THE NONENTITY OF PROTESTANCY. OR A Discourse, wherein is demonstrated, that Protestancy is not any Real thing, but in itself a Platonical Idea; a waist of all Positive Faith; and a mere NOTHING. Written by a Catholic Priest of the Society of JESUS.  Dormierunt somnium suum, & NIHIL invenerunt. Psalm. 73. Vae Prophetis insipientibus, qui sequuntur Spiritum suum, & NIHIL vident. Ezech 13. Permissu Superiorum 
1633.   

TO THE JUDICIOUS AND LEARNED PROTESTANT.  
LEARNED MEN,  
This Treatise was for you chief first undertaken. The Groundwork, whereupon the Systema, or Frame thereof is built, is a mixture of Philosophy, and Schoole-divinity: Points, with reference to the more ignorant Protestant, being (as the School- Dialect is) extra sphaeram Activitatis; that is, beyond the limited apprehension of their shallow & narrow conceits. It is but small (you see) in Quantity; but I hope, it will hold out in weight. The subject of it, is unusual, and (to my knowledge) heretofore ex professo, not much walked in, or tracted. It is also (no doubt) nauseous, and displeasing to you; seeing it attempteth to prove, that your Religion is in itself a mere Nonentity; It's Being consisting in a Not-being, and Essence, in want of Essence. That Religion of yours, I mean, which at this day hath invaded several parts in Europe; whose high flight is mantained only with the wings of certain Princes, & Commonwealths' power and greatness; which violently carries (where it reigns) all things before it, with the impetuous stream of its own torrent: briefly to which for our not yielding obedience in our own Country, so great & heavy mulcts and pressures are imposed upon Recusants: though even in all justice, the paying of Nothing is a sufficient penalty, for the not professing, of what is Nothing. I confess it is painful to discourse well of Nothing; as it is difficult to run a division of knowledge, upon the ground of ignorance. Nevertheless, since your own learning will force you to give assent to those Theorems of Divinity and Philosophy, upon the Arch whereof, the weight of the whole Treatise resteth; I am not wholly in despair, but that at the closure of all, your morning & more retired thoughts (as being voided of prejudice) may perhaps entertain it with a more indifferent, and impartial Censure. If you here demand, how can this great Attempt of mine be performed, (for great in your judgements, it must yet needs be thought) in showing, that Protestancy is in its own Nature, a Nonentity, & that, its All, is Nothing, as not having any reality of Being to support it to this I answer, (omitting other reasons hereafter insisted upon) that since Protestancy consisteth only in the denials and Privations of Affirmative points of our Christian, and Roman Faith; (which denials and Privations in their own nature are Irreall, as hereafter will be evicted) that therefore it is wholly disuested of all true Subsistence, or Being. For who observeth not, that Protestancy is a Religion, resting more in denials of Truths, then in defence of Positive, and formal Errors? The veil under which Protestancy masked itself when it first entered upon the stage, was the outward appearance of a grateful Reformation; which word of Reformation, is by them used, as in opposition to a precedent Corruption; from which the Protestants profess to rescue and deliver the Church of God. Which Corruption (they say) was first brought in by the Bishop of Rome, 
(a) Simon de Voron in his discourse upon the Catalogue of Doctors. Epist. to the Reader.  Who overwhelmed the whole world in the dreggs of Antichristian filthiness, abominable Superstitions, & Traditions etc. Thus did the first Protestants think good, to  their naked Religion in the fair attire of a presumed Reformation; which Reformation consisteth only in an utter subverting, and destroying of most of our Affirmative Catholic Articles of faith; and in lieu of them in introducing the Negatives: so as by this proceeding the Protestants may be said (to speak allusively) to trench over, near upon God's Omnipotency, in attempting to exercise the two Acts of Creation & Annihilation, peculiar to his divine Majesty: for their own Protestant faith (as grounded only upon Negatives, and Privations) they have drawn out of an Abyss, and Informity of Nothing: and our Positive and Affirmative Catholic faith they labour (what they can) by such their molitions, to reduce to Nothing. And although the Protestants do endeavour to enamel & guild over their Negative faith, with many detorted & misapplyed Texts of Sacred Writ, by the help of the Private revealing Spirit (their Oedipus,) that so it may appear glorious in an erring eye: nevertheless certain it is, that after such testimonies are truly balanced and weighed by the Authority of the whole Church of God; all such fading splendour of Protestancy doth but resemble the light of a Glow-worm, which, the nearer one comes to it, the lesser it appears, till in the end it wholly vanisheth away. But seeing, a short Preface best sorteth to a short discourse, I will here stay my Pen; remitting the learned Reader to the diligent & impartial perusal of these ensuing Leaves; & assuring him, that it impugneth the light of Reason (since God and Nothing are incompatible) that he, whom the Philosophers for his greater Perfection of Essence, style, Ens Entium, should be truly honoured with a Religion, which is, a Non-Ens.  
Your in Christ jesus W. B.   

THE CONTENTS OF the several Chapters. Certain Prolegomena, of which the first is,  

CHap. 1. That in all positive & Affirmative points of Faith, the Protestants do agree with the Catholics; The Protestants borrowing the said Affirmative points from the Church of Rome.  
Chap. 2. The second Prolegomenon, viz. In such points of faith, wherein Protestancy differeth from the Roman Church; all the said points are merely Negations, to the contrary Affirmative Articles, believed by the Church of Rome.  
Chap. 3. That the Protestants have often corrected and reform their Translations of the Bible, and the Lyturgy, or common Book of Prayer, in favour of their Negative Religion; every later excepting against the former, as corrupt, and impure.  
Chap. 4. That Protestancy is a Nonentity; proved from the Principles of School Divinity, & Philosophy.  
Chap. 5. The Nonentity of Protestancy by reason of its Negations, proved from the like supposed Example of a Philosopher, denying most Principles of Philosophy.  
Chap. 6. That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denial of most (if not all) of such points of Religion, wherein the Protestant by his like denial of them, differeth from the Catholic.  
Chap. 7. That Protestancy is but a Nullity of Faith (and consequently with reference to faith, a Nonentity;) proved from the definition of Faith, and other conditions necessarily annexed thereto.  
Chap. 8. That Protestancy cannot be defined: And that therefore it is a Nonentity.  
Chap. 9 That Protestancy consisteth of Doctrines merely Contradictory in themselves: and that therefore Protestancy is a Non Entity.  
Chap. 10. That Heresy, as being a Privation, is Non-Ens; and consequently that Protestancy (as consisting of the old condemned Heresies) is a Nonentity.  
Chap. 11. That there are diverse Positions of Protestancy, which (besides that they ar● implicitly but Negations to the Catholics contrary Affirmative Doctrines) are in their own Nature, merely void of all reality of Being.  
Chap. 12. That the Protestant Church is a mere Nonentity, or Idaea; proved from the confessed Inuisibility thereof.  
Chap. 13. That the confessed want of Personal Succession and lawful Calling in the Protestant Church, proveth that Church to be no Real thing: and consequently that Protestancy is but an Intentionality, or bare Notion of the mind.  
Chap. 14. The Nonentity of Protestancy, proved from that it worketh in the wills of the Professors.  
Chap. 15. The Nonentity of Protestancy, proved from that, it is not agreed upon what doctrines be Protestancy, or what Professors be members of the Protestant Church.  
Chap. 16. The Nonentity of Protestancy demonstrated, from that every Protestant either in himself, or in his Predecessors, originally departed, and came out from the Roman Catholic Church.  
Chap. 17. That the Protestant denies the Authorities of all those Affirmative and Positive Heads from whence the Catholics draw their Proofs.  
Chap. 18. That sundry learned Protestants (as not holding a Negative faith to be any Real Faith at all) agree with the Catholics in believing the Affirmative Articles of the Catholic Faith.  
Chap. 19 Certain Porismata, rising out of the several passages of this Treatise.  
Chap. 20. That the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, are not one, and the same Church: though some Protestants teach the contrary, for the supporting of their own Church.  
The Conclusion.    

CERTAIN PROLEGOMENA: Of which the first is, That in all positive and affirmative points of faith, the Protestants do agree with the Catholics; the Protestants borrowing the said affirmative points from the Church of Rome. CHAP. I.  
LEarned Reader. For the better facilitating of this my assumed task and labour, & for the more easy plaining the way to the ensuing discourse, I am first here to prefix certain Prolegomena (as I may call them) or Prefaces: The first whereof is to show, that the Protestants in all affirmative articles of faith, holden by them at this day, do agree with the Roman Catholic Church. The second; that in such points of faith, wherein the Protestants do dissent from the Roman Church; all the said points so defended by the Protestants, are merely Negations of the contrary affirmative Articles, believed by the Catholics. In this Chapter I will entreat of the first part; seposing the chapter following for the second. And according to this my assertion, we find, that the Protestants do believe affirmatively with us; that there is One God, and three Persons; that, the second Person was incarnated, and suffered death upon the Cross, for the expiation of the sins of the world; that there are two Sacraments, to wit, Baptism, and the Eucharist; that there are certain Canonical divine writings, commonly called the Holy Scriptures: & finally they believe with us Catholics, the Apostles Creed. All which points (so needy and begging is Novelisme in faith for its own supporting) the Protestants do freely acknowledge, that they borrow & receive from our Catholic and Roman Church. For thus doth D. Whitaker confess of this point: 
(a) D. Whitak. de Eccles. pag. 369.  The Papists have the Scripture and Baptism etc. and these came to us from them. With whom agreeth herein D. Dove, saying: 
(b) Dove in his persuasion to English Recusants pag. 23..  We should the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, and the same Bible, which we received from them. But Luther with full consent herto more amply discourseth of this point, thus acknowledging: 
(c) Luth. l. contra Anabaptist.  We confess, that there is under the Papacy most of the Christian good, yea rather all the Christian good, and that from thence it came to us. Verily we confess, there is in the Papacy true Scripture, true Baptism, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true keys to the remission of sins, the true office of preaching, true Catechism etc. I say further, there is in the Papacy true Christianity, or rather the true kernel of Christianity. Thus Luther. Now from these liberal (yet most true) confessions of our adversaries, this inevitable resultancy riseth, to wit; that the Protestants, though they believe these former affirmative Articles, (and perhaps some few others) with the Catholics, yet for such their belief of them, they are not, nor can be truly reputed Protestants, but only Christians in general, or rather Catholics (& this but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or at most but Analogically) since they borrow their belief of the said affirmative Articles from our Catholic Church (as is above confessed) and therefore Protestancy doth not rest in the belief of the said affirmative dogmatic points. From hence then we may conclude, that the reduplicative formality, or ratio formalis, as I may say with the Shoolemen, of Protestancy, only consisteth in the denial and reprovall of the particular affirmative Articles, in which it differeth at this day from the Church of Rome, as hereafter willbe proved; and that a Protestant (quatenus a Protestant) is not, as he believeth these former affirmative Articles; but as he believeth not other affirmative points, believed heretofore, & now by the Church of Rome. And according heerto, Philosophy teacheth, that this particle quatenus, or the reduplicative formality, ever falleth upon the differentia, and not upon the genus.  
I will exemplify this point in other innovations of doctrine. jovinian taught (as S. 
(d) Hierome lib. 1. & 2. contra jovin.  Hierome & 
(e) de haeresib. cap. 82.  S. Augustine do witness,) That virginity was not to be preferred before wedlock; that, fasting was not meritorious; that, a man once having true faith could not sin (all good Protestancy at this day. jovinian in all other affirmative points agreed with the then Church of Rome, but dissented from it only in these Negatives. Now jovinianisme truly resteth only in the defence of these its Negative Positions, and not as it agreeth with the then Church of Rome, in other affirmative points. And his followers were called joviniani, only by reason of their defence of the said Negations, and not otherwise. Again Manichaeus did only deny freewill in man (as 
(f) Lib. de hoeres. cap. 46.  S. Augustine recordeth) and comparted with the then known Church of Christ in all other affirmative points; and accordingly his Sect was called Manichisme, not in that it agreed with the than Catholic Church in other affirmative positions taught by the said Church; but only by reason the author thereof denied the aforesaid Affirmative Article of freewill. In like sort Brownisme resteth only in the denial of such points, wherein the Brownists descent from the Protestants, and not in their conformity with the Protestants, or Catholics in any affirmative points. Now to apply this to our present purpose; the obiectum adaequatum (to speak in the Philosopher's idiom) of Protestancy, is only the denial of such affirmative Catholic points, wherein Protestancy differeth at this day from the Church of Rome; & not in its belief of those few affirmative Articles, wherein the Protestants as yet agree with the said Church. According heerto, it did fall out, that in the first infancy of the late appearing faith of Protestants, the first stampers thereof at their public meeting voluntarily, for their better distinguishing of themselves from the Catholics, imposed to themselves the name of Protestants, and to their faith the title of Protestancy: implying, by that word, that they protested themselves absolutely to deny such & such affirmative points of faith, which the Church of Rome at that time (& ever afore) maintains and affirms. For if we respect those few doctrines, wherein they did agree with the Church of Rome, the Protestants had no reason to use any such term of distinguishment, seeing both sides did believe the same Articles. Therefore of necessity the word Protestancy (as serving for a character, or signature of its separation from our Catholic faith) is to be restrained to such points, wherein the Protestants by their denial of them, then dissented from the Church of Rome. But by this we may see, how loath is Novellisme in doctrine to impath itself in the beaten tract of Reverend Antiquity, or to run in the accustomed known channel, wherein the stream of Christian Religion in former times had its course. And thus far of this point; the conclusion being, that Protestancy (as Protestancy) only consisteth in denial of such affirmative points, which the Church of Rome affirms to be true; & not in believing with the said Church certain chief points of Christianity above expressed.   

THE II. PROLEGOMENON. In such points of faith, wherein Protestancy dissenteth from the Roman Church, all the said points are merely Negations to the contrary affirmative Articles, believed by the Church of Rome. CHAP. II.  
MY second Prolegomenon is, to demonstrate, by gradation, how the Protestant's, as above is intimated, have reform (or if you will, refined) their Religion in several points of Faith; and this only by pure Negatives to the Catholics contrary Affirmative Assertions of them.  
Thus did the Protestants reform our supposed errors, with their own true and real errors; so the 
(a) Luc. 18.  Pharisy reproved the Publicans sin, with fare greater sin. But to dissect the particulars, Luther (the Prodromus of these calamitous times) was first an acknowledged Catholic Priest, as himself 
(b) So witnesseth Sleydan in li, 16. fol. 232.  writeth. This man first begun his Reformation with a mincing hesitation & trepidation of judgement, & busied himself only with the denial of Pardons; but by little & little taking greater courage, he next proceedeth to the denial of 
(c) Luther in captivit. Babylon. tom. 2. fol. 63.  Papal jurisdiction, and 
(d) Luth. de votis Monasti●is in tom. 2. Wittenberg.  Monastical state & profession. And being once fleshed in his profession, he (daily more & more sharpining his censuring razor) cut of at one blow, 
(e) Luth. tom. 2. fol. 63.  four Sacraments. He finally concluded with the denial of the 
(f) Luth. de abroganda missa privata. in tom. 2. fol. 244.  Mass & Priesthood, of several parts of 
(g) Luth praefat. in epist. jacob. & vide Bulling upon the Apocalypses englished, cap. 1.  Canonical Scripture, 
(h) Luth. de seruo arbitrio in tom. 2. fol. 424.  of freewill, & of justification of works. Thus far proceeded Luther. And that the denial of these former points did not happen at one time but by degrees, appeareth in that the further he proceeded in this his denial of Catholic Articles, the more he reputed himself reform; and in his later writings he intreateth pardon of his reader for his presumed defect in his former writings, he thus excusing himself. The 
(i) tom. 1. Wittemb. in praefat. & tom. 2. fol. 63.  Reader may find how many, and how great things, I humbly granted to the Pope in my former writings, which in my later, & these times I hold for greatest blasphemy and abomination: therefore, pious Reader, thou must pardon me this error. O see, how pride of judgement (the Hypostasis of heresy) masketh itself under the borrowed veil of religious zeal.  
From Luther's loins immediately descended Zuinglius, Bullinger, Bucer, and some others. But these ungrateful and disobedient Imps did not rest satisfied with their Father's reformation, but retaining it for good, as far as it went, proceeded much further in their Negations of the Articles of the Roman Religion: since they denied the Real 
(k) Zuinglius tom. 2. fol. 375. & 416.  Presence, denied 
(l) Zuing. tom. 2. fol. 378.  Purgatory, and praying for the dead, denied 
(m) Vide Luth. in ep. ad Georgium Spalatinum.  praying to Saints, denied 
(n) See whitgift's defence in the examination of places. fol. penul.  the use of Images, & finally denied 
(o) Lib. entitled against Symbolis. part. 1. c. 2. Sect. 30  crossing of one's self. Thus fare these men made their progress in their Negative Religion; who conspired with their Father (through their desire ever of further reformation) by excepting in their later writings against their former, as not being 
(p) See Zuingl. to. 2. fol. 202. & vide Bucer. Script. Anglicana pag. 680.  Negative enough: and yet we are taught by the abortive Apostle, (1. Cor 5.) that, modicum fermentum totam massan corrupit. Bu● to proceed higher; for as yet the Scene of a Negative Reformatio leaveth not the Stage. Fron these former men, did spring Caluin, Beza, the Puritans of England, Scotland, & Geneva; which men, as being presumed to be wholly spiritualised, and as it were obsessed with the holy Ghost (such is the pride of Novelisme) made a fare more refined and sublimated Reformation (and all by Negatives) then their Predecessors had done. For almost all the other Affirmative Catholic Articles passed under the file of their dislike. And therewith they wholly denied the said articles▪ The chief articles denied by these Enthysiasts (to omit diverse of them for brevity) are these following, 
(q) D. Willet, in his special book entitled: Lymbomastix, & most Puritans.  Christ's descending into hell: the Headship of the Church to reside in one alone: 
(r) Denied by Beza, Caluin Knox, in whole Treatises.  universality of grace, 
(s) Vide the Survey of the Book of common Prayer.  the power of priesthood to remit sins, 
(t) denied by Caluin as appeareth by Schlussemb. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 1. fol. 60. and by D Willet in Synopsis. pag. 432.  Baptism by lay persons in time of necessity, 
(u) Con●l in his examen pag 63. 64.  Ceremonies, and 
(x) Vide whitgift's defence, pag. 259.  Church apparel etc. But the denial of Beza shall serve as a Chorus, to the former particular denials; who taking (as it should seem) a wanton complacency, in repeating the word, I deny, thus writeth. 
* See Duraeus in confut. respons. Whitaker. ad decem rationes. Camp. rat. 10.  I deny that God can make Christ's body to be present in the Eucharist, I deny seven Sacnaments, I deny grace to be given by Sacraments, I deny freewill in man, I deny good works, I deny prayer for the dead, I deny Christ to be borne of a Virgin, I deny that he descended into hell, I deny the Communion of Saints, I deny the forgiveness of sins. Thus Beza. To whose denials, I will make bold to add one more: to wit: I deny, that Beza, holding these Negations, can be saved. And thus these former Men, who as afore did Luther, Zuinglius, and Bucer, much vaunt of their proficiency in this their negative controlling of the Roman Church: for Caluin being expostulated by some how endless he and his sect were in going out from their former proceed, thus salueth the point: 
(y) Caluin. lib. de scandal. extant in Tractat. Theolog.  They do, as if a man should accuse us, that at the first breaking of day, we see not yet the Sun, shining at noon day.  
But what? Is not Protestancy come yet to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and perfection of its negative Reformation by all the former Protestants? No verily. For the Protestants Reformation, in regard it is never at an end, is like herein to Eternity, which is ever spending itself, and yet never lessens. For in this next place step in the Brownists, and the Antitrinitarians, both of them challenging to themselves a new Reformation, even in the Negative part. Thus do the Brownists, for example, deny the 
(z) Barrowes book in his discourse against Universities.  Lords prayer, and 
(a) See Hall's Apology, sect 30. against the Brownists.  Baptism of Infants, which they say, is the mark 
* In Hals descript. to the Separate. before the Epistle dedicatory.  of the Beast. They also deny our 
(b) Hall ubi supra.  material Churches, & 
(c) Barrows ubi supra.  Universities.  
To conclude with the Antitrinitarians, they yet urging a further Negative Reformation, do heerupon deny the blessed Trinity, and divinity of Christ; condemning the Catholic Article of the Trinity for the most notable relic, or brand of all Romish corruption: for thus M. Hooker writeth hereof: 
(d) M. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy lib. 4. pag. 18●.  The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland, think the very belief of the Trinity, to be a part of Antichristian corruption etc. Hitherto of the Protestants Reformations of the Catholic and Roman faith, and all this by mere Negatives: I mean Negatives to the Affirmative contrary Articles taught by the Church of Rome; from whence we may well infer, that the faith of a Protestant in regard of such his Negative Religion, is a mere waist, & devastation of all true faith, and that his belief consisteth only in not believing.  
Now that the judicious Reader may more fully and intensely observe, how many Articles of our Catholic Religion the Protestant denyeth, I will here amass the chiefest of them together, though most of them have been above expressed, that so the Reader may have a full Synopsis or sight of them all at once. The Protestant than denyeth the Real presence, the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass, the visibility of the Church, the Church's freedom from error, the succession of Pastors, universality of grace, freewill, prayer to Saints, Purgatory, prayer for the dead, Pilgrimages, diverse parts of Canonical Scripture, Papal jurisdiction of Bishops, power of Priesthood to remit sins, Monastical life, vowed chastity, single life of priests, prescript fasting-dais, the Grace and Necessity of Baptism, five Sacraments, Christ's descending into Hell, besides some others. So wholly negative are the Protestants in all the Articles controverted at this day, between them and the Church of Rome. Neither can our Adversary's reply, that they hold diverse Affirmative points, ventilated at this day between us and them, we retaining the Negatives; as for example: Parity of Ministers, Marriage of Priests, and other Votaries, Reprobation, Christ's only Mediatorship by way of intercession, Christ's suffering in soul etc. To this I answer, that these points are Affirmative in words, but merely negative in sense, (like some drugs, which are pleasant in the taste, but dangerous in the operation) since they are negatives, to the Monarchy of the Church's government, to vowed chastity, to Universality of Grace, to the intercession of Saints, and to the all-sufficiency of Christ's corporal death: all which our Catholic points are Affirmative. Such is the subtlety of Innovation in doctrine, as to invest their Negative Tenets in Affirmative Titles, that thereby they may seem more specious & regardable. And thus fare concerning the foresaid Prolegomena.   

