all Ages of which all sorts must learne Faith necessary to salvation Rogers in his first Answere The perpetuall Visibilitie of the Church I acknowledge but I pray you set mee downe vvhat a visible Church is and vvhat you meane by these vvords all sorts vvhether Children dying before they come to yeares of discretion to learne this Faith be not after Baptisme parts of the Visible Church Secondly vvhat you meane by learne Whether 1. An actuall explicit knowledge Or 2. An habituall onely implicit knowledge Thirdly vvhat points of Faith you hold necessary to Salvation Rogers second Answer That some grounds must be layd for all Discourse I thinke my Adversary will not deny seeing all discourse is a drawing of Conclusions from some precedent received premisses whether of Principles naturally manifest and cleare of themselves or of some supposed received and agreed upon Some grounds I laid which Mr. Fisher or his Second here would have the Reader beleeve hee hath refuted for almost every Page hath this Title Master Rogers most weake grounds But how effectually he hath performed it shall appeare in his place The first thing I requested here of M. Fisher was to define a visible Church and to explaine an ambiguous phrase both as necessary grounds as may be for discourse for ambiguities are thickets wherein Sophisters doe hide themselves and the first grand fallacy which they use who would deceive others and doe often deceive themselves neither is the Respondent bound by Rules of Art to answer such an Opponent Aristot Elench 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is cleare that an aequivocator deserves no answer The other ground which I requested him to lay was a definition of the visible Church To this the Author of this Treatise giveth no answer although if he have any Schoole-learning hee must confesse that this is the first ground to be layd and best meanes to begin any Treatise to attaine exact knowledge of what we enquire after and to resolve all doubts that may arise Without this all Disputations are full of difficulties saith Arist This is the scope of all Logick saith Zabarel your learned Logick and Philosophie Reader of Padua You propose a question Whether the Protestants be a Church what more requisite here than to explicate your Termes and define a Church which I formerly requested you to doe and now againe make the same motion Fisher The Question propounded by M. Fisher at the entreatie of a Gentleman who desired satisfaction was Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers in his first Answer A Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now doe was visible in all ages and I do undertake to prove it out of good Authors Rogers in his second Answer To this M. Fisher or his Second have made no reply not as much as to say whether that will serve their turne or whether I must shew the names of Protestants in all ages If this later then may I require of M. Fisher or any other Iesuit to shew mee the names of Iesuits in all ages whose name began within these hundred yeares or not much more and for defect of such names argue against them thus They who are of the Church can shew their names to have been in all ages since Christ But no man can shew the name of Iesuits to have been in all ages since Christ Ergo No Iesuite is of the Church If I should call upon you for the names of Iesuits I should serve you as you serve us but I wil not use such poore miserable shifts as these which are no other then the cavils of men that have nothing to say that is worth the hearing as I will after shew in his due place Let this suffice for this place I professe that if Master Fisher or any other Iesuit can shew me that a Church professing the same faith which the Iesuits now doe was visible in all ages I will be of their faith though they can not shew me the names of Iesuits in those former times Fisher CHAP. III. M. Fisher undertooke to defend the negative part so as it did belong to his Adversary to prove the Affirmative MAster Fisher explicated the meaning of his Question to bee that first His Adversarie should set downe Names of men in all ages whom they thought to bee Protestants Secondly that they should shew out of good Authours proofe that they were Protestants Thirdly that they should defend them to hold nothing contrary to the doctrine of Protestants contained in the 39. Articles unto which all English Ministers are sworne Rogers in his first Answer To the First I wil shew the names of such as maintained our now Faith in all ages and bring good proofe To the second the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some doctrines established in the said Councell To the third It is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our faith Fisher his Question Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers Mr. Fisher you here confound two Propositions or Questions delivering them both as one whereas they are very different and may subsist the one without the other For a Protestant Church may bee extant in all ages and yet no names of the Professors to be found for every age and this existence of such a Church may be proved by generall testimony of History as that the Christian Religion was here in Britaine before the comming of Augustine the Monke Hist. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. may be proved out of Beda who maketh mention of British Bishops but nameth none of them In vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 18. Here M. Fisher and his Second would say Shew me their names or I will not grant there were any Let us ascend a little higher wee may prove it out of Eusebius 300 yeeres before that this Country was Christian Here Mr. Fisher would say Shew the names of those Christians or I will not beleeve it So it is plaine that these are two Questions Arist. Elench 2. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not well to require one answer to two questions This is as if a man should aske whether Iohn a Nox and Iohn a Stiles be at home when the one is forth the other at home and enjoyne the Respondent to answer to both at once yea or no by which answer he must speake an untruth because the questions are two really distinct This is a trick of Sophistry M. Fisher let me give you one instance more If I should aske M. Fisher whether
I deny If the delay of seven or eight yeares for Baptisme doe exclude them out of the Church because many thereby are deprived of Baptisme then a shorter delay of fourty daies or eighty daies should exclude men out of the Church because many children may die at twenty or thirty dayes old and yet we know many Churches in the world as the Coftie in Egypt doe not baptise their children before the fourtieth day though they should die without Baptisme Th. a Ies lib. 7. p. 1. c. 5. So Th. ibid. c. 6. Leo primus The Maronites whose Patriarch resideth in Syria Baptize not their male children till fourty dayes nor their female till eighty dayes after their birth He was a Pope of Rome which commanded that Baptisme should not be ministred at any other time then at Easter and Whitsontide and can we thinke but that many children in the meane space did die Socrates Scholasticus testifieth Hist Eccl. 5. c. 21. l Tom. 4. disp 4. puncto 4. that in Thessalie by reason of deferring of Baptisme untill Easter it happened that many yea the most dyed before Baptisme Your Gregory de Valenza doth confesse that in the Primitive Church many holy and godly men did deferre their Baptisme for a long season Disp de Sacramentis Tom. 1. Concil in decretis Leonis primi Can. 6. And your Suarez and Binius doe say that the former custome of the Church and Decree of Pope Leo were changed by the Church because of the danger which by so long delay did ensue If therefore the Anabaptist bee excluded from the visible Church because of the danger which by delay of Baptisme doth ensue to children Then Pope Leo the first for Decreeing a delay of Baptisme with the like danger and a great part of the Christian Church for observing the same were excluded out of the visible Church This was it you should first have proved that the Anabaptist is out of the Church afore you tooke it as a premise or undoubted Proposition thence to inferre a Conclusion let me propose the Argument againe in that forme which you most affect with Iffs and Ands. If Master Rogers Grounds be true the Anabaptist receiving the Scriptures Apostles Creed and agreeing with the Protestants in all things saving this that he will not Baptise children is of the Church But such an Anabaptist is not of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds be not true Negatur minor you have not spoken one word to prove that such an Anabaptist is not of the Church which till you prove your conclusion cannot follow all that you say is in proofe of the major which I grant Whereas you say and would have it supposed that I cannot produce as many proofes against this Negative of the Anabaptist as the Romanists doe usually produce against Negatives is most false for instance if you will bring me one Author for your halfe Communion your Transubstantiation the Bookes of Machabees Irenaeus Origen Cyprian confessed by Bellarm. lib. 1. de bap cap. 8. to be Canonicall in all which you are Affirmative and I Negative I say if you bring one Author in the first 300 yeeres for these your affirmatives I will bring three to one for our Affirmative of Baptizing In the same time I will produce for this my affirmative Antiquity Vniversality and Consent doe you the like for your Affirmatives and I will be of your Church All the rest of your frivolous chat concerning the Annabaptist what he may say what exceptions he may take against Authors against Translations is nothing against any thing that I have written you name no Authors you name no particular exceptions So you cavill againe with my distinction of Doctrines fundamentall and doctrines accessory not being able to produce one Argument against them and ignorantly or impudently deny a destinction delivered by Saint Augustine received by your great Schoolman Aquinas by your great Iesuites Bellarmine and Valenza acknowledged by the Divines of our Church as I have formerly shewed out of these Authors and the thing doth manifest it selfe doe not some things that are contained in Scripture more neerely concerne our salvation then others Can any man be saved without knowing Christ to be the Saviour of the world And may not a man be saved without knowing that Iacob loved Rachel better then Leah Or that Pharaoh dreamed of fat and leane Kine To what tends your Schoole distinction Of 1. Fides explicita 2. Fides implicita of necessitas 1. Medii 2. Praecepti And their large disputes what are to be beleeved necessitate medii without which a man cannot be saved and what necessitate praecepti things that they ought to beleeve and offend if they doe not but not with so great danger as if they beleeve not the former What meane these two Distinctions and that which I cited out of Aquinas and by which I explicated my owne distinction of fundamentall and accessorie I meane res fidei Per se Per accidens If this be answering to except against the Grounds of Fathers Schoolemen Iesuites and reformed Divines without framing one Argument against them it is easie answering indeed Whereas you say that none of the Authors by me alleadged not Luther himselfe held the entire Protestant Faith is untrue and you bring no proofe but a false supposition that all Protestant Doctrines different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith this I formerly denyed and you bring no reason to the contrary yet still you urge it as your onely medium or principle I have shewed you reasons to the contrary which when you answer I will eat Pauls Steeple one thing which I delivered in my first Answer maketh it cleare the question betweene you and me is of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie Indulgences worshipping of Images c. Which you affirme I deny and therefore they are no points of my faith for no man would deny his owne faith I will reduce it into forme No man will deny the points of his owne faith But we Protestants deny Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie and all your new Creed Ergo Neither Transubstantion nor Invocation of Saints nor Purgatory nor any part of your new Creed are points of Protestant faith And they being your faith you are bound by the rule of Saint Peter to give an account of your faith 1 Pet. 3 v. 15. CHAP. XXIII Fisher BUt if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the Roman Church her faith be not Doctrines of Protestant faith I require Master Rogers to shew me which in particular be and which be not Doctrines of Protestant faith that it may be discerned who did and who did not hold the Protestant faith and that withall he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those particular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39 Articles If he say as
I wrote thus As I did admonish Master Fisher to distinguish betweene Affirmation and Negation so I doe these men and that faith is Affirmation not Negation for no man beleeveth what he denieth Secondly In points of faith I like Master Fishers Rule They that are in the Affirmative must prove Now all that we affirme they affirme as one God three persons all the Creed So that we need not prove what our Adversaries do confesse But in those points in variance between us they are to prove because they are Affirmative we Negative as unwritten Traditions Latine Service Invocation of Saints c. Thus farre in my former Answer This is saying plainly this is not seeming Whereas you inferre that seeing all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes I grant the Consequence what is this to the question whether we are of the visible Church or no this which you would inferre doth rather prove us to be a part of the visible Church then any way gaine-say it Thus They which have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome are parts of the visible Church But the Protestants have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome Ergo The Protestants are a part of the visible Church The minor Master Fisher would inferre out of my Grounds as if I would deny it no I grant it and so I hope will he the major then the conclusion must follow We differ from you in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines and Discipline which you terme to be points of faith but we deny They are corruptions of faith Innovations Idolatrous Antichristian Doctrines You would force them upon us as points of faith we refuse them because the Scripture doth not expresse them the Primitve Church did not know them and the greatest part of the Christian Church to this day doth not approve them And your owne writers are distracted into many and divers opinions concerning them Paulus venet l. 1. 2 What Antiquity have you for your halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. What Universality seeing the Church of Greece of Syria the Georgians Circassians Mengiellians Breitenbachius Purgr c. de Iacobitis Vitrivius Histor orientalis c. 76. the Moscovits and Russians the Christians of Babylon of Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media of Cassar Samarcham Charcham Chinchtalis Tanguth Suchir Ergimal Tenduck Caracam Mangi the Iacobits whose Sect is extended and spred abroad in some fourty Kingdomes which I assure my selfe is more large then all the Roman Church do communicate in both kindes worship not Images deny Purgatory and which with you is more then all the rest deny the Popes Supremacy So you have neither Antiquity nor Universality to which I might adde nor Consent among your selves in those additions of yours contained in your new Creed As for one Instance the Councell of Trent hath made the bookes of Machabees Canonicall Melitus Sav. Origenes Athanasius Hilarius Epiphanius Cyrillus Nazianzen Amphiloch Hieronymus Ruffinus which is left out of the Canon by ten Fathers that is I take it by all the Fathers that dyed within 400 yeares after the Incarnation and wrot of that subject Your Nicholaus Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo and Thomas de Vio Cardinals whereof this last was one of the most learned that ever the Church of Rome had insomuch that in the Councel of Trent it was said I thinke no man heere doth thinke himselfe so great a Divine but that he might learne of Cajetan All these I say of your side exclude those Bookes from the Canon as we doe yet will you not say they were of another faith then the Church of Rome which you must say if your new Creed and Decrees of Councels be points of faith as you here say And lest you should escape with your wandring discourses and your flying from the question I will presse my argument in forme Whosoever denyeth the new Creed or any Articles thereof the Councell of Trent or any Doctrine thereof is an Hereticke and denyeth the faith But Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio Cajetan both Cardinals deny some Articles of the new Creed and some Doctrines of the Councell of Trent Ergo Lyra Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio are Hereticks and deny the faith I am sure you will hold this Conclusion to be false if so then one of the premisses must be false not the minor ergo the major which is your Tenet whereby you would proue us to be Hereticks and to deny the faith Fisher Out of which it will further follow that those English Protestants who shall hold some of the 39 Articles and deny the rest may be said to have no faith different from those which subscribe to all the 39 Articles Rogers I grant it doth follow so that those same Articles which they deny be not those Articles which concerne the Unity of the Godhead the Trinitie of persons and all those things which are contained in the Creed I say therefore they differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or Discipline not in faith so they receive the Scriptures and Apostles Creed Fisher Which last consquence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the bookes of Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Rogers They may be excomunicated for gaine saying Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or the established Discipline of the Church they may be excommunicated as erroneous Shismaticks Fisher Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church Rogers Andrewes in his Defence of the Apologie for the other Bilson in his perpetuall government of the Church Carleton against the Appeal They must be imprisoned as Schismaticks Our Bishops doe all professe that there are no Puritane Doctrines that the difference is onely in matter of Discipline they count them neither Hereticks nor wholly excluded out of the Church here you have supposed two falshoods in two lines those learned Protestants from beyond the Seas whose Discipline doth somewhat vary from ours doe testifie that the purity of Doctrine doth flourish in England purely and sincerely So Beza from Geneva that by Queeene Elizabeths comming to the Crowne God againe had restored his Doctrine and true worship So Zanchius that the whole compasse of the world hath never seene any thing more to be wished then is her Government So Daneus Fisher And why not Roman Catholicks by as good or better right account Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks Excommunicated and no members of the Ancient and present Catholick Church Rogers If we did the one you may doe the other but I have shewed the falshood of your supposition that we count them Hereticks who discent from us in any of our Articles they may be erroneous in a lesser nature then Heresie turbulent in those errours they may be Schismaticks
