiu. he said: Since the beginning of the world the Sun never beheld a greater heretic than Luther. Of Osiander 
Osiander.  thus writteth Danaeus respon ad Leonicum pag. 1518. He was a most wicked Franciscan Erier: His proper name was Hosen, that is hose or hosier, but of hosier he would be called Hosion, that is a holy man.  
5. The same also we manifest of the Captains of the Sacramentaryes, among whom Zuinglius 
Zuinglius.  writeth thus of himself epist. ad Fratres tom. 1. fol. 341. I will not deny, that in times past I received jousts of the Pope. For than I thought it lawful to use the Pope's liberality, when I thought it a pious and godly matter to defend to my strength his Religion and faith. And Luther lib. de Coena writeth that Zuinglius was become seven times worse, than when he maintained Popish religion. Likewise Oecolampadius 
Oecolampadius.  Zuinglius his chiefest partner thus witnesseth of himself respon poster. ad Porkey merum pag. 108. I entered into a Monastery being of a good age and a man & Doctor, and with mature advice. To which Hospin addeth part. 2. hist. fol. 35. He entered two yeures before into the Monastery of our Saviour near to Auspurge, and there became a Monk, fearing some danger of the common wealth by Luther's writings. 
Pelicanus.  And ibidem fol. 42. he saith that Pelican was a Franciscan. And fol. 213. that Bucer 
Bucer.  became a Dominican in his childhood, of whom also and Peter Martyr D. Andrew's Respons. ad Apol Bellar. saith: They left their monkish life.  
6. Of Caluin 
Caluin.  thus testifieth himself lib de scandalis pag. 100 Under the Pope's tyranny I was free to marry, since God delivered me from thence etc. And respon ad Sadolet. pag. 122. If I would have provided for my matters, I should never have left your faction. In his Testament: God delivered we from the deep darkness of Idolatry, wherein I was drowned. And Pareus lib. 2. de amiss. great. cap. 1. Whence were Luther and Caluin but of Papists? The same appeareth out of his life written by Beza, where he saith that he had a benefice in the Cathedral Church of Noyon, and the cure of a Parish thereby, and that he was first put in mind of Protestancy by Robert Olivetan. That Peter Martyr 
Peter Martyr.  was long time both Catholic and Canon regular, Simler testifieth in his life, which also he affirmeth of Zanchius 
Zanchius.  saying, that he was one of the 18. companions that forsaking Popery followed Peter Martyr, who also in his preface de Natura Dei saith that he was 35. years of age when he left Babylon.  
7. Concerning the Lutherans in general 
Lutherans in general  thus writeth Luther epist. ad Erford. fol. 500 In which (error of Antichrist) we being all stifled enthralled wlth a grievous and miserable slavery, did serve the God and Prince of this world, serving the same in sins and all kind of impiety. And tom. 4. in cap. 43. Isaiae fol. 179. We are accounted heretics of the Pope, as who have divided ourselves from that Church wherein we were baptised and instructed. In cap. 4. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 377. We old men were brought up in that (Popish faith) and have so swallowed it, that it hath entered the most inward sinews of our hearts. And therefore we forget it with no less pains, than we learn the true saith. Ye hear how hardly the very first Protestants could become Protestant's, & leave to be Papists. And in cap. 11. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 129. he thus boasteth: We are holy Apostates, for we have fallen from Antichrist and the Church of Satan. Melancthon likewise in cap. 7. Math. tom. 1. fol. 406. We were heretofore subject to the Pope's kingdom. Tom. 2. cont. Suenefeld pag. 200. We departed from the Pope's Churches. Tom. 3. ad Art. Bavar. fol. 364. There was necessary cause, that we should forsake the Papists. And tom. 4. in Act. Wormat. pag. 403. We have just cause of departure from the Popish congregation, and with good conscience we forsook the consent of so many Nations. james Andrew's cont. Hosium pag. 332. The more aged do gratefully acknowledge, that they came from you, that is, lest you, and your doctrine. And Schuffelburg in Epist. dedicat. tom. 8. Catal. haeret. hath these words: It is behooveful to have before our eyes the causes whereon our consciences may in the storms of tentations rely, why in this our age Ancestors would and ought to divide themselves from the Roman Church. Behold how their consciences were tossed as with a storm, for that they had forsaken the Roman Church Lobechius also disput. 10. pag. 224. saith: Our Ancestors did well, that they went out of the Roman Babylon.  

Sacramentaryes in general.  8. Of Sacramentaryes also in general thus writeth Zuinglius in Praefat. lib. de ver. & tals. relig. fol. 159. We were alas long time so besieged with the jugglings of men. And Caluin in confess. Fidel pag. 111. We dissemble not that we also were of the number of them (who honour Masses) until the abuses of Mass were discovered. And 4. Instit. cap. 6. §. 6. We departed from the Roman church. cap. 15. §. 16. We were christened in the Pope's kingdom. Respons. ad Versipel. pag. 360. Of our own accord we went from the rabble of Popery. Resp. ad Sadoler. pag. 122: That I may not make any long role, this I say, there was none of those who were beginners of this cause, but might have been in better estate and condition among you then that he needed therefore to think of any new k●nd of life. Peter Martyr in locis col 1459. proposeth this question: Whether the Ghospellers be Schismatics, because they separated themselves from the Papists. And col. 1465. concludeth thus: Seeing there were so many and so just causes of our departure from Popery, our separation seemeth to be very laudable & not to be disliked. Zanchius tract de Eccles. cap. 18. It is manifest that we departed from the Church or rather from the sect of the Pope. And this we willingly confess. Bullenger tom. 1. decad. 5. serm. 2. fol. 282. We willingly confess that we went from the Roman Church. Musculus in locis tit. de Schismate p. 620. We are termed Apostates of the Romanists, as many have forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church. This we are so fare from denying as we think that we should rather glory theereof. Plessie de Eccles. cap 11. pag. 361. writeth that Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, Martyr and others out of whose school saith he the Ministers who gathered the Church from Antichrist did come were Priests, Curates, Doctors of divinity &c, To whom Beza lib. de Notis pag. 8. adjoineth Pelican and Haller and others more. D. Whitaker lib. 9 cont. Duraeum saith: Luther was a Priest according to your order, and such were Zuinglius, Bucer, Oecolampadious and others without number. M. Perkins in cap. 4. Galat. v. 26: All the first renewers of the Gospel were either Priests or teachers of Schools. Paraeus lib. cit: Are we worthy of blame or heretics because we left the Pope's Church? And in the end of his book de justicatione: Our Ancestors 97. years ago had necessary cause for to forsake Popery. And Scultet. in concione saeculari pag. 4. This is the hundreth year since God plucked our Ancestors out of Popish darkness. Finally Polanus in praefat. Thes. de Eccles: We have separated ourselves from the false Catholic Synagogue.  
9 The same also is manifest of the English Protestants by their own words. For thus they speak in their Apology part. 5. cap. 12. divis. 1. 
English Protestant's  It is true we have departed from them. Item: True it is we were brought up with these men in darkness and in the lack of the knowledge of God. And part. 6. cap. 20. divis. 2. As for us truly we have fallen from the Bishop of Rome. Causabon also Epist. ad Card. Peron cap. 16. The king confesseth, that his church hath forsaken no few points of that faith and discipline, which at this day the Roman Church doth profess. And pag. 17. The English have gone from that Church. M. Hooker lib. 4. de Polit. Eccles. pag. 181. We were a part of them. M. Powel. lib. 1. de Antichristo cap 21. We confess we have separated ourselves from the Bishop of Rome, and his Synagogue. M. Perkins in cap. 5. Galat. vers. 21. We have separated ourselves from the Roman Church. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest 6. cap. 3. saith: The Roman Church was justly lest of us. And D. Morton part. 2. Apol. lib. 2. cap. 10. The former book told a just cause of our separation from you. In like manner those of Zurich in Sleidan lib. 4. histor. say: After the rising of the Gospel we have cast of that burden which the Pope had put upon us idiots. And add withal that before they had heard nothing of Protestancy. 
Suitzers.  And the Suitzers in their confesses. cap. 17. confess that their Churches had parted themselves from the Roman Church. And the Scots in their confesses. writ that the truth was lately borne amongst them. 
Polonians.  And the Polonians in their consent, that God hath delivered their Churches out of the gross darkness of Popery.  
10. Furthermore of the whole Protestants church or of Protestants in general, 
The whole Protest. Church.  thus they writ. Lobechius disp. 12. pag. 254. Our confession (of Ausburg) was the belief of the whole orthodoxal Church gone out of Roman Babylon. And in like sort speaketh Daneus de Antichristo cap. 17. Pareus Proaem. l. de justificat. The Evangelicall Church was compelled above 96. years ago to make a divisions from the Popish Church. The like he hath lib. 2. cap. 1. & lib. 3. cap. 8. Schusselburg tom. 8. cattle. pag. 727. Our Church departed from the Church of the malignant. Polanus part. 2. Epist. ad Bezam. The reformed Churches did well that they did separate themselves from the Popish Church. Aretius' in loc. part. 2. fol. 10. Our reformed Churches departed from Popery. D. Andrew's respon ad Apoll. Bellarm. cap. 14. boasteth that almost half of the Christian world is gone out of the Roman Babylon. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. saith: England, Germany, Scotland long ago have fallen from the Pope. And the English Apology glorieth in this sort, part. 1. cap. 1. divis. 3. For they be not all made at this day so many free cities so many Kings, so many Princes which have fallen away from the seat of Rome. Daneus cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 12. All Scotland, England, Saxony, Denmark, a great part of Germany, all Suitzerland, the greater part of the Grisons have fallen from the Church of Rome. D. Sutlive lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 2. p. 251. Our Church having shaken off the filth of the Roman church is returned to the Catholic faith. And pag. 254. England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Norwey, Saxony, Pomerania & the chiefest parts of Germany, France, Flanders, Poland have fallen from the Pope. Moalins lib. de. fug. Arnoldi cap. 2. Our Churches be called reform, because they be Christian Churches purged from Popery. D. Rainolds amongst his conclusions putteth this for the sixth: That the reformed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Germany, and other kingdoms and Common wealths have justly separated themselves from the Roman. And addeth with all that, All reformed Churches have departed from the Roman Church. Brentius in his Apology for the confess. of Wittenberg pag. 873. speaking of Protestants saith: We also once were all fools seduced and seducing and serving idolatry and Antichrist. Seravia defence. lib. de Grad. Minist. cap. 2. pag. 33. I mark that the Authors of all Reformations which were made in our age were Priests of the Roman Church. To all which I adjoin that Luther in cap. 2. Oseae. tom. 4. fol. 279. saith that these be the speeches of Papists. Were ye not Christened in the Pope's Church? Why therefore go ye from her? And he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church is their Mother, but saith that they have left her, because she is a harlot and an adulteress. And Scravia de diverse. Minist. grad. cap. 6. pag. 30. hath these words: 
Popish Church Mother of protestants.  The Roman Church is our Mother in which and by which God regenerated us; but because she is a harlot and an Adulteress, we justly contest against her. The like hath junius lib. singulari de Eccles. cap. 17. and others commonly. So that they acknowledge themselves to be the children of an harlot, and consequently bastards, & not begotten of God, because God begetteth not children of harlots, but only of his chaste spouse the Church. Let them therefore hear the Roman Church speaking to them in these words of S. Hierome: 
Dial. cont. Lucif.  If an Angel or Apostle have rebaptised thee I break not that which thou followest. But if thou borne in my lap, nourished with the milk of my breasts, dost draw thy sword against me, restore what I gave thee, and be if thou canst, a Christian by other means: I am a harlot but yet thy mother: I keep not chastity to one husband, such I was when thou wert begotten. Or else let them hearken to S. Athanasius: It remaineth that they find fault with the baseness of their stock, 
De Synod. Arim. & Seleuc.  and say that they came not of pious, but of heretics, neither fear they that which is written in the Proverbs, An ill brood curseth their father. Or else let them give care to S. Augustin thus speaking to the Manichees: do so slaves of Cham. 
L. 11. cont. Faust. c. 24 lib. 6. c. 5.  Get you gone who despise the naked flesh whereof you sprung. Again: Yea thou often married to elements or rather harlot prostitute to devils and great with sacrilegious vanities darest thou revile Catholic marriage of thy Lord with the crime of unchastity. But omitting this, because Protestants regard not, how fare they disgrace themselves, so that they revile the Church of Rome; out of that which we have rehearsed in this Chapter, it appeareth how impudently D. Morton 1. part Apol. lib. 1. cap. 10: wrote that Melancthon, Pelican, and others were Protestants before Luther arose, and much more impudently D. Feild said lib. 3. de Eccles. cap. 8: that before Luther's time those who defended the Popish errors, were but some faction like to those in the Church of Corinth, who in S. Paul's time denied the Resurrection: which untruth is so apparent, as to have related it only, is to have confuted it. But here by the Reader seethe how needful it is for me to heap up many testimonies of Protestants, for to prove even those things which are most manifest.  
11. My sixth demonstration therefore I frame in this manner: If all Protestants who were first known, whether people or particular people, were Papists before Luther began to preach, than were there no Protestants before him, and he author of their Church: But all the first known Protestants were such. Ergo. The Mayor is manifest by itself, & the Mimor by that which hath been recited in this chapter.   

That no Protestant ancienter than Luther did come forth and adjoin himself to his company when Luther safely preached. CHAP. XII.  
THE seaventh demonstration for to prove Luther to be the first Beginner of Protestancy, shall be taken from thence, that after that Luther securely preached Protestancy, no Protestant ancienter thou he peeped out, and adjoined himself unto him. This I prove: first out of the real Confession of all Protestants, who neither then, nor hitherto could name one such Protestant. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that Luther's company was altogether new, & no one member thereof before him; neither did he adjoin those whom de drew out of Popery unto any company before extant; neither did any company which had been before, adjoin itself unto him. Secondly this may be proved by the silence of D. Whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 3. where being urged with this argument, he answereth it with silence only, and standeth mute, as confessing the accusation to be true. Thirdly I prove it by the silliness of the Answers of other. junius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 5. saith only, that some ancienter Protestant's came forth, and adjoined themselves to Luther, but nameth none, nor proveth any thing; & therefore giveth words & nought else. He should, as Tertullian said to old heretics, have feigns the names of some. 