That the Protestants have often corrected and reform their Translations of the Bible, and the Liturgy or Common-booke of prayer, in favour of their Negative Religion; every later excepting against the former, as corrupt and impure. CHAP. III.  
I Will subnect to the former Prolegomena, this passage following; which is to show, that after our Protestants had newly moulded their Religion by their pure-impure negatives; then instantly their next labour was to make new Translations of the Holy Scripture, and to reform their public Liturgy, or book of Common prayer, according to their afore chosen negative Religion. And as the Protestants at several times more & more reform their Religion by increase of Negatives; so they also at the said several times made new Translations of the Bible, and set forth new books of Common-Prayer, ever sortable to their last negative Reformation. Thus we see, how this censuring and reforming humour is the very eye, comportment, and carriage of Protestancy. From which course of theirs the judicious Reader may observe the preposterous method taken by the Protestants herein. For whereas themselves do teach, that faith and Religion is to be extracted out of the true & infallible sense of the Scripture (& consequently that their judgements in the Scripture) ought to be known, & to precede in time before faith, yet with them the faith was first established, and then the Scripture was after by their Translations, squared to their faith. Thus with them it fell out, that the Scripture was true in such, and such a point, because it confirmed by their translation, their new assumed negative faith; and not that their faith was true, because it was consonant to the Scripture, before it was so translated by them: so making their faith the square of the Scripture, and not the Scripture the square of their faith. But to come first to the several Translations of Scripture, the later ever condemning the former, as not sufficiently translated in full defence of their negative Positions. And first Luther translated the Scripture presently after his open revolt and Apostasy. This translation was as the first much admired (so blazing stars at their first appearance, are much gazed upon) yet because it warranted many affirmative Articles of our Catholic faith, never denied by Luther, therefore Zwinglius doth in great acerbity of words traduce him for such his Translation, thus inveighing against him: 
(a) Zwingl. tom. 2. ad Luther. lib. de Sacram. pag. 412. 413.  Thou, Luther, dost corrupt the word of God, thou art seen to be a manifest corrupter and perverter of the holy Scriptures. Now by reason of Luther's presumed false Translation, a new Translation was after set forth by the Divines of Basill; which translation was nevertheless wholly condemned by Caluin & Beza (as not favouring enough their negative Faith) for thus Beza writeth thereof: 
(b) Beza in resp. ad defence. & respon Castal.  The Basill Translation is in many places wicked, and altogether different from the mind of the Holy Ghost. Heerupon a third translation of the Scripture was made by Caluin and Beza, wholly presumed to be according to the holy Ghost; yet it is found so defective & impure, that Molinaeus (a learned Protant) putteth upon it this Theta, or mark of condemnation: 
(c) Molin. in sua Translat. Novi Testam. Part. 12. fol, 110.  Caluin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospel to leap up and down; he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel; and beside, he addeth to the text. The same Protestant thus also averreth of Beza; 
(d) Ibid. part. 20. 30. 40. etc.  Beza actually changeth the Text. And thereupon instanceth in diverse of Beza his corruptions. But Castalio (the remarkable Protestant) is not afraid to reprehend Beza his Translation in this full manner: 
(e) In defence. Translat pag. 170.  To note the errors of that translation, would require a great volume. Finally Castalio himself composed a translation, yet so defective and impure, that Beza (by way of recrimination) condemneth it (to use Beza his own words) 
(f) Beza in Testam in praefat. & in Annot. in Math 3. in 1. Cor. 1. etc.  as Sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical. And thus much for some taste and delibation of our foreign Protestants Translations of the Scripture; each later translation accusing the former for imperfect and impure, as not being Negative enough in behalf of their Negative Religion: so certain it is that the very pulse, life, and energy of Protestancy are mere Negations.  
But before we end this point, we will cast our eye upon our English Translations of the Bible, and see what entertainment they find at the hands of other more reform and Negative Protestants: for though diverse English translations have been made of the Bible (the later ever condemneth the former, for not being reform or negative enough; yet the Puritans (whose grace chief resteth in disgracing their Predecessors, and who are most devoted to this negative faith) condemn all the said translations, as false and impure. For Carleile (the Puritan) thus censureth them: 
(g) Carleile, that Christ descended. not into Hell pag. 116. 117. 118. & sequent.  The English Translations have depraved the sense, obscured the Truth, and deceived the ignorant; & in many places, they do detort the Scripture from it right sense And other English Puritans do vomit out their judgement of the English translation in these words: 
(h) Abrid gement of the book given to his Majesty, by the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese.  A Translation, that taketh away from the Text, that addeth to the text, and that sometimes to the changing and obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost. And heerupon they solicited the late King for a new tranon, which was granted to them, and after published by authority. But how can we rest assured, that they will unchangeably satisfy themselues with this last translation, & will not in time be as earnest for another? Now, let us descend to their often alteration of their public Prayer-book, made by the advice of Crammer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer; and as the Statute saith 
(i) In the statutes of 2. 3 Edward 6. cap. 1.  made by the aid of the holy Ghost. This prayer-book retained diverse Affirmative points of the Roman and Catholic Religion: for it 
(k) All these (with diverse other Catholic points) are expressly set down in the book of common-prayer, printed in folio by Edward Whit-Church, cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum anno 1549.  admitted Baptism by lay Persons in time of necessity, as also, grace given in that Sacrament; in like sort it retained absolution of the sick penitent, given by the Priest, in these words: By authority committed to me, I absolve thee of all thy sins: & accordingly it retained special confession of the sick penitent. It further allowed the anointing of the sick Penitent; It maintained the consecration of the water of Baptism with the sign of the Cross. It also retained the usage of Chrism, and of the child's anointing, and of Exorcism. Briefly (to omit many other dogmatic and Affirmative points of the Roman faith and Religion) it maintained prayer for the dead, and intercession, and offering of prayers by the Angels.  
But this Liturgy, or Book of common Prayer, was holden during the reign of Queen Elizabeth over Papistical, as each man knows. And thereupon the said Praier-booke was reform in her time, and made more Negative, by culling out of it the former Affirmative Catholic points; yet this was not done in so full a manner, as it gave contentment; for Master Parker thus complaineth thereof: 
(l) against Symbolising part 2. cap. 5. sect. 2. pag. 4.  The daystar was no● risen so high, in their days, when ye● Queen Elizabeth reform the defects of King Edward's Communion book● etc. 
(m) Ibid. sect. 17. pag. 39  yet so altered as when it was proposed to be confirmed, to the Parliament, it was refused. To whose judgement Cartwright (the Puritan) thus subscribeth: 
(n) Cartwright in his 2. Reply, part. 1. pag. 41.  the Church of England changed the Book of common Prayer, twice or thrice, after it had received the knowledge of the Gospel. And yet the last change made is so imperfect in the judgement of the Puritans, as that they (wishing a new Common prayer book to be composed) thus censure of the former: 
(o) In whitgift's defence. pag. 474.  The form of the communion book is taken from the Church of Antichrist, as the reading of the Epistles and gospels etc. the most of the prayers, the manner of ministering Sacraments etc. of Confirmation etc. Neither are our Puritans less forbearing to charge the Communion book (as being in their judgement over Affirmative) for thus some of them do write: 
(p) In the book entitled: The petition of twenty two Preachers in London.  Many things in the Communion book are repugnant to the word of God. And again: In the Communion book there be things, of which there is no sense, there is contradiction in it, even of necessary and essential points of Religion. And upon this their dislike the Puritans at the 
(q) Pag. 58  Conference at Hampton Court, motioned, that they might not be forced to subscribe to the Communion Book.  
In this last place let us examine a little the Liturgy of the Brownists. This their form of Prayer is so Negative, as that rejecting all other matters, it chief consisteth, of an extemporal conceived Prayer, singing a Psalm, and a Sermon. And yet the singing of a Psalm was in doubt once to be taken away by some of the Brownists, as being but a humane Invention; and thereupon some of them do style, singing of Psalms in the Church, 
(r) In the bobke called, the new age of old names cap. 2●. p. 122  howling of wolves, croaking of Ravens etc. By all this we may see, how variable and inconstant the Protestants have discovered themselves to be in admitting of the Book of common Prayer: which point D. Dove (an eminent Protestant) as making a recapitulation of several forms of their Communion book, thus writeth: 
(s) Persuasions to English Recusants pag. 31.  Concerning the Book of Common Prayer, when the Mass was first put down, King Henry had his English Liturgy, and that was judged absolute, and without exception: but when King Edward came to the Crown, that was condemned, and another in the place, which Peter Martyr, and Bucer did approve, as very consonant to God's word. When Queen Elizabeth began her Reign, the former was judged to be full of imperfections, and a new devised, and allowed by consent of the Clergy, But about the middle of her reign, we grew weary of that Book, and great means have been made to abandon that, and establish another. Which although it was not obtained, yet we do at the least at every change of Prince, change our book of Common Prayers: we be so wanton, that we know not, what we would have. Thus plainly and fully D. Dove of this point. And thus much to show, how the Protestants and their descendants have made several Translations of their Bible, and composed diverse forms of Liturgy, or Common-prayer; every later Translation of the Scripture, and every later form o● Common-prayer, being more Negative than the former. From all which we may most certainly conclude (and so extract Truth out of falsehood) that as yet the Protestants have never enjoyed a sincere Translation of the Scriptures, or an Orthodoxal Liturgy, or form of Common-prayer.   

That Protestancy is a Nonentity, proved from the Principles of School Divinity, and Philosophy. CHAP. FOUR  
NOW after we have manifested the former points, which are but certain gradual steps to the main question here to be entreated of; it followeth, that by the applying the said points to certain acknowledged and received Theorems, and Principles of School divinity, we are to evict the certainty of our assumed Thesis, or Position; to wit, that Protestancy is a mere Nonentity.  
Wherefore for the better illustration of this subject, we are to call to mind, that the Schoolmen do teach, that 
(a) S. Thomas part. 1. qu. 16.  Omnis res est vera, secundum quod habet propriam formam suae naturae. And again 
(b) S. Thomas ubi supra.  Vnumquodque sicut custodit suum esse, ita custodit suam veritatem. Every thing as it keepeth its essence or being, so it keepeth its truth. And yet more. 
(c) S. Thomas ubi supra. vide Durand. lib. 1. distinct. 20. q. 6. and Viguerius de anima cap. 2. sect. 2. & Aristot. in Metaphys. 9  Verum non potest apprehendi, nisi apprehendatur sub ratione entis. Truth cannot be apprehended, but as it is apprehended, as a thing having a real being. And hence it is, that they conclude: Res quaelibet vera est absolutè. Every thing, in that it is a thing, is true. And again in more express terms: Fundamentum veritatis est entitas rerum. The foundation of truth is the Entity, or being of things. With whom assenteth S. Austin, thus teaching 
(d) Aug. in Soliloq. l. 2. cap. 8.  verum est, id quod est. From all which their last inference is, that: Ens, & Verum convertuntur. Every thing that is, is true; and every truth hath a real Entity. Now the main source, from whence all these scholastical sentences receive their spring, is, because every Entity, or being, is from God, 
(e) Genes. 1.  who wholly made all things; and that all Truth proceeded likewise from God, who is 
(f) john. 14.  truth itself.  
But now touching that, which is not, but only is a privation, or denial of that, which is; the Schoolmen further teach; 
(g) S. Thomas part. 1. q. 17.  Intellectus decipitur non circa quid est, sed circa quid non est. The understanding is deceived, not about that, which really is, but about that, which is not. And further: 
(h) S. Thomas ubi supra.  falsum est id, quod non est apprehendere, ut esse; & quod est non esse. That is false, which is not to be apprehended, as it is a thing, but as it is not. And from hence they conclude, that of such defects and privations, as lying, falsehood etc. there is no efficient, but a deficient cause: and that all such proceed only from the Devil, 
(i) john. 8.  the father thereof. And according hereto, your own Peter Martyr thus truly discourseth: 
(k) Peter Martyr in Common places in English. part. 1. c. 17. pag. 184.  An evil thing hath no efficient but a deficient cause; if any will search out this efficient cause, it is even like, as if he would see darkness with his eyes, or comprehend silence with his ears; which being Privations, it is no need they should have efficient causes. Thus fare Peter Martyr; which saying is sortable to the judgement of 
(l) Austin de civet. Dei lib. 12. cap 7.  S. Austin himself: so undeniable a truth it is, that what is in itself Nothing, cannot proceed from God, who is but One, yet All things; most simple, yet containeth in himself, eminenter, the perfection of All things. And thus it is certain, that he cannot make nothing, who yet of nothing made all things, since to make that, which is not, is not so much to make, as rather a not-making; to the performance whereof Impotency, not Power is required. Now from these former doctrinal speculations in School divinity (acknowledged for true, even by all learned Men, either Catholic or Protestant) it is avoidable evicted, that all truth, which is (as is above demonstrated) ever apprehended, subratione entis, is positive; & therefore in reality of sense, evermore affirmative: as on the contrary side, that error, or falsehood, (which is no other thing, than a denial of some truth) is upon the same ground (and by force, and law of Contrarieties) always Negative.  
But to prevent the wilful or ignorant mistaking of our A duersaries (for some men are of that livor, and harsh morosity, as that they even meditate how to contradict) my meaning here is not that every verbal Affirmative Proposition doth contain in itself a truth of real Entity; for it is willingly acknowledged, that Man's brain doth often fabricate many Chimeras, and aery Imaginations, which are deprived of all reality of true existence, or entity to support them. But this I maintain (which is sufficient to my designed end) that whatsoever is true, hath entity, and is in this respect ever Affirmative; & whatsoever is false, is but a denial of a truth, & therefore (as having no real Being) is evermore negative. And though it is in man's power, through a voluntary frame, and contexture of words, that falsehood may be masked under affirmative terms, and truth under negations; yet if we look into the reality of sense and true understanding, the truth is ever Affirmative, and the falsehood negative. To exemplify this; to say, God is not cruel, or, Man is not blind: these Propositions, though they be in terms negative, yet they are in sense affirmative; only as denying the negation of Mercy in God, and of blindness in man: so on the contrary part, to say in affirmative terms, God is cruel, & man is blind: though these sayings be delivered in show of affirmative terms; yet if we do unueyle them they are found to be in sense and understanding merely negative; since cruelty is exclusive to Mercy, and blindness to sight: and it is as much as to say in negative words, God is not merciful, or, man cannot see. Thus far of these speculations. Now I draw from all these former grounds this unavoidable Conclusion; to wit, that Protestancy (as it is Protestancy) I mean as it consisteth merely of negative Propositions and Tenets (and to consist only of such, it is above demonstrated) hath no true reality, or subsistency in itself, but is a mere vaporous, intentional, & Imaginary Conceit, and consequently in itself false. For if things be only true, as they have a real being, and therein affirmative; and false, if they want such a being and therein negative (as the former Axioms of school divinity do most evidently teach: (how then can Protestancy, which consists only in denials and negations, which have no being, be real, or true? For what reality of being is there, in a not-being of Purgatory, or in not praying to Saints, & so of the rest? and if there be no reality in these (as infallibly there is not) how then can Protestancy have any Reality in self? And if it have no reality in itself, how then can it be really in the soul of man? For certain it is, that what wanteth a subsistency in itself, must necessarily want an existency in any other thing. Now I will conclude this Chapter, in assuring the Reader, that I rest half amazed, to see men (presumed to be of judgement) thus to suffer themselves to be befooled by others (and this to the irreconciliable and interminable overthrow of their souls) by entertaining certain aery & empty Positions in lieu of faith, obtruded upon them, which in a final and even libration are found to be merely a destruction, and anihilation of all faith: 
(m) Galat. cap. 3.  O insensati Galatae, quis vos fascinavit!   

The Nonentity of Protestancy, by by reason of its negations, proved from the like supposed example of a Philosopher, denying most principles of Philosophy. CHAP. V.  
Such is the nature of prejudice of judgement, as that it is better able to see its own defects in a third point, wherein by resemblance it may glass itself, then in that, to which it is so much devoted; like as the weakness of our eyes can better endure the sight of the sunbeams reflected by the water, then in the body of the sun itself. He that will not acknowledge the irreality, and Nonentity of the faith of the Protestant, by his denying almost of all positive Articles of Christian Religion defended at this day by the Church of Rome; let that man (if he be a scholar) seriously peruse over this ensuing Chapter, which treateth by supposal of a Philosopher, who should deny most parts of Philosophy, acknowledged and taught for true, by the famous Philosophers of all times. I have made choice purposely to insist in Natural Philosophy; since nature is the subordinate Instrument of God, first created by himself; or rather nature is God's great hand, wherewith he sternes & governs this whole Frame and Universe; every Cause in nature, being as it were a finger of this Hand; and every Effect of the cause, a print of the said Finger. Now then let us, as they say, ex hypothesi, imagine a man, who would usurp to himself the title of a natural Philosopher, by only denying most of the positive, and Affirmative Axioms and principles in natural Philosophy, some few of the chiefest excepted, taught by Aristotle, and all other learned Philosophers; and then let us conclude, in the closure of all, what a strange Philosopher would this man be: and whether his Philosophy could truly deserve the name of Philosophy, or rather that it would prove to be a mere denial and waist of all true Philosophy. Let this man, than I say, agree with Aristotle, that natural Philosophy intreateth of a corporeal substance, animate or inanimate, with all his natural causes, effects, and accidences: to wit, as it is subject to mutation and change. Let him also grant, that there are Four chief parts of this natural Philosophy: of which the first part concerneth the general and common Principles of natural things. The second intreateth of the world, of the Elements, of their first and secondary qualities, of the composition of the bodies, through the mixture of the Elements and first qualities. The third part discourseth chief of Meteors. The fourth and last part disputeth de Anima, of the soul, and of its several kinds or degrees, and faculties. Let us suppose, I say, this man to agree with Aristotle, and all other chief Philosophers in these and perhaps in some other few Affirmative head Theorems, and principles of natural Philosophy, as the Protestant doth agree with the Church of Rome in some main Affirmative Articles of Christian Faith. Yet withal, let us suppose this new Philosopher do deny most of other subordinate Positions, which Aristotle holdeth affirmatively in all the said four parts of natural Philosophy: as for example, touching the first part of this Philosophy, we will suppose, that he maintains, that Materia, forma, & Privatio, are not principia rerum naturalium; that there is no Materia prima of the which a natural body is first generated, and into which it is lastly corrupted: and that this Materia prima is only a Philosophical conceit, and fiction. That there is not any Motus in that sense, as it is commonly defined by the Natural Philosopher; to wit, to be, Actus entis, quod est in potentia, quatenus est mobile. An Act of a thing, which is in potentia, as it is movable. That, admitting there were any such motus, yet that the division of motus, is not perfect, to wit, that there should be six kinds of motion: viz. Generation, Corruption, Augmentation, Diminution, Alteration, and Lation.  
Let him also maintain, that Locus Physicus, is not the ultima superficies concava corporis continentis immobilis primò, but that it ought to have some other definition given to it. Finally (to omit infinite other Affirmative Propositions in the first part of Natural Philosophy) that Tempus Physicum, is not, Numerus mensurans motum rerum mutabilium, secundum prius & posterius: that is; that time is not a space, which is measured by the motion of the Heavens, & the Sun, but that this definition is most false, and to be exploded.  
Now in like manner to come to the second part above specified of natural Philosophy. Let us further imagine, that this all-denying Philosopher maintains, that the motion of the heavens is not precisely Circular, and Uniform. That, the particular motion of the spheres proceed neither, ab intelligentijs, nor ab interna forma of the heavens. That, nihil est extra ultimum Caelum. That, it cannot be proved, that a star is densior para sui Orbis; the more thick, or gross part of its Orb. That there are not any Excentrikes, or Epicycles in the Orbs of the Planets. That one and the same star cannot have two different motions at the same time, though these several Motions be supposed to be made upon different Poles. That the sphere of the fixed Stars, or the Sun do not move at all, but in lieu hereof, the Earth moveth, according to Copernicus; and that not the Earth, but the Sun (according also to his opinion) is the Centre of the world. That the stars do not borrow their light and splendour originally from the Sun, by means of their opacity, & thickness of their substance, receiving into it the beams of the Sun. That the four Elements are not the Principles or secondary matter of all natural bodies. That the form of all the Elements is not spherical. That there is no such Symbolisme in the qualities of the Elements, as Aristotle teacheth to be. That the Elements do not consist only ex partibus Homogeneis, but also ex partibus Heterogeneis. That the element of fire is not placed above the highest region of the Air. That there are not three Regions of the Air, or if there be, that the middle region is not cold, per antiperistasis. That there is no transmutation o● the elements of one into another.  
To come to the third par● of natural Philosophy. As first let him maintain, that there are not five distinct species of conpounded, or mixed bodies, to wit, Meteors, Minerals, Plants, Living Creatures, and Man; but that there are, either more, o● fewer. Tha● a Vapour, is not the matter of watery Meteors, and an Exhalation o● fiery Meteors. That Snow is no● ever engendered in the lowest region of the Air, and Hail in the middle Region only. That the cause of Thunder, and rain following it, is not an exhalation set on fire, being encompassed within a watery cloud. That the Moon by casting its beams upon the Sea, and with its heat dilating and spreading the exhalations, mixed with the Sea-water, is not the cause of the flowing, and ebbing of the Sea.  
To descend to the last part of natural Philosophy, which chief treateth of the Soul: And first let him justify (among other things) that the Soul (here we ●peak aswel de anima vegetativa sen●tiua, as, de anima rationali) is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Act, Essence, ●r form, by force whereof its natural ●ody is moved, and performeth its operations. That man hath not one ●nly soul, but three different souls; to wit, the Vegetative, the Sen●tiue, and the Rational soul. That species ser sibilis is not ever required ●hat by the help thereof, the external and internal sense should perform their operations. That ●he Eye (of whose artificial natural fabric or compacture I will speak nothing) seethe not, either, extramittendo, or intromittendo, but by some other unknown way, ordained by God. That in man's body the Diaphrama, or septum transuersum, serves not as a partition-wall to divide the Concupiscible faculty, from the Irascible. That, that Principle in Anatomy is to be denied, which teacheth, that the veins proceed from the liver and give nourishment, the Arteries from the hart and give life; the Synews from the brain, and give motion and sense. That in the Soul of man, there are not two principal faculties (to wit, the understanding and the will) but that the operation of both these are performed by one only faculty: that the Anima spirits are not first elaborated and wrought in that connexion of the sinews, towards the Cerebellum, which is called, Rete mirabile. That the division of Intellectus agens, & patience, is not to be admitted for good. That anima separata cannot exercise its operations, but during the time it is organised with the body. Finally (to omit infinite other Affirmative points maintained by Aristole, and all other learned Philosophers) that there are not those several Natural habits in the soul of man, which all Philosophers ascribe to it; to wit, Sinderesis, dictamen Rationis, & Conscientia; so as Synderesis should in every Sillogismo practico, as it is called, ponere maiorem, dictamen rationis, minorem; and Conscientia out of the two former, elicere Conclusionem. Now to draw towards an end of this passage: if we suppose a man, as afore we entreated, to retain some few points or Principles in Philosophy with Aristotle, and other great Philosophers; but in most of the branches descending from these Principles wholly to descent from them, by maintaining ever the Negative part in those Conclusions (as here this Philosopher doth) what should we conceive of such a Philosopher? and how poor, barren and naked a Philosophy would this be? or can we truly justify, that this Philosophy (as wholly resting in the denials & Negations of almost all affirmative points, taught by Aristotle and others) hath any reality of Being in itself? No: for though this Philosophy intreateth Negatively of things, which are in rerum natura; yet itself (for want of a real being) is not in rerum natura. And yet such is the state of the Protestants herein, both being cast in one mould. Therefore to parallel them both together, I here say, that the Philosopher here supposed, rejects most of the affirmative points of Philosophy: The Protestant denies most of the Affirmative Articles of Christian Faith, The Philosopher by this his denial contemns the authority of all chief Philosophers, living within the compass of these last two thousand years: The Protestant by his like denials, betramples the authority of all Orthodoxal Fathers, for these last sixteen hundred years. The Philosopher needeth not any pregnancy of judgement as long as his Philosophy resteth only in denials: The Protestant neither needeth any supernatural light, which is required to true Faith to insist in his negations. To conclude, the Philosopher by these his Negatives introduceth a waist, and destruction of all true and  Philosophy: The Protestant begetteth by his Negations a devastation, ruin, & utter extinguishment of all real & positive Articles of Christian faith and Religion.   