some yeares after a reply was published whether by Master Fisher himselfe or some other in his behalfe I know not a sight whereof I could not get in a yeare or two after To that reply of his I answer in this ensuing Discourse with a Catalogue from the seventh Centurie to the fifteenth of such as professed our faith which Catalogue of perticular men being finished I have added a Catalogue of Councels in all Ages who professed our faith This booke of mine was finished seven or eight yeares past as a noble personage now imployed by our Soveraigne King in forraign parts can testifie who bestowed some books upon me which were very usefull unto mee in this Worke which he did read as did also many learned Doctors of our Church of Hereford D. Kernit D. Best D. Hoskinsed I was slow in publishing it having no desire to be in Print but the perswasions of some of our Church and the brags of some of our Adversaries saying that I neither had nor could answer Master Fisher caused me to present it to the licencer And so to send it into the view of the world requesting the Christian Reader first to peruse the former booke printed without my knowledge Secondly to observe how my Adversarie doth passe by many principall things in my first answer without any mention at all of the same Thirdly that of what he hath written against me I passe not by any one sentence unanswered My Booke hath two generall heads First what our Faith and Church is and how proved primarily and properly by Scriptures secondarily and improperly by reasons and humane testimony Secondly that by this way of a Catalogue of those who taught their faith or Trent Creed as distinct from ours they cannot prove their succession for many reasons alleadged by me in the thirteenth Chapter of this booke as first the uncertainty of humane testimony Secondly their purging out of Authors that which makes against them Thirdly their forging of Authors and Councels fourthly their slighting and abasing of the Ecclesiasticall Historians of the Primitive Church example whereof shall be shewed as occasion shall be offered I will conclude this my Preface with those words of Saint Augustine Ep. 48. Necesse est incerti sint qui pro societate sua testimonio utuntur non divino sed suo But let us with St. Augustine cleave to the Scriptures and say with him Ecce ubi didicimus Christum Ep. 166. ecce ubi didicimus Ecclesiam Loe where we have learned Christ loe where we have learned to find his Church Give the glory to God for what is well and impute the imperfections and defects to my weaknesse who will to my poore ability be Thine in the Lord. H. R A Table of the Contents CHAP. I. THe rules of answering 1. to lay downe his Adversaries words and 2. to answer to every particular Vel concedendo vel negando vel distinguendo either by granting denying or distinguishing by explicating of ambiguous termes observed by Mr R. but not by Mr. Fisher a comparison from the Dog drinking of Nilus and Anthony flying from Actium 1 CHAP. II. 1. The occasion of this Discourse 2. Mr. Fishers termes ambiguous 3. Distinctio vocis and definitio rei neglected by Master Fisher though requested by his Adversary 4. These are the grounds of all doctrinall Discourses 5. Master Rogers answer to Master Fishers first question That he will shew who professed the faith of the Reformed Churches in all Ages 6. Master Fisher cannot shew the names of Iesuites in all Ages 2 CHAP. III. 1. Master Fishers Rule That probatio est affirmantis non negantis They who affirme are to prove admitted by Master Rogers 2. A Church may be proved though the particular names not recorded as a Christian Church in this Iland before Austin the Monke came hither 3. M. Fisher doth confound two questions and commits a fallacie secundum plures interrogationes 4. Master Fisher by his rule of names in all Ages may be denyed to be a man to be descended of Adam if he admit no other proofe 5. Master Rogers Argument to prove himselfe a Christian confirmed out of Bellarmine Baronius Valenza c. 6. What is essentiall and necessary to an explicit faith set downe at large 7. The covenant of faith the same in all Christian Churches of the world Latine Roman and Reformed the Greeke Armenian c. 5 CHAP. IV. Of the totall object of faith as it includeth not onely the primary essentiall matters of faith but also the secondary and accidentall matters contained in the revealed truth And that from hence demonstrations may be drawne to prove the Protestants to be a Church 13 CHAP. V. Shewing out of Saint Augustine that there is no other way to demonstrate a Church to be a true Christian Church but by the word of God 120 CHAP. VI. The Roman polemicke Theologues likened to the Indian Apes that appeared to Alexander and to the Ligurians the difference betweene the ancient and present Church of Rome between the Ancient Monkes and the present the title of Roman Catholique a most impudent contradiction Two Impostors submitting themselves as two Patriaachs to the Church of Rome The whole faith of the Protestants confirmed by Popish Writers Yet the Romanists have another new faith of their owne 32 CHAP. VII Master Fisher pressed by his own rule to prove the new Creed wherein he is Affirmative we Negative 2. A member of the Church of Rome may beare witnesse against the Church of Rome 41 CHAP. VIII What it is to communicate with others how farre we yet communicate with the Roman Church and wherein we refuse to communicate 45 CHAP. IX 1. Some distinctions justified 2. Master Fisher puts false Titles over his booke as thus Master ROGERS his weake Grounds over his 26 and 27 pages and yet not one word spoken in both those pages of any of Master Rogers Grounds And page 28. Master Rogers most weake Arguments and yet not one Argument of Master Rogers mentioned in all that page Master Fisher changeth his termes for Faith puts Doctrines 52. CHAP. X. Master Rogers definition of a Protestant Church conformed The same definition agreeth with all true Churches in the world the rule of defining Bellarmines definion of the Church confuted together with the Romish Doctrine that none can be saved out of their Church 56 CHAP. XI M.F. puts false Titles upon the pages of his Booke As Master Rogers his most weak Grounds or Arguments where there is â—â—mention of his Grounds or Arguments The Protestants a true Church not the true Church Histories no good proofe of the Church All Doctrines not points of Faith M. Fishers reasons to prove that the Teachers of true and false Doctrine are to be found in Histories answered 71 CHAP. XII Negatives depend upon Affirmatives Master Fishers Tautologies He saith Master Rogers granteth what he never did grant 86 CHAP. XIII Foure Reasons to prove that Master Fishers
proofe by Histories cannot be effectuall and satisfactorie 1. For the uncertainty of humane Stories 2. Because of their Index expurgatorius 3. Because they have forged many authorities of Councels and Fathers 4. Because they have excepted against all the Ecclesiasticall Historians of the Primitive Church as falsaries 91 CHAP. XIIII Master Fishers Answer to Master Rogers Arguments and Grounds 100 CHAP. XV. The Protestants Faith contained in Scripture The Articles of their faith in the Apostles Creed Master Rogers Arguments maintained against Master Fishers first Answer by denying the minor 103 CHAP. XVI Master Fishers second Answer by changing Protestant into Catholike refuted retorted a bold manifest falshood of Master Fishers Master Fisher but halfe a Papist 109 CHAP. XVII The Romanists can bring no Authors for 400 yeares for their halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. nor for any else in some Ages for want of Wtiters in times of ignorance No Councell no good Writers no good Pope Saculo 9. In which 9 Age nothing was visible in the Roman Church but vile and lewd Popes or Intruders proved at large out of Baronius 114 CHAP. XVIII A threefold Catalogue 1. Of Latin 2. Of Greeke Authors 3. Of Councels who professed our faith maintain'd our sacraments but not the faith and sacraments of the Roman Church 119 CHAP. XIX The distinctions of Doctrines Accessory and Fundamentall of Affirmation and Negation 142 CHAP. XX. The same distinction maintained Iohn Ellis his comparison The Ape with his youngling The boy with his bodging Verses Decrees of Councels not Articles of faith What makes an Hereticke The Anabaptist as he is supposed by Master Fisher a member of the Church but membrum non sanum 148 CHAP. XXI Of Doctrine fundamentall The Roman Church the most corrupted part of the Church 155 CHAP. XXII Of Baptizing of children The errour of the Anabaptist in practise not in point of faith 159 CHAP. XXIII The Papists affirme all our faith but differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines which they terme points of faith in which they want Antiquity Vniversality and Consent 164 CHAP. XXIIII The same grounds of doctrines accessory and fundamentall of affirmation and negation maintained 2. Negatives in Scripture pertaine to faith per accidens not per se All things revealed in Scripture have equall truth but not equall profit equall necessitie of being beleeved being knowne but not equall necessity to be knowne Negatives not revealed in Scripture are res fidei neither per se nor per accidens The Church of Rome most hating and most hated by all Churches in the world as Innovators Schismaticks and Hereticks The Conclusion of the whole Booke 171 Recensui hunc librum cujus titulus est The Protestant Church existent c. in quo nihil reperio bonis moribus aut sanae Doctrinae contrarium quo minus imprimatur modo id fiat intra annum proximè sequentem Secus ista licentia effectu carebit Johannes Oliver Reverendiss in Christo Patr. Dom. Domino Arch. Cant. Capell Dom. Ex Aedi Lamb. Apr. 15. 1637. THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH EXISTENT CHAP. I. Master Fisher observeth neither Art nor Order in answering Master Rogers MAster Fisher or whosoever you are that undertake for him if you would have done by me as I did by Master Fisher namely have set downe all my grounds and answered to them in particular as I did to Master Fishers Propositions it might have given the Reader better satisfaction who thereby might see whether we doe agree in any thing that I have written or dissent in all whether you reject all those grounds which I laid or admit of some as I did by your Propositions approving some rejecting others In solutione argumentorum duae tātum solutiones distinguendo vel tollendo Ego autem hic de Propositionibus loquor and in those you reject if you would have answered to them in their place punctually and not go roving so to puzzle the Reader with disorder I tooke those Propositions that were offered to me as they lay I answered to every period vel concedendo aut distinguendo aut negando either granting distinguishing or denying and where I found any ambiguity in your termes or sentences I desired you to explicate and cleere the same which you have not done yet you know that no disputation may be undertaken no Argument framed no Treatise composed without this no not so much as one bare Proposition or Sentence may subsist with aequivocation and amphibologie words or sentences of double signification and doubtfull sense untill they be cleared by explications and distinctions This you know to be the advice and practise of the Philosophers and Divines which have written But such are your termes Propositions as that they seeme to be made of purpose in ambiguous words or contexture so to leave open some starting hole or evasion and answering your Adversary out of order to draw a curtaine before the understanding not onely of the Reader but also of your Adversary Aristot Elench 2. We are ignorant of what wee formerly knew when it is misplaced and disordered and your selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus have I beene served by others besides you Is not this catching at a word here and passing by a whole side of a leafe elsewhere without saying one word to it afterward leape backe a leafe or two and snarle at an Argument or snap at a distinction and so away Is not this I say like the Dog drinking of Nilus lap a little and runne away lap againe and runne away This was applyed by one to Antony flying after Cleopatra from the Battell at Actium who being asked Quid agit Antonius Answered Quod canis ad Nilum lambit fugit so much was hee besotted with that Harlot Thus you the Champion of that Purple Harlot that sitteth upon the seven hils fight her quarrels a snatch and away a snap and be gone or if you make a short stand you will but shew your teeth grin snarle but hardly bite That I may draw you from this course of disorder I will put downe what Master Fisher proposed vvhat I answered and then vvhat this Author replied or vvhere hee did not reply CHAP. II. The occasion and time when this Author Master Rogers was first interessed in this matter ATt that time when our now Soveraigne was in Spaine a Gentleman delivered me those Propositions following in the presence of divers I being then in London 100. miles from my dwelling and my Bookes That night I delivered this answer following after Master Fishers Propositions The Gent was then almost become Romanist having beene not many dayes before at Masse in the Spanish Embassadors house and Master Fisher coming to this Gent Chamber left those Propositions with him The like verbatìm the Right Honourable Earle of O. did shew me saying that it vvas all written with Master Fishers owne hand The Propositions are these Fisher IT being granted that there must bee a Visible Church in
cum fide recta salvâ ad lavacrum Regenerationis accedant Concerning that Faith which is necessary to Iustification and salvation what was the opinion of the Primitive Church and what it did deliver concerning the same namely what Faith is and what object it hath cannot more cleerely bee understood then by that Creede which was delivered to those that were Catechized before Baptisme that so they might come to the Laver of Regeneration with a right and sound Faith Tom. 3 lib. 1. de Baptis cap. 24. He saith that the repeating of this Creed is the fourth Ceremony of Baptisme of which Ceremony mention is made as he there writeth by Clemens Dionysius Origen Cyprian Cyrill Hillary Hierom Augustine And that the summe and whole object of Faith is therein contained though briefely Saint Augustine doth teach Serm. 115. de tempore besides others that teach the same where saith Bellarm he doth define the Apostles Creede in these words Est inquit Symbolum comprahensio fidei nostrae simplex brevis plena ut simplicitas consulat audientium rusticitati brevitas memoriae plenitudo doctrinae The Creed is plaine briefe and a full comprisall of our Faith that the plainesse may helpe the simplicitie brevitie may helpe the memory and the fulnesse may provide for the learning of the hearers Lib. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. Lib. advers Praxiam Saint Irenaus doth expound the rule of the Christian Faith the same also is done by Tertullian but both of them doe teach that nothing else is to be believed besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed although they haue not the name of the Creede So saith Bellarm lib. 1. de Iust c. 9. Leo the first ep 13. doth charge Eutiches to haue made a dissention contrary to the entirenesse of the Catholique Faith Est siquidem ipsius Catholici Symboli brevis perfecta confessio quae duodecem Apostolorum totidem est signata sententiis For in the Apostles Creed is contained a perfect confession of Faith Thus he is cited by Binius Tom. 1. Conciliorum pag. 946. Baronius Anno 1016. num 1. saith That one Simeon a holy man of Armenia comming to Rome and there being accused of Heresie and demanded what faith hee was of a He made a perfect confession of faith by rehearsing the Apostles Creed c. Respondens Catholicae Apostolicae fidei perfectionem ita confitendo perdocuit qualitèr per universum orbem Apostolorum Symbolum in Nicaena Synodo peroratum clara voce personuit And by and by after Baronius addeth these words Innotuit protinus Papae omnibus qui aderant virum Dei scilicet Simeonem verae fidei esse professorem Lastly the sufficiency of this Creed is acknowledged not onely by those which I have above named but also the Councell of Ephesus concluding doth repeat this Creed adding these words Huic sanctae fidei omnes affentiantur oportet est enim piè sufficienterque ad totius orbis utilitatem exposita Let all men assent to this holy Faith for it is piously and sufficiently expounded to the benefit of the whole world Having thus out of the Fathers Schoolemen Councels and your owne Writers shewed the Antiquitie necessitie trueth perfection sufficiencie and fulnesse of my Faith in which I was baptized and which all wee of the Protestant Churches doe professe how can you say that we are not of the Church or require us to adde other Articles unto these in which wee all have been baptized and in which alone not onely wee but all of your Church and all Churches of the world since the Apostles times have been baptized been made Christians been admitted into the Church This is the Covenant of faith as well in your Church as in ours for there is no other profession of faith in Baptisme amongst you but the Apostles Creed there is no mention there no promise no covenant that wee doe beleeve unwritten Traditions Indulgences Purgatorie Invocation of Saints seven Sacraments worshipping of Images Communion under one kinde Transubstantiation and the Primacie of the Romish Church When a Farmour is told that he hath forfeited his Lease that he hath broken his Covenants he will aske in what point and when it is told him in particular wherein he repaires unto his Lease lookes upon his Covenants and if this which is layd to his charge be not there expressed hee will reply It is not hâ—ere I am not bound unto it it is no Covenant of mine and his Land-lord were unjust to presse him beyond his Covenant Wee have made a Covenant with God in Baptisme we are admitted Tenants in his Church you say wee have forfeyted our Grant broken our Covenants vve are no longer Tenants vve are no more of the Church I aske you why you say because I will not beleeve your new Creed and that the Pope is head of the Church for that is your primarius fidei articulus Bellarm. to Blackwell I reply there is no such thing in my Covenant I was baptized in no such faith I was made a member of Christ I was not made a member of the Pope I will leave that for you vvho make him your head And thus farre of explicite faith of justifying faith necessary to salvation of the primary fundamentall propositions which belong to faith per se non per accidens out of which I will collect some few Arguments Whosoever was baptized into and still doth professe a whole full perfect true sufficient faith is of the Church But the Protestants were baptized into and still doe professe a whole full perfect true sufficient faith Therefore the Protestants are of the Church Every word of the Major and Minor is prooved in this Chapter in that I have proved all these titles to belong to the Apostles Creed A second Argument Whosoever doe professe that Faith by which men are made Christians doe still continue Christians But the Protestants doe professe that faith by which men are made Christians Ergo The Protestants are Christians and consequently of the Church A third Argument To prove that those Doctrines of their new Creed can be no Articles of faith because the Articles of the Apostles Creed being already perfect and compleat can admit of no essentiall addition and all Articles must be essentiall quia per se There can be no essentiall addition to that which is perfect and compleat as the Apostles Creed is But the Articles of Faith are essentiall unto Faith Ergo No new Articles may be added to the Apostles Creed being perfect and compleat CHAP. IV. Of the totall object of faith as it includeth not onely the primary essentiall matters of faith but also the secondary and accidentall matters contained in the revealed truth and that from hence demonstrations may bee drawne to prove the Protestants to be a Church THose things we beleeve by an infused divine faith are of two sorts 1. Some prime proper essentiall as those things contained in the Apostles
since the Apostles and because those things which I shall alleage out of him being versed in the same Question betweene him and the Donatists concerning the Church are most proper to this question betweene us and the Romanists whether we bee a Church or no and will answere most doubts and objections that are made herein but seeing that this Chapter is growne so long I will reserve it for another CHAP. V. Shewing out of Saint Augustine and others that there is no other way to demonstrate a Church to bee a true Christian Church but by the Word of God I Desire you Mr. Fisher and whosoever will vouchsafe to reade these my poore Labours to take my meaning in citing these Fathers Schoolmen and Iesuites which I have alledged in the precedent Chapters not to be such as if by their authoritie alone wee endeavour to proove our selves to be a Church but to shew that in matters of Faith and in this Question of the Church no demonstrations no strong proper and necessitating Arguments can bee made but out of Scripture All other Arguments are but probable without any necessary illation and forrein not proper to Theologie As after I have done with S. Augustine I will shew out of your owne Schoolmen This Father is he out of whom our later Writers have had next after the sacred Scriptures most of the excellent solid deepe Divinitie which they have This was hee that was stiled Malleus Haereticorum the Hammer of Heretikes Sabellicus Vir super omnes qui ante eum post eum huc usque fuerunt mortales admirabili ingenii acumine praeditus A man as your Sixtus Senensis writeth of him indued with a sharpnesse of wit above all mortals that have been before him Bibl. 5. l. 4. or after him to this time full of humane learning but in the divine Scriptures by farre the most learned of all others and in the Exposition of Scriptures raised to so high a pitch of incomparable subtiltie or acutenesse ultra quam dici queat more than the tongue of man can expresse Dr. Kinge This was hee of whom a learned Preacher and powerfull speaker of ours spake in the Pulpit that hee confuted the Heretikes so fully answered all their objections and demands so weightily that of him next after the Sonne of God himselfe it may bee sayd they durst aske him no more questions And if I in my poore judgment and reading may expresse what I have observed and doe conceive that was the most fruitfull age of Heresies that ever was and some of those Heretikes so learned especially Pelagius the grand enemy of the grace of God that if Saint Augustine had not been borne in those times Pelagius and many more had not been confuted This man amongst other Heretikes wrote against the Donatists who did appropriate the Church to themselves as now the Romanists or Papists doe so that it is the same question now betweene us and the Papists which was then betweene Saint Augustine and the Donatists The Donatists did tye the Church to Africke the Papists to Rome not that either the one or the other did or doe denie Christians to be in other parts of the world but that all men in the world must bee of their Church and hold union with them and dependance from them The first place that I will cite out of Saint Augustine shall be his words in his second Booke of Christian Doctrine ca. 9. All those things which doe containe faith and manners of living are found amongst those things quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura which are plainly put downe in the written Word This doth proove what wee intend namely that this Quaestion of theirs if it be necessary is found in Scripture and not onely so but in plaine Scripture which answereth the objection of obscuritie in the Scripture that though it bee true that in Scriptures some things be obscure some be plaine yet all necessary things are plaine in Scripture Ex Augustino lib. de Vnitate Ecclesiae cont Petilianum Tom. 7. p. 109. Cap. 2. Inter nos Donatistas quaestio est ubi sit Ecclesia Quid ergo facturi sumus in verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in verbis capitis sui Domini nostri Iesu Christi Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quarere debemus qui veritas est optimè novit corpus suum novit enim Deus qui sunt ejus Cap. 3. Sed ut dicere coeperam non audiamus haec dico haec dicis sed audiamus haec dicit Dominus sunt certè libri dominici quorum authoritate utrique consentimus utrique credimus utrique servimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram Auferantur ergo illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem non ex divinis Canonicis libris sed aliundè recitamus Quaerat fortassis aliquis dicat mihi Cur ergo ista vis auferri de medio quandò communio tua etiamsi proferantur invicta est Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis Oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari si enim sanctae Scripturae in Africa sola designaverunt Ecclesiam in paucis Romae Rupitanis Montensibus in domo vel patrimonio unius Hispana mulieris quicquid de chartis aliis aliud proferatur non tenent Ecclesiam nisi Donatista Si in paucis Mauris Provinciae Caesariensis eam sancta Scriptura determinat ad Rogatistas transeundum est Si in paucis Tripolitanis Byzacenis provincialibus Maximianistae ad eam pervenerunt Si in solis Orientalibus inter Arianos Macedonianos Eunomianos si qui illic alii sunt requirenda est Quis autem possit singulas quasi Haereses enumerare gentium singularum Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum divinis certissimis testimoniis in omnibus Gentibus designata est quicquid attulerint undecunque recitaverint qui dicunt ecce hic Christus ecce illic audiamus potius si oves ejus sumus vocem Pastoris nostri dicentis Nolite credere Istae quippè singulae in multis Gentibus ubi ista est non inveniuntur haec autem quae ubique est etiam ubi illae sunt invenitur Ergo in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis eam requiramus Cap. 4. Totus Christus caput corpus est quicunque de Christo rectè sentiunt sed ab Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte seperata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Gatholica Quapropter quia cum Donatistis nobis Quaestio est non de capite sed de corpore id est non de ipso Salvatore Iesu Christo sed de ejus Ecclesia ipsum Caput de quo consentimus ostendat nobis corpus suum de quo dissentimus ut per ejus verbum jam dissentire definamus Prioribus temporibus
their society their own testimony not the testimony of God Vnlesse thou know thy selfe not in the word of cavelling people but in the testimonies of my Books In the Scriptures have wee learned to know Christ in the Scriptures have we learned to know his Church Wee have these Scriptures common to us both and why out of these doe not we hold Christ and his Church common to us both And againe Behold the Scripture common to both loe where wee have known Christ loe where we have known his Church Reflecting now upon what wee have cited out of this incomparable Father wee may observe how plainly how frequently how perseveringly he maintaineth that this Question concerning the Church may be proved plainly manifestly clearly out of Scripture That hee would not have men use Humane testimonie in this question and they which doe use Humane testimonies herein and not Divine stand upon uncertainties Aquin. 1. q. 1. art 8. Carbo to the same purpose the Schoolmen say That Humane reasons in hac doctrina non valent ad probandum are not of force to prove yet it useth Humane reason not to prove Faith and what it believeth but to declare other things as a forreine Argument and probable but it useth Divine Authorities as a proper and necessary Argument Secondly let us observe that this Father writing upon this Question so many Books as make more then halfe a great Tome yet never used any other Argument in those Bookes but Scripture hee never called upon his Adversaries to shew names of their Professors in all Ages nor did hee attempt that for himselfe but chose rather to cite the same Scriptures twenty times at least in severall Bookes of that subject out of which places I will collect two Arguments first desiring the Reader to observe That things expresly contained in Scriptures and things thence deduced are of a different nature these later inferior to those those are Principles these are but Conclusions those depend upon supernaturall light of Divine Revelation these Conclusions are grounded upon those Divine Principles which men apprehend by Faith and then doe search and find the illation and consequence of these Conclusions by the light of naturall reason improved by Industry and refined by Art I doe not say that I can shew in Scripture that the Protestants are the true Church which were to make it a point of Faith but out of Scriptures I can prove that the Protestants are a Church and so make it a Theologicall conclusion and the Arguments demonstrations because drawne out of the proper Principles of Theologie or Divinitie thus 1. Argument They who professe that Faith which was preached through the World are a true Christian Church But the Protestants holding the Apostles Creed and the doctrine of the Apostles doe professe that Faith which was preached through the World Ergo The Protestants are a true Christian Church 2. Argument They who hold Communion and acknowledge themselves to be a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World are a true Church But the Protestants doe hold Communion and acknowledge themselves to bee a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World Ergo The Protestants are a true Church Secondly out of the same Principles I will prove that the Church of Rome is not the Church as excluding all other Churches thus 1. Argument The Church doth professe that Faith which was preached and received through the World The Roman Church holding a new Creed of unwritten Traditions Transubstantiation worshipping of Images c. doe therein not professe that Faith which was preached and received through the World Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Church 2. Argument The Christian Church hath many more Children then the Church of the Iewes But the Romane Church hath not more Children then the Church of the Iewes Ergo The Roman Church is not the Christian Church The Major Saint Austine doth bring out of Scripture in those words The barren hath many more children then shee that hath an husband The Minor will appeare if we say unto these Romanist◠as Saint Austine did to the Donatists Let them compare their multitude with the multitude of the Iewes dispersed over the world and they shall see how few they are in comparison of them the Iewes being by the calculation of the a Brirewood in his Enquiries most learned in Historie and Geographie as many as will people all Europe The Roman Church when it was entire being not much more then halfe Europe if so much and now having lost halfe that it was is farre lesse This I shall enlarge morefully hereafter when I shall come to maintaine my former Arguments Now I addresse my selfe to Master Fishers Replie CHAP. VI. Fisher Concerning M. Rogers his Answer to M. Fishers five Propositions BY this which hath been said against Master Bernard his Looke beyond Luther it may be easily seene that M. Rogers hath not sufficiently answered M. Fishers question aforesaid for with a bold audacitie he nameth for Protestants famously knowne Romane Catholikes to wit these Writers of the first seven hundred yeeres and amongst others even Saint Bede whose Writings and profession of life being a professed Romane Catholike Monke shew him to bee no Protestant Rogers I can see no such thing in what you have said against Mr. Bernard neither have you said any thing there which may touch me but you have the same in this your Treatise against me you have written not halfe a sheet in Reply to Mr. Bernards Booke of eight or nine sheets and yet you would have men see in your short Reply to him a Confutation also of what I have written I have read that Alexander the Great seeing a companie of Indian Apes marching along a Hils side tooke them to be an armie of Enemies but when he came neere he found them to be as they were poore silly fearfull Apes that ran into the woods to hide themselves Hee that thinkes hee seeth in your Reply to Mr. Bernard a confutation of him or me is as much mistaken as Alexander was in the Apes the reason is hee looketh a farre off as Alexander did when hee tooke them for armed men but hee that commeth neere unto your Writings vieweth and examineth them diligently shall find that there is no armie there are no armed men no sword no weapon no Scripture no reason to wound us You strout and stalke a farre off but when wee draw neere you flye into the thickets of some darke speeches ambiguous phrases aequivocating termes like those Liguranes quos major aliquantò labor erat invenire quam vincere It is more labour to find you out then to conquer you Mr. Bernard I doubt not is able to answer any thing that you have objected unto him if he think such poore objections of yours to be worthy of any Reply I wil addresse my selfe unto what you object unto mee you say that I have not sufficiently answered Mr. Fishers
