with him that hath gone 800. because I have not gone further whereas I had a neerer and safer way to my journeyes end viz by Scripture by demonstration by confession of my adversaries CHAP. X. Fisher NEither did hee sufficiently prove them he named to bee Protestants but by such false suppositions and bad definitions c. Rogers in his 1. Reply That my suppositions are false you say it I deny it when you shew any reason to convince them of falshood I will disclaime them If my definition bee bad you should have mended it and so much I requested you to doe and doe request it againe and againe But why is my definition bad why my suppositions false and why shifts because that Arrians Anabaptists or whatsoever other Sectarie may by the like defend the same persons to have beene of their Religion and Sect. What suppositions you meane I know not if you meane my distinctions I shall answer you when I come to your particular exception against them As for my definition it was this and thus delivered Master Fisher I desire you therefore to expresse without ambiguity the termes of this question whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages what you meane by Church what by Protestants what by visible I will deliver my opinion in defining a Protestant Church The Protestant Church is a society of men professing the faith expressed in the Canonicall Scriptures acknowledged to be such in the Primitive Church comprized in the Apostles Creed explained in the other two Creedes of Nice and Athanasius ministring the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper by men of lawfull calling and ordination Such a society as this was in all ages Ergo The Protestant Church was in all ages Thus farre in my former Reply this was the definition I brought and none other You say an Arrian may by this definition defend that those persons by me alleadged were of his Religion or Sect so may the Anabaptists or any other Sectary as you say what other Sectaries you meane I know not as for the Anabaptist I will answer you where you have made more full mention of him As for the Arrian because here only you name him here I will reply unto you concerning him You say that my definition may agree with an Arrian for so it must if thereby he may proove those to whom this definition doth belong to be of his Religion then which nothing could be spoken more ignorantly if you thought as you wrote or more impudently if you knew the contrary being so manifest a truth as nothing that ever happened in the Christian Church is more frequent in Ecclesiasticall Histories in Fathers in Councells then that Arrius was condemned in the Nicene Councell and the more full explication of the Apostles Creed was made in that Councell onely to exclude and condemne Arrius which explication is commonly called the Nicene Creed to the same purpose did Athanasius compose his explication of the same Creed I make mention of both these in my definition saying that the Protestant Church professeth that faith comprised in the Apostles Creed explained in the other two Creeds of Nice and Athanasius All these three doe say that Christ is God Arrius doth deny it these are contradictories can you reconcile them if you can you will doe more then all the Divines all the Philosophers could doe nay more then God himselfe can doe The Apostles Creed saith that Christ is the onely begotten Sonne of God and therefore God as the begotten Sonne of man is man the onely begotten Sonne of God because he alone is the Sonne of God by generation all others either by creation or by regeneration The Nicene Creed saith Christ is begotten of the substance of the Father God of God true God of true God Athanasius his Creed runnes wholly on the same straine that Christ is God that hee is uncreate eternall incomprehensible Almighty Arrius denyed all this in denying him to be God This definition I alleadge not as proper to the Protestants distinguished from other Churches but common to all true Christian Churches for two reasons first my drift is not to proove that onely the Protestants make the Church as I have fully expressed in my first Answer My words speaking to Mr. Fishers 4th proposition were these I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants be the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others wee leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists we chalenge it not we are a true Church not the true Church we are a part not the whole we include our selves we exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. so they deny no fundamentall parts of the faith either directly or by consequence 2. Because there can be but one definition of one Church and such is the Catholick Church of Christ acknowledged to be and this one definition must accord and may be verified of every particular society that professeth the faith of Christ and ministreth those Sacraments which were ordained by Christ as necessary unto all men under the government of lawfull Pastors for these particular societies are of the same nature as the whole Partes homogeneae quarum idem nomen cum toto eadem nominis definitio parts of one kind with the whole and one with another which have the same definition because they have the same nature and essence as every drop of blood is blood and every little peece of flesh is flesh and have all the same definition As therefore when I would proove my selfe to be a man I would use no other definition then animal rationale a reasonable creature endued with a living sensible body Haec Articulis lex definiendi for singularia non habent definitionem nisi speciei particular and individuall things have no proper peculiar definition of their owne but all of one kind or species have