That the Heathen Philosopher conspireth with the Protestant in the denial of most, if not all of such points of Religion, wherein the Protestant by his like denial of them differeth from the Catholic. CHAP. VI  
IT will not be here, I hope, impertinent, to show in this place, how the Heathen Philosopher comparteth in the most points (for I will not say in all) with the Protestant's, in which points the Protestants do differ by their negative Faith, from the Catholic faith. From which, being once declared, it will appear, that if he Heathen Philosopher hath no true and positive Faith of Christian Religion, who penetrateth no further, then into the Nature impressed in things, which nature is the very Art, or Organ of God; then may it be deservedly called in question, whether the Protestant Faith hath any reality, or form being in itself? And thus may falsehood be controwled by the patrons of falsehood. And to exemplify this assumed task, in most of the chiefest Articles of the Protestant Negative Faith: The Protestant acknowledgeth not any true real Sacrifice to be in these days; the Heathen Philosopher agrees with him therein. The Protestant acknowledgeth not Freewill in man; the Heathen teacheth the same, by maintaining of his Stoical fatum, or destiny. The Protestant denyeth Lymbus Patrum, Purgatory, and Invocation of Saints; The Heathen being demanded of these points, would answer, they are but mere dreams or fictions. The Protestant denyeth all merit of works, or justification by works, much more Evangelicall Counsels; The Heathen (as not knowing what these things mean) disclaims from the same. The Protestant taketh away Universality of grace, purchased by our Saviour's passion; The Heathen doth the like, since he is ignorant what Grace is, and rejecteth our Saviour's passion. The Protestant teacheth the Impossibility of keeping the Commandments; the Heathen not acknowledging the said Commandments, but guided only by the stream of Nature, without Grace, must therefore of necessity deny the possibility of observing them. The Protestant maintaineth, that Christ from his Nativity was, as man, not free from all ignorance; and full of all knowledge; the Heathen as not believing in Christ, must needs justify the same. The Protestant denyeth all reverence, and bowing to the name of JESUS; the Heathen doth the same. The Protestant denyeth, that the Sacraments do confer Grace; the Heathen acknowledgeth no Sacraments, and therefore no grace to be derived to man, by his participating of them. To conclude, the Protestant denyeth all Monachisme, Vows, the necessity of Baptism, and diverse other Affirmative Positions, above recited, and taught by the Catholic Church; Will the Heathen Philosopher, think you, acknowledge as true, any of the said Catholic points? Thus we see, that where the ratio formalis of Protestancy, consisteth in absolutely denying the Affirmative positions of the Catholics; this unbelieved Naturalist, or Heathen Philosopher, by his like denial of the said points entereth into a most straight league, and intercourse of Friendship with the Protestant therein. And from this great conformity of negative Faith between the Heathen and the Protestant, it riseth, that diverse Protestants do wholly gentilize herein, granting Salvation, and eternal happiness to Heathens, dying Heathens. Thus for example, we find no less an obscure Protestant, than Swinglius to write in this sort; 
(a) Zwing. in l epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. lib. 1. pag. 39  Ethnicus si piam mentem domi foverit, Christianus est, etiamsi Christum ignoret. And thereupon Swinglius concludeth particularly, that 
(b) Swing. tom. 2. fol. 118. & 559.  Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Aristides, etc. are now in heaven. A point so confessed by Swinglius, that Echarius, a learned Protestant, thus acknowledgeth of Swinglius; quod 
(c) In his Fas●iculus Controvers. printed Lipsiae. an. 1009. cap. 19 p. 427.  Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Hercules, Scipiones, Catones, & alij Gentiles comparticipes sint vitae eternae scribit quidem Swinglius, ad Regem Galliae, quem defendunt Tigurim, Bullingerus, Gualterus, Hardenburgius etc. That these named Protestants, I mean, I 
(d) Gualterus in his Apolog. p oh Swi●g. fol. 27. praefix. 1. tom oper. Swingl.  Gualterus, 
(e) Bulling. in confess. Eccles. Tigurin. & Bullin. in his preface of allowance to Swingl. his exposition fidei ad Regem fol. 559.  Bullinger, 
(f) Simlerus in vita Bullingeri.  Simlerus, the Tigurine Divines did defend with Swinglius, the saluavation of the Heathens, dying Heathens, appeareth further beside, from the testimony of the foresaid Echarius, even from the references here set down.  
Now, where the Protestant, to vindicate his profession from reproach and contumely, may reply, in answer heerto; that seeing most of the points above rehearsed do presuppose belief in Christ, in which belief the Protestant doth differ from the Heathen Philosopher, the Heathen not believing in him: it therefore must of necessity follow, that the Heathen Philosopher, as not believing in Christ, must therefore not believe the former Articles, which depend of the believing in Christ▪ I urge, this answer is impertinent, for I do not here insist in the reason, why the Heathen Philosopher holdeth the negative part in the former points: but I insist only in averring that the Protestant doth agree with the Heathen Philosopher in the denial of the said points, affirmed by the Catholic. Neither availeth it any thing to say, that though the Protestant holdeth the negative part in the former conclusions; yet that he believeth with the Catholic in Christ; that he holdeth with him, there is Grace, that there are Sacraments, that there is Scripture etc. though in the manner, or some other circumstance accompanying them, he differeth from the Catholic. This solueth not the doubt. First, because we observe that Swinglius, & those other Protestants above cited, do not exact any articulate belief in Christ at all, as necessary to salvation; since we see, they are not afraid to indenize Heathens for good Christians. Secondly in that I restrain this my Assertion of comparing the Heathen Philosopher with the Protestant only in those points, wherein the Protestant differeth from the Catholic: But in the former points, it is certain, that the Heathen agreeth with the Protestant, and the Protestant as maintaining the Negative, differeth from the Catholic defending in them the Affirmative. Again, where the Protestant agreeth with the Catholic, for example; that Christ is the Saviour of the world, that there is Scripture, Grace, Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, etc. these Articles in general the Protestant holdeth not, as he is a Protestant, but only as he is a Christian (as in the front of this Treatise is manifested.) For quatenus he is a Protestant; that is, quatenus he is a man differing from the Catholic, he ever holdeth the Negative. And even where he holdeth the Affirmative foundation in some of the said points; as that Christ is the Saviour of the world, that there is Divine Scripture, Grace, Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist etc. these he taketh not from himself, but borroweth them from the Catholic Church. This is evident, for at the time of Luther's first revolt (who was the first Protestant in these days, as his own 
(g) Conrade. Sl●es. in Theol. Caluin. l. 2. fol 17. saith: It is impudence to say, tha● any learned men in Germany before Luther, did hold the doctrine of the Gospel. See Luther of this point in loc. comm. class. 4. p. 51.  brethren do teach) from whence did Luther learn, that Christ was the Saviour of the world, that there is divine Scripture, Grace, Sacraments, or from whence received he his Ordination, if not from the Catholic Church?  
The confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, not only at the first rising of Luther, but also for many ages before (proved in this Treatise) doth convince the truth of this point. And therefore D. Field had just reason to say, 
(h) D. Field in his Treatise of the Church lib. 3. c. pag. 72.  In the known Church of the world, wherein our Ancestors lived and died, Luther and the rest were baptised, received their Ordinance and power of Ministry. If now any other should at last expostulate and say, that the Protestant is wronged by comparing him to the Heathen Philosophers, seeing many of those Philophers were Idolaters; to this I reply, and say, that the comparison here made, is not with such wicked Philosophers, but only with those most learned Philosophers, who acknowledged a Deity, and never taught, nor formally practised Idolatry: and such were Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Seneca, and many others. Again the comformity in faith here made is not touching those points, which the Philosophers affirmatively believed or practised; but only in such negative Positions, which are also denied by the Protestant. And with this I will here rest, concluding nothing of myself; but will refer it to the censure of the most judicious Reader: whether this great affinity, and brotherly association between the learned Heathen Philosopher, and the symbolising Protestant in their both promiscuously denying such Articles, as are affimed by the Catholics, do carry any blemish to the Protestants Gospel, or no? or whether if the Heathen have no real Faith in the said negative points, it followeth not, that the Protestant (as a Protestant) can have in like sort no real faith in his believing the same Negative points? But by this we may discern, that the clouds of partiality and contradiction being once gathered about the man's judgement, doth make him think others to seem less, and to err, when indeed they do not.   

That Protestancy is but a Nullity of faith, and consequently, with reference to faith, a Nonentity; proved from the definition of faith, and other Conditions necessarily annexed to Faith. CHAP. VII.  
EVery definition of a thing is the Touchstone, wherewith we try, what other things can truly come within the Orb or compass of the thing defined, & what not. I will exemplify this in the definition of faith, delivered by the Apostle, and so see, if the Faith of a Protestant can be called faith; or rather in respect of Faith, a Nonentity, & absence of faith.  
We find that the Apostle defineth Faith in these words: 
(a) Heb. 11.  Fides est sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium. That is: faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. This definition showeth (by the judgement of all learned men) that Faith is a supernatural virtue; and the obiectum thereof is that, which through its own abstrusnes and sublimity cannot be apprehended or conceived by force of man's own wit, it transcending all natural reason. To exemplify this in the supreme Articles of the most blessed Trinity, and the Incarnation (the two Cardinall-mysteries of Christian faith) Faith teacheth us, that in the Trinity, there is one peculiar Nature, in three different Persons. Now man's natural understanding cannot apprehend, how this Individuality of Nature can be in three Persons, without distraction or multiplication of the nature; & the rather seeing every one of these Persons is identifyed really & formally with this Nature; the strickest union, that can be conceived. In like sort touching the Incarnation (by means whereof the Creator of all flesh, suffered in flesh) man's reason cannot lay any true level to conceive, how one Hypostasis, or person can be in two natures; or how this Hypostasis or person is identifyed, & made the same really with the divine nature, and yet is united most inwardly with the humane nature. Thus in regard of the difficulty of believing Articles of faith, the conclusion among all the School Divines (resulting out of the former definition of faith) is, that 
(b) S. Thomas part. 2 2. q. 1.  quae fidei sunt, non possunt, esse scita: so certain it is, that between man's Capacity, and the Nature of supernatural Faith, the proportion lies only in disproportion; and that in matters of faith, even reason dictates to us, to believe against Reason. Now to apply this; if Protestancy be a supernatural faith (or else it is no true-saving faith) than the Object of this Protestanticall faith, is of that difficult nature, as Man through the force of natural reason cannot give any assent thereto without the special concurrency of God's Grace.  
But here now I demand; that seeing the Object of Protestancy (as Protestancy) is mere negations, and denials of things to be (as above is proved) what supernaturality, as I may term it, or force of God's special concurrency is required, that man should give his assent to believe, that such, or such a thing is not? as for example; that there is no Purgatory, no place but Heaven for children dying unbaptized, no praying to Saints, no inherent justice, and so of the rest denied by them? I here say, that man's natural reason even of itself (without any other external help) is propense & inclining to give assent to these & all other negations, except the affirmatives to these negations, can be convinced for true, either by divine or humane proofs and authorities: so little is any supernatural assistance needful heerto.  
If then the object of Protestancy by reason of its Negations, be most easy to be believed, and that the belief of it doth not surmount the force of man's natural reason, but rather most sorting and agreeable thereto; then if the Apostles definition of Faith be true, (as I trust no Protestant is of that supercilious and froward disposition, as to deny) it followeth, that Protestancy is not the Object of Supernatural Faith: but, in respect of true & infused saith, is a Nonentity, and bare Intentionality  
But to proceed further: The Schoolmen 
(c) S. Tho. part. 2 q. 5  teach, that true, and Supernatural Faith hath a necessary reference to two things: the first is called, prima veritas revelans, which is God: who revealeth all truths & points of faith. This first is styled by the divines, Obiectum formale fidei. The second thing required to Faith, (especially after the Church of Christ was once established) is the Authority of the Church; and this is called Amussis, regula, or the Propounder. This propoundeth to her children to be believed, all those things, which God revealed to the Church to be believed. Now let us examine, whether these two points so necessary to true faith, do accord to the faith of Protestancy, or not. And first, touching Prima veritas revelans, which is God; I here say, that no revelation of God, touching the belief of things merely Negative, as the points of Protestancy are, as afore I intimated, is necessary; for who will say, that we cannot believe, that there are not many worlds, without the special revelation thereof by God? Seeing we perceive, that children, Heathens and Infidels who (while they continue in that their state) are not capable of Gods supernatural revelations, do not believe, that there are many worlds? By the same reason than I say, that no revelation of God is necessary to give assent of judgement, that there is no Purgatory, no place in Hell for Children unbaptized, no inherent justice, no praying to Saints, and so of the rest of the Protestants Negatives.  
Now, as touching the second point, which is the Authority of the Church, propounding to her Children the things by God revealed; we know, that in this our age Luther was the first, who denied many Articles of Catholic Religion: here now again I expostulate, what Church did propound to Luther, that these points were to be denied, and that the Articles of true Faith consisted in such denial of them? It cannot be said, the Catholic Church propounded them to him to be denied; because the Catholic Church did then, and at all times believe the Affirmatives to them, as true: as that there is a Purgatory, that we may pray to Saints etc. And to say, that the Protestant Church did propound to Luther the denial of the said points, is most absurd. Seeing at Luther's first bursting out, and his first denying of the said points, there was no Protestant, but himself; and therefore no Protestant Church then, was but in being. The verity of which point (besides that it is hereafter proved from the acknowledged invisibility of the Protestant Church in those days) is evicted even from the ingenuous Confessions of learned Protestants: for thus doth Benedictus Morgensternensis, a Protestant, contest of this point, saying: 
(d) Tractat. de Eccles p. 145.  It is ridiculous to say, that any before Luther, hath the purity of the Gospel. And upon this ground it is, that Bucer styleth Luther, 
(e) In lib. Apolog. of the Church, part. 4. c. 4.  the first Apostle to us of the reformed doctrine. Mark you not, how our Adversaries do subtly make the titles, of the Gospel, of the Apostle, of the reformed doctrine &c. to serve as certain veils or curtains, to hide their bad cause from the eyes of the ignorant? Thus far to demonstrate both from the definition of Faith set down by S. Paul, and from points necessarily concurring for the causing of true faith, that Protestancy in regard of its want of true supernatural faith, is but an absolute Nullity of faith.   

That Protestancy cannot be defined and that therefore it is a Nonentity. CHAP. VIII.  
EVery thing, that hath a real Existence or Being, may have its nature explicated by the definition of it; so as every true & real thing is capable of being defined. This definition consisteth of two parts: to wit, of Genus and Differentia (as Logic teacheth.) the Genus doth comprehend the Essence of the thing defined, the differentia or some other Proprieties in lieu thereof, doth more particularly constitute the thing defined, and distinguisheth it from all other things: for example: A man is defined to be, Animal rationale; A living Creature, enjoying Reason. Hear the word Animal, demonstrates the Essence of Man. Rationale doth constitute man in definition, and maketh him to differ from all other sublunary Creatures. Now than if Protestancy, or a Protestant cannot be defined, for want of Genus, and differentia; then wanteth it a true Essence, and is but an Intentional notion of the mind.  
To define a Protestant in these words; (thereby to set the best glass upon their Religion) A Protestant is a Christian, who believeth the Articles of Faith, according to the true sense of the Scripture. This indeed is a specious definition, serving only to lay some fair colours upon the rugged grain of Protestancy, and but to cast dust in the eyes of the ignorant. But withal this definition is most false for several reasons. First because though a Protestant be a Christian, yet quatenus he is a Protestant, the word Christian is not genus to him, as above is said: for the word quatenus (implying a reduplicative formality) hath reference not to the Genus in a definition, but only to the differentia, as above is noted. For the word Protestant, (as is formerly declared) is a word only of distinction, thereby to make him differ from the Catholic: but in the word Christian, they both accord and agree. Again, every different Sect or Heresy will maintain with as great venditation & confidency, as the Protestant doth, that its Religion or Heresy is agreeable to the true sense of the Scripture: & will vie with the Protestant, text for text of Scripture (by detortion of it) for the supporting of its heresy; as we find by the example of the Arians, Eutichians, Pelagians, & the rest, who ever fraught their pestiferous writings with an abundance of scriptural authorities. And the like course do our later Heretics also take, to wit, the Brownists, the Family of love, and the Antitrinitarians: so true is that sentence of old Vincensius Lyrinensis: 
(a) Contra haeres.  Si quis interrogat quem piam Haereticorum, unde probas, unde doces hoc? statim ille: Scriptum est enim. Thus we see, that those words, to wit: who believeth the Articles of faith, according to the true sense of the Scripture, supplying the place of differentia in the former definition, may be applied to all sects indifferently (if their own Interpretation of Scripture may take place) aswell as to the Protestant. And therefore as being of too great an extent, it doth not distinguish a Protestant from any other Sectary: & yet the nature of a true definition requireth, that the definition, and the thing defined should be of an equal expansion and largeness; that is, that the definition and the thing defined should convertibly be affirmed, the one of the other. Lastly I say, that this former definition of a Protestant, or Protestancy, is but a mere Paralogism or Sophism, called Petitio Principij, being but a poor and needy begging of the thing, as proved, which still remains in controversy. For I eternally deny, that Protestancy is according to the true sense of Scripture. And this denial our learned Catholic divines have sufficiently justified and made good in their writings, against the Protestant.  
Now then, this former definition being deservedly exploded; the nearest definition, or rather description is to pencil it out in these words: Protestancy is a Religion, which consisteth in the denial of the Real presence; denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass, denial of freewill, denial of Purgatory, and so in the denial of the many other Articles, jointly denied by the Protestants. But here again this definition is most defective: for here also the differentia constitutiva, which should constitute Protestancy, and withal distinguish it from other Religions, is wanting: first because Negations, and such is the differentia here supposed, cannot constitute any thing: for only Entia (and Entia, bare negations are not (give a constitution and being to Entia. Again, the presumed differentia in this definition (to wit, the denial of the Real presence, denial of freewill etc.) stretcheth itself by way of application to other Religions, aswell as to Protestancy; for the Turks, the jews, and the Heathens deny these former points with as strong a bent of contradiction, as the Protestant doth: and so accordingly conspire unanimously with the Protestant in such denials. Thus than we see, that this Imaginary differentia, in this second definition, is over general, and of too great a latitude, and doth not distinguish the Protestant from Turk's, jews, and Heathens.  
Well then to contract this point, seeing every thing, that hath any reality of being, can have its nature and Essence truly dissected by definition, or description; And seeing Protestancy cannot be defined (for how can that be called a form and positive faith, which in itself is mere privative) then followeth it, that it cannot be known, what Protestancy in itself truly is: and if Protestancy cannot be known what it is, then is it to be reputed a Nonentity. Yet to close up this Chapter, and in some sort to be officious, & serviceable to our Adversaries, my definition of Protestancy shall for the time be this: to wit, a Religion, which incorporates in itself the Negative doctrines of the Ancient stigmatical Heretics, as hereafter will be demonstrated; or, if you will: A Religion, whose definition consisteth, in that it cannot be defined. And thus Protestancy only is, in that it is not.  

That Protestancy consisteth of doctrines merely contradictory in themselves: and that therefore Protestancy is a Nonentity. CHAP. IX.  
PHilosophy instructeth us, that what truly implieth in itself an absolute contradiction, the same hath no Entity or being. The reason whereof is this: what implieth a Contradiction, supposeth a Being, and a Not-being of a thing, and all at one and the same time: from whence then this absurdity would follow; to wit that if such a thing could be, then could a thing be, whose being should consist in a Not-being: and consequently should be an Irreality and nothing. An unwarrantable error, since God, to whom it is more easy to do then not to do, cannot effect or make any such thing; for every thing that is, aught in some sort to bear a likeness to him, from whom it proceedeth. But that which hath no Being, and in itself is nothing, cannot bear any resemblance to him, who giveth life, & Being to every thing; 
(a) Act. 17.  In ipso vivimus, movemur, & sumus.  
This Philosophical Axiom extendeth itself not only to the existence, or want of existence in things corporeal or material, but also to the Being, or not-being in things speculative & immaterial; I mean in doctrines, and other su●h Theories of the understanding. Since than it will easily be proved, that Protestancy in many points is compounded of several contradictory, and opposite doctrines & Tenets; & such, that though all may be false, & consequently have no real Being, yet that of necessity the one part must want all reality of being for its own supporting; then avoidable it may be concluded, that Protestancy (as consisting of such irreconciliable doctrines) wanteth all reality, is in itself, and is but a Nonentity.  
I will exemplify this in a point or two, wherein the Protestants agree only in disagreeing. The first shallbe touching the Nature of the Sacraments. All, or most of the Protestants do conspiringly deny our Catholic doctrine therein, in teaching, that they confer grace; but after their unanimous denial thereof, than they presently by embracing of contrary doctrines, descent amongst themselves (like lines, which once meeting in one common Centre, instantly break of, and run several ways:) for ●winglius teacheth, that the Sacraments in general, are bare and naked external signs; and is therefore condemned by 
(b) Lib. de Caena Do. & lib. 4. Instit. cap. 15. sect. 1.  Caluin: but Caluin by ascribing more to the Sacraments, then to external signs, is (by way of retaliation) condemned by 
(c) Epist. ad quandam Germania civitatem. fol. 196.  Swinglius.  
In like sort, The Protestants do disavow all justification by works, yet most of them hold, that good works ought necessarily to accompany a justifying faith. But to cross this, Luther (after he once became settled in the lees of sensuality) thus writeth: 
(d) So saith Luther upon the Galat. Englished in cap. 1.  It is impiety to affirm, that faith, except it be adorned with Charity, iustifyeth not. Yea further he saith, 
(e) Luther tom 1. pro. pos. 3.  fides nisi sit sine etc. except faith be without good works, it iustifyeth not &c. O the calamity of these Canicular and unlucky days, in which eue● doctrinally, and religiously (as may say) is exiled all practice o● Religion, and good works. Again touching the Real presence in the Eucharist; all the Sacramentaries disclaim from our doctrine therein: nevertheless diverse eminent Protestants, as 
(f) lib. 5. Eccles. Polic. sect. 67.  M. Hooker, 
(g) Contra Duraeum pag. 168.  D. Whitakers, and 
(h) Caluin lib. 4. Inctit cap. 17 sect. 7.  Caluin himself do teach, the Manducation of Christ's true and Real body in the Eucharist by the mouth of faith. Yet is this doctrine who▪ by disallowed by 
(i) In his Epistles annexed to his Common places, englished epist. 25. ? Peter Martyr, though Peter Martyr be therefore reciprocally controlled by Bucer in his Scrip. Anglic. pag. 548. as inclining (to use his own words) too much to Popery. It is in like sort condemned for the most part, by our 
(k) In their Christian letter to M. Hooker.  English Puritans. Now to turn our Pen a little back v●on these three former points: in ●he first we find these two contradictory positions: The Sacraments ●re only bare external signs: And, ●he Sacraments are more than external signs. In the second: Good works are necessary to accompany faith: And, Good works are not necessary to accompany faith. In the third: the true and real body of Christ is taken in the Eucharist, with the mouth of faith: And, the true and real body of Christ is not taken in the Eucharist with the mouth of faith. Now what more true Contradiction can there be in Positions & Tenets of faith than these are? seeing (as the Nature of Contradictions require) they all have a true reference ad Idem. From whence it then followeth, that the one side at least, if not both, in these former contradictions hath no reality or tru● subsistence of Being. And hereupon then I conclude, that since all these former alleged men are accepted by the Church of England, as good Protestants; and all their mere contrary doctrines in the former points are taught for good Protestancy; that therefore Protestancy as consisting of such contradictory doctrines (whose nature requires a Not-being of one point) is no real, and truly subsisting faith, but a mere Chimaera, and Nonentity.  
The points of Protestancy, touching which the Professors of Protestancy, and especially the Caluinists amongst themselves, do so diametrically differ, are (among others) these following: Whether God doth decree and will sinne, or but only permit sin? Whether the Civil Magistrate may be head of the Church? whether (as above is intimated) the body of Christ be truly and substantially present to the mouth of faith, or, but Sacramentally only present? whether in case of Adultery, the innocent party may marry again! whether the sign of the Cross in Baptism, and the use of the Surplice be lawful? whether Bishops be Antichristian, or lawful? whether Christ suffered in soul the pains of Hell? beside many others. The different Tenets in all which doctrines are so repugnant and contradictory one to another (& yet all is good Protestancy as before is said, and all the maintainers of the contrary doctrines reputed for zealous Protestants, and Professors of the Gospel) that even by the law and nature of Contradictories, the one side must ever want a real & subsisting Being; and thereupon it followeth, that Protestancy as compacted of such contrarieties in doctrine, must be in itself a very nothing. This discrepancy and Antipodes-like treading of our adversaries in Articles of Protestancy, is made more manifest by recalling to mind, what is above set down touching the great & violent dissensions of the Protestant's, concerning their translations of Scripture, & their book of Common prayer.  
But leaving that (as above touched) the same will likewise be made evident, by remembering in what acerbity of style, the Protestants have writ one against another; ever intimating thereby, that the different doctrines differently maintained by them, were truly Contradictories; and therefore the Tenets of the one side at least, mere irreall, as wanting all true Being.  
But to contract this point, I will particularly insist (as most conducing to the subject in hand) first in setting down the express words (in their own dialect) of the English Protestants, and the English Puritans; and after I will put down some few titles of Protestants Books, written one against another; from which the Reader may even depose, that the different protestanticall doctrines maintained in those different books, against other Protestants defending the contrary, must of necessity be in themselves contradictory, and incompatible one with another.  
But to begin with our English Protestants. And first we find M. Parkes thus to write of the Puritans: 
(l) In his book dedicated to the Archbishop in Epist dedicatory.  They are headstrong, and hardened in Error; they strike at the main points of faith, shaking the foundation itself, and calling to question Heaven and Hell, the divinity and Humanity, yea the very Soul, and Salvation of our Saviour himself. And yet more in the same place: The Puritans have pestilent Heresies etc. They are Heretical and sacrilegious. M. powel thus styleth the Puritans: 
(m) Powel in his considerations.  They are notorious & manifest Schismatics, cut of from the Church of God. The Archbishop of Canterbury thus blazeth them. 
(n) In the Survey of pretended discipline cap. 5. & 2. & 4.  The Puritans do pervert the true meaning of certain places both of scripture and Fathers, to serve their own turn. Now the Puritans on the other side are ready to repay the Protestant's former courtesy in their own language; for thus they writ: 
(o) In the defence of the Silenced Ministers supplication to the high court of Parliament.  Do we vary from the sincere doctrine of the Scriptures? Nay rather many of them (meaning the Bishops & their adherents) do much swerve from the same etc. And again 
(p) This appeareth in the book of Constitutions, and Canon's Ecclesiassticall, printed. anno 1604  The worship in the Church of England corrupt, superstitious, unlawful, repugnant to the Scriptures. The Articles of the Bishop's Religion are erroneous, their rites Antichristian.  
By this we may discern, what mutual recrimination, and what ●reconciliable repugnancy there between the English moderate protestant, and the English Pu●itan; and this even in great mat●ers, and of highest consequence: ●nd therefore the former M. Parks ●onfesseth sincerely and ingenuously of this point, thus saying: 
(q) M. Parks ubi supra p. 3.  The Protestants deceive the world, ●nd make men believe there is agreement in all substantial points: They affirm, there is no question among them of the truth. And this much touching our domestical Protestants and Puritans.  
In the next place I will descend to foreign Protestants, and for greater brevity, among many hundred of books, written by Protestants against Protestants (see here the 
(r) Isa. 19  Egyptian set against the Egyptian, each one fight against his brother;) I will content myself with setting down the titles only of ten of them. From which Titles the Reader may infallibly conclude, that the Controversies (being the subject of those books) are not of that adiaphorous, and indifferent nature, as that the Tenets of both sides might be true; but that the Patroness of both sides did hold cotradictory doctrines; and such (as that granted (by supposal) the truth and Being of the one part, the other of necessity wanteth all reality of Being. And to begin.  
1. Aegidij Hunnij Caluinus judaizans: Hoc est, judaicae glossae & corruptelae, quibus Ioannes Caluinus illustrissima Scripturae sacrae loca & testimonia, de gloriosa Trinitate, deitate Christi, & Spiritus sancti etc. detestandum in modum corrumpere non abhorruit. Wittenberg. anno 1593.  
2. Alberti Graveri Bellum Ioannis Caluini, & jesu Christi. braptae. 1598.  
3. Oratio de incarnatione filij Dei, contra impios & blaspemos errores Swinglianorum, & Caluivistarun. Tubingae anno 1586.  
4. Anti-paraeus; Hoc est refu●atio venenati Scripti à Davide Pa●aeo editi, in defension stropharum & ●orruptelarum, quibus Ioannes Calui●us illustrissima Scripturae testimonia, de mysterio Trinitatis, nec non oracula Prophetarum de Christo, detestandum in modum corrupit. Francofurti. 1●98.  
5. Denominatio Imposturarum & fraudum, quibus Aegidius Hunnius Ecclesiae orthodoxae doctrinam petulanter corrumpere pergit. Bremae 1592.  
6. Guillielmi Zepperi Dillinbergensis Ecclesiae Pastoris institutio, de tribus Religionis summis Capitibus, quae inter Euangelicos in controversiam vocantur Hanoviae 1596.  
7. Veritatis victoria, & ruina Papatus Saxonici. Losannae 1563  
8. Christiani Kittellmanni decem graves & perniciosi error es Swinglianorum, in doctrina de peccatis & Baptismo: ex proprijs ipsorum libris collecti, & refutati. Magdeburg. 1562.  
9 Pia defensio adversus joannis Caluini, Petri Boquini, Theodori Bezae, Guillielmi Clebitij, & similium calumnias etc. Erfordiae 1583  
10. Apologia ad omnes Germaniae Ecclesias reformatas, quae sub Zwingliani & Caluiniani nominis invidia, vim & iniuriam patiuntur. Tiguri. 1578. And thus fare hereof, whereby we may see, that Protestancy is deadly wounded by the Pen of Protestancy.  
Hear now I close up this chapter, referring to the judgement of the learned Reader, that seeing Protestancy is compounded of several Contradictory Doctrines, (whereof the one side must of necessity be deprived of all real Being) and seeing the nature of true faith exacteth, that it should be complete, entire, and perfect in itself; like therein unto an action morally virtuous, which is accomplished by the access of all due conducing Circumstances, but vitiated through the absence but of any one: and finally seeing that all the former repugnant doctrines of the Protestants (besides many others of like nature by them mantained, for brevity here pretermitted) are accounted Euangelical, and true Protestancy; whether it doth not indisputably, and irrepliably follow, that Protestancy in itself is no true faith, but in respect thereof an absolute Irreality, and but an Intentional Name, or word?    