Question aforesaid For say you with a bold audacitie hee nameth for Protestants famously knowne Roman Catholicks to wit the chiefe Writers of the first 700 yeares As for Audacitie I hope to cleare my selfe by performing all that I have undertaken herein And the grounds I layed doe manifest to the learned indifferent Reader that I did so intrench my selfe so fortifie my cause as that I feare not any open force of a stronger enemie then you are I named for Protestants knowne Romane Catholicks say you distinguish Romane Catholicks whether you meane the present Romane Church or that which was in the first seven hundred yeares these two are as different as Christian and Antichristian as Orthodox Non Apostolici sed Apostatici Such as were fallen from all Christianity Baron an 908. n. 4. speaking of the Popes of that age and Haereticall as Apostolike and Apostaticall I oppose the present Romane Church not the Primitive and therefore I oppose this because shee is so different from that and no more like unto those former Romane Catholicks then those Indian Apes were unto the valiant Porus and his Indian Souldiers They of those first seven hundred yeares did not equall unwritten Traditions unto the Word of God they did not worship Images nor was your new Creed any part of their Faith and this is the reason why we oppose the present Roman Church because she hath so far declined from what she was Returne you to that Primitive Romane Church and wee will returne to you these Writers of the first seven hundred yeares are ours and not yours insomuch that I doe require you to shew me any one Father of those seven hundred yeares that held your now Romane Creed and I will be of your mind And whereas you make choice of Saint Bede for your instance I will pitch upon that very man and deny him to be of your now Romane Faith I meane as farre as your now Romane Church doth differ from other Christian Churches herein I am in the Negative so that it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative Whereas you say Saint Bedes Writings and profession of life being a professed Romane Catholicke Monke shewes him to be no Protestant first for his Writings shew mee out of his Writings what part of the Apostles Creed hee did denie I have no other Articles of Faith if hee held these as I know hee did and his Writings doe manifest it hee is of my Faith hee is of my Church I of his both of one Church both of that one Faith which the Protestants doe professe Secondly I beleeve all the revealed written Word of God as it was received in the Primitive Church doth Saint Bede deny any of these shew mee where But say you his profession of life proves him to be no Protestant for hee was a Roman Catholicke Monke First as for Roman I have already answered that your present Romane Church differs from that which then was in all those Doctrines wherein we differ from you although it then began in matters of Discipline to swerve from what it had beene I say in matters of Discipline not of Doctrine if in any Doctrine not in Doctrines of Faith they enacted enjoyned necessitated no new Articles as now you have done in your Councell of Trent whereas you adde Catholick to Roman Hoc est Pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere like that of dividing all the world into Kent and Christendome or rather to say that Kent is all Christendome Roman is but a part of the Catholick Church and to say as you doe that the Roman is the Catholick Church is as if one should say that one particular man were all men and that one limbe of a man were the man as the Poet said of Tongilianus Tongilianus habet nasum scio nec nego nasum Nil praeter nasum Tongilianus habet The man had a great nose and therefore the Poet said hee was all nose as if he had no other parts neither eyes nor mouth nor hand nor arme nor legge nor foote So you because your Roman Church is somewhat large you say that the Church is all Roman whereas it is not much larger in proportion to the Catholike Church then Tongilianus his nose in respect of the rest of the body I know you will say that the Roman Church is extended to the East and West Indies and there acknowledged Alas that is but by a few of your owne Emissaries cooped up in some small Ilands and Forts in the East Indies and as for your West India Converts Bartholo Casas in his Spanish colonies p. 1â— they are such as being forced by the Spanish tyranny doe professe a poore faith being taught to say there is one God one Pope one Catholike King This is all their Creed these are the Christians you there make this is the converting of Nations you bragge of your imposture and cousenage in suborning a couple of unknowne fellowes to come and submit themselves to the Roman Church a Historia Concilij Trident. l. 5. as if they had beene the Patriarches of Alexandria and Mozall is long since discovered so that by these poore shifts to vaunt unto the world or thinke with your selves that the Roman is as large as the Catholick is as if Tongilianus sniting his nose upon his garments and there seeing it sprinkled here and there upon his leggs upon his feet should therefore thinke that his nose did reach unto his feet that which you deliver in this kind being but vaunting of falshoods and grosse lyes I may well call the excrements of a divellish braine seeing the divell is the father of lyes and yet this must make your silly simple hudwinckt followers thinke that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church and as you afterwards say that none can be saved out of the Roman Church Aug. ep 86. Rabanus Maurus 400. yeeres after divided the Church into East Greek and Latin l. 2. c. 34. Saint Augustine in his time did distinguish betweene the East and West Churches and then did subdivide the West making the Roman but a part of the West yea and distinguishing betweene some neighbour places and the Church of Rome In those times and even to this day the Easterne Churches doe differ from the Roman Church in that they fast not upon the Saturday as also a great part of the Westerne Churches even in Italy it selfe then did Whereupon one Vrbicus wrote against those that did not fast upon Saturday which caused one Cassalanus a Presbyter to write unto Saint Austin requesting his resolution herein who replying unto him saith In those things concerning the which the word of God doth not lay downe any certaine rule the custome of Gods people the ordinances of their Ancestors are to be held for a law He did not say heere the decrees or custome of Rome must stand for a law to all other Churches He bids him observe the words of Vrbicus and you shall see him saith
will grant him to be yours but of those Monkes and these I may say O quantum hic monachus monacho distabat ab illo How much doth your Parsons and other Monkes differ from Beda and those more ancient Friers or Monkes or religious Orders call them as you please Fisher The like may be said of divers others but at this time it may suffice to give this one example to shew that Mr. Rogers naming all those he named spake without Booke or without having at hand or looking into his bookes and that he might as well have named the Pope and Cardinalls and Bishops Priests Monkes and all other religious persons of the present Roman Church to be Protestants as he nameth the said ancient Fathers Rogers And so I will when I come to my Catalogue name Popes Cardinalls Bishops c. for confirmation of my faith whether it be for my Creed which are more principall and proper points or articles of faith or for all those bookes of Scripture which I beleeve or things therein revealed from God Because the testimony of an adversarie for an adversary is most strong and will take away your personall exceptions Thus Paul did cite a Heathen to perswade Heathens yea the inscription of an Altar dedicated to the unknowne God found amongst Heathen Idolls Thus the Fathers Augustine and others in the Primitive Church did cite the Iewes for confirmation of their doctrine and that they did not misaleadge the Prophets and writers of the old Testament Iudaei inimici nostri sunt de chartis inimici convincatur adsarius The Iewes are our enemies out of the bookes of our enemies wee convince our adversaries Augustine upon the 40th Psalme and often in other places Master Fisher or his Second would have exclaimed hereat saying what meanest thou Augustine wilt thou perswade mee that the Iewes are Christians if not why citest thou their bookes nay what meanest thou Paul to cite the Greeke Poets wouldst thou perswade me that they are Christians as if it must follow that they whose testimonie we cite in some things must be our friends in all All the faith of the Protestants is confirmed by the Papists all their explicite all their implicite faith all that belongs to our faith vel per se vel per accidens essentially or accidentally primarie or secundarily as an Article of faith or as an illustration of the same expressed in Scripture and yet the Protestants are no Papists the Papists are no Protestants because the Papists have a new Creed which Protestants deny and I call God to witnesse that I desire to die a thousand deaths rather then to approve it because I assure me it is false in all and in some things blasphemous The Papists have such exercise of Religion worshipping of Images praying to Saints which I abhorre as being Idolatry In discipline also they have such tenents of absolute supreme power over Bishops Kings Lawes oathes as is full of pride sedition usurpation and impiety Now here we differ here I am in the negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the affirmative It is a just law and your owne Master Fisher for these I need not produce testimony seeing I doe not avow maintaine beleeve any such Creed any such practise of Religion any such discipline But for my faith either explicite or implicite all that is revealed by God in his word I may bring my Adversaries to depose for me Paul said unto Agrippa a Iew no Christian Iuvenalis yea a wicked incestuous King if Roman Authors wrong him not incestae dedit hoc Agrippa sorori Yet to this bad man this unconverted Iew Paul saith O King Agrippa beleevest thou the Prophets I know thou beleevest them And may not I say Master Fisher beleeve you the Apostles Creed I know you doe beleeve it I have no other Articles of faith no other primarie propositions of faith againe for the totall object for the secondary propositions of faith contained in Scripture may not I aske you and say Master Fisher doe you beleeve the Bookes of Moses the Psalmes the Prophets and all those Bookes of the Iewish Canon as also all the new Testament I know you doe Master Fisher why then herein is my faith limitted whatsoever doctrine is plainely hence inferred or out of principles of nature I receive as doctrines or truths convincing my understanding but they are no part of my faith After these all doctrines and lawes Ecclesiasticall or civill in the Church or State wherein I live not contradicting the word of God or my conscience I receive with humility May I aske you Master Fisher againe whether the Apostles Creed and those bookes of old and new Testament received by our Church of England had not professors in all ages nay were not professed and beleeved of the Popes and Cardinalls of all ages I know you will not deny but they were so professed why then may not I vouch these Popes and Cardinalls for my selfe as I intend to doe when I come to my Catalogue CHAP. VII Fisher ANd I marvaile why having gone halfe the way as hee saith hee maketh a stop there and doth not with the like audacity goe on in naming other famous Roman Catholikes in every of the other ages Rogers Because Master Fisher offered in like proportion to name and defend Professors of Roman religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent these were your words in the first Paper I received of yours I have gone halfe my journey you not a step in proportion you should have gone as farre as I did especially seeing you would have no other meanes of triall whereas I have and hold other and better meanes to prove my Faith and my Church yet to satisfie others to stop your mouth and to meet you at your owne weapon I undertooke this as a probable forreine humane uncertaine Argument yet such as maketh more for us then for you Fisher Namely such as Gualterus in Latine and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote in English have set downe for members in the Roman Church Rogers If they have done it sufficiently and effectually it had beene the lesse labour for you Mr. Fisher to have transcribed them but wee may guesse what makes you neither take a Catalogue out of them nor make one of your owne after your example I might transmit you to Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis or The mysterie of Babylon vvritten by Sir Phillip Morney the learned Lord of Plessis who have performed this for the reformed Churches farre better then yours have done for your Church Yet when I come to the place where you have cited my Catalogue I will make it out but let mee aske you vvhy instead of naming such as professed the Romane Religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent now you put members of the Romane Church as if it were the same a member of the
perfectly of the Church for they are as living members in the body Againe some are of the soule but not of the body as those which are instructed to beleeve the principles of Christian Religion but are not yet baptized or those who are excommunicated if they retaine faith and love which may bee done Lastly some are of the body but not of the soule as those who have no inward vertue but for some temporall ends do professe the faith and partake of the Sacraments under the government of Pastors and such are as the haire or nailes or ill humors in mans body Thus farre Saint Augustine This last doth make a man to bee a part of the visible Church Bellar. de Eccl. l. 3 c 2. As then in man there is the inner and the outward man the soule and the body the one is visible the other is not visible So in the Church there is a mysticall Church which is not seene to bodily eyes and an outward profession of Christ and receiving of Sacraments which makes the visible Church we can see the men we can see them baptized comming to the Temple receiving the Sacraments we can heare them make confession of the Christian faith call upon God the Father by Christ all these things are sensible and most of them visible as the men their meeting their receiving of the Sacraments the lifting up of their hands in prayer the opening of their lips in confession of their faith in prayer and thankesgiving Where there is a society of men thus professing the faith of Christ and partaking of his Sacraments under the government of Pastors there is a visible Christian Church These doe communicate in the same Sacraments in the same confession of faith and that maketh them to be of one Church of the visible Church though they be never so far remote one from another and unknowne one to another in the same essence of faith the principall and necessary articles whereof are contained in the Apostles Creed in the same essentiall forme of baptisme whereby men are admitted into the visible Church we communicate with the Roman Church and so doe all Christian Churches in the world that is in all that which must necessarily be professed and done to make a Church Now whereas my adversarie saith that those Popes Cardinalls Bishops others named by Gualterus and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote did communicate with the Church of Rome that will not serve his turne for so doe we communicate with them in many things in the Apostles Creed in the principall Sacraments in the Iewish Canon of the old Testament and in all the new This doth make them and us a Church in these we have not left them but in their new Creed in their bookes added to the ancient Canon of the Bible in their unwritten Traditions in other their new false hereticall doctrines in their superstitious practise of Religion and Monarchicall discipline tyrannizing over the families of Christ These we hold to be the corruption sicknesse leprosie of their Church there we have left viz their Papacie not their Church we left them as an unsound Church not as a Church Thus the Primitive Church did deale with the Heathens Iewes and Hereticks as Saint Augustine writeth to the Donatists they retained what was good amongst them These Donatists held their owne society alone to bee the Church and excluded all others their owne baptisme to be true effectuall and no other so that they rebaptized those which were baptized by others in defence of their allegation objected thus Vsqueadeo meum est quod à me unicum datum est nec ab ipsis sacrilegis iteretur Sacrilegus non est qui unicum baptismum non quod tuum est sed quod Christi iterare non audet Etenim Christi est unica in baptismate consecratio Tua est unici baptismatis iteratio Corrigo in te quod tuum est agnosco quod Christi est hoc enim justum est ut cum mala hominum reprobamus quaecunque in illis bona Dei reperimus approbamus Hoc inquam justum est ut etiam in sacrilego non violem quod verum invenio Sacramentum nec sic emendem Sacrilegum ut in eo perpetrem sacrilegium Nam sic sunt isti mali in baptismo bono quemadmodum sunt Iudaei mali in lege bona Itaque ut illi per ipsam legem judicabuntur quam malitia sua malā fecerunt Ita isti per ipsum baptismum judicabuntur quod bonum mali tenuerunt Ergo quemadmodum Iudaeus cū ad nos venerit ut Christianus fiat non in eo destruimus bona Dei sed mala ipsius Nam quod errat non credendo quod Christus jam venerit natusque passus sit resurrexerit hoc emendamus eaque infidelitate destituta fidem qua haec creduntur instruimus Item quod errant umbris veterum Sacramentorum inhaerendo dissuademus jamque venisse tempus quo haec auferenda atque mutanda Propheta praedixerunt demonstramus Quod verò unum Deum colendum credit qui fecit Caelum terram quod omnia Idola Sacrilegia Gentium detestatur quod futurum expectat judicium quod vitam sperat aeternam quod de carnis resurrectione non dubitat laudamus approbamus agnoscimus sicut credebat credenda sicut tenebat tenenda firmamus Ita etiam cum ad nos venerit Schismaticus vel haereticus ut Catholicus fiat schisma ejus haeresim dissuadendo destruendo rescindimus Sacramenta verò Christiana si eadē in illo invenimus quicquid aliud veri tenet absit ut violemus absit ut si simel danda norimus iteremus ne dum vitia humana curamus divina medicamenta damnemus aut quaerendo sanare vulneratum quod non est hominem saucium ubi sanus est vulneremus August Tom 7. l. de un baptis cont Petil. cap. 2. 3. Possunt esse populi boni ubi fuerint Episcopi mali sicut potuit esse populus malus ubi fuit Moses Princeps Rector bonus li. 2. c. E. Parmen c. 4. In bonis quibus talia displicent semper manet mansit manebit Ecclesia l. 3. Nihl aliud est consentire male facientibus nisi mala facta eorum approbare atque laudare l. 1. Nemo conjungitur cum infidelibus nisi qui facit peccatum Paganorum vel talia facientibus favet nec quisquam fit particeps iniquitatis nisi qui iniqua vel agit vel approbat l. 2. c. 17. Vbi Moses Aaron ibi murmuratores sacrilegi ubi Caiphas caeteri tales ibi Zacharias Simeon caeteri boni ubi Saul ibi David ubi Ieremias ubi Isaias ubi Daniel ubi Ezechiel ibi Sacerdotes mali populi mali cap. 7. Et sicut grana inter paleas non videntur ita pie viventes inter iniquorum turbas non facile apparent My Baptisme is such and so