Praescrip. c. 32.  For after blasphemy what may not they do? But I know not how it cometh to pass, that whereas Protestants feign many things and persons, yet they dare not feign names. As D. Sutlive, when in the Preface of his book of the Church he had said only, that Bolsec (who wrote Caluins' life) doth insinuate that he wrote for hire; after growing more bold in his answer to exceptions cap. 4. pag 120 deviseth a synod, 
D. Sutclive feigneth a Synod.  in which (as he saith) Bolsec publicly recanted the book which he had written of Caluins' life. Of which Synod none before him ever heard, but since D. Morton and M. Beard writ that they have heard of it, 
1. part. Apol. lib. 2. cap. 33. Beard Motive. 12.  perhaps by D. Sutlive, but yet durst not feign the names either of the men who held this synod, or of the place where it was held, nor yet specify the year of our Lord when it was held. This he left to others to feign, or to himself at more leisure  
2. Fourthly it may be proved by the ridiculous nomination and proving made by some. D. Morton part. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 16. writeth that Melancthon, Pelican, Lambert, Capito, Osiander, Sturmius, Bucer came forth, which he proveth because Alphonse a Castro in the epistle dedicatory of his book against heresies hath these words; Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone, but accompanied with a great troop as with a guard, and nameth those before cited. But first it is ridiculous to say, that the foresaid persons were Protestants before Luther, sith partly themselves, partly Protestants deny it, as we shown in the former chapter. Again, it is ridiculous to prove this by Castroes' testimony, who being a Spaniard, and those all Germans except Lambert who was a French man, it is most likely that he never knew them nor heard of their names before Luther had revolted. Moreover ridiculous it is, to imagine that in the forecited words Castro should say, that the fornamed persons did come forth in such sort as we mean, that is, came out of the Protestant lurking holes, or to have been secret Protestant's before Luther appeared; seeing he only saith, that they came forth in such sort as he saith Luther came forth, to wit forth of the Catholic church & of Catholics became heretics.  
3. Fiftly I prove it out of the common doctrine of Protestants, wherein they teach that every one ought to adjoin himself to the visible Church if so he can conveniently. For so teacheth the Confession of the low country's art. 28. the French art. 26. Melancthon in cap. 8. Matth. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 1. D whitaker Cont. 2. quest. 3 cap. 2 and others commonly. But these former Protestants (if any such had been) might conveniently have joined themselves to Luther's company after that they saw him to preach securely and out of danger. Seeing therefore, no such came to him, it is manifest that there were no such at all. Finally this is manifest otherwise. For suppose, that before Luther they lay so close, as that they worshipped God only in hart and soul, yet when they saw Protestancy to be preached publicly and securely, and that they might live openly and amongst men, who will imagine, that they would prefer darkness before light, and lurking holes before towns and cities, and always keep in deserts? Certaidly such kind of fellows should be rather bats or owls, than men. Besides being just men, forsooth, why did they not afford God external worship when they might securely do it? Why did they not according to Christ's commandment celebrate the memory of his Passion by receiving of the Sacraments?  
4. Out of these I compose the seaventh demonstration: If after that Luther securely preached Protestancy, never any ancienter Protestant came forth and adjoined himself to his company, there were no Protestants before. But no such ever came forth. Ergo. But if there were no Protestant before Luther, undoubtedly he was the beginner of that company.   

That the Protestant Church, and Religion is new. CHAP. XIII.  
THE eighth demonstration with which we will prove, that Luther was the beginner of the Protestant Church and religion, we will frame out of Protestant's Confessions of the novelty thereof: First therefore they say, that in the judgement almost of all men it is new, and that it is almost impossible, 
Now in almost all men's judgement.  to wipe away from it the spot of novelty. Thus Illyricus in the Preface of his Catalogue: When Doctors raised of God preach the (Protestant) gospel and do inveigh against contrary errors, they seem in the judgement almost of all men to bring a new doctrine unheard of before and to impugn the old. Again: It is very hard and almost impossible to remove the hateful mark of novelty from the (Protestant) doctrine. 
Almost impossible.  To which D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 454. addeth, that the Protestant religion, Was altogether new to most nations.  
2. Secondly in equivalent words they oftentimes call their Religion new or begun of new. For as we shall strait rehearse they term it in the blade, renascent, reviving, borne a new, renewed, repaired, restored, raised again, resuscitated. And what can be meant by these terms, but a religion either new or newly erecteth, such as Christ's religion is not? For neither is it new in itself, neither can it be begun or raised anew, because it can never fall. Luther in cap. 22. Genes. tom. fol. 208. writeth thus: 
Borne anew.  In the beginning of the gospel borne a new, Monetarius & c In cap. 31. fol. 434: Nine assemblies have been held since the Gospel began to be borne a new. In cap. 32. fol. 458 After the light of the Gospel was borne again. In cap. 48. fol. 643. 
Borne again.  At the beginning of the Gospel rising again. In cap. 49. fol. 662. They desire to extinguish the light of the Gospel rising again. In cap. fol. 342. I remember that before these times of the Gospel borne a new. And in the Praefat. Deuter. tom. 3. jenen. fol. 75. The rising again or rather springing Gospel. 
Rising again.  Thus speaketh Luther. Melancthon Apol. pro Luthero tom. 2. Lutheri fol. 194. You oppose against the rising light of the Gospel. And respon ad Clerum Colon. tom. 2. pag. 97. The beginning of the pure doctrine rising again. And in cap. 7 Matth. tom. 1. 
Renewed.  fol 398: He termeth it renewed doctrine. Carion in Chron. pag. 706. calleth their Church the renascent Church. justus jonas Epist. dedicat. lib. Lutheri de Iudaeis tom. 7. fol. 166. God would that in our time the Gospel should be borne again under the house of Saxony. 
Reviuing.  Besoldus in his Preface of the 4. part of Luther's Commentary upon Genes. hath these words: In the beginning of the Church borne anew. O siander in his Manual englished pag. 62: Our doctrine is renewed. And his son Lucas Epist. Euchar: The doctrine of the gospel borne again. The author of the Sponge in Daneus pag. 13. 
Christianity green.  calleth it the light of the Gospel borne again, the Evangelicall doctrine reviving or quickening again. Kemnice in locis part. 2. p. 106. In the beginning of the Gospel borne again. Amongst the Sacramentaryes Zuinglius speaketh thus in supplicat. ad Suithenses fol 121: Christianity being green, christianity rising again. And in Eccles. fol. 41. New born truth. Which phrase he repeateth disput. tom. 2. fol. 607. Gesnerus in Bibliotheca saith of Luther: The new borne Church doth owe much unto him. 
Recalled Gospel.  Muscle Epist. dedicat. locorum. I was in the beginning of the new rising Evangelicall truth. Bucer in Retract. pag. 642. useth. these words: 
Beginning of the new born Gospel.  Among the Ministers of the recalled Gospel. Beza in cap 3. Rom. v. 20. They by whose Ministry God in our age hath recalled to light Christ's Gospel almost buried. Gualther. Praefat. in Rom. How much harm the Anabaptists did at the beginning of the new borne Gospel. 
Quickening again.  Martyr in locis tom. 2. pag. 228. In the beginning of the Gospel born again. And in Epist. dedicat. comment. ad Rom. The Gospel quickening again. Hospin. Epist. dedicat. 1. part. histor. The Evangelicall truth borne again. Sohinus in Methodo Theol. pag. 215. Among the Doctors of the Church borne again. And Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 7. §. 24. The doctrsne of the Gospel borne again. lib. de scanned. pag. 76. & 94. The gospel borne again. Admonit. 2. ad Westphalum pag. 784. The Gospel is borne again. And cont. Scruetum pag. 592: Of the Gospel borne again. And in like manner he speaketh ordinarily. saddle respo. ad Arthurum cap. 7. The Church borne again. Paraeus in Miscellan. Ursini pag. 26. The light of the Gospel borne again. Danaeus respon ad Solnec. pag. 1565: In the very beginning of the Gospel borne again. Plessic de Eccles. cap. 11: Christ borne again. Cambden in apparatu Annalium: The rising religion of Protestants. 
Christ borne again.  Usher de Success. cap. 8. In the beginning of the Gospel born again. Scult. in Praesat. 4. partis Medullae: Thou wert in the flower of the Church borne again. 
In the flower of the Church.  Moreover Luther tom. 1. in dis. fol. 410. calleth his doctrine, A doctrine repaired in this age. And Praefat. ad Galat. tom. 5. fol. 270. saith: In these later times the wholesome knowledge of Christ was again resuscitated james Andrew's lib. cont. Hosium pag. 1 The Lord by the Ministry of Luther hath resuscitated the doctrine of the Gospel. And pag. 349: 
Repaired.  Among our men after the doctrine of the Gospel was resuscitated. Kenice Praefat. in lib. de unione hypostat: 
Resuscitated.  It is now three score years since the ancient serpent raised again the heresy of Berengarius for to oppress as they say in the hlade the doctrine of the Gospel than first restored by Luther's Ministry. 
Gospel in the blade.  Caluin l. de Coena cap. 10: This controversy began between them, who were the chiefest captains in restoring the doctrine of the gospel, and bringing it back as it were when it was lost. 
Restored.  Lib. de libero arbit. pag. 147. The purity of the Gospel was restored by Luther's labour especially. Et epist. ad Ducem Somerseti: God would have me to be one of those by whose labour he restored this time the sincere doctrine of the Gospel. Danaeus in method. scripturae pag. 400: There are 54. years passed since that time that the pure light and doctrine of the Gospel was first restored to the world. Apol. Eccles. Angl. part. pag. 64. It is no new thing though at this day the religion of Christ be entertained with despits and checks being but lately restored and as it were coming up again a new. Ibid. cap. 17. Our desire was to have the temple of the Lord restored a new. jezier de bello Euchar. fol. 72: Even from the beginning of the restored Evangelicall light. M. Bancroft in his Survey cap. 8. In this later age of the world it hath pleased God to restore us the light of the Gospel. And M. Alenson in praef. contro. 4. Whitakeri: After the restauration of the Gospel. And many more (as we see in the chapter following) call their gospel restored Religion. By which it may appear that D. Andrew's Respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. cap. 1. did untruly deny, that their men call their faith a restored faith. But whiles he denyeth that their men termeth it so, he clearly showeth, what those mean who term it so, to wit, that they mean a religion borne or framed a new, according to the very substance thereof. And in truth what else could they mean by so many terms and so often repeated of a religion green in the blade, borne again, rising again, resuscitated, renewing, reviving, recalled, repaired, brought back again, restored, but a religion substantial produced, instituted and founded a new.  
3. Thirdly this is proved, because they writ, that in the time of Luther, of Melancthon, of Zuinglius, of the Anabaptists and such others, was the beginning the very beginning, the first beginning, the original, the entrance, the cradle, the dawning, the new rising of their Church and religion, as appeareth in the aforesaid testimonies of Luther, Melancthon, Besoldus, Kemnicius, Musculus, Gualther, Peter Martyr, Danaeus, Vsserius, Gezler. And beside, Luther in cap. 3. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 33. hath these words: In the beginning of the Ghopell, Carolostadius etc. Georgius Fabritius lib. 8. Orig. Saxon. pag. 13. God would that true and wholesome doctrine should have her beginning in the university of Wittenberg. Caluin epist. ad Montis belgardenses col. 590. 
Protestancy had its beginning in Wittenberg.  edit. 1617.: In this our age the gospel did slow out of the church of Wittenberg. Brentius Praetat. lib. Andreae contra Hosium: Did not we all in the beginning of the revealed gospel with one mouth dispro●e your Popish impietyes? And in Recognit. pag. 327: They cannot deny, that, even from the beginning of the reborn gospel the Zwinglians etc. And I. de Mayest. Christi pag. 109: Even from the beginning of the revealed gospel, Melancthon etc. Wittē●ergenses in Resur. Orthodoxy consensu: pag. 22. Luther recanted some things which in the beginning of the reborn doctrine of the gospel he granted to the Papists. Lobechius disput. 12. Strait after the beginning of the shining truth, in the year 1520. etc. Pappus defence. 1 cont. Sturmium pag. 19 Thou saidst that there were no such Theses published since the beginning of religion. I show thee the contrary that Luther and Philip held the ●●me. Sleidan prefat. histor: The beginning (of Protestancy) was slender and almost contemptible, and one only (Luther) ●●re the brunt of all the world. Zanchius lib. de perseue●at. 192: 
Anabaptists in the beginning of Protestantisme.  In the beginning of the Gospel the sect of Anabaptists ●●ose. Caluin epist. 63 If in the first beginning of the church, rising again, this example of tyranny doth now peep, what will 〈◊〉 shortly? And epist. ●78: In the beginning of the gospel ●●rne again. Epist. 269. The beginnings of the kingdom of Christ every where in our ages were almost base and contemp●●ble. Respons. ad Sadoset p. 133: 
New rising.  After the new rising of be gospel. Pl●ssie de Eccles. cap. 11. What shall we think ●at the new star anno (1572.) did signify but the new birth of ●hrist on earth by preaching of the word. And he addeth, 
New birth.  ●●at as Christ first borne put the Idols oracles to s●●nce, so borne again he hath made the Popish miracles to vanish. Scultete part. 1. Medullae in Irenaeo cap. 9 
The dawning.  In this age the dawning of the Evangelicall truth hath shined a new unto us. Zuinglius lib. de Provide. tom. 2. fol 352: The Landgrave laboureth that the infancy of Religion be piously nourished. 
The infancy.  And Gesner in Bibliotheca saith: Luther did happily set forward the infancy of Religion. The Alogy of the Church of England part. 2. c. 2. diuis. 1. writeth, that Anabaptists, and Libertynes have been stirring in the world ever since the gospel did first spring. M. Powel de Antichristo c. 32. How many wars have been since the light of the gospel arose, the Helvetian, the Protestant war etc. Vsserius I. de Success. Eccl. c. 8. At the beginning of the ghospall borne again, Thomas Bilney etc. M. Bale cont. 8. cap. 68 speaking of the beginning of protestancy, calleth it, The rising of the new Jerusalem. Horn in his harbour, 
Second birth.  The second birth of Christ. And Brocard in cap. 2. Apocal: the second coming of Christ. But surely if the year 1520. were strait after the beginning of Protestancy: If Luther, 
Second coming  Melancthon, Zuinglius, the Anabaptists, and such like were from the beginning, at the beginning, and strait after the Rising of Protestancy: If the dissension amongst Protestants, wer● in the first beginning of their Church: If finally Protestant doctrine had its beginning in the Church of Wittemberge & slowed from thence, without doubt it is a new doctrine an● Church, which either had never been before, or wa● newly founded and restored. Besides what other thing can signify The new rising, the new birth, the secon● coming of Christ, but another substantial beginning and repairing of Christ's religion and Church after it had been quit overthrown. The same also the● insinuate, when they say, that the light of the gospel was in their time new kindled, or lightened again. 
Kindled again.  Luther tom. 2. fol. 305. alias 307. God in th● last time hath kindled again the light of the gospel. And i● cap. 17. Genes. tom. 6. fol. 210. He hath kindled again for us the light of the Gospel. Melancthon in cap. 11. Dan. tom. 2. fol. 314. God hath again kindled for us the light of the gospel, which again he repeateth in his common places tit. de gratia. The same hath Vitus Theodorus Praefat. Comment. Luth. in Psalm. Kemnitius in locis tit. de justificat. pag. 109. 247. The Elector in Edicto de lib. concord. & Zuinglius Praefat. Elench. ●om. 2. fol. 5. saith: Christ hath lighted again in our time the lantern of his word. Wherefore falsely doth Boysseul in confutat. Spondaei pag. 25. deny, that their men say they kindle a new the doctrine of salvation. But (as before I said of D. Andrew's) Boysseul by denying that their men say they kindle again the doctrine showeth us, that those who indeed say so, do mean of a substantial production of light, as in truth the word kindling doth signify.  