That Heresy, as being a Privation, is Non Ens; and consequently, that Protestancy (as consisting of the old condemned Heresies) is a Nonentity. CHAP. X.  
IN one of the precedent Chapters it hath been made evident, that Protestancy even from the title of Negation, hath no reality of Being: In this place now the same shallbe evicted from the Title of Privation; where for the clearer apprehending of this point, we are to call to mind (as above is touched) that every Privation is but a defect of that, which should be, (thus is blindness, of sight, & deafness, of hearing) and therefore as having no efficient cause, but only a deficient, proceedeth not from God, who made all things; and consequently, it is Non Ens. But to pass on further. Among those things, which are Privations, we do find, that every Heresy is ranged or marshaled in that Class; and this deservedly; since Heresy is but a Privation or denial of the truth; but all truth proceedeth from God, 
(a) john 14.  Ego sum veritas, and consequently Heresy is a mere Non Ens, or Nullity.  
This being presumed as true and uncontrollable, if then I can prove, that Protestancy is but a collwies of the ancient Heresies condemned in the Primitive Church, it than followeth avoidable, that Protestancy (as compacted of those privative and Negative Heresies) is but a Nonentity.  
But to effect this (and therein consequently to discover from what unworthy Fathers, the Children of our new supposed Gospel are lineally proseminated and descended, sucking from them, tanquam ex traduce, the venom of their Privative and Negative faith) I will appeal herein to history of former ages; by means whereof our times hold intelligence with Antiquity. I will exemplify this in several Negative points of Protestancy. And first we find that the Protestants borrow their denial of the Real presence, from certain old Heretics in 
(a) So affirmeth Theodoret dialog 3.  Ignatius his time) so early we see the Cockle grow up with the good seed) as Theodoret witnesseth; yet the affirmative is holden both by Ignatius, and the whole Church of those days. 2. The said heretics denied, that any 
(b) jerom. epist. ad Hebidium.  Visible Sacrifice ought to be now in the days of Christianity.  
3. The denial of 
(c) Lib de haeres c. 33.  Prayer for the dead, is first taken from the Heretics Aerians, who (as S. Augustine's words are) thought it unlawful orare, vel offerre pro mortuis.  
4. The denial of freewill taken from the Manichees, of whom S. 
* Aug. ubi supra.  Austin thus writeth: Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio.  
5. The denial of fasting, and of virginity was first introduced by jovinian, as 
(d) jerom. lib 1 & 2. contra lonintanum.  S. Jerome, and 
(e) Aug l. de haeres. cap. 8●.  S. Austin do witness.  
6. The denial of the Church's visibility, broached by the Donatists, who taught with Caluin, that the Church consisted only of the Just; and thereupon as not knowing, who were the just, they made it Invisible; as 
(f) Aug. l. de unit. c. 12.  Austin recordeth.  
7 The denial of worshipping the Relics of Saints, first taught by Vigilantius the Heretic, as 
(g) jerom. contra Vigilant.  S. Jerome doth witness.  
8. The denial of the distinction of mortal and venial sin, first maintained by the Pelagians, as 
(h) l. con. Pelagium.  S. Jerome testifieth.  
9 The denial of all worship due to the Image of Christ, and his Saints, first justified by Xenaias Persa, as 
(i) lib. 16. cap. 27.  Nicephorus recordeth.  
10. The denial of the possibility of keeping the Commandments, was first maintained by certain old Heretics, recorded by 
(k) In explicat. Simbol, ad Damasum.  Jerome, and 
(l) De tempore serm. 91.  Austin.  
11. The denial of all reverence to the Cross, was first taught by Probianus the heretic, as appeareth in the 
(m) lib. 2. cap. 19  Tripartite History.  
12. The denial of Traditions was first taught by the Arians, as appeareth out of the book, written by 
(n) lib. 1 cap. 2.  S. Austin contra Maximum. The same is also taught by Nestorius the Heretic, as we read in 
(o) Act. 1.  sexto Synodo.  
13. The denial of power to reconcile men sinning after Baptism, by means of the Sacrament of Confession, was first taught by the Novatians, as 
(p) lib. 3. de haeret.  Theodoret, and 
(q) lib. ●. c. 33. Hist.  Eusebius relate.  
14. The denial of voluntary Poverty, and other Evangelicall Counsels, justified by Vigilantius, as 
(r) l. contra Vigilantium.  S. Jerome witnesseth.  
15. The denial of Original sin (especially in the Children of the faithful) first taught by the Pelagians, as 
(s) lib. 6. contra julianum. c. 2. & 3.  S. Austin witnesseth.  
16. The denial of lawfulness of vows, of perpetual Chastity etc. first introduced by certain Heretics styled Lampetiani: as 
(t) lib. de centum haeres. circa sinem.  S. Damascene affirmeth.  
17. To conclude, that the Primacy of God's Church belonged only to Ecclesiastical Persons, was denied by Constantius and Valentinian Emperors, as witnesseth 
(u) Athan●san epist. ad solitatiam vitam agentes.  Athanasius, and 
(x) Ep. 32.  Ambrose.  
Thus fare of this point. And now (by the way) I refer to the more retired & sober thoughts of the judicious and learned Reader, whether it be not an irreparable dishonour & blemish to the Professors of the new Gospel (in whom now living, the former dead Heretics yet do live; or rather whose bodies (by a strange Metapsychosis) seem to be organised with the souls of those old condemned men) thus to consociate with certain old branded & anathematised Heretics, by borrowing their privative and negative faith and religion from them; & thereupon to dispart, and divide themselves from all communion in faith, with the Orthodoxal Fathers of those pure and primitive times; who ever in the former Articles set down in this Chapter, and in all others, did hold the Affirmative part to the others Negative: so foul a scar hereby resteth upon the face of our Adversary's reputation, and honour.  
Now, that these former men were recorded for heretics, for their denial of the above cited Catholic Articles, and their denials taken for heresies; and that the such recording of them was warranted with the full consent of the whole Church of God in those times, appeareth from this one consideration; to wit, those Fathers & writers, which did record the former men for heretics, & their negations for heresies, were Epiphanius, S. Jerome, S. Austin, Theodoret, Eusebius, and some such others; diverse of which Fathers made certain Books and styled them, de Haeresibus. And in these their books they registered the former men for Heretics, & their Negative doctrines for Heresies. Now all these Fathers, and writers were learned & godly men: their learning then would assure them, what opinions were Heresies in those times, and what were not. Their Piety and Holiness would not suffer them, to wrong any man with the hateful brand of Heretic, or his doctrine with the foul title of Heresy, except both the men and their doctrines deserved such a severe Censure. And it cannot be answered in reply heerto, that the Catholic Church of God in those Primitive times, did ever tax, or reprehend any of the former Fathers, for ranging that man among Heretics, or his doctrines among Heresies, which were not taken for such by the whole and unanimous judgement of the then Church of God.  
Thus far to demonstrate, that seeing Heresy in its own nature, is but a Privation; and every Privation is a Non Ens; that therefore Protestancy, as being engendered of the ancient exploded Heresies, is a Nonentity.   

That there are diverse positions of Protestancy, which (besides that they are implicitly but negations of the Catholics contrary Affirmative doctrines) are in their own nature merely void of all reality of Being. CHAP. XI.  
IN this place we will take into our consideration diverse Articles of the Protestants Faith, in the true examining of which we shall find, that not only (as being but mere negatives to our affirmative Catholic Articles) they have no real Existency, or being, but also as they are to be considered in their own particular natures.  
And first, may occur their Tenet of the Private revealing, or interpreting Spirit; which though in terms it beareth the show of an Affirmative position; yet truly it is nothing else, than the denial & negaiion of the infallibility of the whole Church of God in matters of faith. This Spirit comprehendeth in the amplitude & largeness of its own Orb most of the several passages of Protestancy. Now to examine the Essence and nature of this Spirit, exercised chief in interpreting of Scripture (if such an imaginary conceit could have an Essence or nature, as indeed it cannot) we find that this Spirit is a mere fantasy of each particular man's giddy head-piece. For if it were certain and infallible (and so it must be if it proceed from the holy Ghost) how then cometh it to pass, that several private spirits of the Protestants do interpret one and the same Text of Scripture in different (and sometimes mere contrary) senses, and constructions? This point is demonstrated (to pretermit infinite other passages of Scripture) in the exposition of those few words, uttered by our Saviour, 
Math. 26. Luc 22. Marc. 14.  Hoc est corpus meum. Hic est sanguis meus. As also, in that Article of our Creed, Descendit ad inferos. We find both these passages to have received several constructions by the Protestants; and from such their different constructions are sprung up different sects of Protestancy, as the Lutherans, the Caluinists, the more moderate Protestant etc.  
Again, to omit diverse other choking reasons, to prove this Spirit to be a mere fantasy of the brain (engendered of Pride and Ignorance) and to have no reality or true Being in itself; how can this private Spirit be infallible, to which every Heretic with equal interest thereto, coveteth chief to repair, as to his strongest Sanctuary; as we see by the experience of ancient and modern times they do? For did not the 
(a) teste Epiphan. haeres. 69. joan ●● & 18. joan. 6.  Arians 
(b) joan. 1. joan 2.  Eutichians, the 
(c) Philip. 2. Hebr. 7  Nestorians, & the rest ever labour by the help of their own Spirits, differerently interpreting the Scripture, to maintain their different blasphemies and heresies? And do not the Antitrinitarians, the Brownists; the Family of love, and diverse such others, the like in these our times? So little reason therefore had D. Whitakers to beautify this erroneous Private Spirit, with his gilded description in these words: 
(d) In controvers. 1. q. 5. cap. 3 & 11.  An inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost wrought in the secret closet of the believers heart: and repugnant, is this his delineation to the words of sacred Scripture: 
(e) 2. Pet. 1.  No Prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation. And again: 
(f) 1. john. cap. 4.  early beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God.  
The second may be the 
(g) Luth. in art. 10.11 12. Melancth. in locis tit. de fide Caluin in Antitdot. Concil. Trident. sess. 6.  Protestants doctrine of Imputative justice in us, being but a negation and denial of the Catholic doctrine of Inherent justice; upon which doctrine, the Protestant more easily relies, since his own soul even dead-alive, (as being organised with a living body, but a dead will) is loath to practise any good works. Now, this Imputative justice is in itself, a mere Ens rationis, as having (contrary to the Nature of all divine Virtues, and to all real and true qualities) no true Existency, or Inherency in our Soul, as the Protestants do confess: it being only a naked application of Christ's justice to us, whereby our sins are palliated and covered. Again, if a man be just when he beginneth to believe that he is just; then is he not justified by that, by the which he believeth he is just, seeing his faith is later than his justice; And if he be unjust, at what time he believeth he is just; then is his faith false, & consequently no supernatural or divine faith, but a mere fiction of this supposed just man: so unreall imaginary a conceit (we see) is this Imputative justice: and indeed to maintain it, is as absurd, as to maintain, that the son can precede in priority of being his Father, or the effect, the cause: for though in all other things the truth of the opinion relieth upon the truth of the matter; yet here the truth of the matter relieth upon the truth of the opinion.  
The third point is the actual faith which 
(h) Luth. in l. de captin. Babil. Kem. in 2. part. Exam. Concil. Trident ad Can. 3. Centurist. Cent. 1. c. 4. & Cet. 5. col. 5.7.  Luther, and the Lutherans ascribe to infants, at that very instant, that they are baptised. Now common sense and the force of reason assureth us, that there is not, nor can be any such faith in children; but that this is in itself a mere Chimaera & Phantasy: for first doth not the poor Infants struggling (what they can) in time of their body's immersion into the water, manifestly impugn this aery conceit? Since if at that instant they did believe, they should offend God by such their resistance; and so by this means they should commit sin, rather than have their Original sin remitted. Again, how can Infants believe except they hear? 
(i) Rom. 10  Fides ex auditu. Thus I leave to every one to judge of what truth of Being or real Existency this doctrine hath in itself. And thus fare of these former aery speculations of doctrine, broached by the Protestants, though but briefly touched by me (for how can one well extend himself in discoursing of such points, which in themselues do want all extension?) In the unfoulding whereof, I labour not so much to display the falsehood & absurdity of them (which nevertheless incidently is by this means partly discovered) as to make evident, according to my method undertaken, that not any of the said Protestants Positions or Tenets have any Reality or Being; but that they are merely forged in the imagination, without ground or foundation of any true and Positive subsistence.  
The last of the Protestant Positions, (omitting diverse others for greater brevity) in which I will insist, shall be touching the Protestant Church; showing that it ●s Nothing, in itself, but only a Church framed in the air, and accordingly the Protestants are forced covertly to discourse of it ●n a mist of dark words: so painters veil that, which they cannot delineate by Art. But since this will require a more large discourse, branching itself into two parts; I have therefore purposely reserved the two next Chapters, for the fuller dissecting of the same.   

That the Protestant Church is a meers Nonentity, or Idea; proved from the confessed Inuisibility thereof. CHAP. XII.  
IN our entreating of the Protestant Church, first we are to recall to mind the definition given thereof by the Protestants: secondly, the confessed Inuisibility of the said Church for many hundred years: from both which points the resultancy will be, that the Protestant Church (and consequently Protestancy, as mantained by the said Church) is but an unreall thing. And to begin with the definition 
(a) Lib. Institut 4. c. 1. Sect. 2. & in minori Instit. c. 8. Sect 4.  Caluin defineth the true Church (and therefore in his own judgement the Protestant Church) to consist only of the number of the faithful & Elect, and only to be know to God. Now, what other thing is this Church, than a bare Intention (as ●he Philosophers speak) or phantasm wrought in the shop of his own brain? for first, seeing no man can know, who be those other men, who are of the Elect, & who truly believe; how can it be known, who are the members, who make this Church, or where it is? Again, this definition rather destroyeth, and taketh away the Church, then describes, or constitutes it. For if all the works even of the justified, be mortal sins (as 
(b) Luth. in Assert. art. 32.  Luther, and 
(c) Art. 6. & 20.  Confessio Augustana do teach) and that if only the ●ust do make this Church, then followeth, that no man is of the Church; and consequently, that the Protestant Church thus defined, is but a mere Platonical Idea; the reason hereof being, because there are no just men in the world since the works of men are sins Next we will descend to the Inuisibility of the Protestant Church, confessed by the learned Protestants, for many ages, or rathe● since the days of the Apostles. In handling of which point I will first set down the ackowledgments of the learned Protestants of their Church's Inuisibility; and then after I will draw from thence the necessary deduction of sequence for proving the Irreality, for aery Intentionality of the Protestants faith, and Religion. And first it is over evident, that D. Perkins thus confesseth of the invisibility of the Protestants Church: 
(d) In his exposition of the Creed.  For many hundred years our Church was not visible to the world: An universal Apostasy overspeading the whole face of the earth. And yet more particularly he thus acknowledgeth: 
(e) Perkins ubi supra.  during the space of nine hundred years, the Popish heresy hath spread itself over the whole earth. But Sebastianus Francus (a learned and very markable Protestant) confesseth more largely of this point, thus writing: 
(f) In ep. de aebrog●ndis in universun omnibus statutis Ecclesiast.  For certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church together with the faith and Sacraments vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; & that, for these fourteen hundred years, the Church hath not been external and visible. To whose judgement D. Fulke (to omit for brevity the like Confessions of diverse other Protestants) subscribeth in these words: 
(g) D Ful● in his answer to a Counterfeit Catholic pag. 35.  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles tyme.  
Now, to infer, and deduce Conclusions: first then, if the Protestant Church hath had no Being, since the death of the Apostles, (as we see by the acknowledgements of the learned Protestants themselves, it hath not had) but hath lain hid so many years in a vast Chaos of nothing; then followeth it, that the Protestant Church is only an Imaginary thing, having no substantiality (as I may term it) or existence in itself. Secondly, I thus infer: If the Protestant Church hath no real Being or existence in itself, but is a poor fabric of the imagination; then followeth it avoidable, that the Protestant faith must necessarily partake of the nature of the Protestant Church; I mean, not to be any real, or subsisting thing. For how can that faith be positive or real, of which there have been for so many ages confessed (and indeed for all ages without exception) no members of the Church to make profession of the said faith? This I aver, is ●bsurd to maintain; since we see a shadow cannot produce a shadow. Again, I add here to that (by reason of inherency) there is a necessary reference in every Accident to its Subject; if the subject be wanting, then followeth it, that the Accident (as losing its Inherency) is also wanting, and becometh Nothing; now then Protestancy or the faith of a Protestant, suppose it be any thing, must be a quality, and consequently an Accident, inhering in the understanding of the Professor: but if since the Apostles days there have been no Professors of Protestancy, by reason of the Inuisibility of that Church for so many ages, doth it not then follow, that a least during all those ages, Protestancy, as wanting its proper Subject to inhere in, hath had no real Being; but hath been all those many series, or Centuries of yeared a mere Nothing?   