undoubted as that the sacrilegious hereticks themselves will not rebaptize those whom I have baptized Saint Augustine doth answer thus He doth not commit sacriledge who dares not rebaptize after that baptisme which is not thine but the baptisme of Christ The baptisme is Christs the rebaptizing is thine I correct in thee that which is thine and acknowledge that which is Christs for this is just that when wee reproove the evils of men we should approve whatsoever good things we find in them because they are Gods I say this is just that even in a sacrilegious person I should not violate that true Sacrament which I find in him neither that I should so correct a sacrilegious person as thereby to commit a sacrilegious sinne For they are evill though the baptisme amongst them bee good as the Iewes were evill though the law was good And even as the Iewes shall bee judged by that law which they though defiled could not defile So the Donatists they shall be judged by that baptisme which they could not deprave though themâ—elves be depraved Wee therefore thus deale with a Iew when he commeth unto us to bee made Christian wee doe not destroy in him the good that he hath from God but the evill that he hath of himselfe for we amend and destroy in him his infidelity whereby hee doth not beleeve that Christ is come already was borne hath suffered is risen againe and we instruct him in the faith of these things Wee also disswade him from those errors whereby he still sticketh to the shadow of the old Sacraments and we shew unto him that the time is come already wherein the Prophets foretold that these things were to bee taken away and changed But in that hee beleeveth one God is to bee worshipped which made Heaven and Earth that he doth abhorre all the Idolls and sacriledges of the Gentiles that hee doth expect the day of Iudgement that hee doth hope for eternall life we commend him approve him acknowledge him wishing him to beleeve as he had beleeved to hold as he had held So also when a Schismatick or an heretick doth come unto us to bee made a Catholick we disswade destroy and take from him his schisme and his heresie but as for the Sacraments of Christ if wee finde them in him and whatsoever other truth he holdeth farre be it from us that we should violate or minister againe that baptisme which was once received least while wee cure the vices of men wee condemne the saving graces of God and seeking to heale that which is not wounded we should wound a man there where he was whole Thus farre Saint Augustine These words of this Father make so plaine for our reformed Churches as that they need no application let the Reader understand Papist where he readeth Donatist and he shall find the Argument to follow We so left you as that we retained whatsoever you had from God and reject that which was from man we retained that which made you a Christian Church we rejected that which made you Popish and Antichristian In the former we communicate with you in the latter we disclaime So those whom I have and shall cite did communicate with you in some things but not in all for if they had communicated with you in all things they would not have reproved Aug. l. 2. cor op Par. c. 21. and disliked so many things Qui communicat consentit qui consentit corrumpitur If hee communicate hee doth consent if hee consent hee is corrupted To consent to evill is nothing else but to approve and commend that which is evill neither is there any man joyned in evill but he that doth commit evill or favour it act it or approve it In those good men which are displeased with those evills the Church doth continue hath continued and will continue for ever And as the graine unwinnowed is hid in the chaffe So the godly doe not easily appeare amongst a multitude of the wicked The people may be good where the Bishops are bad as the people were bad though Moses a good man was their Prince where Moses and Aaron were there also were sacrilegious murtherers Where Caiphas was and many like unto him there were also Zacharias and Simeon and others like unto them Saul and David were in the same Synagogue c. So that I doubt not but some may be found in all ages who did not communicate with your new doctrines superstitious worship tyrannicall discipline although they did communicate with you in the Scriptures and Apostles Creed as wee and all the famous Christian Churches in the world doe Know then that whereas you say that the Fathers and others alleadged by some of your men did communicate with the Roman Church unlesse you can say in all things you conclude nothing Syllogizari non est ex particulari for otherwise I might argue thus Some living creature is an Anabaptist Master Fisher is a living creature Ergo Master Fisher is an Anabaptist Because they communicate with you in some things thence to inferre you are the same in all things is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter CHAP. IX Fisher AND as ancient Fathers have done before them condemned some or other Protestants Doctrine even of those 39 Articles of the English Protestant Church although they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches Rogers I told you in my first Answer that it is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our Faith and that the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell These were my words in my first Answer to which you reply not at all to this purpose I also used that distinction of Discipline and Doctrine and distinguished between Doctrine Accessary and Fundamentall Adding also that matter of Faith consisteth not in Discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not Accessary but Fundamentall By which distinction I meane as I then expressed the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei Per Se Per accidens To this purpose I then distinguished Dogmata 1 Schola 2 Ecclesiae 3 Fidei Between 1 Opinions of Schoole 2 Doctrines of the Church 3 Articles of Faith To all which grounds of mine and more which I thâ—n layed you make no reply at all saving that some other grounds of mine you cavill at viz my Definition of a Protestant and my Distinction of Affirmation and Negation which I will justifie in their places Why would you say nothing to these grounds Master Fisher If they were true why would you not grant them If false why not deny them If ambiguous why not distinguish them I know no other Answer but one of these three wayes Concedendo negando vel distinguendo You will doe none of these to
my grounds and yet write in the top of your Booke for divers pages these words Master Rogers his most weake grounds viz. pag. 26 27. and in both these pages not one word spoken of my grounds Thus would you perswade your silly Proselytes who must reade no more then the Title of your Bookes That you have answered all when you have answered nothing Likewise pag. 22. you write over head Master Rogers his most weake Arguments whereas there is not in that page any one Argument of mine You can passe all those grounds of mine with a tricke of Rhetorick to take notice of that which you cannot answer unto and in stead of that must strike at a stander by namely our Booke of Articles saying That they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches which I deny as most false neither need it any further Reply being an indefinite exception and as it seemeth spoken of purpose to draw mee from that matter proposed to goe a roving as your selfe have done with impertinent discourses Fisher I might therefore without more adoe conclude that Master Rogers hath not sufficiently answered Master Fishers Question Rogers With as little adoe as you can inferre abrogating a Law from that word which is the most proper for enacting the same Decret 1. part dist 4. c. 4. Lugduni Edit anno 1584. jussu Greg. 13. Statuimus id est abrogamus Wee doe enact it that is wee doe cancell it or as you say the Roman Church that is the Catholicke Church a part that is a whole a piece of man that is a whole man this is quidlibet ex quolibet from the staffe to the corner Fisher In regard hee hath neither named Protestants in all Ages neither hath hee sufficiently proved them hee named to be Protestants but by such false suppositions and bad definitions and such other shifts as any Arrian or Anabaptist or whatsoever other absurd Sectary may by the like defend the same persons to have beene of their Religion or Sect. Rogers The Question was whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages This I prooved by divers Arguments to which you have made such answer as wee shall see anon To this I have not sufficiently answered say you in regard 1. I have not named Protestants in all ages As if there were no other means to decide the question but this no other proofe then induction or that my adversary proposing the question should limit me what kind of proofe I must use As if the King of France denouncing war against the King of England should send him word If you will warre against mee you must doe it by land not by sea and you must land in Picardie not in Normandie or Britaine or Poitou and you must chuse your place of battell in large Plaines and fight with horse not with foot and bring no Archers into the field or else confesse that you are no Warrier your Englishmen Scots and Britaines no Souldiers your proceedings not justifiable by the law of Nations Would Charles of France the Frentick have sent such a message such a challenge to our Henry the fift Yet Master Fisher saith If any Protestant will answer the Premises let him set downe names of Protestant Preachers in all Ages who taught the people Protestant Doctrine in everie severall Age or else confesse that there were no such before Luther or at least not in Ages to be found in History As if I should say If any Iesuit will answer mee let him shew mee the names of Iesuit Preachers in all Ages who taught the people Iesuiticall Doctrine in every severall Age or else confesse that there were no such before Ignatius Laiola We will deale with you as Edward the third with Phillip who presented himselfe before Paris saying Hee did call upon him to open fight in the view of France and before his great Theater of Paris He did not limit him to any one kind of fight or weapon hee left him to his choise so doe wee with you prove your selves to be the only Church and that all are excluded from salvation unlesse they hold Communion with and subjection to your Pope prove it by any testimonie of Scripture or demonstration from the Principles of Scripture or Reason frame your Argument as you thinke best for your owne advantage there are many places for Arguments viz. 24. wee exclude none but will admit them in their degrees some as necessary some as probable These are places of Art or Learning yet you will exclude us from all these and bring us ad loca inartificiata to testimonie And whereas those are Divina of God or Man vel Humana of God or Man You will have none but the later which can be but weak there being no Historian or Father but might be deceived and very few against whom you have not taken some exceptions Of all the formes of arguing a Syllogisme is that principall forme which alone hath constringencie and necessary illation and to which all other formes as being imperfect are reduced this we must not meddle with but bring exemplum or inductio or at the most an Enthymeme which is curtatus imperfectus Syllogismus all of them unsufficient parere scientiam to worke and produce true knowledge and yet we must use onely these This is as if the King of France should have sent to our King that when hee fought hee should not put on his best Armour nor use his best Sword Saint Augustine in this question excluded humane testimony yet you will have nothing else Non audiamus Haec dicit Ambrosius Augustinus c. Sed haec dicit Dominus Your Schoole also granteth that Scriptures are the principles in Theologie and all demonstrations must bee ex proprijs principijs out of proper principles Yet you will none of them onely names out of Histories you call for This was a kind of proofe which I did not approve at first but denyed the consequence of your 5th Proposition thus The summe of your fift Proposition is briefly this If the names of Protestant Pastors in all ages cannot be shewed then the Protestants are not the true Church This I deny to be of undoubted consequence for that argument negatively from authority is of no force In your demand you require the names of such as taught the Protestant doctrines whereas all your Propositions before were of faith as if all doctrines were points of faith I undertooke to shew a Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now doe in all ages and in all your Propositions you speake of faith here you speake of doctrines You know all doctrines are not articles of faith I have named Authors for 800. yeeres and in this my second Reply I will for the rest Was not my request more reasonable to call upon you to goe on so farre it being your owne way it being a course proposed by your selfe yet he that hath not gone one mile findeth fault
those other things which we find in some singulars or particulars but not in other or at sometimes but not at other This is the rule of reason but you of Rome contrary to this course in framing your definitions have collected those things which are to be found in one particular Church viz. your owne and wherein you conceive other particular Churches to be defective things accidentall to the Church as without which the Christian Church hath beene and may be hereafter wheras all those things that belong to the definition of any thing must be essentiall universall inseparable and being taken alltogether must shew and explicate the whole nature of the thing and exclude all things else of a different nature or kind as for example Bellarmine after a long dispute concerning the definition of the Church rejecting all other concludeth thus Nostra autem sententia est Ecclesiam unam tantum esse non duas illam unam veram esse caetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatam sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum ac praecipuè unius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani pontificis Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis professio verae fidei Sacramentorum communio subjectio ad legitimum Pastorem Romanum Pontificem Ratione primae partis excluduntur omnes Infideles tam qui nunquam fuerunt in Ecclesia ut Iudaei Turcae Pagani quam qui fuerunt recesserunt ut Haeretici Apostatae Ratione secundae excluduntur Catechumeni excommunicati quoniam illi non sunt admissi ad Sacramentorum Communionem isti sunt admissi Ratione tertiae excluduntur Schismatici qui habent fidem Sacramenta sed non subduntur legitimo Pastori ideò foris profitentur fidem Sacramenta percipiunt Includuntur autem omnes alij etiamsi Reprobi Scelesti Impij sunt But this is our opinion that the Church is onely one not two and that one and true Church is an Assembly of men knit together in the profession of the same faith with Christ and Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors and especially under one Vicar of Christ on Earth the Bishop of Rome Out of which definition may easily bee collected who are of the Church and who are not for in this definition are three parts 1. profession of faith 2. communion of Sacraments 3. subjection to a lawfull Pastor the Bishop of Rome The 1. of these doth exclude all Infidells aswell Iewes Turkes and Heathens as Heretickes and Apostates which having beene of the Church departed from it The 2. part doth exclude those Catechumeni that are instructed in the principles of Christian Religion but are not yet baptized and those that are excommunicate for the first of these were never admitted to the Communion of the Sacraments these latter were admitted but are by excommunication excluded By the 3. part are excluded Schismatickes which have the faith and the Sacraments but are not subject unto the lawfull Pastor and therefore doe professe the faith and receive the Sacraments out of the Church All others are of the Church although they bee Reprobates wicked ungodly men Thus farre Bellarmine Valenza to the same effect writeth thus Vera Ecclesia non est alia Tom. 3. in Tho. pa. 144. nisi ea fidelium congregatio quae paret Romano Pontifici pro tempore existenti There is no true Church but that Congregation of faithfull people which is obedient to the Bishop of Rome for the time being Binnius the last and largest compiler of the Councells hath this Illam dicimus Ecclesiam quae decreta Sancti Consilij Tridentini universalis aecumenici tenet pariter honorat To. 2. pa. 721 notis in Corc Tolet. 3. We call that the Church which doth hold and honour the decrees of the Holy generall Councell of Trent Thus wee see that obedience to the Bishop of Rome is put by your late great Goliahs in the definition of the Church and by consequence it is of the essence and being of the Church so that no man can be saved by their Doctrine which is not obedient to the Bishop of Rome Nay the Christian Church cannot subsist without the Bishop of Rome and obedience unto him because nothing can subsist without his owne being If this be a true definition of the Christian Church then millions of Soules were damned when the Church of Rome was divided for many yeares and many descents for there could be but one true Pope at the same time some cleaving to one Pope some to the other this Schisme during seventy yeares The want of this obedience if their Doctrine be true hath excluded all the reformed Churches from hope of salvation which containe many millions of Christian Soules which receive and believe the Scriptures of old and new Testament as they were received in the first second third fourth Centurie of yeares which receive and professe the Apostles Creed are therein baptized and receive for Orthodox Doctrine the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councels and some of them receive six of the first Councels and yet must they be damned to the pit of hell because they will not be obedient to the Pope Histor Concil Trid. p. 450. The Queen of France somewhat above sixty yeares since wrote unto the Pope that there being none of the Reformed who deny the Articles of Faith nor the six Councels many thought it fit to receive them into Communion Let us passe from the Latin Church to the Greeke a Church larger in extent then the Latine Church This with all the number of Christian Soules therein contained for denying the Popes Supremacie are out of the Church have lost their hold of Christ have no interest in his sufferings although most of them suffer much for the profession of Christ under Turkes and Tartars Let us goe somewhat further and observe the miserable condition of the Churches of Africke which when they were at the best were three times as large as the Roman Church and yet though the Mahometans have much prevailed against them not inferior to the Latine Church all these are without hope of Heaven damned for ever to the pit of Hell if this definition be true Eusebius the compiler of the Ecclesiasticall History for the first three hundred and odd yeares assisted therein by Constantine the Great and esteemed by him worthy to be Bishop of all the world writeth Lib. 3. c. 14. that The Church was dispersed through the world by the Apostles Then speaking of the next Age viz. Anno 137. writeth Lib 4. c 6. c. 28. that The Churches did then shine like bright starres through the world and the faith in Jesus Christ did flourish in universo humano genere amongst all mankind As in Mesopotamia in France in Asia in Phrygia Lib. 6. c.