4. Fourthly I prove the novelty of the Protestant Church and religion, because they do sometimes in plain terms call it new, fresh, unused, unaccustomed newly planted, altogether new, and newly erected. Luther Praefat. formulae Missae tom. 2. fol. 384. I was always slow and fearful for the weaklings in saith, from whom could not suddenly be taken so old and injured, nor engrafted so fresh & unaccustomed manner of serving God. In Psalm. 45. tom. 3. fol. 439. he saith: Neither was there ever any new word revealed without miracles. 
Fresh and and unaccustomed.  Which after he had proved by the example of Abraham, Moses and Christ, he addeth: So we also have our Miracles. And in cap. 19 Gen. tom. 6. fol. 238. he saith, that Papists do sore urge them saying: Your doctrine is new and unknown to our forefathers, which he answering, denyeth not that his doctrine is new, but rather granteth it, saying: What belongeth it to us what God hath judged of those who died heretofore. Now the word is preached unto us, we must not be Inquirers who ask God why he hath revealed his doctrine at this time and not in former ages. And in cap. 12. fol. 148. he writeth in these words: Hear surely Abraham doth show no small trouble of conscience which even in his banishment is wounded with this dart, to think in this sort: Look to it, Thou art all alone a stranger, wheresoever thou goest thou carriest with thee a new and strange religion. Art thou alone holy? hath God care of thee only, and hath he cast off so many people and nations? The like (saith Luther) we also suffer when our adversary's with open mouth demand of us, Are all who went before us, and followed the Pope's religion damned? Ye see how plainly he intimateth his trouble of conscience about the newness and strangeness of his religion. And in Appendice confess. in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 188. he saith: Because our doctrine seemed at that time very new and wonderful scandalous to the whole world, 
Seemed very new to the whole world.  it behoved me to deal moderately. And in the Epitaphe of his tomb is engraven this verse:  
A new light of the Gospel he spread throughout the world.  
Melancthon Praefat. in tom. 2. ●urther thus speaketh of him: He did so illustrate these writings, that after a long & dark night there seemed to the judgement of all pious and prudent men to arise a new light of doctrine. 
New in the judgement of all wise men.  The university of Wittembrg in Sentent. de Missa in Luthero tom. 2. fol. 349. writeth that the abolishing of private Communion: Is in this time a thing altogether new, As Luther ibidem fol 385. saith that Communion under both kinds, is a rite over new. Spalatine whom Protestant's account a very grave man in his relation of the Confession of Auspurg saith: 
Never such a confession.  Such a confession was never made not only a thousand years ago, but not since the beginning of the world, neither in any history nor in any ancient Father or Doctor it such a Confession to be heard of. Huber in Antibellarminum libro 4. capite. 3. Our Church hath a new form not used at that time when the Pope had all. Wittembergenles in Prefat: Refutal. Orthodoxi Consensus call the Protestant Church lately planted, 
Lately planted.  and as yet tender. George Fabritius libro 7. Orig. Saxon. pag. 858. speaking of protestancy saith: 
New doctrine.  Duke George was greatly against this new doctrine, who was deceived by the ancienter use of his forefathers. And lib. 8 pag. 21. writeth that even the Prince elector himself at the first did not much defend Luther's reformation as being new. And Freschelius Archdeacon of Wittenberg Preface in Comment Melancthonis in Math. calleth the Protestants company according to the age thereof a Childish camp. 
A childish camp.  In like sort do the Sacramentaries speak, for thus Zuinglius Parenesi ad civitatem Suithensem tom. 1. fol. 110. First of all in humble manner we entreat this, that our cause do not seem to you absurd by reason of the newness thereof. And in Supplicat. ad Suithenses he doth almost openly confess that he goeth about to give men new precepts and laws. And those of Zurich in Sleidan lib. 4. writ that their ministers do teach them now five years, and that at the beginning this kind of doctrine seemed new, because they had never heard any such thing before. Sadeel de vocat. pag. 543: 
Seemed new.  God hath brought into light the reborn Church as a youngling, and pag. 555. that he hath laid a new foundation of the Church, and erected again the Church. Caluin Respons. ad Sadolet pag. 131. 
A new foundation.  maketh a man speak thus to God in defence of his becoming a Protestant: I being offended at the novelty, did hardly give ear unto it. Bastingius epist. dedicat. Catechis: 
Erected a new.  It seemed good to God in our time to erect his Church a new. Beza in Confess cap. 4 sect. 49: God would preserve the relics of his Church in Popery till he had erected it again. 
Erected again.  The Apology of the English Church part. 4. cap. 4. Diuis. 21 Forty years ago and upward it was an easy thing for them to device against us these accursed speeches and others too, when in the midst of the darkness of that age it first began to spring and to give shine some one glimmering beam of truth unknown at that time and unheard of, when as yet the thing was but new & the success thereof uncertain, and when there could be imagined against us no fact so detestable but that the people than would soon believe it for the novelty and strangeness of the matter. Ibid. diuis. 1: How often have they set on fire Princes houses to the end they might quench the light of the gospel in the very first appearing of it. M. Fox in his Acts set forth anno 1610. pag 788. writing what passed anno 1523 speaketh thus: 
But in the blade.  Then the doctrine of Luther first beginning to spring and being but in the blade, was not yet known whereto it tended, nor to what it would grow. D. Rainolds in his Conference cap. 5. sect. 2. saith that Protestants have not had long tracked of time. And a late Chronicler, thought to be M. Good win writing the life of K. Henry 8. 1521. saith: In the mean time our king moved at the novelty of Luther's doctrine etc. To all which I add, that Erasmus (whom Protestant's as is before shown do challenge as one of theirs) writeth thus to the Brethren of the low country's: 
New Gospel.  do not they bring a new Gospel, who expound it otherwise then the Church hitherto hath done? But Why I pray you should the Protestants religion seem new to all the world, and in the judgement of all pious and prudent men, if indeed it were not new? How should so many, so famous Protestants, so often, and in so many different kinds of writings, to wit in prose, in verse, in peaceable, in contentious writings, in Historical, in dogmatic, in speech to men & to God himself have said so plainly and so many ways, that Protestant religion was new, fresh, unwonted, unused, wholly new, newly planted, & erected anew if they had not thought that it was indeed new. For as Luther saith: It is impossible but that the conscience will some time bewray itself.  
5. 
Protestant's first refuted.  If any answer that the fore said Protestamnts do not mean, that their religion was absolutely new. First I ask, why then do they absolutely say so, and that so often and in so many kind of writings? Why do they so often and in so weighty a matter write otherwise then they think? Besides, it cannot be proved, that they did not mean that it was absolutely new when they spoke so, otherwise then because perhaps at other times they said the contrary. Which kind of proof in Heretics is frivolous, as partly hath been showed before, partly shall be more hereafter. Moreover this is like the excuse of the Marcionists, who when they had brought in a new God, yet would not have him to be called absolutely new, but only newly known or discovered.  
6. Fiftly I prove the novelty of Protestant religion because even then when in words they deny it to be new, in very deed they confess it to be new in such sort as sufficeth for me to prove that Luther was the Author thereof, and that it is not the religion of Christ, to wit, that it is of new erected, built & set up according to the very substance and essence thereof in such sorr as a house fallen down but newly raised in walls, roof and other such substantial, parts may be called a new house; Because Christ's Church and religion cannot be new in this sort, being such as can never fall. For they confess, that the antiquity of their Church was abrogated, and that it is a religion refined and reform, and that they are refiners and reformers. D. Morton 1. part. Apol. lib 1. cap vlt writeth that Protestants Challenge the first antiquity, but abrogated by men's fault. junius Cont. 4. lib. 4. cap. 7 saith: The continuance of the old and Catholic doctrine is renewed. But surely that thing whose antiquity hath been abrogated and broken of, is new. For the kingdom in Caesar's time was new in Rome although it began with the city itself, because it had been abrogated for diverse ages. Whereupon Rivet Epitom-Cont. tract. 3 cap. 21 saith: Things are called new, when they are renewed and used after interruption. Besides whether a thing once abrogated and taken away and afterward restored be to be called new or no, it sufficeth to me, that the Protestant religion is in such sort new, as a house fallen down and newly raised may be called n●w: because the Church & religion of Christ cannot be new in this manner, nor the antiquity thereof, abrogated, and cut of. In like sort Muscle in locis tit. de nova doctrina pag. 417: Albeit he deny that they make new doctrine yet he confesseth that they renew doctrine, And that he meaneth of a substantial renovation wherein the very substance of a thing is renewed, it appeareth by the precedent page where he saith that old matters abrogated & fallen down for some ages are renewed. A Church therefore and religion fallen down they do renew, that is, erect a new. Whereupon the French Confession, Beza, & Bastingius as is before recited say that their Church is again, & a new erected, and others call her a Church Reviued, resuscitated, reborn and assign a new birth and beginning of her, which words do manifestly signify a new substantial production or making of her: which whether it be called a novation or renovation, maketh not much to the purpose, seeing it is either a substantial production or first making of that which never had been before, or a reproduction and second making of that, which though it had been before, yet was fallen, and the substance thereof corrupted and perished. Of which novation or renovation Luther was the Author, Besides they call themselves Renewers or Refiners, 
Protestant's call themselves reformers.  and their Church or religion Reform or refined. D. Andrew's Respons. ad Apol. Bellarm. cap. 1: We are Renewers. We call our religion reform. Caluin Epist. 341: We carry the name of the reformed Church. junius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 16: We hold the Reformed Christian saith. And in the same sort speaketh the Scots Confession, the Consent of Poland, D Whitaker Prefat. count. & cont. 1. quest. 2. c. 16. & 17. & cont. 2. quest. 5. c. 2. & others commonly. I ask therefore what kind of form of religion have they taken away by their reformation, and what a one have they given? Surely they have changed the very substantial form. For (to omit all other points) they have taken away the former manner of obtaining remission of sins by the Catholic faith and good works, and brought in a new of obtaining the same by special faith only, and undoubtedly the way to obtain remission of sins, is substantial to a Church and religion. But they who take away the substantial form and bring anew, do make a new thing, and such a mutation ought rather to be termed a formation, than reformation. But whether it be called a formation or reformation, it skilleth little, it sufficeth (as I said) that it is a substantial mutation of religion the Author whereof Luther was, and such a mutation, as cannot happen to the religion and Church of Christ. Moreover, it is the shift of old and new heretics to bring in new religions under the name of Reformation. Of the Marcionists thus writeth Tertullian: They say that Martion did not so much innovate the rule (of faith) as reform that which heretofore was corrupted. 
L. 1. cont. Mar. c. 20.  And he himself after he was become a Montanist: This is showed of us, that the discipline of monogamy is neither new nor strange, yea both ancient and proper to Christian, 
L. 1. de Monogam c. 4.  that you may think the Paraclete (Monta●us) to have been rather the Restorer than beginner thereof. And of Seruetus thus writ those of Zurick in Caluin cont S●ruet. pag. 626. He goeth on to thrust upon the Church a most corrupt doctrine under the show of restitution of Christianity.  
7. Sixtly, because the Protestants design the place, the occasion, the year, day, and hour, when protestancy began: The place we have heard already out of Caluin and Fabritius was Wittenberg, & the same doth Luther insinuate in cap. 49. Isaiae tom. 4. 
The place where Protestancy began.  fol. 192 saying: Now Wittenberg is blasphemed as the fountain of all heresies, but it will come to pass some years hence that it shall be praised of Posterity, as God's garden from whence the Gospel was propagated into Germany and all parts of the world. And Matthew Index in Edicto aeterni de●: That clamour against Antichrist came out of the dirty towns of barbarous and base Germany. 
protestancy began ●n a dirty own of barbarous county.  A sit place no doubt from whence so dirty, filthy, and barbarous an heresy should spring. For sooth Wittemberge is the Protestants Zion, from whence their law should come. S. Austin thought it ridiculous madness, that the Donatists should say that the Church was to be renewed out of Africa the third part of the world, 
●e unit. c. ●.  & shall we think it wisdom to imagine that it should be renewout of a dirty and barbarous corner of Duchland? The occasion of it was Tezelius his preaching of Indulgences, 
●he occa●on of the beginning ●f prote●ancy.  for thus writteth Crusius l. 10. Anal. Sueu. pag. 5.8. Tezelius boldness stirred up Luther's mind to set up conclusions against those indulgences on the gates of the temple of All Saints in Wittenberg the last day of October which was saturday. 
The day of the week & month.  Hence now came the occasion & beginning (saith he) of correcting the christian religion. Schusselburg Praef. tom. 8. Catal. haeret: Old men remember & it recorded in writing for remembrance for ever and publicly extant, that this was the cause that the Gospel flourished again in our age, that john Tetzele carried about pardons of sins to be sold in the Pope's name. And Kemnice 4. part. Exam. tit. de Indulgentijs pag. 78: It is known to all the world, that the impudent, and impious sale of pardons above 50. years ago gave entrance to the wholesome repurging of heavenly doctrine. And Manlius in Calendario: On All Saint's eve first of all conclusions against Indulgences were fastened by Luther upon the gate of the Church of Wittenberg castle in the year 1517. at twelve of the clock. The lame lay Melanccthon ●●●fat. in tom. 2. 
The year & hour.  Lutheri, S●e●dan, Carion, and others. We have then the place where, to wit, Wittenberg, the year 1517. the day of the month, the last of October, the day of the week, Saturday, and finally the very hour, to wit, twelve of the clock, when first Protestancy began to arise. And as Vincent. Lyrin. saith: 
Cap. 34.  What heresy ever was there which sprung not up under some certain name in a certain place, and tyme.  
8. 