the same definition so being to proove my selfe a Christian I will use no other definition then that of Christians in generall viz. that I hold the faith of Christ am admitted by baptisme into his visible Church wherein I doe continue under the direction and government of my Pastors If you should reply that is no good definition because it belongeth to you of the Roman Church to those of the Greeke Armenian Aethiopian Indian Churches and to all other sects of Christians as well as to me I answer that unlesse it doe belong to all Christians it were no good definition as animal rationale were no good definition of a man unlesse it did belong to every particular man excluding none for this is the rule of defining this is the direction that is given by the most learned that we must passe through every singular observing what is to be found in them all and at all times and put those things alone in our definition excluding
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
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
he hath already seemed to say that none of their negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes out of which it will 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 which last Consequence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the booke of the Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church And why may not Roman Catholikes by as good or better right accouunt Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks excommunicaeed and no members of the ancient and present Catholike Church Rogers That which you require heere I performed in my first Answer in my definition of a Protestant or else it had been no good definition had it not contained all that is essentiall this you know well enough but because you have nothing to answer you will demaund the same question againe Looke into my definition there you shall finde it and I made the same request unto you for a definition of the visible Church and what points you hold to be fundamentall to which you make no answer at all I there also undertooke to prove all our Affirmations which you deny so you doe the like by your Affirmations which we deny my words were these in my former answer Rogers in his first answer In all these I defend the Negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative which when you shall doe by testimonies of Writers in all ages I will yeeld unto you for you proving the Affirmative the Negative will fall of it selfe as for example The first instance of Negation in our Articles is part of the sixt Article concerning those bookes of Esdras Tobit Iudith c. which we receive not for Canonicall you doe the proofe is on your side What I require of you I will performe on our side whatsoever is affirmative in our Articles I will maintaine to be affirmed and taught in all Ages as the 1 2 3 4 5 Articles the Affirmative part of the 6 the 7 8 and so in the rest or I will yeeld unto you Give me instance what Affirmation of our Articles you deny and I will prove it in all Ages And I desire you to set downe withall which of your affirmative Articles you receive and whether we agree in the Articles of the Creed or not I will doe the like by you and give you an instance in our Affirmatives Shew me who in every Age did receive the bookes of Esdras Machabees Tobit Iudith c. for Canonicall in the 1 2 3 4 Centurie of yeares This is one of the first points of your Tridentine faith 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 necessary to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas discendidatur Thus farre in my former Answer to which you have made reply you have neither shewed which of our Affirmative Articles you deny nor which you receive nor have you proved one Instance I gave of your Affirmatives nor as much as expressed what you hold for matters of faith but dissembling all this passe it over with silence unlesse you had thought as the Boy did by his bodged verses that what you wrote would never be read but that men would reade the Titles and number the Pages and there finde written over head Master Rogers weake Grounds Master Rogers weake Arguments would take the rest upon trust would you ever have put Pen to Paper and yet in matters of Controuersies never expresse what your selfe held nor tell us being requested what your owne faith is or to give a reason of your owne faith nor to define your owne Church And answer formally and punctually to no one Argument and frame no one Argument of your owne Hominis est vehementèr abutentis otio literis That a man should offer to write a Tract and that in so sacred a profession as Divinitie and that in a question of so high a nature as these are what is the Christian faith what is the visible Church and herein not answer one question not to bring one Distinction or Definition or frame one Argument in forme or like a Scholler is a mispending of time wasting of Paper and abusing the very name of Learning Divinity as all other Sciences consisteth of Principles and Conclusions the Principles received on both sides are the Scriptures to which you would adde unwritten Traditions you bring not one place of Scripture to maintaine those Affirmative Tenents of yours which we deny you account Articles of faith And as for Theologicall conclusions you inferre none you frame no Argument you make no Syllogisme you give no reason of your faith though Saint Peter require it whom I thought of all the Apostles you did most respect what shall we thinke then but that you have neither Scripture nor reason for your faith I meane in your new Creed in which you dissent from us Fisher I require withall that he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those