your tenet That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church which is the fame in effect with the doctrine of Bellarmine Valenza and Binnius bee true it must include all Christian Churches and it must agree to all the Christian Churches at all times but this definition did not agree to all Christian Churches as I have shewed by the testimony of your owne writers and Travellers for many thousands of Christian Nations in the world did not acknowledge your Pope and many never heard of your Latine Church neither did the Latine Church know them That it did not perpetually belong to the Church will appeare in that I thinke my adversary is not able to produce any in 1150. yeeres after Christs comming in the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Metaph 2. c. 3. that framed such a definition of the Catholick Church so that the learned must either be ignorant of the true definition or this must not be it Is it likely that all the learned Fathers who wrote upon this subject disputed upon this point Licet definitio definitum re idē sint tamen propositio in qua definitio de definito praedicatur non est identica sed doctrinalis quia in ea conceptus distinctus de confuso praedicatur Zuarez were ignorant what the Church of Christ was which is distinctly knowne onely by d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arti. 2. Post c. 2. a definition If this definition or your tenents were true all those Christians who dyed for Christ till Peter came to Rome were out of the Church were damned Stephen the first Martyr who dyed for Christ the same yeere that Christ dyed for him and all the world was out of the Church was damned lost his life in vaine shed his bloud to no purpose If it were so necessary that there must be a Bishop of Rome to whom all Christians must submit why did not the Primitive Christians entreate Peter to goe to Rome that they might have a Church The beleeving Iewes should have come to Peter and said if we die before there be a Bishop of Rome we dye out of the Church we are damned Definitio est principium finis logieae Zabarella therefore good Peter to Rome with all speed They of Antioch should have done the like and said to Peter sweet Simon what dost thou here to Rome that we may have a Church So should they of Alexandria have told him to Rome Peter what dost thou heere Sedit Antiochiae annis 7. Baron an 39.25 annis ut Euseb in Chro. why wilt thou so long delay the laying of that corner stone in Rome whereon all must be built wherein all must be saved why wilt thou hazard the salvation of so many soules as may die before thou hast settled a Church at Rome which must be the Mother of all Churches Pius 4. his Creed art 11. wilt thou make thy selfe guilty of the blood of so many beleevers as may dye whilst thou doest linger and loyter heere The Churches of Iudaea Galile and Samaria were excluded by your definitions Acts 9.10 11 12. and tenents for Peter had not as yet beene out of those coasts nay if this definition were true they were no Churches but the Scripture saith they were Churches ergo this is a false tenet a false definition The Christians of Ioppa were to blame to send for him Acts 9. to hinder him from a more necessary journey to Rome and Peter himselfe much to blame to tarry there many dayes Cornelius the devout Centurion if he had heard Acts 10. and believed your tenents and definitions might have stumbled at what the Angell commanded him doe and he might have said with himselfe if there be no salvation out of the Roman Church what good can Peter doe me before there be a Church there If none can be saved but who are in subjection to the Bishop of Rome what good can Peter doe me there being as yet no Bishop of Rome Then when Peter came unto him and preached Christ Iesus and remission of sinnes in his name if these men had beene there they would have said Peter you have forgot one principall Article of the faith that which is essentiall to the Church the being entity the definition of it That he must be obedient to the Bishop of Rome this might more neerely concerne him being Captaine of the Italian Band. But the Scripture saith that Peter did tell him that whereby he and all his house should be saved and yet no word of Rome or Roman Bishop The Christians of Antioch by this definition and tenet were no Church though the Scripture say they were Iames the brother of Iohn which was kild by Herod was of no Church by this definition and tenet and therefore was damned We desire not to be of any other Church then Augustine Ambrose Ierome the Councell of Africk the Councell of Nice the Church of Ioppa Caesarea Ierusalem Antioch were of We like no such definitions as exclude the Fathers Councells the Apostle Saint Iames the Martyr Saint Stephen and damnes them to Hell O let me live the life of these dye the death of these and rest in peace with these Thus much in justifying my definition and against your tenet and Iesuiticall definition of Bellarmine which I briefly urge thus That definition which belongeth to all Christian Churches and to none else is a good definition But such is mine Ergo It is a good definition That definition and tenet which excludeth and condemneth all the Churches of Africk Asia and a great part of Europe yea Stephen the first Martyr and Iames the brother of Iohn together with divers Councells and fathers is false and uncharitable But such is your definition such your tenet Ergo Your tenet and definition are both false and uncharitable CHAP. XI A true Copy of Mr. Fishers five Propositions IT is certaine there is one and but one true infallible faith without which none can please God 2. This one infallible faith cannot be had according to the ordinary course of Gods providence but by hearing Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church who onely are lawfully sent and authorized to teach the true word of God 3. As therefore this one infallible faith hath beene and must be in all ages so there must needs be in all ages Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church of whom all sorts of people have in times past as appeareth by Histories learned and must learne in all future times the said infallible faith 4. Hence it followeth that if Protestants bee the true visible Church of Christ all sorts of men who in every age have had the aforesaid infallible faith have learned it by Protestant Preachers whose names may be found in Histories as the names of those are found who in severall ages did teach and convert people of severall Nations under the faith of Christ 5. Hence further followeth that
as if it were our Tenet and this must be our ground to inferre that Proposition this is your Petitio principii you beg a Principle which I will not grant you and so the building fals for want of a foundation Your Argument is thus Major If Protestants be the true visible Church of God then all sorts of men who in every Age had the foresaid infallible Faith have learned it by hearing Protestant Preachers whose names may yet be found in Histories as the names of those are found who in every former Age did teach and convert the people of severall Nations unto the Faith of Christ Minor But the Protestants are the true Church Ergo All sorts of men c. Not to meddle with the sequel of your Major which is false as I will shew when I come to answer your reasons for the same your Minor is most false wee alwaies did and ever will deny it wee are A true Church not The true Church a part not the whole c. Whatsoever is in your Proposition more then what I expressed for the summe thereof I granted not and therefore you have committed so many falsifications as there are words in your Proposition more then this If the Protestants be a true Church their Faith hath beene taught in all Ages by lawfull Pastors I never granted that all sorts of men in every Age did learne their Faith by hearing Protestant Preachers I never granted that their names or the names of all other Preachers were to be found in Histories yet you say I granted all this Is there no truth no modestie no meane no measure of falsifying Are you not ashamed to write that a man granted that which hee denied so fully so frequently Fisher Onely it may be hee will make a bogge at the word Histories as not finding it in his Copie not thinking it perhaps necessary that the names of Protestant Pastors who have taught the Protestant Faith in all Ages past be found in Histories Rogers What you meane by Bogge I know not unlesse it be a hollow myrie ground whereon a man can set no sure no firme footing but hee that trusting to a greene surface shall walke thereon sinketh in and sticketh in the myre such indeed are humane Histories in matters of Faith But why should Master Rogers make the bogge who proveth his Faith and his Church by other Arguments and not by these who out of Saint Augustine hath already protested against humane proofe in so divine a Question Aug. de veritate Ecclesia Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari I would not have the Church demonstrated by humane learning but by the oracle of God And with your Schoole That nothing but divine authoritie Th. Aquin. 1. quaest 1. Art 8. neither humane reason nor authoritie of holy Fathers are proper unto Divinitie or doe properly demonstrate But you that shun the proving of your Church of your Faith by other course and flye onely to Histories you make the bogge and such a bogge whereon you dare not walke without you fill it up with the rubbish of some other kind of Records or Monuments If you meane by making a bogge at the word Histories that I should be afraid to admit the same now because it was not in my former Copy you are deceived I feare it not let it come in though with a Parenthesis and let Histories extend to Records or Monuments so they be without exception I well receive them in their degree as a humane probable uncertaine unnecessitating proofe and yet such and so uncertaine proofe as it is if you can shew mee your now Faith out of Histories for the first foure hundred years which you your selves doe not accuse of errour falshood wilfull deceit juggling partialitie heresie I will be of your Faith of your Church Fisher Things past cannot be shewed but by Histories Rogers I have admitted your extension of Histories to Records and Monuments Fisher I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant the fourth Proposition even as it was set downe by Master Fisher himselfe Rogers Within twelve lines before you say Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant and here now you say I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant it there you say I did grant it here you suppose I did not grant it You see no reason why I should not grant If it be evident it hath reason why it is evident and being your Proposition you must shew that reason and what your reasons are and how proposed let us see Fisher For if any visible Protestant Pastors were in all ages teaching especially any such Protestant Doctrines as now are taught they would have beene named and spoken of and written of as well as others are who have in Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines Rogers First you play the Sophister in changing your termes in your three first Propositions you speake of Faith here you leave out Faith and put in Doctrines as if they were the same whereas you know that the ancient Fathers and late Writers of your side and ours doe confesse that there are many Doctrines in the Church of different nature and necessitie but let us see your proofe Others who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named spoken of and written in Histories Ergo The Protestant Pastors in ages are named spoken of c. First tell mee whether your Antecedent be universall or particular if particular you conclude nothing you know the old rule Syllogizari non est ex particulari or if you will have it in the words of Aristotle the rule is this Arist lib. Prior 1. c. 19. If both Premises be indefinite or in part it can be no Syllogisme and such is yours namely an indefinite Proposition which must be resolved either into universall or particular If yours be universall thus All others who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named in Histories I denie it It is related by many Historians that there were Christian Churches in Britaine in the third fourth and fifth Age. But no man hath put downe all their names who were their Bishops or inferior Ministers if you can doe it shew it mee Againe the Arrians were so many in the fourth Age as that a Father saith Miratus est mundus se subitò factum esse Arrianum The world wondered how it came on a sudden to be of the Faith of Arrius And can you Master Fisher shew mee the names of these Arrian Teachers I could be copious in alleaging divers false Doctrines whose first Authors are not named are not knowne much lesse all that taught the same so that if your Proposition be universall it is false I denie your Antecedent If particular thus Some others who taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named in Histories
cast a dart or shoot an Arrow This is Pugna levis bellumque fugax turmaeque vagantes Lucan de Parthis Et melior cessisse loco quam pellere miles Illica tela dolis nec Martem comminus unquam Ausa pati virtus sed longe tendere nervos Et quò ferre velint permittere vulnera ventis Light armed men who flying fight and never firmly stand Better in skipping up and downe then fighting hand to hand Their poisned darts they send and shoot but will not closely fight Wounds which they dare not bring themselves they send by winged flight Had the Argument been so easily answered you would not have answered it by a manifest untruth as you have done by saying That the Protestants Faith is not contained in Scriptures whereas it is one of the greatest Controversies betweene you and us whether the Scriptures be the onely rule of Faith which wee affirme and you denie it is the sixth Article in the Doctrine of our Church of England the Title is thus Of the sufficiencie of holy Scripture for salvation The Article it selfe is this Holy Scripture containeth all things necessarie for salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or to be thought requisite and necessarie to salvation c. To this Article of ours agreeth the Helvetian Bohemian French Belgian Saxonian Suevian confessions Reade the Bookes of Luther Brentius Melancthon Chemnitius Calvin Zanchie Whittaker and you shall find that they all doe professe this and write at large in defence thereof We proclaime it in our Pulpits we maintaine it in our Schooles wee will shed our blood rather then admit any Articles of Faith which are not contained in the Scriptures Is it not strange you should have the face to denie that wee professe that which is printed in the Doctrine of our Church preached in our Pulpits every day maintained in our Schooles defended by all proclaimed to the world What doth Chemnitius maintaine in the first part of his Examen Concilii Tridentini but this This the first Controversie which hee there handleth against you What doth Calvin labour in his first Booke of Institutions cap. 6 7 8 9. in his third Booke and second Chapter where hee speaketh of the nature of Faith but this And it is not a little that he writeth to this purpose in his fourth Booke and tenth Chapter Hath not Zanchie written a whole Booke to this purpose Against whom doth Bellarmine write his third and fourth Booke de verbo Dei which tend onely to this purpose to denie the fulnesse of Scripture and to extend matters of Faith to unwritten Traditions but against the Protestants There hee putteth Luther and Brentius in the forefront of his Adversaries Doth not Valenza in his third Tome upon Thomas disputatione 1a. quaest 3ª 4ª 5ª 6ª 7ª octava maintaine the same Tenet against the same men This is the maine Question betweene your Jesuited Schoolmen and us when they write de objecto fidei what those things are which are to be believed with a religious assent of divine Faith Whether onely those things which are contained in Scriptures as the Protestants doe professe or also unwritten Traditions as the Church of Rome doth professe let us then view the Argument and see how you answer it 1. Arg. First a Causis thus The Faith contained in the Scriptures hath had visible Professors in all Ages But the Protestant Faith is contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Protestant Faith had visible Professors in all Ages M. Fisher denieth the Minor or second Proposition which I have proved in the last Page before out of the publike Doctrine of our Church and chiefest Writers of our side and theirs neither can hee be ignorant of the same but the Argument troubles him and something hee must say Neither is hee ignorant that in this Controversie of the visible Church betweene them and us It is not the inward habit but the outward profession of Faith which maketh a visible Church Ecclesia constat professione ejusdē fidei Bellarm. Tom 2. l. 3. c. 2 3 4. etc. cōmunicatione eorundem Sacramentorum The Church doth consist in professing the same Faith and cōmunicating the same Sacraments Cap. 9. And againe the same Author cap. 10. writeth thus I answer Formam Ecclesiae non esse fidem internam nisi Ecclesiam invisibilem habere velimus sed externam id est fidei confessionem c. The forme or essence of the Church is not the inward Faith but the outward profession of Faith L. 19 c. 11. which Saint Augustine declareth most plainly against Faustus the Manichee and experience doth testifie the same for they are admitted into the Church who professe the Faith Thus farre Bellarmine So then by Faith in this Argument of the visible Church is alwayes understood the outward profession of Faith whereas the Protestants doe professe that they believe nothing but what is contained in the Scriptures this Respondent hath the face to say wee doe not professe it If but one man should come into the face of a congregation and say I doe professe and believe onely those things which are contained in Scriptures were not hee very impudent and had a face harder then brasse who would say to this man Thou dost not professe that Faith which is contained in Scriptures That Argument is not easily answered which driveth the Respondent to such miserable shifts Wee professe no Articles of Faith but those which are contained in the Apostles Creed which of these Articles are not contained in Scriptures Ad Partes Master Fisher this is the law of answering to a Proposition that hath many members wee professe that with a religious divine Faith wee receive nothing but what is contained in the five books of Moses or Ioshua Iudges Ruth the two books of Samuel the two books of Kings the two books of Chronicles the two books of Esdras Esther the booke of Iob or the Psalmes or Proverbs or Ecclesiastes or the Canticles or the foure greater or twelve lesser Prophets Or in the foure Evangelists or in the Acts of the Apostles or the Revelation and Epistles of Saint Iohn or the Epistles of Saint Paul Saint Iames Saint Peter Saint Iude which of these bookes is not Scripture Thus wee professe our Faith doe not wee every where professe with Saint Augustine De Doct. Christiana l. 2. c. 9. and against you That all things concerning Faith and life necessarily to be knowne and believed are plainly set downe in Scripture With Saint Basil Serm. de fidei confess Lib. cont Hermogen and against you That it is pride and infidelity to adde unto the Scriptures With Tertullian against you and Hermogenes Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Si non Scriptum timeat vae illud c. Shew where it is written or else feare that woe