Lutherans say that the Sacra●● doctrine is new.  Seaventhly I prove the novelty of Protestancy by the mutual testimony of the Lutherans against the Sacramentaries, and of the Sacramentaries against the Lutherans. For of the Sacramentaries doctrine thus testifieth Luther in defence. verborum Coenae tom. 7 fol. 381. Neither doth any thing set forth this heresy more than novelty. And tom. 2. Zu●nglij fol. 383. Carolstadius first raised his error. Melancthon Epist. ad Miconium, calleth it new doctrine, and addeth that Carolstadius first raised this tumult. Heshusius lib. de real praesentia fol. 2: Carolstadius the unhappy author of this discord. Kemnice in fundamentis Coenae pag. 116: Carolstadius was the first author of this strife. And Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 68 writeth that Melancthon impugned the Sacramentaries doctrine as a thing altogether new, and fol. 46. that Pomeran disallowed Zuinglius doctrine as a novelty. And in Narrat. dissipatae Eccles. Belg. pag. 179. The Lutherans say to the Caluinists, your doctrine is new: and pag. 213. your doctrine is of late. And Confes. Mans●eld: The Sacramentary doctrine is justly suspected of us. First for the novelty thereof because it arose in our tyme. Neither aught the Sacramentaries to accept against these testimonies, as if they were the testimonies of the adversaries. For such adversaries they are as themselves account them their brethren in Christ, and members of the same Church. Besides, though themselves be adversaries both to Catholics and Lutherans, nevertheless they will have their testimonies to be taken against them in matters of fact. Moreover, because the Sacramentaries themselves do sometime confess the same. For Zuinglius tom. 2. Respons. ad Struthionem fol. 303. calleth Carolstadius: The first teather of the truth of the Eucharist. And in Subsidio fol. 244. he calleth his opinion, the exposition of the ancients brought back is it were after it was lost. Lasco Epist. ad Reg. Poloniae. Abolished by injury of times and restored as it were after it was lost. Lavather de dissidio Euchar. fol. 2. writeth that the Senate of Zurich Was troubled which the newness of the matter. And fol. 5. that when Occolampade had set forth his book, the Senate of Basle moved with the novelty of the matter, forbidden his book to be sold, until it had been examined by Censors. And fol. 1. that Zuinglius opinion was not heard of by the common people. In like sort the Sacramentaries writ of the proper opinions of the Lutherans. For of their impanation or mixture of Christ's body and bread in the Eacharist Caluin Defens. 2. 
Sacramentaryes say the Lutheran opinions are new.  cont Westphalum pag. 786. saith: It is a new doctrine, and till now unheard of, that bread is substantially the body of Christ. Oecolampadius responsione poster. ad Perkeymer pag. 18. Those new Doctors grant to bread that it is substantially the body of Christ. And of the Lutherans ubiquity, wherewith they make Christ's body to be every where, Caluin pronounceth Admonit. vlt. ad Westphalum pag. 829. that it was not borne long since. And Alcsius apud Hospi● part. 2. fol. 201. saith: I know both the time when this opinion was first broached to the Church, and who was Author thereof. Authores Admonit. de lib. concord. cap. 3. pag 95. No man taught this their opinion before Luther. Do they not bring forth new devices and not heard of before in the Church? Beza also lib. de Omnipraesentia carnis Christi pag. 509. calleth it a doctrine unheard of in the Church. Finally Clenuitius apud Heshus. lib. cit. calleth the very Confession of Auspurg, A new and fifth Gospel. Thus Protestants testify the newness of each other doctrine.  
9 Eightly I prove the newness of Protestancy by the new and before unheard of nams', 
The names of Protestats are new.  which Protestants give to themselves, and to their Church and religion. For they call themselves Protestant's, or Ghospellers: and their Church and Religion Evangelicall and reformed. D. Andrew's respon add Apol. Bellarm. c. 1. Protestants is our name. D. Willet in the Preface of his Synopsis: We refuse not the name of Protestants. This name agreeth fitly to our profession. Praefat. consensus Poloniae: We are termed Ghospellers. jezler lib. de bello Euchar. fol. 31. We will be called Gospelers, and woe be to them who call us otherwise. His majesty in his declaration against Vorstius pag. 49: The men of our Religion do eftsoons take to them the name of Gospelers. D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 7: If ye ask where is the Evangelicall and reformed Church, all will strait point their finger to the Protestant's assembly. But surely all these names are new and never heard of before Luther, neither can there be any name designed, which before Luther's time was proper to the Protestant company. But it is incredible that there should have been such a company, and yet that it never had any proper or peculiar name given either by those of that company or of any others.  
10. Lastly I prove the novelty of the Protestant Church by that, that Protestants knowing well the newness thereof, deny that the greatest antiquity among Christian Churches is a mark of the true Church of Christ, as doth junius lib. de Eccles. cap. 16. yea some of them are so offended at this mark of Antiquity, as they bid us 
(a) Luth. tom. 2, fol. 367.  shut our eyes at it, and say that it is a 
(b) Raino. Confer. c. 5. diviss. 2.  bastardly mark, and rather a mark of the 
(c) Bless. l. de Eccles. c. 3.  Synagogue of Antichrist, them of the church of Christ. Nevertheless seeing it ought to be undoubted amongst Christians, that since Christ's Church was founded by him, it never failed or perished, and that it is manifest, that he founded his true Church before any false Christian in imitation of him began a false Christian Church, it ought also to be certain that she which amongst all Christian Churches is the most ancient, is the very true Church of Christ. Neither would ever Protestants deny this, if they did not too well know, that their Church is far younger than the Roman, as being (according to their saying) her daughter.  
11. Out of all which hath been recited in this chapter, I make my eight demonstration in this sort: If the Protestant Church and Religion were in Luther's time new or builded or begun a new, he was the Author and beginner thereof. But so it was, as hath been made manifest by the aforesaid confessions of Protestants. Therefore Luther was the Author thereof.   

That Protestants do plainly confess, that Luther was the Author and Beginner of their Church and Religion. CHAP. XIIII.  
THE ninth demonstration, that Luther was the Author of the Protestant Church and religion, shallbe taken out of Protestants open confessions thereof. First therefore they say, that he was the first who openly preached Protestancy. Luther Praefat. in tom. 1: The Dutch men did look what would be the event of so great a matter, which before none either Bishop or Divine durst touch. Ibi. fol. 159. It is said, Luther first of all in our age did tax the Pope's abominations, and illustrate the ancient and pure doctrine of the Church. And Praefat. disput. fol. 370. 
Luther the first that preached his Gospel.  I first allowed the marriage of Bishops. In cap. 3. Galat. tom. 5. fol. 333: Many gave God thankes, that by the Gospel, which by God's grace we than first of all preached, etc. In cap. 4. fol. 387. God in this later time hath again revealed the truth of the Gospel by us unto the ungrateful world. Epist. ad Argentinenses tom. 7. We dare boast, 
First published Christ.  that Christ was first published by us. Melancthon Praefat. in tom. 3: With what joy did men receive the first sparkle of light discovered by Luther. praef. in tom. 2. Lutheri: God by him restored the Gospel to us. Again: He recalled the minds of men to the Son of God, 
First spark of Protestancy.  and as the Baptist shown the lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. And praefat. in tom. 3: When there was great darkness in the Charch, and the light of the Gospel was oppressed, Luther laid open the justice of faith. The university of Wittenberg in Hospin. part. 2. histor. fol. 250: Out of this Church and school did shine the first light of pure doctrine touching God and Crist, 
The first light.  which our new adversary's are forced to grant, though they burst with envy. Amsdorfe, Alber and others writ, that Luther was the first under heaven, who impugned external sacrifice & Priesthood in the new testament. Schusselburg lib. 2. Theol. Caluin. fol. 130. saith that Vtenhonius a Caluinist was impudent, when he wrote that he heard Conrade Pelican say, that many learned men in Germany held the doctrine of the gospel before Luther appeared, and that Pelican himself had rejected Purgatory before Luther's name was heard of. This lie (saith Schusselburg) the later Caluinists have refuted. And fol. 228. he affirmeth, that Luther began the refining of the doctrine of the Gospel. This praise (saith he) we truly and with good right give to Luther, though the Caluinists take it in very ill part. Morgerstern tract. 145. saith, It is ridiculous to think that before Luther any held the pure doctrine, and that Luther received it of them, and not rather they of him. Milius in explicat. confess. August. art. 17. If Luther had had orthodoxal forerunners in his office, 
Had no predecessors.  there had been no need of a Lutheran reformation. The Author of the book entitled Prognostica or Finis mundi pag. 12. Luther (as is confessed) first brought in the gospel at the end of the world. 
The first that brought in the Gospel.  Brentius lib. de Coena in fine. God raised up Luther to carry before us the torch of the knowledge of Christ. And Smedensted apud Hospin. part. 2. histor. fol. 232: He first in our age brought into the world the light of the Gospel, after it had been extinguished. Thus the Lutherans: And in like manner the Sacramentaryes. Zuinglius respon ad Luther tom. 2. fol. 380. thus speaketh Luther: Thou first camest into the field. Ibidem in Exeges. fol. 335. We willingly acknowledge thee to be the chiefest defender of the Gospel, the Diomedes who durst set upon the Roman Venus, the jonathas who durst alone assail the camp of the Palestins. Bucer de Coena pag. 675. calleth Luther our first Apostle of the pure Gospel, and 673. saith, Luther first in our age did impugn superstition. Caluin writeth that he began to take the cause in hand, and first shown the way. 
First shown the way.  Danaeus lib. de Baptismo cap. 15: Luther first gave others occasion to think rightly of man's justification before God. Lavather de distid. Euchar. anno 1546. Luther first in our age did by diverse writings openly inveigh against Popish errors. Author Orthodoxi consensus in Praefat. Apol: Luther and Zuinglius were the first, who began to reprehend inveterate errors. Again: The first teachers of Germany, Luther Melancthon, etc. Amongst English Protestants M. jewel in defence. Apol. part. 1. cap. 7. diuis. 3: Thus I say, in this later age after your so long darkness, Luther was the first that preached the Gospel of Christ. M. Fox in his Acts pag. 402: Luther opened the vein long before hidden. M. Wotton in his examination of the title of the Roman Clergy: It might be truly said, that Luther was the first who in that time did publish Christ, especially in the chief points of the Gospel, which is justification by faith in Christ. And in this respect it is an honour for Luther to have been a son without a father, a scholar without a master. 
Scholar without a master.  Ye see how plainly they say, that Luther first preached the Gospel, first brought in the Gospel, first shown the way, first published Christ, discovered the first sparkle, first laid open the justice of faith, had no orthodoxal Predecessors, was a son without a Father, and a scholar without a master, and that in the article of justification by only faith, which the soul, hinges, and sum of Protestancy.  
2. Secondly without Luther's help no man had known a jot of Protestancy. Luther cont. Regem Angliae tom. 2. fol. 497: Unless we had opened the way, they were like to have understood nothing at all, either of Christ or of the Gospel. 
Nothing at all.  In cap. 15. 1. loc. tom. 5. fol. 134: The gospel is by our labour and diligence brought into light, and they first learned it of us, without our pains they could never have learned one word of the Gospel. And fol. 141: God hath called us by his holy spirit, 
Not one word.  that by us Christ might be manifested & known to the world. This praise they cannot take from us, that we were the first & carried away the prize of bringing the Gospel into light of which they would not have known one jot, unless by our pains and study it had been brought forth. And ibidem in cap. 17. Matth. he saith that without him the Sacramentaries and others would not have known never so little of the Evangelicall truth. 
Not one jot.  Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 358. writeth these words of Luther: If they had not had it of us, 
Never so little.  doubtless they would have known nothing of. And those of Zurich in their confession write thus: Luther boasteth, that himself is the Prophet and Apostle of the Germans who hath learned nothing of any, and all have learned of him. None knew any thing but what they have known by him.  
3. Thirdly they writ, that Luther did kindle the Protestant light. Schusselburg tom. 13. Catal. haeret. pag. 897: 
Luther kindled the Protestant light.  By Luther's ministry the clear light of the Gospel is kindled again for us: Lobechius disput. 1. pag. 6. By this man's Ministry the Lord hath kindled in Germany the light of the heavenly truth. M. jewel defence. Apol. part. 1. cap. 7. diuis. 3. pag. 56. Luther and Zuinglius were appointed of God to kindle again the light which you had quenched. Verheiden in his Images, at the Image of Luther's Thou first didst preach the Gospel with so great constancy. Tho● didst lighten the torch of the Gospel to the world. And at the image of Zuinglius he saith of him and Luther: 
Laid the foundation.  These two Architects laying the foundation of the Evangelicall kingdom. D. Whitaker cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. pag. 693. Luther lighted a torch which no floods can put out. And in Praefat. tom. 2. Danaei, it is said: God raised up Luther for to kindle and restore to the world the light of his Gospel. And what is it to be a kindler of light, but to be Author thereof.  
4. Fourthly they say, that Luther was the renewer, the Founder, the Restorer, the settler and promulgator of their Church and Religion. Zuinglius in Exegesi tom. 2. fol. 358. writeth, that Luther challengeth to himself all the instauration of saith. Illyricus in Schusselburg. tom. 13. Catal. haeret. fol. 850: This same religion was renewed and settled by Luther. Hamburgenses ibidem fol. 658. 
Renewed religion & settled it  Luther truly the renewer of divine worship. Heshusius lib. de praesentia Christi saith of Luther: He was that notable instruments by which true religion was renewed. Saxonici in the conference at Aldburg Scripto 7. pag. 319. speak thus: Since the time of the Gospel renewed by Luther. Hemingius in Schusselburg. lib. 2. Theol. Caluin Pap. 133. Luther restored the ancient worship which our first parents received of God, and which Christ commended to his Church. Caluin admonit. 2. pag. 147: By his endeavour principally the purity of the Gospel was restored: And pag. 768. God raised Luther & others, 
Restored purity of the Gospel.  by whose Ministry our Churches were founded and instituted. The Protestant Princes in Germany in Schusselburg tom. 13. cattle. pag. 877. writ that the King of Navarre willingly affirmeth the French Churches to acknowledge Luther to be their Father in Christ. Or as Thuanus lib. 79. histor. reporteth their words: That Luther is esteemed and honoured of the French Churches as their Father in Christ, and that by his ministry truth was first pulled out. Beza de Haeret. puniend. pag. 148: Luther the Renewer of Christian Religion. 
Renewed Religion.  And in his Images: The principal instrument of Christianity renewed in Germany Danaeus cont. 5. pag. 1135. reckoneth Luther among those, of whom (saith he) all other men have received what light of the Gospel they have. And lib. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. 
First Renewer of the Church & truth.  termeth him the Renewer of the Gospel of Christ. And Apol. pro Eccles. Heluet: The first renewer of the Church. Hospin. part. 2. hist. fol. 134: The first renewer of Evangelicall truth and doctrine. Bucer Resp. ad Episc. Abrincen. pag. 613. writeth that God by Luther hath marvelously and happily restored the sum of the Gospel in our age. 
Restored the sum of the Gospel Restored Religion.  D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 12. pag. 528: Luther only took upon him to restore religion corrupted, and to renew the ancient and true doctrine. And ad Rat. 10. Campiani calleth him the Renewer of the old saith, or as the English Apology termeth him the promulgator of this doctrine. D. Humphrey in Prolegomenis pag. 82. saith: We reverence Luther as a great renewer of Religion. And what is it to be a renewer, Restorer, Settler of a thing corrupted, especially if he restore the sum thereof, as Bucer said that Luther restored the sum of Religion, but to be an Author or maker of it according to the very substance thereof.  