That the confessed want of Personals Succession, and lawful calling in the Protestant Church, proveth their Church to be no real thing, but a mere fiction; and consequently, that Protestancy is but an Intentionality, or bare Notion of the mind. CHAP. XIII.  
PHilosophy teacheth us, that every thing doth consist of somewhat, which is essential to it, and of other things, which are but Accidental, and necessary. The Accidents serve only, ad bent esse; and by means of Inherency to give (as it were) their attendance for greater state and honour of the thing, the which they do invest; and therefore may actually (at least in thought) be separated and disjoined from such their subject, without any destruction of it. But it is otherwise with that, which is essential to any thing; for that necessarily conduceth ad simpliciter esse, of the thing; the which Essential point, being by supposal taken away, the thing whereof it was Essential, instantly looseth its Being, & is become thereby a nothing. Now, to apply this to the Protestant Church. And to pretermit what Accidentally accompanieth the Church, we will insist only in that, which is by our adversary's acknowledgement, Essential to the Church; to wit, the Administration of the Word, and Sacraments. Now, if it can be proved, that the Protestant Church wanteth this Administration of the word and Sacraments, then may we infallibly conclude, that the Protestant Church is no Church, nor Protestancy any Real thing in itself. But seeing this Administration of the word and Sacraments cannot be performed, but by the help of the true Pastors, we will first show the necessity of Pastors: secondly, that the administration of the word & Sacraments are Essential to the Being of a Church; And lastly we will prove, that the Protestant Church (like a mastless ship) hath never enjoyed any true Pastors; & consequently never enjoyed the Administration of the word and Sacraments; the very Essence or being of a true Church.  
And first, the holy Scriptures do often inculcate, that in the Church of God there ever must be Personal Succession, and lawful calling; & consequently that, that society of Christians, which want these two points, is no Church at all. Touching the necessity of Personal Succession, thus we read: 
(a) Isa. 59  My Spirit, which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from hence forth for ever. To which accord those words of the Apostle, spoken of our Saviour: 
(b) Ephes. 4.  He hath placed Pastors to the consummation of Saints, till we all meet in unity of faith. That is, as the Protestants do comment, 
(c) So saith Do-For Fulk against the Rhemish Testament.  for ever, and 
(d) D Fulk against Heskins, Sanders etc. pag. 539.  to the end of the world. Now the reason, why Pastors must be ever in the Church, or else it is no Church but only a false usurpation of the word Church, is, because in the Church there ever must be, the Administration of the word and Sacraments: but there can be no Administration of the word and Sacraments, without Pastors, even according to the Apostles judgement, who saith Rom. 10. How shall they believe, whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear, without a Preacher? which things, to wit, the Administration of the word, and Sacrament (as 
(e) D. Whitaker contra Du●●cum, lib. 3. p. 249.  D. Whitakers teacheth) being present do constitute a Church, being absent do subvert it. And D. Willet in Sinops. pag. 69. further in direct words affirmeth. That the absence of the Administration of the word and Sacraments doth make a Nullity of the Church. And sortably heerto other Protestants do write thus: 
(f) Proposition and Principles disputed of in the Church of Geneva. pag. 845.  The ministry is an Essential mark of the true Church. Fron which true acknowledgement of the learned Protestants, we see that a Church without the due Administration of the word and Sacraments wanteth its Essence, and is but a Nullity, or Non Ens. Now, as Personal Succession for the administration of the word and Sacraments is deduced from the Scripture; so also is the necessity of Lawful vocation, according to those words: 
(g) Rom. 10.  How shall they preach, except they be sent? And that: 
(h) Heb. 5.  No man taketh the honour of Priesthood, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was: which calling in the Apostles times was ever conferred by Imposition of hands. But here let us see if the Protestants can make good the Personal Succession, and ordinary calling of their Ministers for the preaching of the word, and Administration of the Sacraments. But this is first denied, even by the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church: for if the Protestant Church hath been wholly invisible, or rather utterly extinct for the space of thirteen, or fourteen hundred years at the least, as themselves have above confessed: them during that long space of time, the Protestant Church (as not being then in Being (wanted her Pastors; the stalk, which supports the vine: and eonsequently wanted the Administration of the word and Sacraments, and through such its want, it wanted its own Essence, and was but a Nullity or Nothing, during all that long Circuit of so many ages. Furthermore whereas the Protestants, seeing themselves thus plunged, do fly for relief to Extraordinary calling; for thus writeth Caluin: 
(i) Lascivius a Protestant in his book ac Russorun, relig. c. 23 allegeth Caluin thus saying: and see Caluin lib. Instit. 4. c. 3. sest. 4.  Quia Papae Tyrannide. etc. Because through the Tyranny of the Pope, the true Ordidinary Succession of Ordination was broken of; therefore we stood in need of a new help, and this was the extraordinary gift. And D. Fulk thus writeth hereof: 
(k) Fulke against Stapleton, and Martial pag. 2.  The Protestants, that first preached, in these last days, had Extraordinary Caliing.  
Therefore I will show, that this poor refuge is impugned even by the Protestants themselves; so dangerous an incision their own pens have made in the wounds of their own Church: for first D. Bilson thus teacheth: 
(l) D. Bilson in his perpetual government of the Church. c. 9 pag. 111.  They can have no part of Apostolical Commission, who have no show of Apostolical succession. Again, Extraordinary Calling is ever warranted with working of Miracles, (as it was in the Apostles times) even by the doctrine of the Protestants; for thus doth Luther expostulate others of their Calling, (and might not one by retortion expostulate Luther in his own words) 
(m) Luth. tom. 5. jen. Germ. fol. 67.  Vnde venis? quis te misit? Vbi sunt miracula quae te à Deo missum esse testantur? And yet it is most certain, that God hath never honoured any one Protestant so much since the first appearing of Protestancy, as to exhibit any one true and stupendious Miracle for confirmation of Protestancy. A point so undeniable, that D. Fulk thus acknowledgeth; 
(n) Against the Rhemish Testam. in Apocalip. 13.  It is known, that Caluin and the rest, whom Papists call Arch-Heretikes, work no miracles.  
Thus fare of this point. Now to encircle the contents of all this Chapter within a narrow compass, I thus dispute, If the Protestant Church hath had no true Personal Succession, and Ordinary vocation ●f Ministers, then hath it not had any true Pastors, the ever watching Sentinels of God's Church, as 
(o) Isa. 162.  Isay styleth them; if it hath not had true Pastors, then hath it not enjoyed the true Administration of the word and Sacraments: if it hath not enjoyed the true Administration of the word and Sacraments, then hath it lost its Essence, and is thereby become a Nullity (as D. Willet, and other Protestants in express words above cited, do aver) but if the Protestant Church hath by this means wanted its own Essence, and became a Nullity; then even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and demonstratively it followeth, that Protestancy (which is the supposed faith, prea-by the Protestant Church, & believed by her children) hath in it self no Essence or being, but is a mere Nullity, or Non Ens.   

The Nonentity of Protestancy, proved from that, which it worketh in the Wills of its Professors. CHAP. XIV.  
Above we have discovered, that Protestancy is deprived of all reality of being: both in regard that its whole Systema or frame consisteth of mere Negations, (which are nothing else, but an overthrow of Positive Articles of faith) as also (besides from several other heads) in that diverse particular Negative Tenets of their profession, are, if they be truly unfolded, found to be only vaporous imaginations without all subsistence or being. Now, we will demonstrate the like Irreality of Protestancy, by taking into our consideration, what that Religion produceth in the believers thereof, in regard of the Will, & of Morality in conversation & manners. Where first we are to note, that Sin (I mean the deformity, which is in every sinful act) is in its own nature, Non ens, and therefore cannot proceed from God, Who 
(a) Gen. 1 john 1.  made only things, and all things. The reason hereof is, in that Sin being a deviation, & erring from the rule of reason, and a privation of goodness, hath (as 
(b) De civet Dei l. 12. c. 7.  S. Austin & all learned men teach) no efficient, but a deficient cause, & consequently, is Non-ens. And therefore Peter Martyr, as above is said (for authorities pertinent, may well be iterated) very fully discourseth of the nature of Sin in these words: An 
(c) In Common places in English. part. 1. cap. 17.  evil thing (& such is Sin) hath no efficient, but a deficient cause. If any will search out this efficient cause, it is even like, as he would see the Darkness with his eyes, or comprehend Silence with his ears, which being privations, it is no need, that they should have efficient causes. Now, to apply this to our matter in hand. Hear I avouch, that diverse Negative Articles of protestancy do of their own nature incline man's Will to sin, and all turpitude in manners: and therefore as those protestantical Theses or Tenets in the understanding (being but Negations, or Privations of the contrary positive Articles of the Catholics) are deprived of all Entity of Being; so also is that, which they produce and beget in the Will (I mean Sin & wickedness in the believers of them) deprived of all Entity or Being, though otherwise most displeasing & hateful in the sight of God. And so that Axiom of Philosophy may here by allusion take place, Ex nihilo, nihil fit. That Sin is the fruit and effect of Protestancy, I will exemplify it in those few Articles ensuing, maintained by the Protestants. And first; the Protestants Denial of  (we Catholics holding the Affirmative hereto) impelleth man most forcibly to the satisfying of his unlawful and voluptuous desires in all kinds of Sinne. For who is persuaded truly, that he hath not  in his actions, but that he is forced to do that he doth, why should he labour to scale the craggy tower of virtue, or avoid the pleasing bait of Sin, seeing it is not in his power, through want of , to perform either? And upon this ground it is, that the Protestants teach, that 
(d) Luther serm. de Moyse.  the ten Commandments appertain not unto Christians. 
(e) D. Willet Synops. Papism pag. 504.  And that, the law remaineth still impossible to be kept through the weakness of our flesh: neither doth God give us ability to keep it etc. Now doth not this doctrine open the passage to the breach of all the ten Commandments, and this without control or condemneth the party so offending, since it is not in his power to do otherwise?  
In like sort the Protestants doctrine of Reprobation (which is but the Negative to the Catholic doctrine of Universality of Grace) much discourageth men from virtue, and inviteth them to vice; since that man, who is a reprobate let him labour never so much to please God with walking in a most virtuous and painful life, yet by this doctrine, certain it is, that he shall be damned.  
Again, the Protestants denial of Purgatory, as it freeth a man from making any restitution or satisfaction for wrongs done to a third person; so it much emboldeneth him to sin, assuring himself by this doctrine, that notwithstanding any enormous sins whatsoever committed by him, he once dying ●n a true faith, there are no temporal punishments reserved for him after this life.  
I here but briefly touch, how ●he Protestant's by their defence of ●heir justifying faith, excluding works both from justification & merit, do speak and write most ●asely and unworthily of good works. For doth not 
(f) In praefat. ad Rom.  Illiricus ●hus traduce all good works? To hold that good works are, in respect but of presence, necessary to salvation (as some Protestants do hold) is a papistical error. Yea he further most impiously enlargeth himself, saying: 
(g) Vide Art. colloq. Aldeburg. pag. 120. sest. 11.  Good works are not only not necessary to salvation, but hurtful to it. And D. Whitakers speaking particularly of Virginity, doth thus disvalue it: 
(h) Contra Camp. rat. 8.  Virginity is not simply good, but after a certain manner. And of fasting D. Willet thus teacheth: 
(i) Synops. pag. 241.  Neither is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. Thus fare to show, that these former doctrines of the Protestants animate man's will most forcibly to all Sardanapalisme, and sensuality; and beget a certain incurious and negligent torpour & slowness in the soul either for practising virtue, or avoiding of sin. Fo● who observeth not, that the will i● faster or slower moved to good or evil, by how much it is peyzed more heavily or lightly with the pulleys or weights of the hope of a future good, or fear of a future evil?  
But to proceed further. As these former negative Theses of Protestants do incline the will to all turpitude in manners, & consequently work in the will, that, which in ●ts own Nature is nothing but merely negative; so upon just examination we shall find, that the first broachers and inventors of them were men of most flagitious and wicked conversation; so sucking their own venom out of ●heir own doctrine. For greater contracting of which point, I will insist in the four Cardinal (as I may term them) and prime Protestants of this age; by whom we may well conjecture the like in other more obscure Protestant's; for we read, that If the eye be wicked, than all the body shallbe dark. 
Matth. 1.5.  Now in the displaying hereof I will forbear all testimonies of Catholics against them (since they would be presumed as over partial in their Censures) but will rest either in their own writings or confessions of their learned Protestant's their acknowledged brethren of the Gospel. These four chief Protestants shall be: Luther, Zwinglius, Caluin, & Beza, men, who (above all others) have much spread and dilated this negative faith of Protestancy; & in whom (concerning morality) you shall find little of the Gospel, though they vaunted much of their professing the Gospel.  
And first to begin with Luther. Touching faith, Luther thus teacheth. 
(k) Luth. tom. 1. propè finem  Faith unless it be without the least good works, doth not justify, it is not faith. Which very saying D. Covel acknowledgeth as spoken by Luther, & termeth it, Harsh, & 
(l) D. Covel in his defence of Hooker printed 1603. pag. 41.  justly called in question by the Church of Rome. Concerning marriage or divorce, Luth●r thus writeth: Si 
(m) Luth. serm. de Matrins. This sentence as spoken by Luther is acknoledged by D. Whit. cont. Camp. rat. 8.  nolit uxor, aut non possit, veniat ancilla. If the wife will not, or cannot (perform the act of marriage) let the maid come. And as touching Luther's own licentious and goatish conversation in manners, & want of chastity, hear his own words delivered of himself: Nothing 
(n) Luth. in proverb. 31. Addeth this amorous rhyme in Dutch, signifying as it is he●r set down in the text.  is more sweet, or loving upon earth, then is the love of a woman if a man can obtain it. And again: As 
(o) Luth. tom 5. Wittenb. serm de Matrim. fol. 119.  it is not in my power, that I should be no man; so it is not in my power, I should be without a woman. And yet more: I 
(p) Luther tom. episto. latinar. fol. 334. ad Philippum.  am burned with the great flame of my untamed flesh etc. Eight days are now past, wherein I neither did write, pray, nor study; being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh, partly with other trouble. And finally: 
(q) Luther in Colloq. Mensal. fol. 526. & vide fol. 400.  I am almost mad through the rage of lust, and desire of women. But I will cease to stir further in this filthy puddle of Luther's sensuality & lust and will end with him in setting down the saying of Benedictus Morgensternensis (a Protestant Writer) who reports of the Caluinists, that when they at any time would give assent to provocation of Nature & satisfy their lust; they were not ashamed to say among themselves: Hodie 
(r) In tract. de Eccles p. 221.  Lutheranice vivemus: To day we will live Lutheran-like. Thus they using the name of Luther (as a Motto) the more fully to express the sensual deportment of Luther.  
To come in this next place to Swinglius the second Arch of the Protestant Church, in her first erecting in the days of Luther. First touching his doctrine concerning good works & a virtuous life; for the more depressing and underualewing thereof, Swinglius teacheth, that the promises of eternal life made to them in Scripture, are only 
(s) Swingl. tom. 1. printed 1581. de provident. Dei f. 137.  Hyperbolical, or transcending the truth. Touching God being the Author of sin, Swinglius thus writeth 
(t) Swingl. tom. 1. de de provide. fol. 3●6.  That, the thief is enforced to sin: That 
(u) Swing. ubi supra.  God moveth the Thief to kill: 
(x) Swingl. ubi supra.  That, the Thief killeth, God procuring him: That, 
(y) Vbi supra fol. 366  David's adultery pertained to God, as Author. 
(x) Swingl. ubi supra. fol. 365.  Finally, that (z) sinning against the law, we are not Authors, but God's Instruments. A point so evident, & confessed, that 
(a) In his Absurda absurdorum etc. printed 1606 cap. 5. de praedest. foe▪ 3. 4.  Grawerus (Rector of the Protestant University of Islebium) condemneth Swinglius of this most blasphemous doctrine, of God being the Author of sin.  
Now to come to Swinglius his deportment and carriage in manners. 
(b) The title of Swinglius & other eight Ministers supplication for wives is this: Pietate & prudentia insigni Heluetiorum Reipublicae Huldericus Swinglius alijque Euangelica doctrinae Ministri gratiam & pa●em à Deo. Extat in tom. 1. fol. 110  Swinglius with some other Ministers in Switzerland (wherein they then lived) maketh supplication to that State, that they may be suffered to marry, & take wives, in these words following: 
(c) Vbi supra fo. 115  We earnestly request, that the use of Marriage be not denied us, who feeling the infirmity of the flesh, perceive, that the gift of Chastity is not given us by God etc. libidinis aestum in nobis feruere negare non possumus, cum huius ipsius opera nos coram Ecclesijs infames reddiderunt, we cannot deny, but the heat of lust boileth in us, in so much that our actios in that kind have made us infamous among the Professors of our own Churches. And further: 
(d) Vbi upra.  We desire to marry, lest the Souls committed to our charge (diutius offendantur) should be any longer offended. And yet more 
(e) Vbi supra fol. 119  We have proved, that the weakness of our flesh hath been the cause (proh dolour!) O for grief! of our often falling. And finally. 
(f) Vbi supra fol. 12●  we have burned (pro pudor!) O for shame! that we have committed many things unseemly. By this here set down, the Reader may take a scantling of Swinglius (who was the chief of these supplicating Ministers for wives) and how he was wholly devoted to lust & sensuality.  
In this next place occurreth Caluin (from whose pen Protestancy received a more pure sublimation.) Touching Caluins life: that he was truly accused and punished for Sodomy, & his shoulder seared with a burning iron for that sin, is witnessed by the public records of Noyon in France extant to this day, where he was punished; and also by 
(g) In Theolog. Caluinist. printed 1594. lib. 2. fol. 72.  Conradus Slusselburg (the Protestant) which said Protestant relateth the manner of Caluins' death in these words: 
(h) Slujselburg. ubi supra.  Deus manu sua potenti etc. God so struck Caluin with his mighty hand, that being in despair, and calling upon the Devil, he gave up his wicked soul, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming: he died of the disease of louse & worms, increasing in a most loathsome ulcer, about his privy parts, so as none could endure the stench.  
Thus this foresaid Protestant writeth. This manner of Caluins' death is further witnessed by 
(i) Herennius in his lib. de vita Calu.  joannes Herennius (a Caluinist Minister) who was present at Caluins' death.  
Now in this last place to descend to Beza; who in teaching God to be the Author of Sin, wholly comparted with Swinglius; for thus he writeth: 
(k) Beza in his display of popish practices poenglished and prin-1578. pa. 202.  God exci●th the wicked will of one Thief to ill another; guideth his hand and weapon, justly enforcing the will of the Thief. But to leave many of his o●her confessed erroneous doctrines, and to rip a little into his course of life; I will only rest upon one point (and here I may say with the Poet, ex uno discite omnes) to wit, his Sodomitical sin with a young boy called Andebertus, and his fornication with his woman Candida, whom he kept diverse years as 
* so saith Conradus Slusselb. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 1. fol. 92.  Concubine, before he married her: who comparing the one Sin with the other in certain verses, at last preferred the sin with his Ganymede the boy, before his sin with Candida. His verses I will here set down in latin, though for very shame▪ I forbear to English them. These than they are.  
Abest Candida Beza quid moraris?  
Andebertus abest, quid hic moraris?  
Tenent Parisij tuos amores,  
Habent Aurelij tuos lepores.  
Et tu Veselijs manner pergis?  
Procul Candidula, amoribusque:  
Immo Veselij procul valete,  
Et vale Pater, & valete fratres;  
Nam Veselijs carere possum,  
Et career parent, & his & illis;  
At non Candidula, Andebertoque etc.  
Then followeth.  
Sed utrum, rogo, praeferam duorum?  
Vtrum invisere me decet priorem?  
An quenquam tibi Candida anteponan?  
An quenquam tibi praeferan Andeberte?  
Quid si me in geminas secem ipse parts,  
Harum ut altera Candidam revisat,  
Currat altera versus Andebertum?  
At est Candida sic avara, novi,  
 totum cupiat tenere Bezam;  
Sic Bezae est cupidus sui Andebertus,  
Beza ut gestiat integro potiri,  
Amplector quoque sic hunc, & illam,  
●t totus cupiam videre utrumque,  
●ntegris frui integer duobus.  
Then he thus concludeth.  
Prefer artamen alterum necesse est.  
O duram nimiùm necessitatem!  
Sed postquam tamen alterum necesse est,  
Priores tibi defero Andeberte;  
Quod si Candida forte conqueratur,  
Quid tum? basiolo tacebit uno.  
This Epigram is extant in Beza his Epigrams, and beareth this title; Theodorus Beza de sua in Candida & Andebertum benevolentia. That Beza did write this Epigram, is averred by the former Slusselburge, the famous Protestant; who thus writeth hereof 
(l) Sluss. in Theolog. Caluinist. lib. ● fol. 9●.  Constat & hoc, Bezam obscoenissimos versus scripsisse ad germanum Andebertum Aureliae electum, & eumdem tanquam Adonidem a Beza factum esse. As also by Heshusius (the Protestant) saying: 
(m) Tilmanus Heshusius in his book entitled Verae & sanae Confessionis.  Beza nefandos amores, illicitos concubitus, scort● iones, foeda adulteria sacrilego carmine decantavit orbi. As also by 
(n) D. Sparks in his answer to D. Albin printed 1591. pa. 400.  M. Sparkes, 
(o) D. Sutcl ff in Turca-papismo printed 1599 lib. 3. cap. 10. pag. 204.  D. Succliffe, and 
(p) D. Morton in his Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 21. pag. 355.  D. Morton; though but weakly excused by these three last.  
And thus fare of these four chief Pillars of Protestancy: of whom I acknowledge, that I have not set down the tenth part, of what is confessed (even by other Protestants) of their sensuality, and most wicked carriage. Notwithstanding what is here set down, I hope it is not impertinently alleged, considering how highly most Protestants of these days do prize (through a forestalled prejudice of judgement) the said four chief broachers of the Protestant Religion. And therefore though the judicious Reader may perhaps censure part of this Chapter, as ●n Apostrophe, or digression; yet he may withal well esteem it (the times wherein we live considered) as a conducing, & progressive digression.   