which is denounced against those who adde unto the Word of God And will you say that wee professe any Faith besides that which is contained in Scriptures This is your easie answering Master Fisher to denie that wee professe that which we doe professe in all our Bookes in all our Schooles in all our Pulpits in all our Discourses of this subject viz. What wee ought to believe You will as easily answer the other Argument let us see the Argument and your answer 2. Arg. A Signis thus The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent of Fathers and other Writers in all ages had visible Professors in all ages But the Faith of Protestants hath these testimonies Ergo The Faith of Protestants had visible Professors in all Ages To this you answer by denying the Minor or second Proposition thus The Protestant Faith hath not testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent Ad partes Master Fisher which Article of the Apostles Creed doth want the testimonie of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent which of those Bookes received for Canonical of the Church of England and named of mee a little before want these testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent Is it Genesis or Exodus or any other Booke of Moses Is it the Psalmes or Proverbs or Histories that want this testimony Or is it Esay or Ieremie or Ezekiel or Daniel or any other of the Prophets Is it Matthew or any other of the Evangelists or Apostles name the man name the Church name the time if you cannot then say your easie answering is no answer 3. Arg. Ab Exemplis thus Names of such as professed the Protestants faith in all ages Christ and his Apostles St. Iohn Ignatius Polycarpus Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alex Origen Cyprian Lactantius Athanasius Cyrill Hierosol Ambrozius Nyssenus Hieronimus Ruffinus Chrysostomus Augustinus Cyrillus Alex Theodoretus Socrates Sozomenus Fulgentius Evagrius Gregorius primus Beda Damascenus Alcuinus Thus having gone halfe way I conclude with this Argument The Protestant faith being that which is contained in Scriptures was received and taught by all the Orthodox Fathers But the Fathers above named be all Orthodox Ergo Now what answer doe you Master Fisher give to this Argument of mine not a word unlesse to denie the conclusion be to answer an Argument I hope you will not acknowledge your selfe to be so ignorant in Logicke you know the Rule Ex veris possit nil nisi vera sequi If my Premises be true my Argument in forme as you neither deny my Premises nor except against the forme of my Argument the conclusion must follow must be true for out of true Premises can follow no conclusion but what is true Arist De Sophist Elench c. 17 18 c. this is not easie answering but not answering Looke into Aristotle concerning the duty of a Respondent and the divers kinds of answering You not being able to answer this Argument say I must bring out some or other good Authors who doe clearly shew these before named to hold all or some principall points of Protestant Faith differing from the Catholicke Roman Faith I have proved what I undertooke and what is sufficient by such Arguments as you cannot answer you dare not examine but flye from them knowing their strength and your weaknesse But you will have me prove them by Authors is any humane authoritie of a private man better then reason And what Authors would you have will not their owne profession and their owne workes together with the esteeme and reputation of Orthodox Writers which they have had in all Ages serve the turne to shew what their Faith was doe any men know what they did believe or what they did professe better then themselves As for your Roman Catholicke Faith I have alreadie shewed how fond how vaine how simple a conjunction you make of them that no child ordinarily of seven yeares of age understanding the termes but will wonder with what face you can say That a part of a Church is a whole Church that a part of a Kingdome is a whole Kingdome that a part of mans Body is the whole Body You say also that I must prove out of good Authors that they doe not condemne any of the 39 Protestant Articles Here you not being able to answer as I thinke doe dissemble conceale and passe by what I did put downe in answer to this demand of yours viz. 1. It is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our Faith 2. The Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell This you can conceale and passe over knowing that you are not able to performe it for your Councell of Trent I undertooke for matters of Faith not for secondarie Doctrines to produce Authors in all Ages professing our Faith though they might dissent from us in other Doctrines of an inferior nature not revealed in Scripture nor belonging to the foundation and Principles of Christian Religion As for the sufficiencie of my Arguments I have already made it good for any thing that you have yet spoken against them Let us now see what you say further against them CHAP. XVI Fisher WHo doth not also see that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants by onely altering the word Protestant into Catholick in regard our Catholick Doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers A most bold falshood even by the confession of divers learned Protestants themselves Rogers All the proofe that this man will bring is for ought I can see or thus Who doth not see I doe not see If it be granted c. as I have observed before for if these Arguments might be retorted against the Protestants by changing of one word why did hee not performe the same I must doe it for him Major The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages Minor But the Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures Conclusion Ergo The Catholicke Faith had visible Professors in all Ages Here I have onely changed the word Protestant into Catholicke and what one word is here against Protestants who doe hold and professe no other Faith then what is contained in Scriptures as I have already shewed out of our sixt Article wee grant this whole Argument Major Minor and Conclusion which if you doe grant I will take the Minor and inferre a dangerous Conclusion against the Church of Rome thus The Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures The Roman Faith is not contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Roman Faith is not the Catholicke Faith If you denie this Minor as it seemes by those words of yours before alleadged you will denie viz. Our Catholick Doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies
of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of learned Protestants themselves I will prove it yet first let me tell you that here you deliver a most grosse untruth if by Catholick you meane Roman to say that divers learned Protestants doe confesse that your Roman doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers This I say is a most manifest and grosse untruth seeing no learned Writers of our side doe say so much Why doth Bellarmine make Scripture a part of the Rule not the whole Rule but to bring in unwritten Traditions writing a whole Booke de verbo Dei non scripto of the unwritten Word of God And Valenza in his fourth Tome upon Thomas Aquinas is very full in seeking to prove the same in his first disputation de objecto fidei delivering these Propositions viz. That the authoritie to judge in matters of Faith is not contained onely in Scripture Disputatione prima puncto septimo quaestione tertia Sect. 4. And againe Sect. 5. The Scripture alone is not the Judge of Faith As also Sect. 6 7 8 9 10 11. As also in the eight question Sect. 44. in his Tract de Traditionibus Apostolicis Neither doe I remember that ever I read any of your late Writers but hold as these men did so that in the opinion of these men you must be but halfe a Papist because you receive but halfe that Rule of Faith which the Church of Rome receiveth for not to trouble the Reader with the opinions of private men it is the first Doctrine the first Decree of your Councell of Trent the puritie of the Gospell Fontem omnis salutaris veritatis Sess 4. morum disciplinae contineri in libris scriptis sine scripto Traditionibus The fountaine of all saving Truth and the guide of life is contained in the written Bookes and unwritten Traditions Have you any other Faith then the Councell of Trent This is to be a Protestant in the maine point in that which is the Rule of all other points of Faith and life necessary for all men to know Is this your easie answering Master Fisher to grant your Adversarie that which hee most desireth to dissent from your Councell of Trent would you but adde this to what you have written which followes necessarily I will not subscribe to Bellarmine I will not be led by Valenza herein I will leave the Councell of Trent I will hold no Doctrine which is not proved by plaine testimonie of Scripture without flying unto unwritten Traditions I would rejoyce to see you a Protestant in the maine ground-worke and Principle of all our Religion hoping that if you continue in this mind you will shortly agree in the rest Now let us see how the second Argument may be retorted against the Protestants by onely changing the word Protestant into Catholicke 2. Arg. A Signis The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquitie Vniversalitie and consent of Fathers and other Writers in all Ages had visible Professors in all Ages But the Faith of Catholickes had these testimonies Ergo The Faith of Catholickes had visible Professors in all Ages What one word is here against Protestants wee grant both the Premises and Conclusion so doe not you For they be your owne words within a few lines viz. That some points were at first not held necessarie to be believed even by Orthodox Fathers which after by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessarie to be believed as that whosoever did not believe them were accounted not Orthodox but Haereticks These are your owne words from whence it doth follow that many necessarie points were denied in precedent Ages by Orthodox Fathers and thence it must follow againe that they wanted the testimonie of all Ages being denied in some Ages by the Orthodox Fathers Such testimonies the Articles of your Roman Faith may have yet Orthodox Fathers denie them and therefore to frame the Arguments againe not according to your words which I have done already by changing Protestant into Catholicke but into Roman for that I thinke you understand by Catholicke Let it be thus The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages But the Roman Faith is contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Roman Faith had visible Professors in all Ages Would to God your Minor were true I would be glad to meet with you in the Conclusion But I have already shewed out of your owne Writers and Councell of Trent that you hold the contrary and your new Creed being examined by Scripture will finde more contradiction there then proofe unwritten traditions equalled to the word of God Seven Sacraments improperly so called halfe Communion Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images have neither testimony of Scriptures nor Fathers this you know well enough and therefore you could passe over a great deale of my Reply without any mention of what I had replied My words were these Having gone thus farre at this time I undertake for the rest and doe require the like from the Romanists viz. That they would shew me the names of such as taught the now faith of the Church of Rome in all ages and let them set me downe the names as I have done And for instances in points of Roman faith in all ages I require these men to shew me the names of those who in the first second third Centurie of yeares did preach or professe unwritten Traditions to be the rule of faith Secondly that the vulgar Latine translation is authenticall Thirdly that there are seven Sacraments improperly so called and no more Fourthly that the bookes of Machabees are Canonicall Fiftly Transubstantiation Sixtly Invocation of Saints Seventhly worshipping of Images c. This rule of shewing the names of such as professed the faith in all ages is proposed by them which though it be no necessary consequence of faith yet it bindeth them that propose it to make it good in particular Out of their owne Position thus I argue First Argument That is a true Church whose faith hath had visible professors in all ages whose names may be shewed out of good Authors to be such The Romish faith had not such visible professors in all ages Ergo The Roman is not a true Church Second Argument The true faith hath the testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent But the Romish faith as farre as they differ from the Protestants faith which they doe in all the points above alledged hath not testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent Ergo The Romish faith in those points wherein they differ from the Protestants faith is not a true faith Let the Romanists answer these two Arguments in those particular points above written and I will be of their Church Thus much in my former answer to which you have made no replie at all you have neither given any instance which point of my faith is not contained in Scriptures or wanteth
cap. 5. This Councell did professe our Faith and receive our Councels and Sacraments though they added five Sacraments more reade Surius Tom. 4. Sessione 3 4 5. Thus have I travelled through Histories Fathers Schoolmen and Councels to satisfie the demand of them who when all is done will denie all Histories Fathers and Councels which make against them I might have gone a neerer way thus You baptize Children daily in your Church and then you professe my Faith the Apostles Creed and minister our first Sacrament You have your Masse or Common Prayer with the Communion often in your Churches then also you professe my Faith reade parcels of our Scriptures and minister our other Sacrament intire to the Clergie though by halfes to the Laitie You have published many Missals under the names of Saint Iames Saint Marke Saint Chrysostom and others every one of these allow and use my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have your Ordo Romanus that approveth my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have published many writers upon the Masse in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum as Walafridus Strabo Ino Corvotensis and others named by mee in my Catalogue all these professed our Faith and received our Sacraments and also our Scriptures But as for your Creed it was never professed in Baptisme it is found in none of those Missals nor in your Ordo Romanus nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Masse for one thousand five hundred yeares Let mee conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis The holy Church a diligent and wary keeper of those Doctrines which were committed unto her doth not change adde or diminish any thing therein it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary nor adde any thing that is superfluous it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianitie nor usurpe that which belongeth to other Sects of Religion in the world CHAP. XIX Fisher 1. THat faith is affirmation and not negation by which rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scriptures to pertaine to faith 2. That they that are in the affirmative must prove and not those who are in the negative but which seemeth to follow that a man who had time out of minde quietly possessed his land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary who denyeth him to have right have given a good reason of his denyall 3. That what was not a point of faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of faith as if there were not some points which were at first not held necessary to be beleeved even by Orthodox fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessary to be beleeved as that whosoever did not beleeve them were accounted not Orthodox but Hereticks And 4 that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds And the Anabaptist Church is a societie of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be Iudge it will be held so to be Rogers Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title Master Rogers his weake grounds where he spake not one word of my grounds and here he doth passe over the most with silence but he speaketh against some few of them In my former answer after my definition of a Protestant I laid some few distinctions or grounds thus I desire you to distinguish between matter 1. Of discipline and 2. Of Doctrine Secondly to distinguish between 1. Doctrine accessory and 2. Doctr. fundamentall Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not accessory but fundamentall By this distinction I meane the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 1. Per se 2. Per accidens These 3 distinctions passe without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second viz 1. Doctrine accessorie 2. Doctrine fundamentall As if he would overthrow it but indeed saith nothing in the world against it nor can for it is the distinction of Saint Augustine of Bellarmine of all the Schoole Lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 12. In Scripturis plurima sunt quae ex se non pertinent ad fidem being the same with that of Aquinas in matters of faith into res fidei 1. Per se in themselves 2. Per accidens or accidentally The words of Aquinas are these and thus cited by Valenza Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 2. § 1. as an undoubted ground or principle Habitus fidei 1. Per se primariò respicit ea circa quae distinguuntur articuli fidei 2. Alias verò propositiones quae divinis Scripturis continenter respicit secundariò per accidens The habit of faith 1. In it self and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed 2. Vpon other propositions which are contained in Scripture it looketh accidentally and secondarily This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Non enim unius sunt formae omnia verae doctrinae capita All heads of true Doctrine are not of one nature Some are necessary to be knowne which all men ought to receive as undoubted there are others Quae inter Ecclesias controversa fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant Wherein particular Churches may dissent and yet not breake the unity of faith Thus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther and others but I will onely cite Saint Augustine who in his first booke against Iulius Pelagius writeth thus Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi Regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant etalius alio de una re meliùs aliquid dicit verius Hoc autem vnde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta There are other things wherein the most learned and best defenders of the Catholicke Rule may dissent one from another and one man speaketh better and more truely then another upon the same subject But this whereof we now speake belongeth to the very foundation of faith Thus farre Saint Augustine This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with but not in that order as I placed them but after two or three other grounds of mine which in mine answer were placed after this Thus he to puzzle the Reader that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer what he doth not answer never observes order Yet I that he may in nothing escape my hands will follow him in his order so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter My next ground was this I distinguish between 1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church and 2. Negation In those Articles of our English Church Our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therefore no part of our faith for no man
Verse Semper quotidiè sic jam nunc atque profectò To which another added Aedepol ecce quidem scilicet indè procul My Adversarie at the first made a short weake Answer to what I had written such as gave no satisfaction to his owne side for so Master Waterhouse who brought mee that Answer told mee Being afterwards called upon to make a more full and more satisfactorie Answer either by himselfe or some other of his fellowes made up this not so full as he should for hee passeth by more then halfe my grounds and Arguments with silence And that which hee hath answered is botched up with impertinencies and fallacies a great manie of those botches I have shewed before as Who doth not see I doe not see Master Rogers may grant If Master Rogers doe grant I see no reason why he should not grant c. And here to my grounds by which it seemeth hee would not To my first ground by which it seemeth to follow To my second ground as if there were not some points c. To my third ground and to the fourth As if an Anabaptist may judge it will be held so to be And to my fifth Hee may be yet further allowed to reject c. Here is neither granting nor denying nor distinguishing nor arguing but all is Seeming and As if it were all concurring to make his learning Sophistrie and himselfe a Sophister Arist in Elench 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophistrie is seeming wisdome and a Sophister is hee that seeketh for gaine by seeming wisdome whereas there is no such matter and where hee seemeth to argue it is but the contentious discourse of a Sophister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consisting of nothing but seeming probabilities as I have shewed in all instances which I have met with yet and so will in this My third ground was That what was no point of Faith in the Primitive Ages could be none afterwards ut suprà Vincentius Lirinensis Aquinas What saith hee to this doth hee grant it doth he distinguish doth he denie it No grant no distinction no direct deniall for that hee dares not least hee should denie that ancient Father and his great Schoolman yet hee saith something against it or rather maketh as if hee would Hee saith that some points were defined by Councels and so made necessary to be believed which before were not held necessary even by orthodox Fathers Ergo The Church may make new points or Articles of Faith His Argument and his Antecedent be both false his Antecedent is ambiguous for to believe may signifie an act either of humane Faith or religious divine Faith If hee understand believe in the first sense I grant his Antecedent viz. That wee are to give great credit unto the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councels but yet inferior to that credit wee give unto the Word of God because he is Truth it selfe who cannot erre and they are man who may erre And therefore to take this viz That the Definitions of Councels are Articles of Faith thence to prove that wee have new Articles of Faith besides those of the Primitive Church is Petitio principii a begging of that for granted which he knowes wee denie Artic. 21. it is the Doctrine of our Church that Generall Councels may erre and that the Church ought not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessitie of salvation Whereas you say Artic. 20. the Decrees of Councels are held necessarie there is a two-fold necessitie of different degrees 1. Necessitas medii 2. Necessitas praecepti This later may belong to the Decrees of Councels not the former Here you might have remembred my distinction of 1. Doctrines of Faith 2. Doctrines of the Church 3. Doctrines of the Schoole Definitions of Councels are Church Doctrines not Doctrines of Faith and therefore have an inferiour necessitie without the knowledge whereof a man may be saved and thousands were saved before those Councels were heard of but no man can be saved without the Doctrines of Faith knowne and professed by himselfe if hee be in yeares of discretion or by his Parents and Sureties if hee be a child Whereas you say that those that refuse the Decrees of Councels are accounted Haereticks and take this for granted that so you might inferre an addition to Articles of Faith is the like begging of a Medium as the former you know wee doe not so define an Haereticke Iuel in his view of a seditious Bull. for with us hee is an Haereticke who denieth the Articles of the Christian Faith and so hee is defined by the most learned of your side holding that Haeresie doth directly and principally dissent from the Articles of Faith So Aquinas That Haeresie is opposite to Faith So Widrington a Priest of your owne Praefat. ante respond Apol. pro jure Princ. But with you and your Pope all things are Haeresies which you like not as Paul the second did pronounce them Haereticks Platina in vita Pauli ◠who should from that time forward in earnest or in jest mention the name of Academic did I thinke this Decree of your Pope were of force being an Oxford man I should be very sory for my selfe and others who in our oracles doe stile our Auditors by no name more frequently then Academici If you had ever thought your Answer should have beene read you would never have written upon the top of your Leaves Master Rogers his most weake grounds where there is no mention made of his grounds and Most weake Arguments where you make no answer at all to my Arguments and give no instance to those Arguments which cannot be answered without instances nor passed by many Arguments and grounds without any mention of them and those you mention to passe them over with It seemeth to the first Seemeth to the second As if to the third As if to the fourth Hee may be yet further allowed to the fift whereof I am next to speake Fisher And fourthly that the Anabaptist Faith is that which is contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds and the Anabaptists Church is a societie of men which professeth the Faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be judge it will be held so to be Rogers I will grant that the Anabaptist is a member of the visible Church Ecclesia verae quamvis non sanae and that Church to have beene alwaies in Ages whereof hee is a member yea Membrum verum quamvis non sanum a true member though a diseased as a goutie foot of a man that is otherwise in health and sixtie or seventie yeares old is a true member though not a sound member of that body which in all other parts is sound and this foot thus gouty though it became gouty but within a few daies before may truly say that that body whereof it is a member hath beene 10 20 30 40 70 yeares the very same body which now