perticular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39. Articles if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all that is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes Rogers He calleth unto me to distinguish between points of Protestant faith and other points contained in the 39 Articles and yet in the next word he is faine to confesse that I distinguished if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine unto their faith This I had delivered in my first Answer and yet he still calleth for it yet he must mince it a little and say I seemed to say so great a friend he is to seeming that he will never leave it knowing it to be essentiall to the definition of Sophistry and a Sophister You might have left out your seeming and written plainly that I said so seeing in my Answer to your first Paper I spent nere a page in explicating and exemplifying this Distinction and in my Answer to your second Paper which was delivered me as the worke of five Jesuites then conversant about Gondamors house
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
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
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
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
if there cannot as there cannot be found in Histories names of Protestant Preachers who in all ages did teach all sorts of faithfull people and who converted severall Nations unto the Christian faith Hence followeth I say that Protestants are not the true visible Church of Christ neither are their Preachers lawfully sent or sufficiently authorised to teach nor people securely warranted to learne of them that one infallible faith without which none can please God nor if they so live and die be saved Rogers Here say you is a true Copy of Master Fishers five Propositions as if my Copy were not true My Answer was printed without my knowledge yet the Propositions of Mr. Fisher printed are agreeing unto these Copies which I received and there is nothing more in this your second Edition then was in those alleadged by me saving these few words in Histories as the names of those are found which make no sentence nor fill up one poore little line and if they strengthen your cause any thing the more let them come in and doe you urge them Rogers in his 1. Answer The 3. first Propositions I admit 1. That there is one faith 2. That the ordinary propagation of this faith is by Pastors lawfully called 3. That there have beene and must be in all ages such Pastors so called 4. I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants be the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others we have such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists we chalenge it not wee are a true Church not the true Church we are a part not the whole wee include our selves we exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. So they deny no fundamentall parts of the faith either directly or by consequence An examination of Master Rogers answer to the five Propositions aforesaid I find first that he granted the first three without any exception which I desire may bee diligently noted and well pondered for out of these three grounds to wit First that there is one and but one Faith necessary to salvation And secondly that this faith according to the ordinary course of Gods providence cannot be had otherwise then by hearing the preaching or teaching of lawfully sent Pastors And thirdly that this faith hath beene in all ages past as appeareth by Histories taught by Pastors of the true visible Church who onely are lawfully sent Out of these 3. grounds I say evidently followeth that which is Master Fishers fourth Proposition to wit If Protestant faith bee the true faith and their Church the true Church or as Master Rogers had rather say A true Church of Christ then their Protestant faith differing from the Roman faith hath beene taught in all ages by lawfully sent visible Protestant Pastors whose names may be found in Histories as names of others are found who did teach the true faith of Christ in all ages This to follow out of the aforesaid three grounds is as I said most evident Nego it is false neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant save onely that it may be hee will make a bogge at the word Histories as not finding it in his Copie nor thinking it perhaps necessary that the names of Protestant Pastors who taught the Protestant faith in all ages past be found in Histories but understanding the word Histories as Master Fisher understood it to wit for some or other kind of Record or Monument as Doct. White also understood it when he said Things past cannot be shewed but by Histories I doe not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely graunt the fourth Proposition even as it was set downe by Master Fisher himselfe 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 Rogers all or some and written of aswell as others are who have in all ages past taught all sorts of true and false doctrines in regard there cannot be assigned any reason either of the part of Gods providence or humane diligence why the name of others even false teachers in all ages should be set downe and preserved in Histories yet extant rather then the names of such as Protestants deeme to be the onely true Teachers of pure doctrine for doubtlesse both God who is zealous of his honour and carefull to honour and preserve the memory of them that would honour him would for his honours sake have procured honourable memory of such as did by teaching truth honour him and men carefull of their soules health which they cannot attaine according to the ordinary course but by hearing such Pastors onely who have lawfull succession from Christs