The Nonentity of Protestancy proved, from that our Adversaries cannot agree, what doctrines be Protestancy; & what Professors or sorts of men be members of the Protestant Church. CHAP. XV.  
ANother Medium which affordeth sufficient proof for the Irreality of Protestancy, may be taken from this ensuing consideration: to wit, in that the Protestants amongst themselves are not resolved, what doctrines necessarily concur to the making up of Protestancy, or of what several sorts of Believers the Protestant Church consisteth. Now if the Obiectum, circa quod, or Materia, circa quam (as the Logicians speak) of any science or knowledge, be not agreed upon before hand, what in particular it is: them doubtlessly it from thence riseth, that such a presumed Science or Knowledge is but an Imaginary knowledge, wholly deprived of all Reality and Entity. For not only Philosophy, but even the force of Natural reason teacheth us, that of all things, the subject, or matter in every Science or kind of knowledge, is first to be enquired after, and with a mutual consent on all sides to be acknowledged. The like we may confidently affirm of Protestancy, and the Protestant Church That our adversary's cannot be brought to any atonement, touching what is the subject of Protestancy, or who be the Members of the Protestant Church, is proved; in that several Protestants exclude such persons to be of the Protestant Church, (& consequently do exclude their faith from Protestancy) which themselves at other times (at least other Protestants) do embrace for good Protestants▪ and perfect members of their Church, and their faith & doctrine for perfect Protestaney. For such men, who are admitted, or excluded from the Church of the Protestants, are admitted or excluded only by reason of their faith and doctrine, being the same, or different from the Protestants faith and doctrine.  
Hear than I will first show, within what narrow limits our adversaries confine Protestancy, and the members of the Protestant Church; and then after I will set down (such is the fluctuating and wavering judgement of our adverries herein) how they are content at other times to extend and enlarge those bounds, by affording Protestancy, and the members thereof a greater space or compass, as I may say, to expatiate, and walk in.  
And to begin. We first find, that the poor Papist 
Papists rejected.  is wholly exterminated from this holy Society of Protestants: in proof whereof to be luxuriant in authorities, were but lost labour, it being a thing so well known and generally confessed: therefore the testimony only of D. Whitakers shall serve, who thus writeth: 
(a) D. Whitak. lib. contra Duraeum. ●. sect. 2.  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.  
To proceed. The Protestants ●xile the Anabaptists 
Anabaptists.  out of their Church, as being no members ●hereof; nor their doctrine, Protestancy. This is evident out of ●he Confession of Ausburg, thus ●eaching: 
(b) Cap. 9  We condemn the A●abaptists who disallow the baptiste of Infants, and think them to be ●aued without Baptism. To which Confession, the Confession of Switzerland in these like words ●ubscribeth: 
(c) Cap. 20  We condemn A●abaptists, who deny Infants to be baptised. In like manner they exclude from their faith and Religion, the doctrine of the Arians, 
Arians.  according to the Confession of Ausburg in this point, saying: 
(d) Act. 1.  We condemn all Heresies, rising against this Article (meaning the Article of the Trinity) as the Manichees, Arians, Eunonians &c.  
To come to Heretics 
Heretics.  in general; they also by reason of their particular heresies, holden severally by them, are exempted out of the members of the Protestants Church, and this even by the judgement of the Sacramentaries, and the Lutherans: And first touching the judgement of the Sacramentaries passed on this point.  
We find the Confession of Basill, thus to teach: 
(e) Art. 24  We drive away all, whosoever dissenting from the society of the Holy Church, do either bring in, or follow strange and wicked doctrines. And Caluin in like manner saith: 
(f) Instit. l. 2. cap. 15. num. 1.  Rightly Austin denyeth Heretics to have the same foundation with the godly, albeit they preach the name of Christ. D. Sucliffe: 
(g) In his first book of the Church. cap. 1.  Heretics are not of the Church. Finally D. White: 
(h) In his way to the Church pag. 10.  All Heretics teach the truth in somethings; yet we deny them to be of the Church of God.  
The same doctrine is fully maintained by the Lutherans. For thus teach the Centurists: 
(i) Cent. 6. in the preface.  Neither Heretics, nor devisers of fanatical opinions are of Christ; but they are of Antichrist, and of the Devil. etc.  
Which point is also fully taught by Luther himself, in these words: 
(k) Lurh. in his exexplication of the Creed.  Neither Gentille, jew, Heretyke, or any sinner is saved, unless he make atonement with the Church, and in all things think, do, and teach the same. But the Protestants rest not herewith, 
Schismatics.  but also do banish Schismatics from the Church. And to begin with the Lutherans, Melancthon his judgement herein is this: 
(l) In his book against Suenkfeld tom. 2. p. 301.  Neither is there more than one Church, the spouse of Christ; neither doth this compamy consist of diverse sects. Which doctrine he borrowed from Luther thus writing: 
(m) Luth. in his great Catechism. tom. 5. p. 628.  I believe, that there is on earth a little Congregation of Saintes, agreeing in all things, without sects, or Schisms.  
To come to the Sacramentaries herein. Caluins' words are these: 
(n) Caluin 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. D. Field: 
(o) Of the Church. 1. cap. 7.  The name of the Catholic Church (he meaning his own Protestant Church) is applied to distinguish men, holding the faith in unity, from Schismatics. D. Whitaker: 
(p) Controvers. 2. q. ●. cap. 9  It is false, that Heretical and Schismatical Churches are true Churches. Finally to omit infinite others for brevity, D. Fulk thus discourseth: 
(q) D. Fulke of the Succession of the Church.  What skilleth it, whether one (being drawn by Heresy or Schism from the body of Christ) be subject to eternal damnation?  
Thus fare to show how our Adversaries do coarct and straiten (and in some sense rightly) the true faith and Church of God; & consequently in their judgements, their own Protestant faith and Church; seeing they admit not in these former testimonies, any other faith and Church to be true, but only Protestancy, and their Protestant Church.  
Now, in this next place shall appear the wonderful Protean-like mutability of the Protestants (who are only constant in Inconstancy) in crossing their former judgements, by affording a fare greater Circumference to the Professors of Protestancy & to their Church, then in the former passage they have done; so true it is, that Innovatours are carried spiritu vertiginis, now affirming one thing, presently after (and all with one breath) recalling and contradicting the point afore affirmed or maintained.  
For now you shall find, that the Protestants most courteously grant, that almost all the former kinds of men (and some others more bad) are members of the Protestant Church, and consequently their doctrines true Protestancy; since a man is styled a member of a Church, in regard that his faith and doctrine is consonant and sorting to the faith & doctrine of the said Church, and not in any other respect.  
And to begin. The Protestants (out of their bounty) include the Papists, as members of their Church: 
Papists admitted  for thus doth Luther say: 
(r) Luther▪ in epist. cont. Anabaptist.  In the Popery there is true Christianity, yea the kernel of Christianity, and many pious, and great Saints. And the Confession of Ausburg, confess thus of themselves, & the Papists: 
(s) In praefat.  We are all Soldiers under one Christ.  
To descend to others confessing no less: His Majesty deceased thus speaketh of this point: 
(t) In his speech to the Parliament. An. 1605 Nouem. 9 being put forth in print.  We do justly confess, that Papists, especially our forefathers, laying their only trust upon Christ, and his merits, may be, and are sometimes saved. And M. Hooker thus acknowledgeth the Papists for his brethren: 
(u) Lib. Eccles. pol. 3. c. 128.  we gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of JESUS- Christ. M. Bunny: 
(x) In his Treatise of Pacific. sect. 18.  We are no several Church from them (meaning the Papists) nor they from us. And the foresaid M. Hooker particularly touching the faith of the Papists, thus further pronounceth: 
(y) Eccles. Pol. p. 128  Touching the main points of Christian faith, wherein they constantly persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of jesus-christ. D. Whitgift: 
(z) In his Answer to the Admonition p. 40  The Papists believe the same Articles of faith, which we do. For brevity D. White shall conclude this point, saying: 
(a) In defence of the way. cap. 38.  In the substantial Articles of faith we agree with the Papists. Now by these Testimonies and confessions we see (most differently from their former writings) that Papists are members of the true Church, and consequently (in our adversary's censure) of the Protestant Church: and that the articles of Papistry, are but the faith and doctrine of Protestancy.  
In the next place (according to the Method above) come in the Anabaptists, 
Anabaptists.  whom the Protestant's admit to be of their Church, and their doctrine no way prejudicial to their own doctrine of Protestancy. For first of this point Oecolampadius thus writeth: 
(b) Lib. 2. Epist. pag. 363.  Baptism is an external thing, which by the law of Charity may be dispensed withal. And 
(c) Controu. 4 9 cap. 2. p. 716.  Whitakers judgement is, that we may abstain from Baptism, so there be no contempt or scandal following.  
Finally, D. Morton thus brotherly acknowledgeth the Anabaptists: 
(d) In his Answer to the Protestant's Apology. lib. 4. ca 2. sect. 10  We Protestants judge the state of the Anabaptists, not to be utterly desperate. Touching the Arians, M. Hooker telleth us in these words: 
(e) Eccles. Pol. lib. 4. pag. 181.  The Arians in the reformed Churches of Poland etc. he hereby insinuating, that those Protestant Churches in Poland did acknowledge the Arians, 
Arians.  as members of their Church: though I fully presume, that M. Hooker himself was of a far different opinion. And M. Morton peremptorily maintaineth, that his Protestant Church is one, and the same with the Church of the Arians, and giveth his reason thereof in these words, 
(f) In his book of the Kingdom of Israel, & the Church. pag. 94.  Because the Arians hold the foundation of the Gospel.  
They further proceed, & incorporate within the Protestant Church even Idolaters. 
Idolaters  For M. Hooker thus affirmeth: 
(g) Eccles. Polic. l. 3. pag. 126.  Christians by external profession they are all, whose mark of recognizance hath in it those things, which we have mentioned; yea although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Heretics, persons excommunicable.  
And this point receiveth its further proof from the Protestant's comportement toward the Catholics. For we well know, that the Protestants at other times both by writing and in their Sermons, with most tragical Exclamations charge the Catholics with Idolatry committed in their adoring our Saviour Christ in the most blessed Eucharist, and in their worship exbited to Images and Relics. And yet above we see, the Protestants teach, that the Protestant and Catholic Church are but one, & the same Church. Now if the Papists be members of the Protestant Church, & that they be Idolaters, (as the Protestant's do dream) then are Idolaters members of the Protestant Church.  
But the Protestant doth not limit his Church with in these former Cancels or bounds; for he also comparteth and interleageth even with the Infidels, 
Infidels.  admitting them to be members of his own Church, & teaching that they be capable of salvation. For 
(h) Act. Mon. pag. 495.  M. Fox relateth of a Protestant Martyr (by him for learning and virtue much magnified) who thus taught A Turk, Saracene, or any Mahometan whatsoever may be saved, if he trust in one God, and keep his law. And 
(i) Bale Cent. 6. p. 404.  Bale warns us to be wary, that we condemn not rashly any Turk. But this point is further most amply taught by Swinglius and other Protestant divines, as above in the sixth chapter of this Treatise, is manifested; to which passage for greater expedition, I refer the studious Reader.  
But what? hath Protestancy yet received its due circumscription, as I may say, and confinement? No: for the Protestants charity is so great and immense, 
Antichrist  as that they are content to admit and indenize even him, whom they maintain (by their own writings) to be the true Antichrist, for a member of the Protestant Church. O most strange Church, consisting of such Heterogeneous members! That this is so, I thus prove: The Protestants (I mean the greatest part of them) confidently teach, that the Pope is the true Antichrist, deciphered in the holy Scripture. Now mark, what Protestants nevertheless confess in this point D. Whitakers thus writeth: 
(k) D. Whit. in his Answer to the first demonstration. of D. Sanders.  I will not say, that from the time, that Papistry began to be Antichristianity the Popes themselves have been all damned. And yet the said D. Whitakers elsewhere 
(l) D. Whit. in his answer to the last demonstration. of D. Sanders.  averreth most confidently, the Pope to be Antichrist▪ I will adjoin heerto the like charitable censure of M. powel: who taught the Pope to be Antichrist, and yet thus writeth: 
(m) M. Powel de Antichristo cap. 33. p. 338.  I will in no wise say, that all the Popes from the time wherein Papistry was first revealed to be Antichristianity, are damned. Thus far of what persons are truly acknowledged by the judgement of the Protestants for members of their own Church. But Musculus, the Protestant, is more lavish herein, and proceedeth yet one step further, by enlarging the Protestant Church; his words are these: 
(n) Musculus in loco come. de coena p. 552.  I embrace all for brethren in the Lord, howsoever they disagree from me, or amongst themselves; as long as they maintain not the Popish Impiety. O most Serpentine and devilish rancour and malice! Thus far of this Subject in general. But now to reflect upon the premises, and to draw from thence an unavoidable deduction.  
If so then on the one side, every Faith, Religion, and Church are to have known & explained (as their chief and first Theorem) what doctrines concur to the making up of the same faith and Religion, and what kind of men are the members of the said Church; and if this be not first known, that then it followeth, that such a faith or Church is but merely Intentional: and Irreall: And if on the other part, Protestancy, and the Protestant Church be so irresolute, divided and distracted in judgement (a necessary Attendant of Error and falsehood) that at one time, they will wholly exterminate from their faith and Church the Papists, the Anabaptists, the Arians, Heretics in general, and Schismatics; and at another time (or perhaps at the same time, & by the same Protestants) will incorporate and admit into the fellowship of their Religion and Church, not only the said Papists, Anabaptists, Arians, Heretics, & Schismatics, but also supposed Idolaters, Infidels, Antichrist, and every one, who in any sort impugn the Church of Rome; if all this I say be true (as is proved to be in this Chapter) what other inference can be made, but that Protestancy and the Protestant Church (for want of knowing and acknowledging what doctrines are Protestancy, and what sorts of men are Protestants) are in themselves but mere empty & aery conceits; and for want of all true and real subsistence, but a Nonentity.   

The Nonentity of Protestancy demonstrated, from that, every Protestant either in himself, or in his Predecessors, originally departed, and came out, from the Roman Catholic Church. CHAP. XVI.  
AN other Medium, to prove that Protestancy is a mere Irreality, or Nonentity, may be this. If it can be proved, that Protestancy is more late, & young than the Catholic Religion is; then followeth it, that Protestancy cannot have any true and real Subsistence. Fot if our Catholic & Roman Religion had a being before Protestancy; and that Protestancy did appear long after, and consisteth only in the denial of most of the Articles of the Catholic Religion; then followeth it avoidable, that Protestancy is but an imaginary Conceit, or Fabric of the imagination without any foundation of Being: for seeing the Catholic Faith, & the Protestant Faith are directly contradictory & oppositly repugnant, both of them cannot enjoy a real Being: for if they could, them mere Contradictories (& this is denied, that it can be performed even by God's Power) should enjoy a true and Real Being together.  
Now that Protestancy is more late, or of a newer date, than the Roman Religion, I thus prove? There cannot any one Protestant be alleged (speaking of such Protestants, as are out of Controversy, and acknowledged for such both by Protestant and Catholic) who was not either in himself; or in his Forefathers, first a Catholic; & who by dogmatizing some Protestant Opinions afore never generally taught, did separate himself & departed from the Cath. Church then afore in Being. Of which sort of men these words in S. john are understood, Exierunt ex nobis. 1. joan. 2. The very stamp or signature of Innovatours in doctrine.  
Let us exemplify this in the first and chiefest Protestants. I will begin with Ochinus & so ascend higher. This Ochinus (who was a chief man in disseminating of Protestancy in England in King Edward's days) was first a 
(a) So saith Sleidan l. 9 at anno 1547. fol. 297.  Monk, and forsaking his Monastical life, began to preach Protestancy. 
(b) Osiander Cent. 16. l. 1. c. 33.  Bucer was at the first also a Moke, & upon his reading of Luther's book of Vows, forsook his Monastery & married a woman. Swinglius 
* So saith Hospinian in hystor. Sacram. fol. 22.  was first a Catholic Priest, & public Preacher at Tigure in Switzerland. Luther was a Priest, & an 
(c) In his Epist. to his Father extat tom. 2. Wittenberg. printed 1568. fol. 269.  Austin Friar; & upon his first revolt from the Papacy, took to wife Caterine Bore, as the whole world knoweth.  
Now that there was no other Church in Being before Luther's Apostasy, than the Roman Catholic Church, appeareth from the liberal acknowledgement of the learned Protestant's. For M. Perkins thus writes: 
(d) In his Exposition upon the Creed. p. 400.  We say, that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an Universal Apostasy so overspread the face, of the Church, that is was not then visible to the world. And Doctor jewel, confesseth no less, saying: 
(e) In his Apolog. of the Church. pant. 4. c. 34.  The truth was unknown at that time, & unheard of, when Martin Luther & Hulderick Swinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. Yea Luther himself even Thrasonically contesteth this point in these his words: 
(f) Luther in epist. ad Argentinens. anno 1525.  Christum à nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari: so clear it is, that Luther was originally a Catholic, and that at his first rising there was no Protestant Church in the world. But to proceed further. Husse was a Catholic Priest before his revolt, and wholly till that time embraced the Catholic Faith, as 
(g) In Colloq. de Antichristo.  Luther and 
(h) In Apocalip. c. 11. p. 290.  M. Fox do testify. Jerome of Prague was first a Catholic, and after became an Heretic; who being at the Council of Constance, renounced openly his heresies; but after apostating the second time, he lost his life. Wicleff was first a Catholic Priest, and Parson of Lutterworth in Licestershyre, and first abandoned his Religion, because he was deprived of a Benefice by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as 
(i) In his Annals of England. printed 1591. pa. 425.  Stow recordeth.  
Waldo was a rich man of Lions in France, and originally a Catholic, of whom D. Humphrey thus writeth: 
(k) In jesuitism. part 2. rat. 3. pag. 270  he did forsake all things, that being poor, he might better follow Christ, and the Evangelicall perfections. The Waldensis (who were derived of Waldo, and thereupon so called) were an Order of begging Friars, and did profess (as the said D. Hunfrey writeth) 
(l) ubi supra.  a kind of Monastical life. And of the Waldenses doctrine in particular Caluin thus writeth: 
(m) Epist. 244.  The form of the Confession of the Waldenses doth involve all those in eternal damnation, who do not confess, that the bread is truly become the body of Christ. They also ever taught seven Sacraments, Vows, single life, and Purgatory, 
(n) In tractat. de Eccles pag. 124.  as (u) Morgensternensis (a Lutheran) writeth.  
The Albigenses were the same men with the Waldenses, and therefore were originally Catholics; for thus D. Abbots writeth thereof: 
(o) In his second part of the defence. printed 1607. pog. 55.  Thus Lyonists, or poor men of Lions, and Waldenses, or Albigenses were the same men; but diversely, and upon diverse occasions termed by the Romish Synagogue.  
Berengarius was Archdeacon of Angiers in France, and therefore it followeth, that he was Catholic till his denial of the doctrine of Transubstantiation: and yet after he abandoning his Heresy, died 
(p) As witnesseth Fox in Act. Mon. pag. 13.  catholic.  
Now to rise to higher times The like may be said of the ancient Novelists, broaching some points of Protestancy: As Aerius, denying prayer for the dead; Manicheus freewill; jovinian, teaching Virginity to be no better than marriage; Donatus, denying the Visibility of the Church, and all others of those times without exception. From which men are descended the Aerians, Manicheans, jovinians &c. taking their denomination from the former men, according to that, 
Chrpsost. Homil. 3. in act. Apolog.  Prout Haeresiarchae Nomen, ita Secta vocatur. All which men were originally Catholics, and most of them Priests, and upon their broaching of these their particular opinions of Protestancy, did departed from their known common Mother, then in Being.  
That these men, and all such others of those times, were originally Catholykes, and departed from a more ancient Church, by forging these their Innovations, thus appears: First, because every one of them taught but one, or two points (for the most part) of Protestancy, believing all other points of faith with the than Roman Catholic Church: for if they had maintained any other Positions of Protestancy, than those with which they are charged at this day; then would S. Austin, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other orthodoxal Fathers of those times (all which Fathers, 
(q) Luth. lib. de seruo arbitrio printed anno 1551 pag. 454.  Luther, and other 
(r) The Archbishop of Canterbury in his defence of the Answer to the admonition pag. 472. 473. D. Hunfrey invita Iew●lli printed at London, pag. 212. D. Whitakers contra Duraum lib. 6. p. 413.  most eminent Protestants hold for absolute and gross Papists, as they term them) have as well registered their other supposed Articles of Protestancy for Heresies, as well as they have recorded these few, of which, all sides confess they stand rightly charged. But no such Relation of any other points of Protestancy in them do we find in the Father's writings, or otherwise recorded in any Ecclesiastical History of those times. Secondly the same is evident, even from the confessed Inuisibility of the Protestant Church in those days: and sortably heerto it is, that Sebastianus Francus (an eminent Protestant) thus writeth: 
(s) In Ep. de abrogandis in universum omnibus statutis Ecclesiast.  For certain, through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the faith and sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure; and that for these fourteen hundred years, the Church hath not been external, and visible. To whose judgement agreeth D. Fulke, saying: 
(t) In his answer to a countefaite Catholik pag. 35.  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles days. Within which circuit of time of the Protestant Church's Inuisibility, Aerius, Manicheus, jovinian, and the rest did live Thus we see, that not any one Protestant before the revolt of Luther can be instanced; but that it may be showed, that the same man was primatively a Catholic either in himself, or in his Predecessors. But the case is fare otherwise with the Catholic Church: for it is confessed by our learned Protestants, that our Catholic Church never departed, or came out of any other more ancient Church afore in Being: A truth so undeniable, that D. Sutcliffe confesseth so much (though slighting the force thereof) in these words: 
(u) In his answer to the supplication fol. 2  It is not material, that the Romanists never went out of any known Christian Society. But M. Bunny dealeth more ingenuously and plainly herein, who thus writeth, touching the departing of the Protestant Church from out the Catholic: 
(x) In his pacification pag. 119. & p. 26.  It was evil done of them, who first urged such a separation; for that it is great probability for them (meaning the Catholics) that so we make our sel● answerable to find out a distinct & several Church from them, which hat● continued from the Apostles age t● this present; or else must acknowledge 〈◊〉 that our Church hath sprung up o● late, or since theirs: so fully this Protestant granteth, that the Roman Church did never departed, or go out from a more ancient Church  
But now to wind up the contents of this Chapter in few words thus I infer. If on the one side it be proved, that every Protestan● did originally come out, and departed (by his venting of Protestanticall Positions) from our Catholic Church, afore enjoying a Priority of Being: and that on the other side it be confessed, that our Roman Church never departed from out any more ancient Church afore in Being (both which points are in this Chapter above proved) what other Inference than can be made, but that Protestancy (as being later in time, and merely contradictory to our Catholic faith) wanteth all true Entity and Subsistence? for seeing the Catholic faith (for many hundred of years confessedly) had its being afore; and seeing the Protestant Faith is but a mere Contradiction of the Catholic faith: the Protestant faith therefore hath no Reality of Being, since Contradictories cannot subsist together, or enjoy several Being's. Thus fare of this point: where (besides, that the Nonentity of Protestancy is from hence necessarily evicted) the Contents of this Chapter minister a must choking demonstration, for the proof of the Catholic Religion in general; seeing God is more ancient than the Devil, and Truth than falsehood.   

That the Protestant denies the Authorities of all those Affirmative, and Positive Heads, from whence the Catholics draw their proofs. CHAP. XVII.  
THough this Chapter doth not immediately conduce to the proving, that Protestancy is a Nonentity: yet I hold it not altogether to be Parergon, or impertinent; since in it, it is laid open, how the Protestant still continewes the Protestant, that is, how he is wholly devoted, and (as it were) become thrall to Negations. ●n diverse of the former passages it is showed, that the Protestant in reference to his faith, resteth only upon Negations; Now here it shall appear, that whereas the Catholic draws out his proofs in defence of his Religion (as so many great pieces of Artillery, to batter down the walls of Novelisme) from certain Affirmative real, & Positive heads; the Protestant in lieu of withstanding these forces by dispute, is constrained to retire himself to his accustomed sanctuary of Negations: so fugitive and fleeting he is in answers; thus betrampling (with a bare denying) the weight & strength of all those Affirmative Classes, or kinds of proofs.  
1. For example; if the Catholic insist in the Authority of Miracles (and so to descend by degrees to other Proofs) for defence of his Religion; in the patration whereof God for his approbation of the said Religion, even disjointeth the settled frame of Nature: The Protestants in answer heerto, deny the force of miracles, terming them, but 
(a) So the Centurists call them. Cent 4. col. 1445. & Cent. 5. Col. 1486. And Osiander. Cent. 10. 11. 12. etc.  Antichristian wonders, & lying signs: and further saying, that they deny 
(b) So saith D. Morton in his Apolog Cathol part. 1 l. 2 c. 25. and D. Succliffe in his Examinat. of the Survey of D. Kellison.  that any miracles were wrought, since the Apostles days.  
2. If the Catholic allege diverse passages of Scripture, as out of Toby, the book of wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, etc. The Protestant's with full voice & cry, deny these books to be 
(c) This appeareth in that in the English Translations of their Bibles, they usually in the beginning of a leaf, containing the names of the books of Scripture, do call these books, and some other, Apocrypha.  Canonical Scripture, & style them only Apocryphal.  
3. If healledge such parts of Scripture, which are acknowledged for Scripture, on all sides; the Protestant denies the Translation of the said Scripture to be true and sincere; averring, that it is adulterated & corrupted by false versions of it. This appeareth from that, which is above delivered, touching the Protestants reprehension both of the translations of Scripture made by foreign Protestants, as also of our English Translations. But if the Protestants do reject their own brethren's Translations, them much less will they stand unappealably to our Catholic Translations of the Scripture.  
4. If the Catholic proceed further in insisting in the Originals of both the Testaments. The Protestants deny, that the originals of them are the same in all passages, as they were first penned by the Prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles. Thus for example in the new Testament, where in 
(d) Matth c. 10.  S. Matthew, it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Peter; 
(e) Beza in his Annotat. upon the new Testament, set forth anno 1556  Beza denyeth the Original herein; iustifiing (though it be thus read in all Greek copies extant at this day) that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus, was added by some one, inclining to the defence of the Pope's Primacy. In like sort 
(f) Beza ubi supra.  Beza denyeth, that the Greek Original in Luke 22. is at this present, the same as it was first penned by the Evangelist; maintaining that it is corrupted in favour of the Real presence.  
5. If he insist in such passages of Scripture, whose Originals and Translations therein are on all parts accepted for true; and tell his Adversary, that the whole Church of God in her Primitive, and purer times ever interpreted the said passages of Scripture in that sense, in which they are at this present by the Catholics alleged; The Protestant absolutely 
(g) So doth D. Whitakers l de Eceles. contra Bellarm. controvers. 2. q. 4. p. 223. Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed. p. 400. jewel in his Apology of the Church of England. part. 4. cap. 4. and most other Protestants.  denies that infallible authority of the Church of God, in interpreting the holy Scripture but disclaiming from it appeals to his own Private spirit interpreting the same.  
6. If forbearing the written word of God, he allege in warranting of his faith, the unwritten word of God, I mean Apostolical Traditions; the Protestant denies peremptorily the Authority of all such Traditions. Thus for example, where S. chrysostom saith: 
(h) Chrysost in 2. Thessaly. hom. 4.  The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, and these be as worthy of credit; as the other. D. Whitakers rejects this authority touching Traditions, in these words: 
(i) D. Whitak. de sacra scriptura pag. 678.  I answer, That this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. And Cartwright in depressing the weight of Traditions maintained by S. Augustine, thus writeth: 
(k) See Cartwright in whitgifts defence, p. 103.  To allow S. Augustine's saying, is to bring in Popery again  
7. If leaving the word of God, he descend to humane authorities, (yet so humane, as that they have the peculiar promise of 
(l) Matt. 18.  Christ's assistance therein,) I mean to the grave authority of General Counsels: the Protestants deny all authority of them. For D. Whitakers openly professeth, that General Counsels 
(m) L. de Concil. contra Bellar. q. 6.  may and have erred. But Peter Martyr more fully dismasketh himself, in denying the authority of General Counsels, for he thus plainly writeth: 
(n) Pet. Martyr. lib. de votis. pag. 476.  As long as we insist in General Counsels, so long we shall continue in the Popish Errors.  
8. If he produce the Testimonies of particular Fathers of the Primitive Church: Mark with what contempt and indignity the Protestant denies them: for Luther thus depresseth them: 
(o) Luth. de seruo arbitrio, printed 1551. pag. 434.  The Fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures; they have erred all their life time, & unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints, nor pertaining to the Church. And another (though no Lutherane, yet of Luther's descent) in this his scurrilous Pasquil thus traduceth the Fathers: 
(p) D. W●itak. con●r contra Duraeum. l. 6. pag. 413.  Ex Patrum erroribus ille Pontificiae Religionis cento consecutus est. The Popish Religion is a patched cloth of the Father's Errors sowed together: see how impudent and petulant Novelisme in faith is, in expecting precedency, and taking the wall of Reverend, & hoary Antiquity.  
9 If in such points, which concern matter of fact, as touching the supposed change of faith in the visibility of the Church, the vocation and mission of Pastors, & the uninterrupted Administration of the word and Sacraments, all which are to receive their proof (or else not to be proved at all) from the Authority of ancient & most authentical Histories; If (I say) the Catholic do in proof hereof produce the ancient Histories of those Primitive times, D. Whitakers thus by denial aleniateth and lesseneth the Authority of all Histories; 
(q) D. D. Whitak. contra Duraeum. l. 7. pag. 478  Sufficit nobis etc. To us it is sufficient by comparing the Popish opinions with the Scripture, to discover the disparity of faith between them and us: And as for Historiographers, we give them liberty to write what they will. And accordingly, touching the Imaginary change of Rome in her faith, he thus concludeth: 
(r) Whitak. ubi supra. pag. 277.  It is not needful to us, to search out in Histories the beginning of this change.  
10. To conclude, if in the last place for most demonstrative and Affirmative Notes & marks of the true Church, the Catholic do rest (as in nube Testium, to use the Apostles phrase) in universality, Visibility, uninterrupted continuance, unity, Succession of Pastors, Holiness of doctrine, Conversion of Kings and Nations, of the Gentiles etc. The Protestants (besides, that they will not admit any Histories in proof of them) deny and discard the testimonies of all these Positive Heads of proofs, by erecting the Preaching of the word, and Administration of the Sacraments, for notes; & by this means, they reduce to their own judgements, which is the true Church; seeing they will not acknowledge the word to be purely preached, or the Sacrament● to be rightly administered, but when and where their Private spirit out of its Pythagorean and controlling Chair vouchsafes so to pronounce.  
By all this now we may see, how wholly Negative, the Protestant is (& indeed so Negative in all points, as that it may be feared, he in the end will deny his own being:) for as here above we have showed, that his Religion consisteth in pure denial of our Positive and Affirmative Articles; so in this Chapter, we have laid down how he labours to othrow (by his like denials) the authority of all such Affirmative and Positive Heads & principles, from whence the Catholics for the fortifiing of their own faith and Religion, do draw their proofs. In which kind of proceeding, the Protestant deals no otherwise with the Catholic; then if a man, not being content, to seek to deprive another of his state and living; should no less labour with all sedulity and care, to preclude and forstaule the true owner, of all means for his regaining, and recovering his said state.   