5. Finally, they plainly grant, that Luther was the first to whom Protestancy was revealed, that he laid the first foundation of Protestant Religion, and that he was the captain, 
Luther first to whom Protestats was revealed:  Author. and Begetter thereof. Luther himself in sermone, Quid sit homini Christiano praestandum tom. 7. fol. 274. speaketh thus to Protestants: I was the first whom God set in these lists. I was also the first, to whom God vouchsafed to reveal these things which are now preached unto you. Behold Christian Reader a new 
(a) Theod. l. 2. c. 18.  Aetius surnamed Atheist, who said, that those things were now revealed to him by God, which hitherto he would have to be hidden unto all. A new 
(b) Basil. l. cont. Eun.  Eunomius, who said, that he had seund a new way to God and unheard of which none before had perceived. A new 
(c) Vinc. c. 42.  Nestorius, who gloried that he first understood the Scripture. A new Cataphryge, 
(d) Athan. de Synod.  who said: We have the first revelation & of us beginneth the Christian saith. For of thee (Luther) began the Protestant faith, and thou wert the first, to whom the God of this world (as the Apostle speaketh) vouchsafed to reveueale those things which have been preached to Protestants: 
Praescrip. cap. 34.  To thee alone (that I may use Tertullians' words) hath truth been revealed. Forsooth thou hast found greater favour and more plentiful grace at the Devil's hands. Again in exposit. Papaselli tom. 2. 
Laid the first foundation of Protestancy.  fol. 398. Luther hath these words: When I laid the first foundation of this cause, as Bullinger Praefat. Comment. in joan. writeth of Zuinglius saying: When Zuinglius laid the first foundation of Evangelicall doctrine. Moreover Luther tom. 1. fol. 206. writeth thus to his most inward fellow Melancthon: The city is full of the noise of my name, 
An Herostratus.  and all men desire to see the man the Herostratus of so great a fire. Ye see, how in a letter to his most assured friend, he confesseth himself to be the Herostratus, that is, the Author of that fire wherewith not the temple of Diana, but the temple of God burneth. Melancthon also acknowledged the like, as it appeareth by these words of Luther in a letter to him tom. 9 Wittenberg. Germ. fol. 416. Thou writest, 
Author & leader.  that for my authorities sake thou didst follow me as the author, and leader or captain in this matter. Behold how Melancthon accounted Luther the Author. And what suspicion is there, that Melancthon should in this matter write otherwise to him then he thought. Schusselburg tom. 8. Catal. pag. 363. defineth true Lutherans or Protestants to be those, who embrace the doctrine of the Gospel amending Popish abuses, of which amendment (saith he) Luther was the Author. And the same mean they, who call Luther the Author of the Protestant reformation. For they protest amendment or reformation is indeed (as hath been showed before) a substantial mutation or change of religion, and therefore the Author of such an amendment or reformation is indeed the Author of a new Church and religion. D. Sutclive lib. 2. de Eccles. cap. 3. pag. 237. writeth in this manner: Who were the first Authors of raising the Church fallen down, 
Author.  as Cranmer, and other our Bishops, also Luther, Zuinglius etc. And cap. 7. pag. 328. The Princes who first followed the Authors of restoring religion. Osiander in Sleidan fol. 22. said that Luther & Melancthon had made a certain divinity which savoured more the flesh than the spirit. 
Maker.  Lobechius disput. 1. pag. 26. calleth Luther the first deviser of the Confession of Auspurg. 
Deviser.  And Melchior Neofanius Pastor of the Church of Brunswich in loc. Kemnitij part. 2. saith: How much doth all Duchland own to worthy Luther for his great deserts, who was the Author of pure Religion. 
Author.  D. Covel also in his defence. of Hooker art. 19 pag. 130. plainly confesseth, that some Protestants make Luther and Caluin Authors of the religion which they hold. And M. Horn in his harbour maketh England speak in this manner: 
Begetter.  I am thy Country England, which brought forth blessed man john Wiclise, who begot Hus, who begot Luther, who begot truth. And hereupon it ariseth, that (as Rescius in his Ministromachia p. 15. reporteth) the Lutherans call Islebium (where Luther was borne) their new Bethleem. 
A new Bethleem.  Forsooth because there was borne their new Messiah, the begetter Author, and founder of their religion. Mark now Reader how Luther, by his own and other Protestants confession was, the first to whom Protestant doctrine was revealed, laid the first foundation of the Protestant cause, was the Author of the Protestant amendment or reformation, was the deviser of the first Protestant Confession, was the Herostratus of the Protestant fire, finally was the leader, maker, begetter, and Author of the Protestant Church, and Religion. Which is in plain terms the very same which in all this book I endeavour to prove. justly therefore may Protestants sing to Luther as Lucretius did to his Epicure the Author & beginner of Epicurism. 
Lib. 3.  Those also of Basse were not ashamed in the Epitaph of his tomb to call Oecolampadius, the first author of Evangelicall doctrine in that city, as report Hospin. and Lavather in their Hostories an. 1531. and junius lib. 4. de Eccles. cap. 8. Neither was it peculiar to Luther to spread devices under the name of religion For thus writeth jezler. de bello Euchar. fol. 26. of Ministers: Matters devised of some few, we thrust upon the whole world. And King Henry 8. when he began to incline to protestancy, set forth articles with this title, Articles devised of his Majesty.  
6. And from this evidence & acknowledgement that Luther was the Author of Protestant religion, it proceedeth. First, that Luther oftentimes calleth it his doctrine, his gospel, his word, his cause, his part. For so he speaketh tom. 1. fol. 138. tom. 2. fol. 23. 
Protestancy is Luther's doctrine.  29. 93. 238. 488. 493. 493. tom. 3. fol. 555 tom. 5. fol. 290. tom. 6. fol. 79. and other where often. Secondly it ariseth that true protestancy is called Lutherans doctrine, the Lutheran cause, the Lutheran religion, 
Protestant's term themselves Lutherans,  the Lutheran business, and Lutheranisme. Of Luther himself tom. 2. fol. 37. and 497. Of Frederick the elector tom. 1 Lutheri fol. 237. Of his Counsellors tom. 2. fol. 116. Of the divines of Mansfeld in Schusselburg tom. 8. pag. 270. Of Schusselburg himself Epist. dedicat. tom. 4. Of Melancthon tom. 2. Lutheri fol. 193. 197. Of Kemmices Epist. dedicat. lib. de duabus naturis. Of Hutter in Analysi Confess. August. pag. 595. Of Brunsfelse Respons. ad Spongiam Erasmi. Or Lobeen●us in Epist. dedicat. Disput. O● George Fabritius l b. 1 & 8. Orig. Saxon. and of other Lutherans. And in like manner of Sacramenttaries also, as of Bucer in Matth. 26. & lib. de Cura animorum pag. 261. Of Hospin. Prefat. part. 2 Histor. Of Scultere Con. saecular. Of D. Morton 1. part. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 45. and others Thirdly thereof proceedeth, that the true and proper Protestants are called Lutherans, both of themselves and of others. For thus speaketh Luther in psalm. 118. tom. 7. fol. 551: I grant myself to be a Lutheran. And in like manner speaketh he ibidem fol. 79. 242. 233. 361. & 400. And tom. 2. fol. 473. and in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 134. So also speaketh Melancthon in dominicam 8. Trinit. tom. 1. and in Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 72. and Brentius also ibid. fol. 107. So speaketh the Confession of Saxony in the Preface, and the Saxon Ministers in the Conference of Aldburg pag. 60. Vrban. Regius in judicio de Conuentu Norimberg pag. 9 Amsdorse in Bucer in Scriptis Anglicis p. 635. Matheus Index in Edicto aeterni Dei. james Andrew's in Colloq. Montisbel. pag. 179. Yea Graver in the Preface of his Caluinisticall absurdities dedicateth his book Unto the proper Lutherans: and pag. 61. affirmeth, that their men are called Lutherans, that they may be distinguished from Papists and Caluinists. Scusselburg tom. 17. Catal. pag. 866. saith, The Divines of our part call themselves, and the Defenders of their opinion, Lutherans. Which also affirmeth Reineccius tom. 1. Armat. cap. vlt. Hutten in Expostulat cum Erasm. saith: I acknowledge the name of Lutheran. And Hailbruner: We are not ashamed of the name. And Andrew Schafman in Prodromo bringeth many reasons to prove, that they did well in calling themselves Lutherans. And those of Berga (as Hospin reporteth in Concord. Discord. c. 20.) say that, All the sincere doctors of the Church call themselves Lutherans of Luther. The same also testify the Sacramentaries. For those of New stade against the book of Concord. cap 6. pag. 213. say they account none a sincere disciple of Christ, unless he willbe called as well a Lutheran as a Christian. The author of the orthodox Consent in Prefat. Apologet. They take to themselves factions names upon a preposterous and too great esteem of their masters. Parcus in cap 2. Galat. sect. 24: They do not only call themselves Lutherans of Luther, but also will be so called of all. Beza in Conspicil. pag. 8: Ye all will be named and called Lutherans. And pag. 56: Not content with the name of Christians, they call themselves Lutherans, and rejoice to be so called. Danaeus Apol. cont. jac. Andr●ae saith that, He glorieth in Luther as in another Christ, of whom every where be thundereth, & calleth himself a Lutheran a Lutheran etc. And Resp. ad Selnecer he saith, that Selnecer Freely confesseth, that the Ducth Churches term themselves Lutherans. Vrsin in Catechism. pag 494. saith: This is the opinion of them who call themselves Lutherans. Zauchius Epist. dedicat. Miscellan: Many are not ashamed even in printed books to all themselves Lutherans. And jezler de bello Euchar. fol. 115: Some have no shame even in pulpit to say: We willbe Lutherans constantly. And at some times even the sacramentaries seem to be desirous of the surname of Lutherans. For those of Newstade in Admonit. de lib Concordiae pag. 106. compliane, that some would seem to be the only disciples of Luther. Musculus in locis tit. de haeresi pag 604. saith: No man condemneth true Lutherans, unless he be ignorant of the truth or very naughty. And the Protestant Princes of Germany in Thuan. lib. 79. Histor. pag. 595. relate, that the King of Navarre wrote to them, that if the French Protestants, were to be termed of any man, they ou●ht most of all to be called Lutherans. Because when this name was odious in France for almost therscore years, many by fire, by rack, be death sealed with their blood the testimony of that doctrine which they received first of Luther. Scultete also in Concion● saeculari compareth Luther with the Apostolical men. Besides the Sacramentaries call Luther's true follwers Lutherans, as Zuinglius tom. 1. fol. 420. 436. 470. Oecolampadius ibidem fol. 479. and in Hospin part. 2. fol. 84. 112. 126. Tigurini ibidem fol 88 Bucer in cap Rom. & in Scriptis Angl. pag. 669. Martyr tom. 2. loc. Epist. ad Caluin. Hospin. lib. cit. fol. 91. Caluin in Zancius lib. 2. Epist. pag. 78. Daneus ibidem pag. 401. Zanchius himself pag. 394. Pareus lib. 5. de Amiss. great. cap. 1. & 2. lib 4. cap. 17 lib. 6 cap. 1. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 561. D. Whitaker cont. 1. quest. 2. cap. 3. and quest. 5. c. 8. and quest. 6. cap. 9 cont. 4. quest. 5. cap. 3. & lib. 3. de Concupisc. cap. 9 & lib. 3. de Scrip. cap. 2 sect. 3. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 321. M. Perkins in Explicat. Symboly col. 781. & 790. Yea jezler loc. cit. fol. 39 & Vorstius in Collat. cum Piscatore write, that properly and vulgarly they are called Lutherans. Whereupon D. Humphrey ad Rat. 2. Campian. pag. 128. saith, Lutherans vulgarly called.  
7. Hereby we see, first that the Lutherans glory of the name of Luther, as the Donatists (which S. Augustin reporteth) did of the name of Donatus. Secondly, that they glory of a schismatical name: for such is the name of Lutherans, as Luther himself confesseth in D. Morton part. 1. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 8. And Hospin Praefat. part. 2. Histor. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 149 Yea D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 2. saith, that to take the name of any man at all, is Heretical and schismatical, and that heretics carry the names of their masters, and willingly acknowledge such names. Thirdly it appeareth, that the English Apology untruly said, that Luther's disciples are called Lutherans in disgtace or derision. For Graver lib. cit. saith, they are termed so for distinction sake. Lavatherus and Hospin. Praefat. Histor. say, they call them so for doctrine sake; that it may be known whom they mean. And Scul eye so termeth them for honour's sake. And surely sith both Sacramentaries, the common people, and themselves also term them Lutherans, and glory also in that name, it cannot be said, that they are called so in disgrace or contempt. Fourthly it appeareth to be false, that D. Morton lib. cit. and D. Sutlive lib. de Eccles. cap. 2. say: It is rather to be attributed to a lie then to Luther's desert, that Protestants call themselves Lutherans. For (as we see) Luther himself called them so, and therein they follow his example. Neither skilleth it, that Luther did once dislike this name, because he did oftentimes use it, & it was usual to Luther to allow and disallow the same thing. Fiftly we see it to be false, which D. Whitaker writeth cont. 2 quest. 5. cap. 2 pag. 494: None of us ever called himself a Lutheran: we acknowledge not these names, nor are we delighted with them. This name our adversaries have fastened upon us, only upon malice and envy: Neither are we called Lutherans but of the Papists. False also is that, which D. Fulke saith de Success. pag. 188. that they acknowledge no other name proper to their religion, but the name of Christians and Catholics. These I say are false; for Luther (whom D. Whitaker accounteth his father) and the Lutherans (whom he termeth his brethren in Christ) do call themselves so, and are well pleased with that name. Besides, they are so termed of the Sacramentaries and common people, and therefore not of Papists only, nor upon malice and envy, but (as Graver said) truly for distinction sake, and that most justly. For as S. Athanase saith, Who derive the origen of their saith from other then Christ, justly carry the surnames of their Authors. But Protestants (as we have showed) confess that they derive the origen of their faith from Luther. Therefore justly they bear his name.  
8. Out of all which hath been rehearsed in this chapter, I thus frame my ninth demonstration of this Matter: If Luther and many other famous Protestants sometimes indeed, some times in plain words do confess, that Luther was the Author of their Church and religion, he ought to be so taken and esteemed. But they do so confess. Ergo. The Minor is evident by all that is said in this Chapter: And the Mayor, by what we said in the Preface. For so many and such principal Protestants knew well the origen of their religion, and willingly would not lie to the disgrace and overthrew thereof.   

That Protestants cannot prove their Church to have been before Luther's time, by any probable argument or sufficient testimony. CHAP. XV.  
THE tenth and last demonstration for to prove that Luther was the first Author of the Protestants Church and religion I will take from hence, that albeit Protestants do sometimes boldly affirm their Church and religion to have been before Luther's time, Yet they can never prove it by any reasonable argument or sufficient testimony. Which thing alone would suffice to show, that (as I said before) it is a fable vainly feigned, falsely affirmed, and fond believed. It hath been always the fashion of heretics boldly to avouch any thing, but few things to prove even in show. This S. Augustin doth often observe in the Manichees and Donatists, and some of his sayings we have alleged before. Of Eunomius S. 
(a) Lib. 2. cont. Eunom.  Basil noteth the same, and S. 