Apostles have reason diligently to looke that memory be preserved of such Pastors and of pure divine truth taught by them then of others who taught any other false and not pure doctrine Certaine therefore it is that the names or some thing equivalent to names and the doctrines of true Pastors who did in all ages past teach true divine doctrine may be found in Histories as well as the names and doctrines of others are found who did teach any other doctrine And therefore if Protestants have had any Pastors teaching true doctrines in all ages doubtlesse their names would be extant in Histories yet extant which being presupposed and granted as Master Rogers seemeth to grant by granting Master Fishers 4th Proposition I doe not see how Master Rogers can denie Master Fishers first Proposition for it being supposed that the Protestant Preachers were their names would be found in Histories as Master Fishers fourth Proposition granteth by Master Rogers supposed it may bee well inferred that if no such mens names be found in Histories then no such men were in all ages nor consequently are Protestants the true Church of Christ for it hath had such in all ages I doe not therefore see I say how Mr. Rogers can deny Mr. Fisher his first Proposition supposing he grant as he granteth his fourth Proposition for although absolutely speaking an Argument drawne from negative authority be as Master Rogers averreth of it selfe of no force and so Protestants Arguments which are usually made against us out of negative authority Rogers Here Master Fisher I must request you and the Reader whosoever he be to looke backe upon the title of the two last pages which is Master Rogers his most weake grounds then reade diligently all that is there written and see if there bee any mention any one sentence any one word of any of my grounds All that is here spoken is in defence of Master Fishers owne grounds viz. of his 4. and 5th Proposition which in that sense that you enforc'd them are most weake and more weakly maintained and therefore the title should have beene thus Master Fisher his most weake grounds That they are most weake
grounds you say truly that they are your grounds they manifest of themselves being your fourth and fifth Propositions Fisher I find first that he granteth the first three without any exception which I desire may be diligently noted and well pondered Rogers How I admitted them appeareth by my answer I delivered them more briefly and more perspicuously then you did thus and in this sense The three first Propositions I admit 1. That there is one faith 2. The ordinary propagation of this faith is by Pastors lawfully called 3. That there have beene and must be in all ages Pastors so lawfully called This I conceived to be the meaning of your three first Propositions without any diminution neither doe you except against it as for your parenthesis viz. as appeareth by Histories that is no part of the Proposition for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is one Proposition which declareth one thing or whose parts are joyned together and made one by conjunction this your parenthesis is no part of the Proposition nor made one with it by conjunction Fisher For out of these three grounds to wit first that there is one and but one faith necessary to salvation Secondly c. Evidently followeth that which is Masters Fishers fourth Proposition to wit If Protestant faith be the true faith and their Church the true Church or as Master Rogers had rather say A true Church of Christ then their Protestant faith differing from the Roman faith hath beene taught in all ages by lawfully sent visible Protestant Pastors whose names may be found in Histories as names of others are found who did teach the true faith of Christ in all ages Rogers If it doth evidently follow frame your Argument make your syllogisme inferre your conclusion I see not the evidence make it cleare unto me one short syllogisme would make me confesse that which you endeavour to prove in three pages but prove not at all onely you make one fallacie called petitio principij and falsifie my words more then once I will begin with your falsifications Fisher Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant Rogers This is your first falsification that I make no bones to grant your fourth Proposition what I granted in your fourth Proposition was this First after the Rules of Art the practise of all learned men in all professions and the onely way to wave contention about words and come to reality finding an ambiguous phrase in that Proposition I thus wrote I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants bee the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others wee leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists wee challenge it not wee are a true Church not the true Church wee are a part not the whole wee include our selves wee exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. so they deny no fundamentall part of the Faith either directly or by consequence What Reply have you made to this have you unfolded your meaning have you expounded this dark phrase have you as much as proved or disproved my distinction or told the Reader in which sense you took it are you such a friend to amphibologies doubtfull phrases and aequivocating termes that being requested to open your selfe you will not explaine your words your Propositions and grounds or Principles to inferre other conclusions Such obscure phrases of double signification can make no Argument but a fallacie which seemeth to be an Argument but is none They cannot be Propositions which will not admit of one ambiguous terme one ambiguous simple word The onely way to avoid this is by distinction This distinction