it is the very same essentially though not accidentally still a body and still the same body though sometimes more healthy then other and in some parts more sound then other Now Master Fisher to what end is your great discourse of Anabaptists seeing I grant him to be of the Church If hee be such a one as you suppose him who agreeth with mee in all things else viz. in the Scripture in the Creed in the Sacraments in the essence of the Sacraments in their matter and forme in their force and efficacie onely differs from mee in the circumstance of time namely when Baptisme is to be conferred and bestowed upon Children of Christians whether before or after they are come to yeares of discretion CHAP. XXI Fisher AND fifthly That having distinguished Faith as Master Rogers doth into Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessory or not necessary hee may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not to be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth hee is unsatisfied and consequently being left to his owne libertie may apply this distinction as hee shall please accounting onely that to be necessary which hee listeth so to account I wish I say that such an Anabaptist were imagined and that Master Rogers were to be his opponent That it might be seene whether this Anabaptist could not as well by these aforesaid Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend his Faith and Church to have beene alwaies visible against Master Rogers as Master Rogers doth or can by his Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend the Protestant Church to have beene alwaies visible against Catholicks or whether Master Rogers could better convince such an Anabaptist not to have the ancient Faith or not to be a member of the continuall visible Church then a Catholicke can convince Master Rogers Rogers Concerning this Distinction I have spoken afore that some Doctrines are more necessary then others now let us see whether this man saith any thing against it and what it is I doe not find hee doth denie it or grant it so that I know not what hee meanes by the words following viz. He may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied First you mightily falsifie this Parenthesis upon mee my words were these I doe confesse that none of your side or ours have given me full satisfaction in this point what are res fidei per se And in the words next going before I said thus Master Fisher I desire you also for the avoiding of confusion to deliver your opinion Whether all the Affirmative Doctrines of the Councell of Trent are matters of Faith per se fundamentall and necessarie to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas datur discendi who being come to yeares of discretion have capacitie to learne This much in my first Answer to this my request he makes no reply either hee is ignorant or dare not expresse whether all the affirmative doctrines of his Councel of Trent are matters of Faith and necessary to be knowne and believed though I then told him I proposed this question as desirous to learn This much concerning my question and my request Now to my Assertion viz. That none of his side or ours hath given me full satisfaction herein he hence infers that I am unsatisfied without any limitation or if wee will looke backe beyond the Parenthesis as if I were unsatisfied in that which is taught in any Church ours or his This is the right fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I said I was satisfied by none of theirs or ours in the instances of one distinction what Doctrines were to be reduced to either member of the Distinction namely what Doctrines were necessary what not necessary what was fundamentall what accessory what matter of Faith properly what accidentally and hee would traduce mee as if I were unsatisfied in all other Doctrines this is the Devils Logicke Master Fisher who is the father of lies to say I confessed that I never did As well I might prove that you have never a nose on your face or that you are blind thus Mr. Fisher hath never a Nose on his brest Ergo Mr. Fisher hath no Nose As you say Master Rogers doth confesse hee is unsatisfied in some things belonging to one distinction Ergo Master Rogers is unsatisfied in any Doctrine Or thus Mr. Fisher doth confesse that hee doth not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition Ergo Master Fisher doth confesse he doth not see Master Fisher I am satisfied in the doctrines of my faith in the doctrines of my Church in the truth of ours and the falshood of yours as that I desire to die rather then receive your faith or forsake any of mine and I doe hold your Roman Church the most corrupted erroneous usurping part or member of the Christian Church that is in the world I distinguished between doctrines of Faith the Church and of the Schoole These latter being private opinions of men in distinguishing defining or arguing being neither contained in Scriptures nor delivered by the Church I might be unsatisfied in and the rather because the greatest Writers of your side and ours doe vary herein or speake indefinitely which is no resolution Thomas secunda secundae quest 2. saying one thing Occham another and Valenza differing from both Tom Lib. 4. c. 11. de verbo Dei 3 disp 1. q. Bellarmine speaking indifinitely some things in the Doctrine of Christianity as well belonging to faith as manners are simply necessary to all men that will be saved such is the knowledge of the Apostolicke Creed of the ten Commandements and of some Sacraments non nullorum Sacramentorum not defining which and giving small satisfaction with his individuum vagum of some Sacraments not telling which so also amongst our Writers Calvin Hooker Doctor Field Doctor Vsher doe all thus distinguish but when they come to expresse what belongeth to either member they doe not all speake alike Calvin Institut l. 4. cap. 1. n. 12. saith some things are necessary for all men to beleeve as that there is one God that Christ is God and the Sonne of God that our salvation consisteth in the mercy of God similia and such like This word similia leaves it undetermined Hooker holdeth these three to be fundamentall necessary and essentiall unto the Church one Lord one Faith one Baptisme but under that of faith he understandeth as necessary the Articles of the Apostles Creed so that he and Doctor Vsher differ very little or nothing at all Doctor Field is somewhat more full in his third booke of the Church the fourth Chapter yet not in reall addition but
in explication so that they all receive the distinction which you would seeme to reject as if the admitting of that distinction did infer a libertie to reject all Church authority and not to be satisfied by what is taught by any Church How this doth follow I know not I thinke it is as farre from due consequence as to say I have my poake full of plumbes therefore that is the way to London It is my hard hap to meet with an Adversary which hath so little honesty as to falsifie my words so little learning as that he hath not and it seemes he cannot frame one Argument I am loath to take the paines to adde forme to such rude matter to draw the line of reason and measure with rules of Art such rotten stuffe such incohaerent disjoynted speeches as that himselfe was afeard to insert the note of illation a Ergo. therefore but I will doe it for him Master Rogers hath distinguished betweene Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessorie Ergo Master Rogers may be further allowed to reject all Church authority and not be satisfied with any Church Doctrine Negatur Argumentum Master Fisher for if it be a good Argument let me urge it thus Aquinas Occham Espenseus The Master of the Sentences Bonaventure Durandus c. a world of Schoolemen and other Writers doe make the same distinction Ergo Aquinas Occham Espenceus the Master of the Sentences with the Schooles in generall are allowed to reject Church authoritie and Church Doctrine if the Argument were true thus it must follow I was so farre from accounting that to be necessary which I list so to account as that I desired of you my Adversary to be informed and directed herein Whereas you object that an Anabaptist might prove his Church to have been alwayes visible by my Rules definitions and distinctions is most untrue one of the Rules or Medium by which I did prove my Church was Antiquitie Vniversality and Consent will you grant that this Medium doth agree to the Anabaptist in that point which especially gives him that name viz. in denying Baptisme to children It seemes you have little regard what you say that you will thus strengthen the Anabaptist in his errour as if he had Antiquity Vniversalitie and Consent for his excluding children from Baptisme Or if by his negative he put me to prove the affirmative that children are to be baptized I will prove it by the testimonies of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent But I am not now to deale with Anabaptists but with a Papist CHAP. XXII Fisher FOr proofe whereof let it be supposed that Master Râ—gers could as he cannot produce out of Scriptures and Fathers other Writers in all Ages as many and as plaine and repugnant affirmative sentences against the negative Doctrine of Anabaptists as Catholickes ordinarily doe agaiâ—st Protestants negatives And then I aske Master Rogers Whether this Anabaptist may not as usually Protestants do take one or other exception either of Argument or Booke out of which the sentence is cited as if it were not undoubtedly Canonicall or Authenticall or against the Translation or Transcript or Printed Copie as not certainely knowne to be conforme to the first Antographon or Originall or against the interpretation and sense of the words or the consequence gathered out of them as if some other sense were intended by the Authour Or if none of these exceptions can be made whether he may not at least say that it is not the faith or consent of all Antiquitie which doth hold such an affirmative contrary to his negative Doctrine but onely the opinion of some one or few whilst others hold the contrary or seeme doubtfull Or if it be shewed to be the generall Doctrine of all who had occasion to write of that matter without any one teaching contrary whether he may not deny the point to be fundamentall and say that they differ not from him in Doctrine necessary but onely in Doctrine accessory and that notwithstanding this difference they may and are possessors of his faith and members of his Anabaptist Church All this doubtlesse he may say and so defend ancient Fathers to be of his Faith and Church as well as Master Rogers can defend them to be of his faith and Church Neither can Master Rogers disprove what the Anabaptist averreth but with the same breath he disprooveth his owne Booke and maketh it appeare to every judicious Reader that he neither can truely name soundly prove nor in any good sort defend either the Ancient Fathers or any other Orthodox whom he nameth or any lawfull Pastors or others Catholicks or Hereticks before Luther or indeed Luther himself to have held the entire Protestant faith for if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith it may be evidently shewed that none of the aforesaid did in all points of faith agree with the English Protestant Church whose Ministers are bound to subscribe to the 39 Articles above mentioned Rogers All this wilde discourse is to overthrow my Grounds by shewing that they may agree with an Anabaptist who as he supposeth is not of the visible Church taketh it as granted by me wherin he is deceived For I hold the Anabaptist though I condemne his errour in denying Baptisme unto children to be a member of the visible Church though diseased as the Papist is and lesse diseased then he his Argument which commeth from him as a Beares Whelpe or worse for ever it wanteth some principall limme being formed is this Those are no true Gounds Distinctions Definitions or Arguments an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church But by Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments by which an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments are no true Grounds I deny his major which he taketh as granted committing his old fallacie of Petitio Principii begging and supposing that for a medium and principle which is denied or at least questioned and spends himselfe wholly in proving the minor which I grant not for any proofe that he brings but for divers other reasons which I can alleadge as namely these amongst others An erroneous opinion in matters of practise and morall praecepts doth not exclude out of the visible Church but errour in matters of faith The errour of the Anabaptist is in matters of practise not in matters of faith Ergo His errour doth not exclude him out of the visible Church They do not deny Baptisme nor any thing that is substantiall in Baptisme but onely erre in a circumstance of time denying that unto children not absolutely and for ever but untill they come to make profession of their faith Shall this exclude them and their Children out of the Church and why because by this delay many children dying without Baptisme as you suppose are damned but
disobedient unto Government and so excommunicated and imprisoned for either of those without Heresie If all Decrees of Councels be Doctrines of faith as you affirme your Cardinall Bellarmine is deceived who saith that in Councels the greatest part of those things which are done doe not belong to faith neither the Disputations concerning faith nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought for explication and illustration but onely the very naked Decrees and not all those but they alone who are proposed as matters of faith To this subscribed Widrington in the Preface above alleadged and he voucheth Canus for the same opinion CHAP. XXIIII Fisher I Aske what Scripture or reason assureth that no Negative Doctrine pertaines to faith for Scripture having in it so many Negative sentences which are to be beleeved assureth the contrary neither is there any reason which can assure a man that he is freed from beleeving for example this Negative Deus non mentitur God doth not lie rather then from beleeving this Affirmative Est Deus Verax God is a true speaker for both being said by one and the same God our Lord Trueth it selfe and both being propounded by one and the same Catholicke Church his Spouse assisted by his Spirit the Spirit of truth as spoken by God in holy Scripture both are equally to be beleeved neither can any without danger of eternall damnation deny or doubt of either those or any other even the least point of Catholike faith as we may learn out of Saint Athanasius Creed saying that Whosoever will be saved it is needfull that he hold the Catholike faith which unlesse each one hold entire that is in all points and inviolate that is in the true uncorrupted sense of the Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly So as whether the Doctrine be Negative or Affirmative whether fundamentall or accessory supposing it to be a Doctrine propounded by the Catholike Church as revealed by God it must be beleeved explicite or implicite and may not rashly or which is worse advisedly be denyed or doubted of and much lesse may the contrary be obstinately maintained against the knowne judgement of a lawfull Generall Councell or the unanime consent of the Pastors of the Church in regard our Saviour hath expresly averred That he who despiseth them despiseth himselfe and him that sent him to wit God his Father And againe he that will not heare the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and Publicane All which sheweth that such as do obstinately deny or doubtingly dispute against any the least point knowne by Church proposition to be a point of Catholike faith is worthily accounted an Heretike a despiser of God an excommunicated person and no member of the true Catholike Church and one who if he so live and die without repentance cannot be saved But as Athansius without any want of charity pronounceth he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Rogers I have answered you more then once and given you reasons more then one or two why Negations are not matters of faith per se fundamentall and necessary for I brought this distinction of Affirmation and Negation after those distinctions of Doctrine 1. Accessorie of res fidei per se res fidei per accidens 2. Doctrine fundamentall of res fidei per se res fidei per accidens Then I added this distinction of Affirmation and Negation so that my meaning appeared by the connexion it had with that which went before that Negations are not points or Articles of faith are not fundamentall doctrines are not res fidei per se I did not say but they might be res fidei per accidens as all propositions revealed in Scriptures whether affirmative or negative are besides those Articles of faith Here then you doe not dispute ad idem non facis elenchum you prove what I doe not deny you prove that Negatives contained in Scripture pertaine to faith which I do not deny but you do not prove that they are points of faith fundamentall Doctrines res fidei per se things proper and essentiall unto faith as your great Schooleman Aquinas your Bellarmine and Valenza have written cited by me afore where I have also shewed the difference betweene being a matter of faith and pertaining to faith neither doe I say that any man is freed from beleeving this Negative God doth not lie or any other Negative revealed in Scripture but that an implicite faith may serve in all Negatives as well as those Affirmatives which are not Articles of the Creed I say againe that Negatives in Scripture are res fidei per accidens non per se They are accidentall unto faith not essentiall There is no generall necessity to beleeve them fide explicita so to beleeve them as actually to know them but it is sufficient to beleeve them fide implicita with a minde prepared actually to beleeve them when they doe appeare unto us actually to be revealed in Scripture All things revealed in Scripture have aequalem veritatem non aequalem utilitatem They are equally true but not equally profitable For these propositions God is not a lyer God is not as man the heathen hath no knowledge of his Law Pharaoh was not obedient And all that are Negatives in Scripture being put together cannot informe a man in that saving truth which is sufficient for his soules health to beleeve but a few Affirmatives twelve Propositions contained in the Creed can doe it Againe I say that All things revealed in Scripture have aequalem necessitatem credendi non aequalem necessitatem cognoscendi It is not a like necessary for us to know all things revealed in Scripture but it is a like necessary for us to beleeve them when we know them As you have falsified the predicate of my Proposition by changing points of faith unto that which pertaineth unto faith fundamentall into accessory proper and essentiall into that which is accidentall so have you falsified the subject of the same Proposition for immediately after that distinction of Affirmation and Negation my words were these In those Articles of our English Church our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therfore no part of our faith for no man would deny his owne faith Thus farre in my former Answer as also in a few lines after my words were these The first instance of Negation in our Articles is part of the sixth Article concerning those Bookes of Esdras Tobit Iudith c. whereby it appeareth manifestly that I spake not of Negatives revealed in Scripture but of Negatives in Doctrines Ecclesiasticall Now that you should argue from Negatives in Scripture to Negatives out of Scripture is à baculo ad angulum from the staffe to the corner my Tenet therefore is that Negatives revealed in Scripture are res fidei per accidens non per se Negatives not revealed in Scripture are not res fidei