That Sundry of the most learned Protestants (as not holding a Negative faith, to be any real faith at all) agree with the Catholics, in believing the Affirmative Articles of the Catholic faith. CHAP. XVIII.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(1) Id est Secundae cogitationes, prudentiores.  saith the greek sentence; to which may well seem to allude in sense, (though not in words) that other saying: 
(2) Praestat retrosum currere, quam male currere.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The meaning of which two sentences diverse of our learned Adversaries have thought good to incorporate in their own writings. Who upon their later & more retired thoughts; and holding it a greater honour, rather to return well back in their judgements, then to proceed badly forward, have wholly disclaimed from this their Negative faith: For many of them there are, who well weighing the emptiness of their own Religion, as consisting only of Positions, which is (as is above made clear) but an annihilation of all Positive and true Faith, & counting it altogether unworthy, that such a nakedness of Religion should for ever have a working influence over their judgements, have therefore at the length (upon their la●er, & more mature deliberation) ●n diverse weighty points wholly re●ected this Negative Religion, and ●n place thereof have fully imbra●ed and entertained the contrary Affirmative Articles of faith, ever mantained by the Church of Rome. ● will insist in twenty principal Articles of our Catholic Religion, (and consequently almost in the whole body of the Catholic faith) ●o which the more grave, impar●iall, and dispassionate Protestants do give their full assent, believing them be most true and com●onant to God's sacred word. To ●et down the Protestants own words in proof hereof, it would be needless, and over-laboursome in regard both of the multiplicity of the Protestant Authors affirming so much; as also of the great variety of the Affirmative Catholik● Articles maintained by them. Therefore to take a shorter cut, I will se● down (only by way of Reference) the places in the Protestants books, in which the said Catholic doctrines are by them fully taught, and defended.  
1. And to begin. The doctrine of the Real presence, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to the bodily mouth, is affirmed not only by Luther, but by all the Lutherans without exception; they taking their name of Lutherans from him, in regard of such their defence, and belief of the said doctrine; therefore it is bootless either to set down the particular names of them, or to make reference to such places of their writings, wherein they teach and justify the said doctrine; they chief differing from the Catholic in the manner of the Presence.  
2. The Real Presence, not only of the efficacy & virtue of Christ's body, but also of the body itself, after a wonderful and incomprehensible manner to the mouth of faith, is justified by 
(a) In●tit. lib. 4 d 18. sect. 7. & 32.  Caluin, by 
(b) In his Eccesiast. policy l. 5. sect. 67 pag. 174. & 177.  M. Hooker, by 
(c) Contra Duraeum pag. 169.  D. Whitakers, by 
(d) In Script. Anglican. pag. 548. & 549.  Bucer, by 
(e) In his friedly caveat in the third leaf.  M. Ryder, and finally by the 
(f) In the English Harmony pag. 431.  Confession of Belgia: but contradicted for Popish doctrine by Swinglius, and almost all other Sacramentaries, and particularly by Ludovicus Alemannus, who thus writeth: Neque etiam per fidem, seu incomprehensibili modo, ut vocant, quia hoc totum imaginarium, & repugnat apertissimè Dei verbo.  
3. That Sacraments do not only signify, but confer Grace, where a true disposition is in the Receivers, is maintained by 
(g) In epitome. Colloq Montis-Beigar. p. 5●. & pag. 42.  jacobus Andreas, 
(h) Contaa Duraeum l. 8. p. 662.  D. Whitakers, 
(i) In his true difference, part 4. p. 539.  D. Bilson, by 
(k) In Enchirid. Controvers. quas Aug. Confes●hu●e● cum Caluinianis. p. 272.  Osiander, 
(l) In his Ecclesiast. policy l. 5 sect. 57 p. 127. & 128.  M. Hooker, and finally by 
(m) In ca 4. epist ad Romanos.  Melancthon, who thus writeth of this point. Repudiandaest Swinglij opinio, qui tantùm civili modo iudicat de signis: scilicet Sacramenta tantùm notas esse professionis etc.  
4. That Christ after his passion descended in soul into Hell, is affirmed by 
(n) In his special Treatise of that title printed 1592.  D. Hill, by 
(o) Alleged by D. Hill ubi supra.  Aretius, Melancthon, and M. Nowell; they being alleged by D. Hill to the same purpose. Add heerto that Lymbus Patrum (whereunto we Catholics believe, that Christ did descend in soul after his death) is affirmed by 
(p) In Lib. Epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. l. 1. p. 19  Oecolampadius, 
(q) In lib. ep. Swingl & Oecolamp. l. 3. p. 590. & 561.  Swinglius, 
(r) In his come. places in Engl. part▪ 2. cap. 18. pag. 221.  Peter Martyr, and 
(s) In his Decades fol.  Bullinger.  
5. Purgatory is taught by 
(t) Tom. 1. Wittenb. in resolute. de Indulg. Conclus. 15. fol. 112.  Luther, in disputat. Lypsicacum Eckio, and by 
(u) M. Fox. Acts Mon. p. 1313.  Latimer. That temporal punishment is reserved by God, to satisfy his justice for sin already committed (which is the ground of Purgatory) is taught by diverse Protestants; to wit, by the Public 
(x) pag. 229.  Confessios' in the Harmony, by 
(y) In Symbolum p 8.  jaspar Olevianus, & by 
(z) In his Answer against the Adversaries of God's praedestination. pa. 215. 216. 217.  john Knox.  
6. The visibility of the Church at all times, is affirmed by 
(a) In l●c. ●●m. ●dit. 1561 C. ●el ●e●●s  Melancthon, by 
(b) In jesuit. sin. part. 2. ●a. 3 p. 240.  D. Humphrey, 
(c) 〈◊〉. of the Church c. 10 pag. 5.  D. Field 
(d) 〈◊〉 his ep annexed to his Comm. places in Eagle p 15●  Peter Martyr, & 
(e) In his so●eraigne Remedy against Schism. p. ●●.  Enoch Clapham, and diverse other learned Protestants for brevity here omitted; though contradicted for Popish by 
(f) In the tower d●●putat. with Edmund Campian, the second day's Conscience.  D. Fulke, 
(g) In his Synops. p. 4●.  D. Willet, and many others.  
7. Invocation of Saints, maintained by 
(h) Luth. n purgat. quorundam Art.  Luther, who thus writeth hereof: De intercessione Sanctorum, cum tota Ecclesia sentio; & iudico Sanctos à nobis honorandos esse atque invocandos: vy certain Protestants 
(i) Of this see Hafferenferus, in locis Theolog. l. 3. stat. 4. loc. 5. p 463.  in Polonia, by 
(k) Vide Fox Act. Mon. 462.  Thomas Bilney, by 
(l) Act. Mon. pa. 1312. & 1315.  Latimer, and by 
(m) Orat. in Chryso. de Iwentio & Maximo.  Oecolampadius. And (as the ground hereof) Intercession of Saints is averred by 
(n) Oecol. ubi sup.  Oecolampadius, and 
(o) Fox Act. Mon. p. 1312.  Latimer.  
8. Freewill, taught by Snecanus, & Hemingius, as 
(p) In his Synops. printed 1600. p. 808.  D. Willet acknowledgeth; and believed by diverse Protestants, mentioned in 
(q) Act. Mon. p. 1533.  Fox his history.  
9 The power of Priests not only to pronounce, but to give Remission of sins (and consequently, that Confession of sins is allowed; seeing how can the Priest know, what sins are to be remitted, & what sins to be retained, according to the words of the Scripture, whose sins you remit etc. and whose sins you retain etc. except he know particularly the sins of the penitent?) is taught by the English Communion book, in the visitation of the sick, where the Priest saith: And by his Authority committed to me, I absolve thee from thy sins etc. 
(r) In his disp. Theo. p. 301.  Lobechius Doctor and Professor in the University of Rostock, by 
(s) In Concil. loco rum scripturae repugnantium. lin. 194. fol. 218.  Andrea's Althamerus, by 
(t) In loc. come. tom. 1. de potestate Eccles. f. 305.  Sarcerius, by 
(u) In his Margarita Theol pa. 116. & 117.  Spandeb urge, & finally by 
(x) In Swenckfildio Caluinis. p. 55.  jacobus Helbrunerus. And hence it is, that Absolution is affirmed by Melancthon, to be (as his words are) 
(y) Melancth. in Apol. Confess. Aug. Art. 13. de numero & usu Sacramentorum, fol. 161.  properly a Sacrament.  
10. The Indifferency of Communion under one, or both kinds, maintained by 
(z) Luth. in Ep. ad Bohemos, & l. de utraque specie Sacram.  Luther, by 
(a) Melancth. in Cent. Ept. Theol ep. 74. p. 252.  Melancthon, and 
(b) Bucer in the Confession of Ratisbon.  Bucer. Luther's words are these: 
(c) Luth in cap. ●●. ab●. c. a● Eucharistia.  They sinne not against Christ, who use one kind, seeing Christ hath not commanded to use both, but hath left it to the will of every one etc.  
11. That there are certain unwritten Traditions to be observed, is confessed by 
(d) In his treatise of the Church. p. 2●9.  D. Field; of the Baptism of Infants, by 
(e) l. epist. Swingl. & Oecolamp. p. 301.  Oecolampadius, and by 
(f) to. 2 l. ac Baptis. fol. 90.  Swinglius, and in like manner by our 
(g) In his defence. p. 539.  Doctor Whitgift: of the Tradition of Easter, by 
(h) D. Covel in his Answer to john Burges. p. 139.  D. Covell: of the Tradition of the use of the Cross, and the name 
(i) D. Covel in his examination of the Plea of the Innocents'. pag. 104.  Archbishop, by 
(k) Hooker Eccles. Pol. l 2. sect. 7. pag. 118.  M. Hooker, who answereth diverse Authorities out of certain Fathers usually alleged by other Protestants in behalf of only Scripture. And finally by the Archbishop of Canterbury, touching Apostolical Ordination, in the Conference before the King. pag. 11.  
12. That the Commandments may be kept, and are not impossible; taught by M. 
(l) Eccles. Pol. lib. 2. pag 113.  Hooker, by D. 
(m) Lib. de perfest. obedient. legis Dei.  Castal●o, by M. 
(n) In his reformed Catholic pag. 26. & 51.  Perkins, & 
(o) In his defence of M Hoker art. 7. pag. 54.  D. Covell.  
13. That there are Evangelicall Counsels, which are such as that a man in performing them doth more than he is by God commanded; is taught by 
(p) In assert. art ●0  Luther, 
(q) Eccles. Pol. lib. 3. sect. 8. pa. 140.  M. Hooker, and 
(r) In his defence of M. Hooker art. 8. pag. 50.51.52.  D. Covell. Ad heerto, that our good works proceeding from faith, and in regard of Christ's passion and promise, are Meritorious, & deserving, is maintained by 
(s) In loc. come. de bonis operib. circa me●●um.  Melancthon, by the Public 
(t) Pag. 495. & 27●  Confessions in the Harmony, by 
(u) In Margar. Theol. p. 48. & 50.  Spandeburge, by 
(x) Eccles. Pol. l▪ ●. sect 72. pag. 208.  M. Hooker.  
14. Peter's Primacy, maintained by 
(y) As he is alleged by D. Whitgift in his defence, pag. ●73. & 469.  Caluin, by 
(z) Whitgift ubisupra.  D. Whitgift, by 
(a) Musculus so alleged by D. Whitgift ubi supra.  Musculus, and by 
(b) D. Bridg. In his defence of the government etc. pag. 445.446:  D. Bridges Bishop of Oxford.  
15. Prayer for the dead, defended by 
(c) as witnesseth Vrbanus Rhegius in prima parte operum in formula cautè loquendi cap. de Sanctorum cultu.  Luther, & Vrbanus Rhegius, by 
(d) In his scrip●a Anglicana. p. 450.  Martin Bucer, by 
(e) Fox Act. Mon. pag. 149.  William Torpe, and 
(f) Printed 1549. fol. 116. & 140.  by the Communion book in King Edward's reign.  
16. Touching universality of grace, and that Christ died for all with intention on his part to have all men saved, if so they will accept of his grace, which doctrine overthroweth the Protestants doctrine of Reprobation, being but a mere Negation to the doctrine of the Universality of Grace: Now this doctrine of Universality of grace, is taught by 
(g) In lib. Epist. Oecol. & Swingl 1. pag. 274.  Swinglius, by 
(h) In his treatise of prayer in general for all mankind.  M. Smith, by 
(i) In method. descript pag. 430.  Snecanus, by 
(k) In his Questions upon Genesis pag. 118.  M. Gibbons, by 
(l) Enchiridion clas. 3. pag. 220. & 221.  Hemingius, by 
(m) In method. Theol. lib. 2. p. 431. 435. 436.  Hiperius, by 
(n) Eccles. policy l. 5. pag. 104.  M. Hooker, by 
(o) Upon the Apocal. in English f. 79  Bullinger: and finally, by most of the learned Lutherans, and diverse other learned Caluinists, as witnesseth 
(p) In his Theses, p. 159. 163. 194. 166. & 167. & sequent.  Huberus: as also by diverse learned Bishops of England, and other English Doctors; all who are thetefore at this time styled Armanians by their Adversaries.  
17. Worshipping of Images, defended by certain Protestants of Germany (as 
(q) In his respon. ad acta colloq Montis-Belgar. part altera pag 23.  Beza witnesseth) by Bilney a Protestant, as 
(r) Act. Mother p. 462 & 464.  M. Fox confesseth. And answerably heerto, the bowing and reverence given at the name of jesus (seeing this is the same to the ear, which the Image is to the Eye) is taught by Queen Elizabeth's 
(s) Art. 25  Injunctions, by 
(t) In epist. Pauli ad Philippens. Coloss. Thessaly. in Philip. ca 2. v. 10 f. 12●. col. 2.  Zanchius, by 
(u) In his defence, pag. 742.  D. Whitgift, by 
(x) In his summons for sleepers p. 30.  M. Leonard Wright, by 
(y) In loc. co n p 59  Musculus.  
18. That Christ was from his Nativity full of knowledge, & free from Ignorance, taught by 
(z) Alleged by Beza, in respon, ad Act colloq. Mon●isbelgar. part. 1. p. 147. & 148.  jacobus Andreas, 
(a) In Enchirid Controvers. printed Tubi●ge, 1630. p. 146. 147  by Osiander, and finally by most Lutheran Protestant's, whose names and References were over-laboursome to set down; Yet is this doctrine contradicted by 
(b) In resp. ad Act. colloq. Montisb. part. 1. p. 147.  Beza, by 
(c) In his review of D Kelli-Suruey printed 1606 p. 55  D. Succliffe, and by 
(d) In his Synops. p. 599. & 600. As also gainsaid by most of the Puritans.  D. Willet.  
19 That Christ is God of God, and hath his Substance of his Father, as the whole Catholic Church holdeth; maintained by 
(e) In Apoc. p. 474.  M. Fox, by 
(f) In disp. ●0. Theol. p. 49  Lobechius, by 
(g) In his Confut of Atheism p. 37.  D. Dove, by 
(h) In loc. come. an. 1561. p. 24.  Melancthon, by 
(i) Eccl. pol l. 5 p. 113  M. Hooker, by 
(k) In his defence of M. Hooker p. 16. & 17.  D Covell, and finally by the 
(l) pag 34.  Confession of Belgia, in the Harmony. But contradicted by 
m In his explicat. persidiae Valent. Gentilis. extant in his tract. Theol p. 771  Caluin, 
(n) Contra Heshuti●.  Beza, 
(o) Contra Camp●ra●. ●.  D. Whitakers, and many others.  
20. Lastly, that Antichrist is yet to come (and consequently that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist (which position of the Protestants is but a Negation of the Bishop of Rome being Christ his Vicar upon earth) is taught by 
(p) In epi. Pauli ad Philip. Coloss. Thessalon pag. 216.  Zanchius, 
(q) See the book entitled An●ichristus, sive Prognostica sinis mundi, pag 74. 75 79. See also Fran. Lambertus upon this point in his Comment. upon the Revelat.  Franciscus Lambertus, and according to 
(r) D. Dove in his sermon of the second coming of Christ, thus saith. Some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist he yet revealed or no.  D. Dove his judgement, by diverse other Protestants: yet contradicted by most Protestant's & Puritans of these days.  
Hitherto of these twenty Affirmative Cath. points, taught by learned Protestant's; in teaching & believing of which, it followeth, that of necessity, the said Protestants must disavow and reject the contrary Negative Tenets mantained by other Protestants.   