(b) Serm. 6. in psal. 118.  Ambrose of all heretics saying, Heretics are wolves, they can howl, but prove nothing. And this do Protestants confess. For thus D. Whitaker cont. 2 quest. 5. cap 18: Heretics are wont to boast and promise truth, 
In Diatrib.  but not to prove it. Of Luther thus writeth Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 473. and 509: One argument he hath in all these matters, He said it. And fol. 447: Luther relieth only upon his ●oyes and devices. Fol. 395: Thou puttest forth whatsoever the motion of thy affections do appoint, and when a reason of thy saying is exacted of thee, thou standest naked, unarmed. And of the Lutherans thus writeth Erasmus: They say it, and for that alone they will be believed. Of the Sacramentaryes in like manner Luther writeth in defence. verb. Coenae tom. 7. fol. 384. One word not easily overturneth all these things: for if you deny them, then as butter melteth in the sun so they quail. And the same is evident to all that read the books either of Lutherans or Sacramentaryes. In the mean time they cry to us, that that Pythagorical word: He said it, hath no other place but in 
(c) Whit lib. 2. de script. cap. 10. sect. 5. Bullenger in comp. l. 1. c. 3.  Christ and the Scripture: that in other it is the proper argument of 
(d) Vorstius Antibel. p. 468.  fools: that to affirm any thing beside scripture, is to 
(e) Powel. l. 1. de Antic. c. 19  trifle: that till we prove our affirmative, they will stand in their 
(f) Luth. tom. 2. fol. 437.  negative, and exact 
(g) Vorstius l. cit. Fulke de success. p. 74.  demonstrations, that is, either express testimonies of scripture, or forcible reason deduced from thence. Now we say the same to them. They affirm their Church to have been before Luther's time. We deny it until they prove it. Neither let them affirm it only, which is the proof of fools & wilful men, but if they cannot bring demonstrations thereof, at least let them produce some credible testimony, or some effectual reason and argument. Otherwise their belief in this matter, 
Scorp. c. 11.  is (as saith Tertullian) a perverse belief which will not believe things proved, and believeth things which cannot be proved.  
2. That in this matter they be destitute of all credible testimony, appeareth sufficently by what hath heretofore been rehearsed of their own confessions, and now we will show, that they want also all probable reason or argument. For all their arguments herein be reduced to this one: Our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ: Therefore our Church was always since Christ. For thus agreeth D. Whitaker cont. 2. q. 5. c. 3. p. 498: I use this argument: What Church soever keepeth the doctrine & preaching of the Apostls, she is the Apostolical Church. But our Church doth so, Therefore etc. Of the Mayor (saith he) no controversy can be made. And cap. 5. p. 505: It was our Church which was in the time of the Apostles and afterward unto the Apostasy. But how do we prove this? By this reason, that our Church keepeth the same faith and doctrine which the Church in the Apostles time and afterward kept. And cont. Dureum sect. 1: If thou holdest Christ's doctrine thou art a Catholic. And sect. 2: It must needs be the true Church of Christ which keepeth & conserveth Christ's doctrine delivered in his word. Dancus cont. 3. pag. 388. With us is the true Church of God, because we restore the true doctrine of Christ. Lubbertus lib. 5 de Eccles cap. 1: If the doctrine which our Church professeth, be the same which Christ delivered, than our Church is that which Christ instituted. D. Fulke lib. de Success. pag. 27: Seeing we are ready to prove out of the scripture, that we profess the same doctrine of faith, and manners, which Christ would have to be perpetual by evident reason, our succession is manifest, although all Histories were silent of the names of the Persons and continuation of succession. And the like he hath pag. 154. and 331. D. White in his way pag. 403. saith he knoweth his Church was always, because it holdeth the faith of the Scripture, which cannot be extinguished. The like he saith pag. 320. & 326. Likewise Luther de notis Eccles. tom. 7. fol. 149. Caluin in Matth. cap. 24. vers. 28. and generally all of them whiles they make the truth of doctrine the infallible mark of the Church. 
Lib. 2. contra Arian.  O proof (that I may cry out in S. Augustins words) O error, o dotage. And with S. Athanase: A worthy heresy which wanteth probable reasons to under prop it. For this argument on which all their belief, that their Church was before Luther doth rely, is a most fond sophism, and most counterfeit syllogism, as manifestly appeareth, whether it be framed in that form wherein D. Whitaker hath proposed it, or whether it be reduced to this form: That Church which holdeth the true doctrine of Christ hath always been, and consequently before Luther. The Protestant Church holdeth the true doctrine, holdeth the true doctrine of Christ as (say they) we will prove by scripture. Therefore it hath been always.  
3. I answer that this argument is a manifest sophime for many causes. For if the Mayor be particular, so that the sense thereof be, Some Church which holdeth the true doctrine of Christ hath always been, it is true because the catholic church, which holdeth Christ's true doctrine, hath always been: but then the Syllogism is sophism for want of due form, inferring a conclusion out of particular propositions. But if the Mayor be universal, according as it is made of D. Whitaker, then so fare is it from being out of controversy (as he affirmeth) that it is manifestly false, and no way true, but only apparent, and therefore unfit to make a true syllogism, but only a counterfeit and a sophism. 
Protestant's assume a manifest falsity.  That it is manifestly false, is evident, because that Church or company of Christians which is strictly and properly termed schismatical, holdeth the true doctrine of Christ as both the Fathers teach, and the Protestants themselves do also most plainly affirm, & yet it is not the true church of Christ. Wherefore sith (as the Philosopher teacheth) those things are probable, which seem true to all, or to most, or to wise men, and those either all or most, or most approved, and such as are not probable serve only to make sophisms; The foresaid Mayor, not seeming true to all, or most, or the wisest Christians, yea not even to the Protestants themselves, it is manifest, that it is no probable proposition, but only apparent, and therefore not fit to make a true syllogism, but only an apparent and counterfeit.  
4. That the Fathers teach that a Schismatical Church holdeth the true doctrine of Christ, is manifest by S. Augustine who lib. quest. Euang. pag. 28. tom. 4. saith: It useth to be enquired, wherein schismatics differ from heret●kes, 
That Schismatics hold true doctrine.  and this found, that no difference in faytht but breach of society in communion maketh Schismatics. And lib. de fide & Symbolo cap. 10: Heretics by believing wrong of God violate the faith: but schismatics by wicked divisions leap from fraternal charity, albeit they believe aright those things which we believe. And lib. cont. Gaud. cap. 9 refuteth him, because he had said, that Schismatics and Heretics are the same; against which he saith: Thou art a Schismatic by sacrilegious division, and an heretic by sacrilegious opinion. And lib. 1. cont. Cresc. cap. 29. and de gest is cum Emerito affirmeth that the same faith is had out of the Church. S. Hierome in Tit. 3. We judge this difference to be between heresy and schism that heresy holdeth a naughty opinion, schism separateth from the Church by dissension of Bishops. S. Gregory lib. 18. Moral. cap. 14. Some do believe false things of God, others by God's help believe rightly of God, but keep not unity with their brethren, these are divided by schism. S. Isidor. lib. 8. Origin cap 3. Schism took its name of breach, for it believeth the same religion and rites that others do, only is pleased to keep company a part. The same teach S. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 62. S. Chrysost. hom. 3. in 1. Cor. S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. & 5. cont. Parmen. and others. And it is manifest by reason. For if Schismatics did err also in Faith, they should not differ from heretics. And it is granted both of old and new Heretics. For thus saith Faustus in S. Augustine lib. 20. cont. Faustum cap. 3. Schism if I be not deceived, is to believe the same & to worship God in the same manner that others do, only to be delighted with division of assemblies. Caluin 4. Institut. cap. 2. §. 5. Austin putteth this difference betwixt heretics and schismatiks, that they corrupt the sincerity of the faith with false doctrines, these sometimes even having the like saith break asunder the band of society. And in. 1. Cor. cap. 11. vers. 19 It is known in what sense the ancient used both these nams' (schism heresy,) they put heresy in difference of doctrine, but schism rather in alienation of minds, to wit, when any either upon envy, or hatred of the Pastors or of frowardness departed from the Church. Beza libro de puniendis Haereticis pag. 89: Shism properly is the division of those who believe the same things And pag. 150. Let them remember that we term them not heretics, who are properly called Schismatics. The same he hath in 1. Cor. 1. v. 10. and other where. Plessie lib. de Eccles. cap. 1. pag. 16: We call erroneous Churches either heretics, or schismatics according as they err either in faith or in charity. And pag. 32. What pertaineth to schismatical Churches, either they are simply schismatical or when heresy also is adjoined as it useth after schism, as an ague after a wound. And cap. 10. pag. 340. True and pure Schismatiks are those, who holding the same doctrine yet make meetings a part. Peter Martyr in locis tit. de Schism. pag. 618. I think it more plain to define Schism to be a cutting a sunder of the Ecclesiastical peace & unity. And pag. 619: There may be schism in the Church without heresy. Aretius also in locis part. 2. fol. 10: Schism sometimes in the same doctrine breaketh society. Bucan in loc. quest. 33. de Eccl. affirmeth, that shismatiks differ from heretics because heresy properly is dissension in doctrine. Pol●n. part. 2. Thes. de notis Eccl. Albeit schismatical Churches agree in the doctrine of truth etc. Zanchius tract. de Eccles. cap.: There may be breach in the symbols of Charity, that is in participation of Sacraments communication of public prayer, and such like other Ecclesiastical exercises, to wit when one thought he agree with the rest of the Church of Christ in the principal heads of Christian faith, yet I know not for what light causes withdraweth himself from the rest of the Church and communicateth not with her in the sacraments. Such (saith he) are properly called schismatics, M. Perkins in cap. 5. Galat. vers. 21. Heresy is in doctrine, Schism in manners, order, and government. D. Fulke de Success. pag. 165: There may be schism in the Church, where the same doctrine is held on both parties, & the one wanteth lawful succession. D. Field lib. 1. of the Church cap. 7: Some profess the whole saving faith but not in unity, as schismatics. Dancus in August. de haeres. cap. 3. He is a schismatic, who retaining the same doctrine of faith and that entire, yet without probable and better reason followeth not the decent rites of the Church. The same he hath Apol. pro Heluet. Eccles. pag. 1485. Bullinger tom. 1. Decad. 5. serm. 2. Vorstius in Antibellarm. pag. 190. D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 10. D. Rainolds Praelect. 1. col. 2. Heshusius in 1. Cor. 1. and others.  
5. Now that proper Schismatics, to wit, such as wilfully separate themselves from the Communion of the Church, be not members or parts of the Church, is clear by the testimony of the Fathers, 
That Schismatics are out of the Church.  the confessions of Protestants, and manifest reason. S. Augustin lib. de fide & symbolo cap. 10. saith: Neither doth an heretic belong to the Catholic Church, nor a schismatic. Tract. 3. in 1. joan. All heretics, all schismatics are gone out of the Church. Lib. 3. de Baptism. cap. 19 All heretics and schismatics are false Christians. And lib 2. cont. Crescon. cap. 29: I think not that any so doteth to believe him to belong to the unity of the Church, who hath not charity. The like he hath in many places S. Ambrose lib. 7. in Luc. cap. 11. Understand that all heretics and schismatics are separated from the kingdom of God and from the Church. S. Optatus lib. 2. The Church cannot be with any heretics or schismatics. S. Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. 38: Believe most steadfastly and doubt nothing; that not only all Pagans, but also all jews, Heretics, & schismatiks, which end this life out of the church, are to go into everlasting fire The same teach S. Hierome, & S. Chrysostome loc. cit. S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrnens. S. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 62. S. Cyprian lib. de unit. & epist. 42.51.55. S. Prosper de vocat. Gentium cap. 4. and the rest. The protestants confessions of this matter we related heretofore, amongst whom say, 
Lib. 1. c. ● num. ●.  that this is an undoubted truth. Reason also convinceth the same: for as Caluin confesseth 4. Institut. loc. cit. The communion of the Church is held with two bands, to wit consent of doctrine and fraternal charity: But Schismatics break the band of fraternal charity: therefore they are not within the Church. Again Danaeus lib. 3. de Eccl. c. 5. saith: This is the mark that thou art of the visible Church, that outwardly thou profess the faith & communicate with the rest of the Church in the same Sacraments: but schismatics do not communicate in Sacraments with the rest of the Church. And D. Feild lib. 2. of the Church cap. 2. saith: Communion in Sacraments under lawful Pastors is an essential note of the true Catholic Church: but Shismatiks want this communion. And Casaubon epist. ad Card. Peron. pag. 9 The true Churches of Christ are united in the unity of faith, and doctrine, and conjunction of minds and in true charity and offices of charity, especially of mutual prayer. But Schismatics are not united in charity and offices of mutual prayer. Finally only Catholics are members of the Catholic Church, as is evident and 
(a) Whi. conc. 2. q. 5. cap. 3.  Protestants confess: But Schismatics are not catholics, as the very name doth declare, the Fathers doc teach, and 
(b) Gesner loc. 24. Field l. de Eccles c. 7.  Protestants acknowledge.  
6. By this it appeareth that the foresaid Mayor which is the foundation of Protestants in this matter, is not only false, but also so manifestly false, as out of this question, it is commonly denied of Protestants themselves. Besides it is not only false, but also so improbable, that neither it is proved of Protestants, nor can be any other ways, then by proof of fools or wilful men, that is, by their own saying. For D. Whitaker (as we have seen) proveth it no other ways, then by saying, it is out of controversy. D. Fulke, that it is manifest. But Luther more boastingly saith l. de Missa priu. tom. 7. f. 247. This is our solid foundation and most steadfast rock: Whersoever true doctrine of Christ or the Gospel is preached, there is necessarily the true holy Church of God. And who doubteth of this (saith he) may in like manner doubt, whether the Gospel be the word of God. A notable proof surely, and fit for Pythagoras' school, and a sound foundation, on which to feigned a Church should rely, and a fit rock for them to build upon, who have left the rock upon which Christ built his Church. Wherefore that I may imitate S. Augustine in the like matter. 
Lib. 1. cont Gaudent. cap. 33.  I ask whether God or man hath told them, that wheresoever true doctrine is, there is the true Church? If God, let them read it out of the Scripture, where indeed we read, that where the true Church is, there true doctrine is: but contrariwise, that where true doctrine is, there the true Church is, there we never read. If men have told you this: Behold a fiction of man, behold what you believe, behold what ye serve, behold for what ye rebel, ye run mad, ye burn. Again, what kind of men were they, surely no other than yourselves. And what is your authority, I say not with us, but even with yourselves? Is (as one of your part said) the judgement of Lutherans or Sacramentaryes, the square of truth? Moreover, 
Pareus l 3. ce ●●stifie. cap. 13.  seeing that three things are essential or substantial to the true church, to wit, true doctrine, lawful Pastors, and people following their Pastors, nor any thing can be, unless all the essential parts be, it is sophistry and madness to infer, that that company is the true Church wherein one only of these parts is to be found. If they say, that by the true Church they mean not her which is true in nature, or essence of the Church, but only her which is true in doctrine, of whose essence is only truth of doctrine. First they deceive the Reader. For we speak only of the Church true in essence, not of that which is only true in doctrine as a schismatical Church may be. Besides, if they mean such a true Church and understand their foresaid Mayor universally, it is false; for not every true Church in that sense is Apostolical or hath ever been. For a schismatical Church is true in doctrine, and yet is neither Apostolical, nor hath ever been. And if they understand their Mayor particularly the conclusion followeth not, because it is deduced out of pure particular propositions. And thus much of the Mayor.  