I brought which you cannot deny The thing it selfe is so cleare that there is difference betweene a part and the whole betweene a part of a Citie and a whole Citie betweene a part of a Kingdome and a whole Kingdome betweene a part of the Church and the whole Church Hee that saith I am a Citizen of London being made free wrongs no man but hee that sayes I am the onely Citizen and there is no other speakes falsly and wrongs all other Citizens of that society He that sayes Middlesex is a part of the kingdom of England speakes truly and wrongs no man but hee that sayes Middlesex is the Kingdom of England as if there were no other Shiere nor Province belonging unto England speakes falsly and is no lesse then a Traitor to the King And hee that sayes the Protestants are a Church speaks truly and wrongs no man because hee excludes no other Christian Church but hee that sayes the Protestants are the Church as you say of the Romane excluding all others speakes falsly and wrongs all other Christian Churches of the world as the Donatists did which S. Augustin esteemed a Quid hac stultitia imò verò dementia reperitur insanius lib. 1. cont ep Parm. Credunt ex partibus terrarum periisse Abrahae semen quod est Christus De vestro ista dicitis quia qui loquitur mendacium de suo loquitur creditur eis de orbe terrarū quem possidere jam coperat periisse Christus et quia hoc credunt cum impudenter dicant Christiani sumus audent dicere nos soli sumus ibid. folly and madnesse they believe that Christ is lost in all other parts of the world This you spake of your selves because he that telleth a lye speaketh of himselfe You dare say with the Donatists We alone are the Church yet Christ did not say Rome is the field but the World is the field that seed of the Gospel was sowne through the World wee dare not therefore say as you doe We are the Church we are the onely Christians for this were a lye folly and madnesse as Saint Augustine termeth it And yet as if there were no difference you can passe this over with saying The true Church or a true Church as Master Rogers had rather say I had rather say so indeed because this is true the other which you say is false this is humilitie that is pride this is charitable that 's uncharitable as the devill this is injurious unto none that to thousands of thousands millions of millions shutting them out of Heaven who believe in Christ are baptized into Christ and suffer for Christ Secondly I observed many needlesse words in your Propositions writing thus I must desire the Authors not to affect obscuritie nor to alter their words which may alter their meaning as in the fourth and fifth Propositions they have with the multitude of needlesse words obscured the matter the fourth being briefly and plainly this If the Protestants be a true Church their Faith hath beene taught in all Ages by lawfull Pastors This I granted and no more this is your first falsification as if I granted that which I expresly deny I deny that wee are the Christian Church which your Propositions layes downe
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
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
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
Romane Church may give testimonie against you and for me Caiphas even then when he persecuted Christ might prophesie truly of Christ Pilate who did crucifie Christ did write that of Christ which was true viz. that hee was King of the Iewes Matthew Paris was a member of the Romane Church who said that your Church did never reject any that came unto her if they brought white or red with them Silver or Gold This member of the Roman Church said that a principall member viz. That Pope Gregorie the seventh did confesse on his death-bed that by the instigation of the devill hee had troubled the world yet this was such a member as that Innocentius the fourth Matthew Paris the then Pope vvrote of him that hee vvas vir probatae vitae Religioris expertae Such a Writer as that Baronius giveth this testimony of him Take away from his Booke his calumnies Anno 996. n. 63 64. invectives taunts and blasphemies against the Apostolick See often repeated and you vvill say it is a golden Commentarie taken vvord by vvord out of the publike Records and very vvell compiled together Thus farre Baronius As if a man should except against a vvitnesse and say you must not believe him in this vvhich he sayes against me but in all things else you may believe him hee speakes nothing but vvhat is upon publike Record Cajetane was a learned member of your Church and yet he held the Canon of Scripture as vvee doe contrarie to that vvhich the Councell of Trent hath defined Sixtus Senensis vvas a member of the Roman Church and yet hee did denie some part of the Scripture to be Canonicall which the Councell of Trent defined for Canonicall and that after the Councell Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. I will fit you with many such members in my Catalogue Fisher Neither can I see any reason why hee did not with like audacitie goe on in naming other famous Romane Catholickes in every Age but that as it seemeth hee was not resolved whether hee were better to put in his Catalogue the names of damned Haeretickes which disagree in divers points of Faith from all ancient and present Pastors and Doctors of the Church even from the Protestants themselves Rogers Who you meane by these Haeretickes I know not and therfore I need not reply unto you herein if you had laid that imputation upon us I would have enlarged my selfe in the defence but you say they differ in points of Faith from the Protestants Fisher Or else to put in names of Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes and other religious men whose