Certain Porismata, or Resultancies, rising out of the several passages of this Treatise. CHAP. XIX.  
IN the precedent Chapters and passages of this Treatise, my undertaken task in proving Protestancy to be an Irreality & Nonentity, is (I hope) fully accomplished: I will in this place extract from the same passages certain Resultancies, by inferentiall deductions.  
1. The first of these shallbe, that since Protestancy is in itself, but a privation or denial, of faith, and a mere Nothing; that therefore God, who is not the Author of Privations and defects, did never make or institute Protestancy, nor will be worshipped with such an empty, and imaginary Religion. For how can it enter into any brain, but to ween, that he, from whom stream the different wellsprings and sources of all things, for he is 
(a Psal. 55  fons vitae, 
(b) Eccl. 1.  fons sapipientiae, 
(c) Hier. 2  fons aquae vivae: he who being immutable, altereth all things; ever worketh, yet ever quiet; often changeth his actions, yet never changeth his determinations; 
(d) Malac.  Ego sum Dominus & non mutor: he, who is more ancient than all Eternity; more large and diffuse, than any magnitude; more strong, than all Power: He that is above all, yet lower than all, so becoming to the whole universe both the Circumference and Centre: He, who is the origen of all things, being the Efficient cause of All, the Form of All, and the End of All: He, who as a Sun (placed in the midst of the whole world) casteth forth on each side innumerable beams of his uneclypsed radiancy and power, by the which beams he createth, produceth & conserveth all things: To conclude, he, whom truly to describe, all tongues are but dumb: 
(e) Tertul. de Trinit.  A deloquendam Dei Maiestatem, omnis eloquentia muta est. Now, here I first demand: can it enter into I say, any brain to imagine, that this most potent, & most wise God, should institute a faith and Religion, by the which only he will be truly honoured, and by means whereof the soul of Man shall arrive to its eternal beatitude, the Terminus ad quem, for which it was created; which Religion is (as above is proved) but a Chimaera, & Irreality?  
Secondly, I demand, whether this wise, potent, and Just God, who in infinite places of his sacred 
(f) As in Psal. 9 & 10. God shall rain snares upon sinners, fire and brinstone, and blasts of storms, the portion of their Cup. And again Ecclesiasticus 40. death, blood, contention, edge of sword, oppression hunger, contrition etc. all all these are created for sinners. And yet more. Psal. 91. All they that work iniquity shall be confounded. Besides innumerable oth●● places.  Word, hath thundered out his most dreadful Comminations & threats against Sin, and the commiters thereof, will take delight in that Religion and faith, whose many Articles, Principles, or Tenets do even exhale & breathe forth (as an ordure or stench out of a filthy and pudled Chamnell) into the believers will, improbity, sensuality, Injustice, and all dissolution whatsoever in conversation & manners? But such are the Protestants Articles of denying , denying the possibility of keeping the Comandements, denying of Purgatory, denying justification by works, depressing of Virginity, Poverty, and Obedience, & such other Protestanticall Tenets above discoursed of; so true it is, that Faith is of a specular nature, ever in its operation, reflecting back upon the understanding and will.  
2. The second Porisma, issuing out of this discourse, may be this. We all know, that the Protestants do in their pulpits and else where with great clamour and noise vociferate, and cry out, that the Pope is Antichrist: Now, here I ask, whether in a , and not preoccupated judgement, it is not more probable, that the Protestants are the Precursours & forerunners of Antichrist, (as plaining and cavening the way against his coming) then that the Pope is Antichrist. My reason is this: In this Treatise it is abundantly proved, that the Protestant denyeth most points of our Christian and Catholic Religion; so as Protestancy essentially resteth in such Negations. This being so, how fitly doth this kind of denials and Negations sort to Antichrist, who at his coming shall by his denying of Christian Religion, and all the Articles thereof, seek (what in him lieth) to annihilate & overthrew the said Christian Religion; and for such his proceeding some 
(g) so writeth Hippolytus Martyr, in orat de consumma●ione munde.  Fathers do conjecture, that his name shallbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying Nego: and this both by reason, that this greek word maketh: up the number, to wit 
b Apocal. 13.  666. which is ascribed peculiarly to Antichrist, as also in that Antichrist and his Ministers shall at his coming, both in their denials and works, labour mightily to evert Christian Religion. And if S. john saith truly, that every one, who in any sort denieth jesus to be Christ, may figuratively be termed Antichrist; 
(i) joan. 1.  Quis est mendax, nisi qui negat jesum esse Christum? & hic est Antichristus etc. how fully, simply, and absolutely then shall the true Antichrist at his coming deny jesus to be Christ? And consequently shall deny all the particular mysteries of Christianity.  
3. My third Resultancy respecteth the Protestants several different Translations of the Scripture, and their several different settings forth of their Common Book of Prayer (as is above shown;) and yet even at this day, they are neither content with the last Translation of the Bible, or last publishing of the Book of Common Prayer, though all corrected and reform by way of Negatives; but charging them with many untruths, corruptions, and blasphemies; & most earnestly thirsting after a new Translation, and a new composition of the Communion Book if so they could obtain it. From whence we conclude, from their own pens, that hitherto the Protestant's never enjoyed the true and uncorrupted Scripture, and a form or common Book of Prayer, free from Errors.  
Now this being granted by them, how mightily are the Protestants foiled thereby? For first whereas their own doctrine is, that the 
(k) Luth. so teacheth praefat. Assertionis suae. Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. c. 9 Kemnit. in Examen. Concil. Trident. sess. 4. Melancthon locis. de Ecclesia.  Scripture is the sole judge of Controversies in Religion, they are hereby, by their own implicit confessions, even as yet deprived of this judge: seeing themselves do grant, that the pure and uncorrupted Scripture, and not as it is abastarded with depravations, aught to be this judge. Again, to be deprived of the true Scripture) as themselves by acknowledging all former Translations to be impure, & false, must consequently grant they are) is to be deprived of one of God's chiefest pledges of man's salvation; the Scripture of God, and the necessary deductions out of it, being the spiritual meats, wherewith (with reference to his salvation) the understanding of man's soul is chief fed & nourished: 
* joan 6.  Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, Spiritus & vita sunt.  
And as touching the want of a true Communion Book of Prayer (the which the Protestant's by their former excepting against all Communion Books hitherto published, do acknowledge to want) the Protestants do herein potentially grant, that hitherto they have not known how, and in what manner they ought to pray; which how great a spiritual detriment it is, who seethe not? since by Prayer we overcome him, who is invincible; prayer indeed being the mother & daughter of tears; by which tears (seconded with the help of the Sacraments) the blemishes and spots of our souls are washed out: 
(l) Psal. 50.  Lavabis me, & super nivem dealbabor.  
4. The fourth. It is in the former passages proved, even from the frequent Confessions of the learned Protestants; that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Invisible, or rather during those times utterly extinct. Now this confessed disparition & vanishing away of their Church out of the sight of all men, doth necessarily involve in itself, that the Protestant Church is not, nor can be the true Church of God, since the true Church of God must at all times enjoy a continual & uneclipsed splendour of its own visibility. I will enleaven this my Assertion, both with the authority of holy Scripture, & the voluntary acknowledgements of our learned adversaries. And not to overcharge the Reader, with a needle's surplusage of many testimonies; some few (and those pertinent) shall serve. And first we thus read to be prophesied of the Church of God: 
(m) Isa. 60  The Isles shall wait for thee, their Kings shall minister unto thee, and thy gates shall be continually open; neither day, nor night shall they be shut, that men may bring to thee the riches of the Gentiles. And in the new Testament, it is said of our Saviour. 
(n) Ephes. 4.  He gave Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of Saints etc. till we all meet in the unity of faith: that is (as is else where in this Treatise showed) even by the Protestants scholia, 
(o) D. Fulke against the Rhemish Testament in Ephes. 4  for ever. Now, these former divine Oracles proving an uninterupted visibility of the Church of God, are attended on with the like acknowledgements even of the Protestants: for Melancthon (after he had alleged certain places of Scripture, in proof of the Churches ever visibility) doth thus write: 
(p) Melancthon in lotis come. edit. anno 1561. cap. de Ecclesia.  High & similes loci etc. These, and such like places of Scripture, non de Idaea Platonica, sed de Ecclesia visibili loquuntur. And D. Field accordeth thereto, thus saying: 
(q) D. Field lib. 1. of the Church. cap. 10.  It is true that Bellarmine laboureth in vain, in proving that there is, & always hath been a visible Church etc. for all this we most willingly yield unto. Finally D. Humphrey thus sealeth up the truth hereof: 
(r) D. Humphrey in jesuitis. part. 2. c. 3.  Oportet Ecclesiam esse conspicuam, Conclusio est clarissima. It is a manifest Conclusion, that the Church is to be conspicuous, or visible. Now here above is delivered; first, that the Protestant Church hath for many ages been Invisible: Secondly, (as proved both from the Scriptures, and from our Adversary's doctrine) that the true Church of God must at all times be visible, and conspicuous. If then you will mingle these two Ingredients together, you shall find, that the Compound made of them, will be this: That the Protestants Church for want of a continual visibility at all times, is not the true Church of God. The same deduction of proving the Protestant Church not to be the true Church of God, may be made from the confessed want of administering the word & Sacraments in the said Church. For seeing the Administration of the word & Sacraments are the essential Notes of the true Church in the Protestants judgements; & seeing withal by their own Confessions above expressed, their Church hath wanted for more than a thousand years together, this so necessary Administration of the word and Sacraments; it then inevitably followeth, that the Protestant Church (for want of these Essential notes of the true Church) is not the true Church of God, even by their own doctrine.  
5. The fifth is to observe, the above confessed Truth of our Catholic Religion in all the chiefest Articles even from the Adversary's pens. This is the greatest & most convincing proof that can be desired; for here mark, what both the Fathers and the Protestants speak of this kind of proof.  
First then (Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 14.) thus writeth hereof: It is an unanswerable proof, which bringeth attestation from the Adversaries themselves. With whom conspires S. Austin (lib. contra Donatistas' cap. 24.) saying, the truth is more forcible to wring out Confession, than any rack or torment. To both which Fathers D. Whitaker (contra Bellar. l. de Eccles controvers. 2. q. 5. c. 14) subscribes in these words: The Argument must be strong and efficacious, which is taken from the Confession of the Adversaries: And I do freely acknowledge, that the truth is able to extort testimonies even from its enemies. Thus D. Whitaker. Now, that these Protestants (maintaining our former Catholic Articles) were persuaded, that the said Catholic points received their warranted proof from the sacred Scripture, appeareth evidently from this one Consideration; to wit, because all the former alleged Protestants (some four or five only excepted) do wholly reject the doctrine of Traditions; confidently & unanimously teaching, that nothing is to be believed, as an Article of Faith, but what hath its express warrant and authority from the written word of God.  
6. The last resultancy is, that the many Negative Reformations of Protestancy do finally end in judaisme, Turkism, and an utter abnegation of Christian Religion. The most deplorable and disconsolate state of sundry eminent Caluinists preacheth the truth of this my Assertion: for diverse of them never stayed in the endless progress of refining their Religion by Negations, till at the close of all, they denied all Articles of Christian Religion, and the supreme mystery of the most Blessed Trinity; & thereupon apostating from Christianity, they became most blasphemous jews, or Turks; so true it is, that Turkism, and judaisme is the last colour, die, or tincture, that Protestancy taketh. Some few Examples hereof among many, I will in this place retail; And first David George, who was a markable Protestant, and once Professor at 
(s) Osinad. Cont. 1●. part. 2. p 641. saith of David Geo●ge utebatur publi●o verbi Minister●o Basiliensi.  Basill; did (after many Negations) wholly deny the Christian Faith, & became a devilish 
(t) See Historia Davidis Georgij printed at Antwerp. 1568. published by the Divines of Basill.  Apostata. Again Andreas Volanus (an eminent Caluinist) not only became a Turk, but corrupted diverse others with his pestilent writings 
(u) In Pa●anesi.  against the B. Trinity.  
Ochinus also, who with Peter Martyr, first planted Protestancy (by his denying of many Articles of our Catholic Religion) here in England in King Edward the sixth his days, did finally become a jew. This is witnessed by 
(x) In his book de tribus Elohim.  Zanchius, 
(y) In Theolog. Caluinist. lib. 1. fol. 9  Conradus Slusselburge, two Protestants, and 
(z) Beza in Poliga●. pag. 4.  Beza who termeth Ochinus, impurus Apostata.  
Laelius Socinus (once brought up in the school of Geneva) forsook his Christianity, and did write a book against the B. Trinity; of whom Beza thus speaketh: 
(a) Beza epi. Theol. epist. 81.  Mihi quidem videtur omnes Corruptores longè superasse. In like sort Alamamnus, a Swinglian, and once dear to 
(b) So witnesseth Conrade. Slusselb. in Theolog. Calu l. 1. art. 2.  Beza, in the end denied the Christian faith, & became a jew; of whom Beza thus complaineth: A lamannum affirmant ad Iudaismum defecisse. Lastly Neuserus, who was chief Pastor of Heidelberge in the Palatinate, in the end abnegated all Christian Religion, and becoming a Turk, caused himself to be circumcised at Constantinople, as 
(d) Osiander Cent. 16. part. 2. p. 818.  Osiander the Protestant doth witness, thus writing of him: Adam Neuserus Pastor Heidelbergensis etc. prolapsus in Turcismum Constantinopoli circumcisus. But I will close up this Scene with the Testimony of this Neuserus, who thus writeth of himself, and of other Caluinists, denying the Blessed Trinity: 
(e) Osiander relateth, that Neuserus did write these words from Constantinople (being there circumcised) to one Gerlachius, a Protestat Preacher at Tubinga. vid. Osiander in epitome. Cent. 16. pag. 209.  None is known in our times to be made an Arian (but an Arian is not much inferior to a Turk, or jew) who was not a Caluinist, as Seruetus, Blandrata, Paulus Alchiamus, Gentilis, Gebraldus, Silvanus, and others; therefore who feareth to fall into Arianisme, let him take heed of Caluinisme. Thus Neuserus.  
And thus fare of these former Porismata; and concerning this last, we here see, how the many small rivers (as I may term them) of our Negative Reformations never cease running, till in the end they all disgorge themselves into the main Ocean of Apostasy, and Infidelity: So certain it is, that a Caluinist, being lastly sublimated and refined by Negations, becometh an Arian, Turk, or jew.   

That the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Church, are not one and the same Church: though some Protestants teach the Contrary, for the supporting of their own Church. CHAP. XX.  
Such is the refractory contumacy of Innovation of faith, that when it is driven to the greatest straits by way of dispute, yet before it will acknowledge its own Errors, it will labour to take sanctuary, though in the midst of its own enemies. According heerto we find, that when the Protestants are irrepliably, and most dangerously pressed with the Inuisibility, or want of succession of Pastors in their Church: & that for such want their Church cannot be true Church of God; They then as being deprived of all other evading means, are content, out of the immenseness, forsooth, of their own good will, (but indeed for the better supporting of their Church) to acknowledge, that the Protestant Church, and the Catholics are both but one, and the same Church. But do the Catholics accept of this their kindness? No, 
(a) Virg. Aenead.  Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes. Their Calumny here resteth, in that without such their Tenet, their own Church evidently appeareth to come to utter ruin & dissolution. The truth of this point is so clear, as that M. Hooker thus writeth hereof: 
(b) lib. 3. Eccles. Pol. p. 130  We gladly acknowledge them of Rome to be of the family of jesus-christ. And D. Covell: 
(c) D. Covell in defence of Hooker  I cannot but wonder, that they of Rome will ask, where our Church was before Luther? As if any were of opinion, that Luther did erect a new Church. But M. Bunny (no vulgar Protestant) dismasketh himself more openly, touching this point; & withal showeth the reason, why himself and his brethren so greedily beg this so much desired reconciliation; for thus he writeth: 
(d) Bunny an his Treatise  We are no several Church from them, nor they from us etc. All the diffirence between us, is concerning the truer members. And again, 
(e) Ibid. pag. 109.  It was evil done of them, who first urged such a separation. And then after he giveth his reason in these plain words: 
(f) Ibid. p. ●60  It is great probability with them (meaning with the Catholics) that so we make our selves answerable to find out a distinct and several Church from the Apostles age till this present; else needs we must acknowledge, that our Church is sprung of late, or since theirs. Thus these Protestants, for the uphoulding of their own Church, are forced to teach, that the Catholic Church & the Protestant, are but one and the same Church.  
Now if any Protestant seeking to redeem his Church from such dangers, as are in this Treatise threatened to fall upon it; as (besides Inuisibility, and want of Succession of Pastors) the blemish of being an Irreality, and Nonentity etc. should for his last despairing refuge, answer with the former Authors, that the Protestant Church and the Roman Church are but one, & that seeing the Roman Church hath ever been in being, and Visible; that therefore the Protestant Church (as being the same Church with the Roman) is hereby freed from all those spots and blemishes of Inuisibility, want of Succession, Irreality, want of true subsistence etc. here in this Treatise above enforced:  
Therefore to prevent all such poor and needy tergiversation (for falsehood would gladly shroud itself under the wings of truth) I will here discover the absurdity of this their supposal, by demonstrating, that the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church cannot be one and the same Church: so certain it is, that there is no Communion between Christ, and belial.  
And first: If we take into our consideration, what it is, which maketh the true Church (for speaking of the Church of God, we must needs understand thereby the true Church; seeing God hath no false Church) for that sentence of S. Cyprian 
Cyprian lib. de V●ita. ● Eccles.  is true: adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est, & pudica.  
To this is replied, that men professing the truth of Christian Religion, make this Church. Well then, if so it can be proved, that the Catholics and the Protestant's do maintain such contrary Articles of faith, as that of necessity the one part must be false, & consequently not to be believed by the Members of Christ's Church; then followeth it, that these different Professors of them (I mean the Catholics and the Protestants) cannot make One, and the same Church. And to come to this point▪ (though such disparity of faith hath been proved to be even among the Protestants themselves above in this Treatise;) But if one Protestant think another Protestant to be (for his supposed false faith) no member of Christ's Church, but an Heretic; then with much more reason we may pronounce the same between the Catholic and the Protestant.  
Now, this point taketh its more evident demonstration of proof from this one consideration; to wit, that the Catholic and the Protestant do not believe one & the same Creed. If then they both do not believe one and the same Creed (and yet the Creed is but an abstract or Compendium of the true faith of christ) can it be possibly conceived, that the Catholic and Protestant do make one and the same Church? But to descend to the Creed. It is true, that the Protestant & Catholic do in words recite one and the same Creed; but seeing it is the intended sense of the holy Ghost in every Article thereof, and not the words, which make the Creed; it followeth that if the Catholic, and Protestant do believe the said Articles of the Creed in a different, or rather contrary sense, that then they do not believe the Creed; for to believe the Creed in a false sense, is not to believe it all: The Creed in this respect justly challenging to itself that privilege, which the holy Scripture doth; of which S. Jerome thus writeth: 
g S. Jerome in epist. ad Paulin●e●a.  Scripturae non in legendo, sed in intelligendo consistunt.  
That this they do, I will exemplify in some Articles threof: And to begin with that first Article I believe in God. The Catholic believes, that his God no way formally cooperates with man to sin; the Protestant believes, that his God 
(h) Beza in his display of Popish Preachers. pag. ●02. Swingl. tom 1 de provident. c. 6. fol. 365. Caluin. Instit. l. 1. c. 18.  cooperateth, forceth, and impelleth a man to sin, as is above in this Treatise showed. The Catholic believes that God will not punish man for the not observing of such precepts, which are not in man's power to observe; the Protestant believes, that it is not in our power to keep the Ten Commandments; and yet withal believes, that 
(i) D. Reynolds in his second Conclusion, annexed to his Conference. p. 697.  God will punish man with everlasting Torments, for his not keeping of the said Ten Commandments.  
Briefly, the Catholic believes, that his God gives sufficient grace to all men, that they may be saved; The Protestants God decreeth diverse men, without any respect or prevision of their works, to eternal damnation: for thus Caluin writeth: 
(k) Caluin Instit. l. 3. c. ●2. See Willet Synops. p. 554. affirming the same.  God doth ordain by his Counsel, that among men some be borne to eternal damnation from their nothers' womb. Touching the Article, of judging the quick and the dead; The Catholic believes, that Christ at his coming to judgement will so judge man, as that his good works (receiving their force and virtue from Christ's passion) shall be rewarded: The Protestant believes, that 
(l) Calu. in Antid. Concil. Trident. Kemnitius in Exam. Concil. Trident.  Christ will reward only a bare & naked faith.  
Touching that, I believe the Catholic Church; The Catholic believes this Church to be a society of men, professing the present Roman faith, of which some are predestinated, others reprobated: The 
(m) Confess. August. art. 7. Luth l. de Concil. & Eccles. Calu. l 4. Instit.  Protestant believes, that his Church consisteth only of the Elect and faithful, and not of other sorts of men.  
Touching the Article of the Communion of Saints; The Catholic doth believe such a Communion to be between the souls in heaven, the souls in Purgatory, and men living in this world; as that the souls in Purgatory may be helped by the prayers of the living & the living may be helped by the intercession of the Saints in heaven; The Protestant denyeth 
(n) Brennus in Confess. Wittenb. c. de Purgat. Calu. l. 3. Instit. c. 5. sect. 6.  all such Communion between these several parts of the Church.  
Concerning the Article of forgiveness of sins; The Catholic believes, that actual sins are forgiven by the Sacrament of Penance, and that thereby the soul of man becometh truly Just in the sight of God; obtaining by this means a true and Inherent justice: The Protestant acknowledgeth not any Sacrament of Penance; neither doth he acknowledge any real and 
(o) Calu. l. 3. Instit. c 12. Kemnit. ●n Exam. Concil. Trident.  Inherent justice in man, but only an imputative justice, which is the justice of Christ imputed unto us.  
Thus fare to show that the Catholic and Protestant do not believe one and the same Creed; and consequently, that one & the same Church cannot consist of Catholics and Protestants.  
Secondly, the authority of General Counsels condemning several particular doctrines for Heresies, and the like authority of particular Orthodoxal Fathers of the Primitive Church, touching their like condemnation of many Protestanticall Tenets for Heresies, do sufficiently evict, that the Protestant Church and the Catholic Church, cannot be one and the same Church; for if they could, then would it follow, that the former old Heresies above displayed in the tenth Chapter, and now holden by the Protestant's, should be no heresies; for if the Professors of the Roman faith, & the maintainers of the said strange doctrines, could be members of one Church; then great wrong was offered by the Fathers and Counsels, to brand such men in those former times for Heretics, and their doctrines for Heresies.  
We may add heerto, that if the ancient learned Fathers did teach that a man by holding only one error or heresy did cease thereby to be a member of Christ's Church: as for example, jovinian for teaching that Virginity and Matrimony were equal: the Manichees for taking away Freewill etc. what would the said Fathers conceive, (if they had lived in our days) & should observe the Protestants to incorporate and engross in their faith and religion, almost twenty distinct heresies, condemned in those ancient times (as is above showed:) would these Fathers (think you) be persuaded, that the Roman Church, and these men could make one and the same Church? From this than it followeth, that either General Counsels and particular Ancient Fathers did err, & commit great oversight in condemneth of strange opinions for heresies which were not heresies; or that the Protestant's & the Catholics cannot be members of one & the same Church; since certain it is, that the true Church of Christ cannot profess any one Heresy.  
Now, that heretics are not Members of Christ's Church, & therefore that the doctrines and innovations maintained by such men, cannot be taught & believed by the Members of Christ's Church) shall appear from the great dislike, and aversion, which both Christ's Apostles, and the ancient Orthodoxal Fathers did ever bear against such men. And first may occur that divine sentence: 
(p) ad Titum c. 3.  A man that is an Heretic after the first, or second admonition; avoid, knowing that he, who is such, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement. And again the same Apostle: 
(q) epist. ad Galat. c. 5.  The works of the flesh be manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, impurity, dissension, 
(r) So it is translated in the English Bible of the year 1576.  Heresies etc. They which do these things, shall not obtain the Kingdom of God. To come to the Fathers, S. Austin saith, 
(s) Aust. in ●. 11. in Marchaun.  He is an Heretic, who believeth falsely touching any part of Christian doctrine. Which Father in another place thus fearfully censureth of an Heretic; 
(t) Aust. l. 4. contr. Donatist. c. 8.  If a man be an Heretic, certainly no man doubteth, but for this alone, that he is an Heretic, he shall not possess the Kingdom of God.  
Cyprian: Dominus noster etc. 
(u) Cypr. l. 1. ad Mag.  when our Lord jesus-christ did testify in the gospel, that those were his Enemies, who were not with him, he noted not any one Heresy; but he manifestly showeth, that all Heretics whosoever are his Enemies etc. I will conclude with Ambrose thus saying: 
(x) Ambrose l 6. in Luc. c. 〈◊〉.  Heretics seem to challenge Christ to them: for no man will deny the name of Christ; nevertheless he indeed denyeth Christ, who doth not confess all points of faith instituted by Christ. Now from these testimonies I conclude, that both the Catholics and Protestants cannot make one and the same Church of God, seeing their disagreements in matters of Religion are so great, & irreconciliable, as that the one part (as holding mere contrary doctrines in faith to the other) must needs therefore be taken for Heretics in the judgement of the other party; & consequently not taken as the Members of Christ his Church.  
My last argument, which here I use, shallbe add hominem (as the Logician calls it.) The Protestants (we know) do call, in the foam of their impure language, the Pope Antichrist, and Catholics the Members of Antichrist. Now if Protestants and Catholics be in one and the same Church, then followeth it (if for the time we admit the former dream for true) that Antichrist and the Members of Antichrist do make the head & the members of Christ's Church.  
How absurd this is, & incompatible with common reason, I refer to any judicious man to censure; and the rather, considering the Protestants themselves do thus teach: 
(y) Propositions and Principles disputed in Geneva. p. 245.  In Babylon (meaning thereby the Church of Rome) there is no holy Order, or Ministry indeed, but a mere usurpation. Thus fare to demonstrate, that for the freeing and clearing of Protestancy from the former scars of being Invisible, an Irreality, a Nonentity etc. it cannot be justly replied, (if any such reply should be suggested) that seeing the Protestant Church & the Catholic Church are both but one Church; and seeing the Catholic Church cannot be charged with the spots Inuisibility, or being a Nonentity etc. that therefore neither can the Protestant Church be so charged. Thus our Adversaries, we see, labour to make the splendour of the truth of Christian faith to cast its beams indifferently upon Protestancy, and the Catholic Roman faith: notwithstanding the great dissensions touching faith between these two Religions, which is as difficult to justify, as to maintain, that the sun can at one and the same time, shine upon us, and our Antipodes.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
LEarned Protestants, for whose sake this my labour was first attempted; Here now my pen (as performing, I trust, what it did assume) stays itself: yet before it giveth its last stop, it is to make bold (by turning itself towards you) to expatiate a little in discourse. You have seen (by perusing of the former Treatise) Protestancy to be fully and punctually dissected; and for the Catastrophe and closure of all, it is found to be empty of all Reality, and but an Intentional Name, or Word. And since it is a Non-Ens, it consequently then may be inferred, that Protestaancy and its Religion is false; for if Philosophy teacheth us, that Ens, & Verum convertuntur, (as you well know) then by force of reason, & law of contrarieties, it followeth, that, Non Ens, & Falsum convertuntur. You are instructed also (as being learned) by Philosophy, that, Quae habent ultimam dispositionem ad Introitum, & Non Esse, desinunt per se Esse. And so (by Analogy) we may here say of Protestancy, that Protestancy by several reformations, and all by Negations and Privations (as by so many several dispositions) doth in the end even of itself evaporate and vanish away into Nothing. Which being so, how then can any Christian dream, that the soul of man, which enjoyeth the noblest kind of Being, should arrive to its supreme felicity, by professing of that, which hath no Being? No. For the faith of a Protestant is (as I may term it) but an Imputative faith (as the Protestants speak of Imputative justice) seeing it wanteth all true Inherency in the believer.  
Now then, all this being most true, and undeniable, why will you (whom God hath enriched with elevated Wits, and whose judgements are able to penetrate and pierce through the greatest difficultyes) with a blind and unexamined assent, thus enthrall yourselves to this nothingness, so to term it, of Protestancy?  
Think of the worth and dignity of a soul, which is the Antitypon of the Deity, for it is written 
Gen. 1.  faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. It is, you know, immortal; It must then enjoy (according as in this world, it believes, and acts) for all eternity, Heaven or Hell: the thought whereof is able to appall and strike the strongest down through fear, & make him with good Tobias, 
Tob. 2.  manducare panem cum luctu & tremore. What then remains, but that every one of you gather himself together, the better to withstand such forces, as may undermine the hope of his salvation? 
Lut. 18.  Porrò unum est necessarium. This is the business, why we were sent into this world; and of this, each of us must render an account, at the day of our death. Let not then neither the predominancy of the times, nor the stream and sway of Authority, nor expectation of temporal preferments (being but glorious and guilded miseries) nor any humane illaqueations whatsoever, win ground so upon your wills or judgements, as (till your life's end) to persevere in a Religion, which hath but the word Religion, plead for it. 
Man. 1.  Quid proderit homini, si lucretur mundum totum, & detrimentum animae suae faciat? Therefore now then, begin to espouse your labours to your own soul's salvation. Implant yourselves with an immoveable resolution in our Affirmative, and Catholic Roman faith and Religion, which is not only warranted for truth by the Protestants themselves, as appeareth from the precedent Chapters: (so deservedly may here take place those words, 
Dea● 32.  Our God is not as their Gods are, our Enemies are even witnesses.) But also it is that Religion, which (contrary to Protestancy therein, being torn with intestine disagreements) in regard of perfect Union in doctrine, both among the members thereof, and with reference to the Head, is much honoured by God's holy word; his Church in this respect being 
Rom. 11. Cam. 6.  One body, one spouse, and one sheepfould. And therefore not without just reason did S. Hierome (that great light of God's Church) acknowledge his Union, and submission to our Roman Catholic Church in these words: 
Hier. in ep. ad Damasum.  I do unite myself in Communion with the Chair of Peter, I know the Church to be builded upon that Rock: whosoener doth eat the Lamb out of this House, is become profane. And with this, judicious men, I close up this short Treatise, committing you to his holy Protection, who was content to erect this Church, by the shedding of his own most precious blood: and battering at your ears with my incessant prayers, that you would cast of and abandon (for your Souls eternal happiness, this imaginary faith, which you call Protestancy: it being in itself, (besides that it is a compound made of the Ingredients of several negative condemned heresies) but an empty sound of a word, an Irreality, a Phantasm of the brain, an Annihilation and waist of all true Faith, a Platonical Idea, an Ens Rations, a Fabric only of our Imagination, an Intentionality, a bare Notion of the understanding, finally, a Nonentity. My pen lights short to delineate it in words: for since words are invented to express only Things; how can they express Protestancy, it being Nothing?  
FINIS.