7. Secondly the foresaid argument is a sophism because of the Minor, by which one unknown thing is proved by another, one false thing by another, not only false, 
Protestant's proof out of a thing more unknown.  but also impossible. For it is more uncercertaine, that the Protestant Church holdeth the doctrine of Christ, then that she was before Luther. For albeit she were not before, notwithstanding it was not impossible that she should have been, but that she holdeth the doctrine of Christ, is both false and impossible also. And as Luther saith in defence. verb. Coenae tom. 7. fol. 385. It is a mad man's part to prove uncertain things by others as uncertain. And D. Whitaker cont. 2. quest. 3. cap. 3. All proof is by things that are more known. Which also he hath cont. 2. quest. 5. cap. 18. Sadcel praefat. lib. cont. Traditiones. Daneus l. 4. de Eccles. cap. 2. D. Morton part. 2. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 37. Pareus lib. 3. de justificat. cap. 1. Whereupon Luther tom. 2. Praefat. assert. Antic. fol. 95. writeth Aristotle and all sense of nature showeth, that unknown things must be proved by things more known, and obscure things by manifest. If therefore, (as Pareus saith lib. 1. de justificat. c. 20.) when the Adversary is brought to that, that either he gainesayth himself, or begs that which he is to prove, assuming that in his proof which is in debate, or trifleth by repeating now and then the same thing, he is vanquished; surely then Protestants are vanquished, whom in this small work we have showed oftentimes to gain say themselves, now including these within the Church, now excluding them, now affirming the Church to be invisible, now denying it, now to have always Pastors, now denying it, and the like: And in this argumment, with which alone they prove the existence of their Church before Luther, they assume in the Minor, that which most of all is in debate: 
Caluin. 4. Insticut. c. 1. § 12. Narrat. de Eccles. Belg. p. 196.  And the Mayor they can prove no otherwise, then by trifling by repeating it, and saying that it is out of all doubt. I add also, that the sacramentaryes say, that the Lutheran Church erreth even in the fundamental points, and the like say the Lutherans of the Sacramentaries, and scarce there is any Protestant, who doth not think that the Church whereof he is doth err in some points. What reason then have they, out of the trueness of the doctrine of their Churches to infer their perpetual existence?  
8. Thirdly I add, that the manner wherewith Protestants do prove the Minor of their foresaid syllogism, is sophistical and not such as they exact of us for proof of our doctrine. For commonly they exact of us to show, that our doctrine is contained in express words in Scripture, or (as Luther saith lib. de seru. arbit. tom. 2. fol. 440) inso manifest testimonies as are able so to stop all men's mouths as they are not able to say any thing against it. But manifest it is, that such be not the proofs where with Protestants prove their doctrine. For to omit other points, where is in express words in scripture that fundamental point of their doctrine that we are justified by only faith? Say the contrary is so expressly in S. james epistle, 
Tom. 6. in c. 12. Gen.  as therefore Luther blasphemously saith S. james doted. And the Lutherans for that very cause deny his epistle to be canonical. Besides, 
Whitak cont. 1. q. 4. cap. 3.  Protestants do now confess, that the scripture is not of itself sufficient to end all questions of faith, and that Schismatics cannot be convinced by scripture. How then can they sufficiently prove all the points of their doctrine by scripture? 
Whitak. loc. cit. p. 490. Plessy l. de Eccles. c. 9  Again, themselves acknowledge, that they need certain means to attain to the right sense of the Scripture and that their means are humane and not infallible, as knowledge of tongues, conference of places, and such like, and with all, that such as the means be, such is the exposition of Scripture. If therefore their means be not infallible, how can their understanding of the scripture be infallible? Moreover, they scarce ever prove any thing by both principles out of scripture, but almost evermore adjoin one human principles, as easily will appear if their proofs be brought to a syllogistical form, as well observe the most learned Bishop of Luçon in his defence of the Principal articles of faith cap. 3. & 5. And how can they be infallibly certain of the conclusion, which they cannot know but by one human principle, whereof they can have no such certainty? Furthermore, because many of their proofs do not only consist of one humane principle, 
Protestats conclude against sense.  which is not at all in the scripture, but also they infer a conclusion directly contradictory to that which the scripture in most express words teacheth of that matter. As for example, when they prove that the Eucharist is of not the very body and blood of Christ, always one of their principles is humane; and besides their conclusion is flat contrary to express words of scripture, which affirmeth that it is Christ's very body and blood. And who is he in his wits, that will persuade himself, either that the scripture meaneth, that the Eucharist is not the body & blood of Christ, which directly it never saith, rather, then that it is his body and blood, which it as expressly saith, as ever it saith any thing, or that that proof is not sophistical, which out of one humane principle at least, inferreth the contrary of that, which the scripture most expressly teacheth? Lastly, they never proved any one point of their doctrine any otherwise, then ever Heretics do, that is in their own judgement never before any judge or general Council, which Luther himself confesseth in c. 27. Gen. tom 6. fol. 368. in the words: In the affair of the Gospel we have decided the matter against all the impiety of the Pope without form of law. We accused not the Pope, neither could we, for there was no judge. Yea their doctrine hath been condemned according to all form of law in the General Council of Trent & of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to whom they appealed, and of all other kinds of Christians.  
9 Fourthly I say, that the foresaid argument is a sophism, in that in a sensible matter (as the Church is) it concludeth against the sense of all men. For neither did any see the Protestant Church before Luther, neither did any man feel or perceive himself to have been a member of such a Church before that time. Wherefore, as he should manifestly play the Sophister who would go about to prove by scripture that the sun appeareth at midnight: so likewise doth he, who out of scripture endeavoureth to prove, that there was a protestant Church before Luther, because all men's sense convince the one as well as the other. Besides Protestants writ, that though faith command us to believe things which we see not, yet it doth not command us, not to believe that which we see, for otherwise faith should be contrary to sense, and none should become faithful, but he should first be senseless. But surely wonderful is the blindness or wilfulness of Sacramentaries, who in the matter of the Eucharist, against the most express words of Scripture, will endeavour to prove by sense, that there is not the body of Christ, when as the body of Christ there is not sensible. And here in the matter of existence of their Church before Luther, out of some apparent show of scripture, against the most manifest sense of all men, will prove, that it was before Luther's time. When as a Church is a sensible thing, and can be felt either of others, or at least of them who are of it. How much better and more reasonably should they proceed, if in the Eucharist where Christ's body is not sensible, they would rather give ear to the most express words of scripture then to the suspicions of their senses, which can judge of nothing but of sensible accidents; and in the matter of the Church, whose being is sensible, they would submit their uncertain (if not false) expositions of scripture, not only to the sense of all men, but also the most certain expositions of the Church and Fathers. But this showeth, that in their belief they are guided neither by sense nor scripture but out of them both borrow a show of proof for that which of their mere wilfulness or fancy they choose to believe.  
10. Thus thou seest (Christian Reader) for how vain a sophism, whose Mayor is manifestly false & so false, as that out of this matter it is generally denied of Protestants themselves, and so improbable also, as that it cannot be proved in no show or colour, and whose Minor is more doubtful, than the conclusion itself, and the manner of proving sophistical, and no other than the proofs of all Heretics be: for how vain a sophism (I say) than the which scarce any can be more vain, Protestants believe, or rather will seem to believe, a thing wholly incredible, and in a thing sensible, against the sense of all mankind, to wit, that before Luther there was a Church which held the whose substance or all the substantial and fundamental points of Protestancy; nor in so weighty a matter respect either their o●●e consciences, or the judgements of men, or tribunal of God, or danger of their eternal damnation. Surely, 
Homil. cont. Sabel.  that I may end with S. Basils' words, I moan and bewail them that for a mean sophism and counterfeit paralogism they cast themselves into hell.  
11. Out of all which hath been said in this chapter, I thus frame my tenth and last demonstration: If no sufficient testimony, nor any probable argument, but only one  sophism, can be brought to prove that the Protestant Church was before Luther, this is not to be believed of any wise and prudent man: But no other proof can be brought. Therefore etc. And if it were not before Luther, surely he is the Author of it. The Mayor is evident by itself, and the Minor by what hath been brought in this chapter. Certainly if every one of the demonstrations which we have brought, do not convince that the Protestant Church and religion was not before Luther, at least all of them together manifestly convince it. For by the first five demonstrations was showed that before Luther it was not at all, it was in no place, was unknown of all the world, was not seen of any, nor had any Pastors: And with the rest hath been demonstrated, that after Luther arose no ancienter Protestant did ever appear and adjoin himself to Luther, that all the first knowne Protestant had been Papists afore times, that the Protestant company and religion is new, that Luther and other plainly confess, that he was autho of that religion, and finally that no proof besides one frivolous fallacy can be brought to show, that such a Church or religion had been in former times. And if yet any Protestant doubt hereof, let him at least compare all the foresaid demonstrations, wherewith so many ways out of the very testimonies of Protestants we have showed, that no such Church was before Luther, with their vain sophism, wherewith they make show to prove the contrary, and he will easily perceive on whose side this so important truth is like to stand. And if he make any account of truth, of God's service, of his own reputation, or eternal salvation he will forsake the Protestants Church, & put himself in the lap of the Catholic Church. Which (as S. Augustine speaketh) even in the testimony of all mankind hath not only been in all ages since Christ, 
De vtil. credendi cap. 17.  but also hath had Pastors, nor hath been visible only to her own, but to others also, and to the whole world, and hath most valiantly fought, overcome, and triumphed over jews, Pagans, Heretics, Schismatiks, and all the gates of hell. To prefer before this most ancient, most glorious church, another newly start up, many ages lurking, known to none not to her own, and destitute of Pastors, flock, seat, and appearance, and in truth feigned, and devised, and (to omit all other proofs) wounded deadly with so many confessions of her own champions, and proved by one only vain fallacy; what other thing were it, then to prefer lies before truth, darkness before light, death before life, the synagogue of Satan before the Church of Christ, and finally wilfully to cast himself headlong into hell?   

What he must observe who will answer the foresaid demonstration. CHAP. XVI.  
SEEING I have yielded so much to Protestants, & condescended to so unequal conditions, as that I have undertaken to prove that Luther was the author of their Church and religion by the only Confessions of Luther and other Protestants, it is reason, that if any one of them go about to answer my foresaid demonstrations, he hold observe these most just laws, which I will here set down, and which themselves have prescribed to others.  
2. 
See jewel. defence. Apol. par. 2. c. d. 5. Kemnice Exam. tit. de script. Epist. Monit. p. 145. Calu. cont. Seruet. p. 643.  First therefore touching the words of Protestants which I have alleged, let him either confess that they are truly cited by me, or if he deny that, let him not say it only, but let him show, that they are supposed, falsifyed, or so changed, as that the sense which I allege and urge to my purpose, be either quite altered, or else obscured. For if in any place for brevity's sake the words be so little changed, as the sense which I press, remain whole and clear, it skilleth not. Because I argue not out of the mere titles or letters, but only out of their sense and signification. Besides, if at any time there be some colour of caviling about the alteration of the sense of one or other place (for just cause I hope there will not be, though in so many places as are here cited it were no marvel if some were mistaken) let him not therefore cry, that all the testimonies are falsified, or think that thereby he hath satisfied all the rest.  
3. Secondly touching the testimonies themselves, let him observe, that either he answer them all, or at least those, which are the stronger, as for the most part those are, which are noted in the m●rgent, otherwise by the judgement of the Fathers and Protestants also, he will show in effect, that though he could not hold his peace, yet could he not answer sufficiently. For as S. Augustine 
(a) Lib. 1. cont. Gaudent.  saith: Surely that he held his peace, not his tongue, but his cause sailed him. And in an other place 
(b) Lib. 2. cont. Maxim. : I take your silence for consent. S. 
(c) Epi. 61.  Hierome: You confess more by silence than you deny by dispute. And again 
(d) Epi. 83 : It skilleth little, whether I bind mine adversary sleeping or waking, only it is easier to bind one that is quiet, than one that resisteth. 
(e) Tom. 7. fol. 384. 388.  Luther also: Evil consciences speak much besides the matter, but little to the purpose, and seldom come to it. And he noteth that it is the art and nimbleness of Heretics, to skip over the matter and difficulty. Whitaker pronounceth it to be a sign of a most desperate cause not to touch the Matter. And D 
(f) Defence. of serm. p. 243.  Bilson: To this thou answearest nothing and therefore all wise men conclude that thou canst not maintain that which I then did disprove. D, Suclive lib. 2 de Eccles. cap. 1: The rest because they say nothing to it, I will take for granted. For if there had been any hope of refuting it, or any place of calmuniating without doubt they would not have been silent. And M 
(g) Pro Tortura forti c. 1.  Burhill: Amongst the wiser both of our side and yours a●tergiuersatour doth no less hurt his cause then a bewrayer. For he seemeth to consent & grant, who then holdeth his peace when silence is suspicious.  
4. Thirdly touching the exposition of the testimonies, let him observe, that when the words are clear and their sense manifest, he do not expound them or wrest them to another meaning. For first, if clear words must be expounded, there would be no end of expounding. Again, to what purpose should he expound those words which need no exposition? This were, as 
(h) Serm. 14. de verb Apost.  S. Augustin saith, no other then to go about to bring darkness into open light. Besides, Protestant's themselves say, that clear words ought not to be expounded. For thus 
(i) Luther co. 2. ep. ad Carolstad.  Luther: This rule (that one place is to be expounded by another) without doubt is particular, to wit a doubtful or obscure place must be expounded by another that is certain and clear. For to expound certain and clear places by conference of other places is wickedly to mock truth, and to bring clouds into light. The Ministers of Saxony in 
(k) Pa. 303.  Colloq. Aldeburg. say to their fellows: Let them remember that exposition is not to be admitted in clear places. And those of 
(l) Hospin. fol. 161.  Zurich: Then there is need of declaration, when the words & sense thereof is obscure. And Melancthon: Nothing can be said so properly, so plainly, advisedly, which may not be depraved by some cavillation. Beza 
(m) Ep. 41  also: It is easy to wrest other men's writings. And M. Dominis: 
(n) l. 1. c. 3.  Let those words which are clear be kept in their proper and plain sense.  
5. Fourthly let him observe, that in expounding the Protestants testimonies he device not hyperboles or figures at his pleasure, but let him bring good reason why he expoundeth them figuratively. Either deny (saith 
(o) Cont. Prax. c. 13.  Tertullian) that these are written, or who art thou that thou deniest that they ought to be taken as they are written. And the Protestants in Admonit. de lib. Concord. cap. 3. say: If they would not that these should be understood as they sound, why speak they so? And Brentius in Recognit. pag. 148. What liberty what temerity is this of abusing words and devising a new Grammar? For first the rule of understanding men's words is, that they be taken according to their proper and common signification, unless the writer or speaker do by some way declare the contrary. Whereupon 
(p) Tom. 2. fol. 473.  Luther saith: We have overcome, that words are to be taken in their natural sense except the contrary be demonstrated. And 
(q) Colloq. c. 8. Diu. 4.  D. Rainolds: That is the sense of words, in which they are commonly taken. Besides, otherwise all force of proving any thing by any words of God or man is quite gone. 