Writings and profession of life palpably shew that they held the present Roman Doctrine and communicated with the Roman Church Rogers I have answered you already that I will name Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes and others of your Church and why but such as neither their Writings nor profession of life doe palpably shew that they held the present Roman Faith If their Writings expresse what you say I will yeeld but that their Roman profession of life should include the now present Roman Faith I deny and besides what I formerly spake concerning your Writers I will adde some few instances now Gratian. Can Comp. de consecr dist 2. Gelasius was a Pope and yet hee held your present halfe Communion to be Sacriledge and decreed thus Aut integra suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them receive the Communion in both formes or in neitheâ— Nich Lyranus was a Catholick and yet hee held the Canon of Scripture contrary to that of the Councell of Trent as Bellarmine confesseth So did Hugo and Thomas de Vio two Cardinals Irenaeus Basil Chrysostome Augustine and others whom I cited before cap. 4. were Bishops and yet they held the fulnesse and perfection of Scripture without the supply of unwritten Traditions contrary to the Councell of Trent Ierome was a Priest and a Monke yet denied those Books to be Canonicall which we deny contrary to that the Councell of Trent hath taught and decreed As the hand of a man may smite himselfe and yet continue a member of his body so these might be members of the Roman Church and yet give testimonie in something against your Church The Embassador De Ferrias of France was a member of the Roman Church and a French man Histor Concil Trid when in the Councell of Trent speaking of the miseries of France hee said If they should demand why France is not in peace hee could answer nothing but that which Iehu said to Ioram How can there be peace there remaining and concealed the words following but added You know the Text. The Cardinall of Loraine was a principall member of the Roman Church and the second Clergie man in the Latine Church yet hee speaking of the miseries of France said in the Councell of Trent If you would demand who hath caused this tempest and fortune I can say nothing but this That this fortune is come by our meanes cast us into the Sea By Vs hee must understand the Roman Clergie Iudas that betrayed Christ gave a true testimonie against himselfe when hee said J have sinned in betraying innocent blood And the limbs of Antichrist may give a true testimonie against Antichrist Now whereas you say that they communicated with the Roman Church I grant they did in some things or else they had not beene members of that Church but not in all for not in those things they did disavow reprove condemn and that this may the better be understood I will enlarge my discourse herein CHAP. VIII What it is to communicate with others How farre wee yet communicate with the Roman Church and wherein wee refuse to communicate COmmunio est multorum unio Communio quid Communion is the union of many They that agree in one opinion are so farre united they are one They that enjoy any thing in common are so farre united Rom. 12. The Church is one body 1 Cor. 12. Christians are severall members of this one body as therefore the members being many are united in one body and doe communicate in divers of the selfe same things from that one body and communicate one unto another the service of those things that are proper unto them as they are severall members So in the Church all Christians make but one body collective which are united together by many things some outward some inward some both outward and inward because it is corpus vivum a living body wherein there is saith Saint Augustine a soule Augustin Breviculo Collat. 3. Collat. 9. and a body The soule are the inward gifts of the holy Ghost faith hope and charity c. The body are the outward profession of faith and receiving of Sacraments Whence it comes to passe that some are of the soule and of the body of the Church and therefore united to Christ their Head both inwardly and outwardly these are most
first Pope of that name was condemned for an Hereticke in three Councels accursed for an Heretick by two Popes that succeeded after him his owne hereticall Epistles are found in the Acts of the sixth Councell besides divers other Writers Latin Greek that relate it Yet Bellarmine hath the face to denie all this Pope Joane is recorded by Writers of their owne is denied by these late Romans that will blush at nothing When the Carthaginians in the end of the second Punick Warre sent to Rome to sue for peace a Roman Senator asked them by what Gods they would now sweare seeing they had broken the promise they had formerly made and swore by the Gods to observe So I may aske you what Historie you will alleadge for the first 400 yeares whose testimonie you will admit who have rejected and reviled all Historians of those times calling them erroneous partiall false deceitfull lying impudent Heretickes CHAP. XIIII Fisher AVthoritie as for example the Scripture saith nothing of this or that or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares make no expresse mention of this or that Ergo No such thing is or is of no force Yet when the Negative Argument is grounded in an already granted Affirmative Proposition as it is in this our case the Negative Argument is of great and undeniable force As for example if wee did grant this Proposition if such or such a thing were holy Scripture would have spoken of it or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares would have made expresse mention of it If I say wee granted this wee could not deny the aforesaid