Note.  For sith all the force of such proof standeth in the sense, if this be uncertain, and must be proper or figurative according as the hearers or readers will, all the force of the proof shall depend upon the will of the hearer or Reader. And hence it proceedeth, that the proofs which Catholics make out of Scripture against Heretics seem to some not to convince them, which falleth out, not for defect in the proofs themselves, but for the manner of them, to wit because they be taken from words, which Heretics will expound at their pleasure. And if there be no rule observed in expounding words, but they be wrested at every one's fancy, what marvel is there, if Heretics cannot be convinced either by the words of Scripture or any other whatsoever. Moreover, if at the will of the Reader or hearer words may be expounded either properly or figuratively, he that telleth the greatest untruths, may be thought to tell the greatest truths, & contrariwise, be that speaketh most piously, may be judged to speak most impiously. Hereupon said 
(r) Tom. 2. fol. 489.  Luther: If this licence reign, I may interpret all things fitly, whatsoever either Heretics or the devil himself hath done or said, or can do or say for ever. Where then shall be the means to refel an heretic or the devil? And 
(s) Ib fol. 220.  again: If it be lawful to play with figures at pleasure without yielding any reason, what hindereth but that all words have new senses? Furthermore, it was the custom or heretics to device figure of their pleasure. Thus 
(t) Epist. ad Serap.  S. Athanasius: Heretics rashly device figures And 
(u) Cont. Hermog. c. 27.  Tertullian: These are the subtleties & sleights of Heretics to call in question the simplicity of common words. And this namely he noteth of the 
(x) Praesc.  Valentinians, as 
(y) l. de Haeres.  S. Austin doth of the Priscillianists. And the same condemneth Luther in the Sacramentaries, and the Sacramentaries in the Anabaptists. Finally Protestant's themselves condemn this wresting of words from their proper signification without just cause. Luther li cont. Ecchium tom. 1. fol. 354: If words do serve thee as another Mercury at thy pleasure. And fol. 55: To say that Augustin speaketh excessively against Heretics, is to say, that Augustin almost every where lied. And Praefat. in Artic. Smalcald. he bitterly inveigheth against some who expounded his words against his meaning. The Ministers of Saxony in Colloq. Aldeburg pag. 343. greatly complain of the Electoral Ministers, that they miserably crucify Luther with their glosses, and pag. 337. say: It is uncivil to feign a sense, which the words bear not. And pag. 304: Whosoever goeth about to cloak opinions which by themselves as the words sound are false, he is guilty of them, especially if he be a Doctor of the Church and Minister of the word of God. And in like sort the Ministers of the elector say to those of Saxony pag. 252. that they avoid Luther's words by sophistical interpretation, and by opposing other places. And pag. 447: Let power be given to expound & wrest Luther's writings according to pleasure and fancy, like the Sibyls oracles or Sphinx his riddles Besoldus also Praefat. in Comment. Luther in Genes. tom. 6. fol. 497. thus writeth of some: If they fall upon any such places in Luther's interpretations by the clearness of which they may be refuted, they feign that they are figuratively spoken, they device tropes and figures. And when the Sacramentaries expounded the words of the Confession of Auspurge commodiously and dextrously, as they speak, according to their opinion, 
Lobechius Disput. 1.  the Lutherans said: May not any in this manner subscribe to the Turkish Koran, and make the canons of Trent or other sentences howsoever contrary, 
Survey. ca 17.  to be orthodoxal? M. Ba●croft thus writeth of Puritans: You must bring strange discords of which these men will not make some harmony. Again: To their profit they can make Quodlibet ex Quolibet. Pareus lib. 2. de justificat. cap. 13. saith that it riseth of a naughty cause to deprave the nature of words. And lib. 4. cap. 1. calleth it a heinous slander in Bellarmine, when he said that many protestants speak one thing & mean another. The Ministers also of Zurich in Hosp. part. 2. fol. 161. affirm, That he may justly be condemned of madness of all who giveth credit not to sound and clear words but to some explication not of him whose the words are but of some other whose they are not. Ye see how mad they are to be accounted, who should believe not the plain and evident testimonies of Protestants rehearsed of us, but some other man's exposition of them. 
Luther to. 2. Colloq. Aldeb. fol. 303. Schuss. to. 4. Catal.  To which I add, that Luther and other Protestants do command, that according to the civil law, words be expounded against him, who could speak more clearly, and did not. Seeing therefore Protestants could have uttered their meaning more clearly, if they had meant otherwise then in the foresaid testimonies their words do signify, justly we may interpret their words against them. Lastly Luther according to his own & other men's verdicts did utter his mind plainly, and did condemn all doubtful manner of speech in matters of religion. For thus writeth D. Whitaker of him: He was an open and plain man. D. White: 
Praefat. ad Demonstr. Sanderi. Defence. c. 33. Tom. 2 fol 114 215. Epist. ad Amsdorf.  They speak not always so plainly as Luther doth. And Luther himself: I will be plain. Again: I had never this dissimulation to pretend to dispute that which I meant to determine. And in another place: I will not abide to be suspected of such hypocrisy, to think otherwise then I writ. And yet more: To what is this double-tongued and hateful kind of speech, but under words and letters to sow the seed of all heresies? The Confession of Saxony cap. 3: In the Church we must avoid ambiguities. And Caluin de vera Eccl. reform. pag. 335: When in all matters plainness is to be used especially when religion is handled it is not lawful to use craft and dissimulations. And the Sacramentaries in Admonit. de lib. Concordiae cap. 3. pag. 62: We endeavour nothing less than to seem to be of one opinion with them with whom we are not. To conclude howsoever it may be, that one or other Protestant, in some one kind of writing, had written hyberbolically or figuratively when he declared it not; yet that so many, and so principal Protestants, so often, and in so many kind of writings as we have cited, & in a matter of so great moment, should speak hyperbolically or figuratively, and yet not declare that they meant so, is altogether incredible. Wherefore unless Protestants will overthrew the very rule of understanding men's speeches or words, 
Note.  and make the fancy of the hearer or reader the rule of understanding them, take a way all force of proofs out of any words what soever, imitate both old and new heretics, follow that manner of expounding words which themselves have condemned, expound Luther contrary to his own protestation, and confess that Protestants in so great a matter spoke one thing and thought another, and finally affirm a thing so incredible, as one● now we shown this to be, they cannot interpret the foresaid testimonies of Protestants hyperbolically or figuratively, unless they yield a sufficient reason or proof thereof. Besides, if in this question of fact they not only reject the testimonies of Catholics and of all other men besides their own, but also expound their own men's testimonies as they list, they manifestly show, that in this matter they will hear no testimony nor abide any judgement whatsoever, which is the most evident argument that can be of a naughty cause. For to admit testimonies, not according to the proper sense of the words, but to your own liking, is only to admit the sound or figures of the words, and to reject the sense or signification, which is the soul and form of them, and in which alone the force of the testimony or judgement doth consist.  
6. Fiftly touching the reason or argument wherewith he will prove, that Protestants in their testimonies by me alleged meant hyperbolically or figuratively, let him not account it sufficient to show, that the same Protestants in other places have said the contrary. First, because this will not show, that they said not that which in the places which I cite they most plainly and evidently did say, but only, that according to the manner of Heretics and liars they gainsaid themselves. May a man accused of crime expound figuratively his open Confession of that crime, because at other times he denied it? Again Protestants themselves reject this kind of proof. For (as we did see) the Ministers of the Prince elector did reprehend those of the Duke of Saxony, because they avoided Luther's testimonies by opposing other places of his. And the Ministers of Saxony pag. 303. say: It is a frivolous kind of argument; He said well sometimes, therefore here. Besides, it will be as equal for me to infer, that Protestants in those testimonies which he produceth, did speak figuratively, because in those which I allege they manifestly said the contrary. For to use Luther's words: 
Tom. 2. fol. 220.  By this rashness and licence ye give your adversary leave to turn it against you. Certainly if they clearly have said both, we cannot deny, but they thought both, or ye must confess, that your pleasure shall be the rule and square to know what they speak properly & what figuratively. Moreover, Protestants cry, that the holy Fathers contradicted themselves. How often (saith Luther) do the Father's fight with themselves. 
Tom. 2. Assert. Art. 2. & count. Cochleum. Praefat. Institut.  They are men that fight against themselves. We find the Fathers to have taught contraries, to have slumbered. And Caluin: The Fathers do often skirmish amongst themselves, and sometimes fight with themselves. The like saith Melancthon come. 1. Lutheri fol. 341. jacobus Andreae cont. Hosium pag. 282. Beza Praefat. in nowm Testamentum and in Schusselburg lib. 4. Theol. Caluin. art. 32, Pareus lib. 2 de Grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 14. & lib. 4. cap. 4. Polanus part. 1. Thes. de Notis Eccles. Apologia Anglica. And D. Whitaker lib. 5. cont. Dureum. Wherefore, either they must show some privilege whereby Protestants be more excepted from contradicting themselves, than the holy Fathers in their opinion were, or they must not infer, that they said not that which they did in places by me alleged, because other where they said the contrary. Furthermore, 
Hosp. to. 2. fo. 12. Beza in Conspicil. Zuing to. 2. fol. 412. 458. 460.  because both the Fathers and Protestants also (as I shown in the Preface) do teach, that Heretics are wont to contradict themselves. And the Sacramentaries both say and show by many examples, that Luther oftentimes hath gainsaid himself. And of Sacramentaries Schusselburg lib. 1. Theol. Caluin art. 20. writeth: That it is their property to contradict themselves.  
7. Lastly, touching the weight of the Protestant Confessions which we produce, let him not think, that it is any way impaired in that they have at other times said the contrary, as if in this matter they were not to be believed, because they have been taken in two tales. For the Confessions of those that are accused be of greatest force against themselves, because (as I said) no man willingly lieth against himself, neither can these be discredited by any words of theirs spoken in their own behalf. For what will it avail a criminal person, if he deny an hundred times the crime, which he once openly confessed. And protestants have not once, but oftentyms, most plainly, most openly, most freely confessed those things which I allege. Again, though no credit be to be given to a liar who gainsayth himself in matters for his own behalf or against any others, nevertheless in a matter against himself, the greatest yea even the devil's open & free Confession aught more to be credited then any other man's testimony whatsoever. Wherefore we allege Protestants sayings not as testimonies, but as Confessions, neither produce them as witnesses, but as Criminels confessing the truth against themselves. And as Saint Ambrose said: 
Serm. 5. de ●●uctis.  I admit not the devil's testimony but his Confession: so I accept not the Protestants testimonies, but their confessions. Let their testimony be of no credit, either for themselves, or for others, or against others, undoubtedly it is of great force against themselves. As the Latin Orator said: Thy testimony which in another man's matter would be light, is in thine own matter, because it is against thg self, most weighty. Besides Protestants cric, that it is found to produce the Criminels as witnesses in their own cause, and that any witness in his own cause is to be rejected. 
Vorstius Antibel. pag. 44●. 456. Iu●●. Def. part. 2. c. 3. D. 5. Whitak. cont. 4. q. 6. c. 2. & q. 4. c. 2.  Whereupon in the question of Supremacy they refuse the testimonies of all Popes though never so ancient, never so learned, never so holy. How much better may we reject the testimonies of Protestants, when they speak in behalf of their religion, and yet admit their Confessions, when they speak against it. These therefore laws of answering so just, so equal, and approved of the Protestant's themselves, if he will not keep, who goeth about to answer my foresaid arguments, it will easily appear, that in very deed he could not answer them. And if none endeavour to answer them, it will yet more appear, that they can no way answeate them, & that this kind of dealing with Protestants out of their own Confessions, is the fittest of all to stop their mouths.   
FINIS.   

The Translator to the Reader.  
THE Author adjoined hereto a Catalogue of the Protestant Books with their several impressions, out of which he gathered the testimonies by him alleged: but because I thought it not needful for those that read this English copy, I have omitted it. The Reader, if he please, may see it in the Author's Latin Copy.   

THE INDEX OR TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS CONTAINED IN THESE BOOKS.  

The first book of the essence or substance of the Protestant Church and Religion.  

CHAPTER 1. That sometimes Protestants admit very few into the Ch●rch, and ●equire very many things to the making of a member thereof.  
Chap. 2. That at sometimes Protestant's account P●pists to be of the Church.  
Chap. 3. Th●t sometimes Protestants acknowledge all that deny either fundamental or other articles of faith Heretics, Schismatics, and their professed enemies to be members of their Church.  
Chap. 4. That sometimes they do grant Idolaters, Infidels, Atheists, and Antichrist himself to be members of their Church.  
Chap. 5. That Protestants sometimes account all their brethren, who under the name of Christians, oppose themselves against the Pope.  
Chap. 6. That it is necessarily required to a Protestant, that he believe justification by only special faith.  
Chap. 7. That it is also necessary to a Protestant, to believe all the fundamental points of Protestancy.  
Chap. 8. Which are the fundamental points of Protestancy, and what a Protsteant is.    

THE SECOND BOOK. Of the Author or beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion.  

Chap. 1. THat Protestants confess, that their Church and Religion was substantially perished when Luther began.  
Chap. 2. The shifts, wherewith Protestants would delude their confessions of the substantial destruction of their Church and Religion, refuted.  
Chap. 3. That Protestants confess, that all and every one followed a different Church and Religion from the●rs, before Luther began to preach.  
Chap. 4. That Protestants grant that their church and Religion was quite invisible b fore Luther appeared.  
Chap. 5. Those, which say there were any visible Protestants before Luther, refelled.  
Chap. 6 That the Church cannot be so invisible, as Protestants confess theirs to have been before Lut e s tyme.  
Chap. 7. That Protestants acknowledge, that there were no Protestant Pastors before Luther.  
Chap. 8. That the Church cannot be without Pastors.  
Chap 9 That the Protestant Church was no where before Luther arose.  
Chap. 10. The Sophistries, wherewith some Protestants would seem to prove that in times past the Protestants Church was in Popery, refuted.  
Chap. 11. That all the first known Protestants, had been Papists before times.  
Chap. 12. That no auncienter Protestant then Luther stepped forth and adjoined himself to Luther's company when he preached securely.  
Chap. 13. That the Protestant Church & Religion is new.  
Chap. 14. That Protestants do in plain terms confess, that Luther was the Author and beginner of their Church and Religion.  
Chap. 15. That Protestants cannot prove by any sufficient witness, or any probable argument, that their Church was before Luther.  
Chap. 16. What he must observe, who will undertake to answer this Worke.    
FINIS.