Negative Argument usually made by Protestants to be of force against us Now Master Rogers doth not nor in reason cannot deny Master Fishers fourth Proposition which is an Affirmative whereupon his fifth Negative Proposition is grounded And therefore Master Rogers ought not to deny but must needs grant Master Fishers fifth and so all his five Propositions Which being granted if hee will make a good answer as hee pretendeth hee must first set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all Ages and not content himselfe with naming some whom he thinketh to be Protestants and with saying hee hath gone halfe the way Secondly If hee will satisfie Master Fishers other Paper as he pretendeth to doe hee must prove and defend them to be Protestants as Master Fishers Paper requireth and must bring some or other good Authors who doe clearly shew them to hold all or some principall points of Protestants Faith differing from Catholicke Roman Faith and not to condemne any of the 39 Protestant Articles and must not content himselfe with making such Arguments as hee maketh which are most insufficient either to convince or probably to perswade either his Adversary or any indifferent judicious Reader for these be his Arguments 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 Secondly a Signis thus The faith is that which hath testimonies of Antiquities universality and consent of fathers and other writers in all ages But the faith of Protestants harh these testimonies ergo Thirdly 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 who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and that they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to be contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of antiquity universality and consent or to have beene professed by those Fathers which Master Rogers named Who doth not also see that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants by only altering the word Protestant into Catholick in regard our Catholick doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine Testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of divers learned Protestants themselves I marvaile therefore that M. Rogers being accounted a worthy Oxford Divine would affirme and offer to prove and defend Protestants to have beene in all ages upon so sleight grounds which if they be admitted for good every sect of Hereticks may affirme and prove and defend men of their sect to have beene in all ages For tryall whereof I wish it may be imagined that there were an Anabaptist for example who held all the Protestant faith saving onely some few negatives and namely that it is not lawfull to baptize Infants and that this Anabaptist had framed to himselfe such false Rules as Master Rogers hath set downe to himselfe Rogers I desire Master Fisher and the Reader to looke backe to the former page of the precedent leafe to which I have already answered for in matter it was the same with that which went before contained in the 26th and 27th pages of Master Fishers Booke against me which were all spent in seeking to strengthen his owne Propositions his owne grounds yet the Title he gave unto both those Pages was Master Rogers his most weake grounds there being in both those Pages not one sentence nor line nor word concerning any grounds of mine so in the 28th Page of his Booke he hath put this Title Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Whereas there is not one Argument nor one Proposition of mine in all that Page as may easily appeare to him that will but reade the same onely he speaketh something in defence of his owne grounds to which I have already answered Yet because of the Title agreeing with the 29 and 30 pages which follow next after I have copied them out and placed them altogether that have this title viz. Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Which I thinke he did to gull his Proselytes who reading but the Title must thinke that Master Fisher hath shewed my grounds and Arguments to be weake when and where hee hath not made any mention of any Arguments of mine CHAP. XV. Fisher NOw who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to bee contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent or to have bin professed by these Fathers which M. Rogers named Rogers I doe not think that you did see any insufficiency in the Arguments or that they were easily to be answered for then you would have answered punctually to every argument apart and not thus confusedly and altogether as if you had been afraid to come to close fight but standing a farre off to
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
Definitum the most demonstrative substantiall proofe that reason can find The Assumption appeareth by the profession of the Grecians at Ferrara whereof I have cited a part above in the beginning of this Catalogue and it may be seene more fully in their owne Surius Tom. 4. Conciliorum loco supra citato None of those who denie the Popes Supremacie Purgatorie Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind are of the Roman Faith and Church But all these aforenamed being of the Greeke Church denie the Popes Supremacie Purgatorie Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind Ergo They are not of the Roman Faith and Church A Catalogue of Councels Generall or Provinciall in all Ages which did professe our Faith TO name particular men in all Ages who did professe our Faith receive our Scriptures and Sacraments is not to prove our Church extant in all Ages for one man is not a Church no more then one member as hand or foot is the body or one Citizen is a Citie or one subject is a Kingdome I have therefore thought it fit out of my many yeares reading observation and collection to prove that not onely some particular men but also whole Churches that is a societie of many men professing our Faith Scripture and Sacraments have beene in all Ages to this end I have put downe a Catalogue of Councels in all Ages which Councels are justly termed The Church representative who professe our Faith Scriptures and Sacraments although the maine proofe is in that of Faith which includeth the rest for this Faith hath no other object then the Scriptures Canonicall and receiveth no Sacraments but what are contained in the Scriptures and instituted by God And because all Councels did not record nor publish all those things which were done of course and observed at the opening and in the beginning of every Councell I thought it would prove satisfactorie to the Reader that he should be acquainted how they never began Councels without solemn Prayers or Masse as the Romanists call it and that in every Masse our Creed is repeated as appeareth by their Missals and those Authors in the Margin which are Expositors of the Masse so that seeing our Creed is professed in every Masse and all Councels begin with a solemne Masse it followeth that all Councels did professe our Faith Yea over and besides this I will adde other proofes as 1 an Injunction that it should be so 2. Historicall testimonie that it was so First Ordo Romanus published by Hiltorpius at Paris anno 1610. col 171. in the order for the first day of holding a Councell after some Prayers which are there set downe concludeth thus Then all men keeping silence Tunc tacentibus cunctis ex Niceno Concilio fides Catholica à Diâ—cono legatur let the Catholicke Faith be read by the Deacon out of the Nicene Councell I believe in one God the Father Almightie maker of all things visible and invisible Then the Deacon shall bring forth the Book of the Canons and reade the Chapters concerning the manner of holding Councels out of the fourth Councell of Toledo Thus you see it was commanded that the Creed which wee professe should be professed in the beginning and opening of every Councell since the time of that Ordo Romanus which whether it were as ancient as Charles the Great in which time it was brought to France Hitorpius in praefatione or more ancient in Rome as being for the substance made by Gregorie the first it will serue my turne for succeeding Ages But in my Historicall observation I will ascend higher and to the Apostles times This Creed saith Baronius An. 44. n. 18. Act. Conc. Calce Eph. Constin 2. et aliorum speaking of the Apostles Creed the Catholicke Church hath alwaies had in such esteeme as that in all sacred Generall Councels it was the custome to repeate it as a grround-worke or foundation of the whole Ecclesiasticall building All men thought it fit Prayers being solemnly performed and finished to make confession of their Faith after the manner of Generall Councels Conc. Tol. 6. apud Surium Tom. 2. pag. 741. col 1 2. The ancient Decrees of the Fathers were reverently confirmed in Consilio Romano more solito after the usuall manner Vrspergensis cited also by Baronius anno 102. n. 1. It was required by the Graecians in the Councell of Florence begun at Ferrara Sess 3. apud Surium That the Councell might begin with reciting the Definitions and Decrees of the seven precedent Generall Councels not onely say they that it may appeare wee dissent not from them but also that wee may imitate them for wee firmly believe c. And Sess 5 they cited the Decree of the fifth Councell saying thus All men should preserve the foundation of Faith and observe that Creed wherin they were baptized which the Nicene Councell commended to posteritie received by the Councell of Constantinople approved by the Councell of Ephesus and sealed up by the Councell of Chalcedon all which wee also receive Thus far the words of the fifth Councell then and there urged by the Graecians together with the 6th and 7th Councell to the same effect Having laid this ground-work that all lawfull Councels and orthodox recieved and published by the Romanists themselves for such did professe our Faith it were sufficient for mee to name approved Councels in every Age without any further observation in particular yet for the greater benefit of the Reader I will doe more beginning even with the Apostles themselves A Catalogue of Councels which did professe our Faith in every Age beginning with the Apostles the first Age from the Nativitie of our blessed Saviour Seculum 1. to the 100th yeare Act. 1. 1. Councell of the Apostles Act. 6. 2. Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. 3. Councell of the Apostles Act. 21. 4. Councell of the Apostles IN the yeare 34 saith Baronius n. 237. for to chuse an Apostle into the place of Iudas Surius Tom. 1. Conc. p. 17. Wherein the seven Deacons were ordained the first yeare after the death of Christ saith Surius Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 18. Anno 34. saith Baron Concerning Circumcision and the Ceremoniall Law of Moses This was 14 yeares after the death of Christ saith Surius in the place above cited An. 51. saith Baronius Wherein Paul was advised to purifie foure persons after the Law of Moses for to pacifie the Jewes who were incensed against him as an enemie to Moses The ordinary Glosse and Surius observe only these foure some adde two more one Acts 4. another Acts 11. I will adde one more not mentioned in the Scripture but mentioned by many Fathers as Ruffinus Ierome Augustine Leo Venantius Albinus Flaccus alii 5. Councell of the Apostles Wherein they composed the Apostles Creed being now ready to depart one from another as a Rule of preaching whereby it might be discerned who did preach Christ according to the Rules of the Apostles