Scriptorem vel per alium legitimum definitorem fidei whom he afterwards concludes to be the Pope I therefore chuse to speake as the Fathers doe yea and as the more Ancient Schoolemen did Aquinas Carbo and others That the Scripture is Regula credendorum which excludeth Bellamines Verbum non scriptum and Valenzaes Papall decisions And to this purpose I will cite such places of the Fathers which are acknowledged by the Adversaries to be true Fathers and true quotations The sacred Writers Evangelium in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1. columnam fidei nostrae futuram haue delivered the Gospell unto us in the written Word to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith Here Bellarmines Verbum non scriptum his unwritten Word hath no place This Father who lived in the first Age after the Apostles saith In Scripturis in the written Word Here Valenza's unwritten Revelations of Traditions or Papall decisions being his definitor fidei have no place to reconcile these two Scriptum and non Scriptum is to overthrow the first fundamentall Propositions of all learning in the world to reconcile contradictions The most incompatible opposition that is without which being laid as a ground-worke no man may treate of any thing Arist Meta 4. ca. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impossible that the same thing at the same time should bee and should not bee this no man can bee ignorant of this is the first principle in Metaphysicke in Logicke though in other termes viz. two contradicting Propositions cannot be both true nor both false This is the first principle of all other Sciences as the fornamed Author Fonseca Suarez as Aquinas your great Schooleman Fonseca and Swarez your fellow Iesuits and great writers upon Metaphysicke your learned writer upon the Demonstrations Zabarel and others whom I could name doe undoubtedly teach Reconcile me Irenaeus his Scriptum est and your non scriptum Bellarm. de Verbo Dei and as you have taken away the Rule of divine knowledge by denying the sufficiencie thereof by denying it to bee a totall Rule but a part a piece of a Rule which is as much as no Rule as a part or piece of a man is no man so by denying this first principle of all humane knowledge you take away all Naturall and Morall Philosophie all Logicke all Metaphysicke and then what remaineth but that we be no more creatures endued with reason and your Pope shall rule us as please him Sed habebit imperium in belluas hee must transforme us into this beastly ignorance Thus having taken away your distinction of Scriptum non Scriptum which I desire may be observ'd in the rest of the Fathers that follow for I will cite none who use not this word Scriptures which is the written word I will presse my Argument thus First Argument Whosoever doth hold the foundation and pillar of Faith is of the Church But the Protestants believing the Scriptures doe hold the foundation and pillar of Faith Ergo The Protestants are of the Church What will you Master Fisher answer to this Argument will you distinguish Verbum Dei with Bellarmine or Revelatio Divina with Valenza ad terminos what word in my Syllogisme doe you distinguish or what proposition doe you deny Lib. cont Gentes seu contr Idola The second testimony shall be Athanasius his words are these Sufficiunt sanctae ac divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae ad instructionem veritatis out of which I thus argue Second Argument Whosoever doe professe that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth are of the Church The Protestants professing the Scriptures do professe that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth Ergo The Protestants are of the Church Neither is here any place for Bellarmines unwritten word or Valenzaes unwritten revelations Basil It is an Argument of infidelity and a sure token of pride to reject any thing that is written or to bring in any thing that is not written saith Saint Basil in his Sermon of the confession of Faith Third Argument But the Romà nists doe add vnto the Faith things that are not written Ergo The Romanists are proude Infidels The Maior is Saint Basils the Minor is your owne not only delivered by private men but also enacted by your Councell of Trent Sess 4. Anno 1546. Fourth Argument Chrysost Whatsoever is requisite unto Salvation is wholly fulfilled in the Scriptures saith Chrysostme Com. in 22. Matth. But the Protestants doe professe all that is fulfilled in the Scriptures Ergo The Protestants doe professe all that is requisite unto salvation And doing so sure they are of the Church because none are saved out of the Church Idem Chrys Seing we have a most exact Ballance Levell and Rule of all things the sayings of the Law of God I beseech you all that forsaking what seemeth to this man or what seemeth to that man you would enquire after these out of Scripture Thus the same Father Hom. 13. in 2. Ep. ad Cor. I argue thus Fifth Argument They who professe and believe the most exact ballance levell and rule of Christians doe continue in the Christian Church But the Protestants beleeving the Scripture or written Word doe beleeve a perfect ballance levell and Rule of all things belonging to Christians Ergo The Protestants are in the Christian Church I reverence the fulnesse of Scripture Tertull contra Hermog Let Hermogenes shew me that it is written if it be not written let him feare the woe that is denounced against them that adde or diminish Sixth Argument They who adde to the fulnesse of the written Word are thereby subject to a great Woe But the Romanists denying the fulnesse of Scripture adde thereto unwritten Traditions Ergo The Romanists are subject to great woe Seventh Argument Diabolici spiritus est aliquid extra Scripturarum Sacrarum authoritatem putare divinum It is devilish to accompt any thing divine that is not in the written Word Theoph. But the Romanists doe accompt unwritten Traditions and Papall determinations to be divine Ergo The Romanists are devilish or have a devilish spirit in them I will conclude with Saint Augustine Eighth Argument Aug. l. 3. cont Petil. cap. 6. If any one either concerning Christ or his Church or concerning any other matter which belongeth unto Faith or life I will not say if wee but as Saint Paul added If an Angell from heaven doe declare unto you any thing besides that which you have received in the writings of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed But the Romanists doe tell us of unwritten Traditions concerning masters of Faith and life besides the written word of the Law and the Gospell Ergo The Romanists are accursed I will adde more testimonies out of the same Father both because by consent of all Divines that I have reade both Roman and Reformed hee is the chiefest Divine
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
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
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
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
Creed 2. Some other secondary accidentall and common to other habits or vertues besides faith to other persons besides the faithfull as morall precepts belong to Charitie properly and are common to Christians and Infidels revealed not onely by the supernaturall light of Gods word but also by the naturall light of reason in man both from God but the one written by God in the day of Creation the other manifested by his Sonne in the day of Redemption Of the former sort are the ten Commandements which were knowne even to the Heathen Dixitque semel nascentibus author He that readeth Plato Lucan Aristotle Tullie Diogenes Laertius the Poets Greeke and Latine the Latine Greeke Aegyptian Chaldean Indian Aethiopian Lawes may there find though not in the same excellent order nor without some mixture of drosse all the Decalogue And so deepe was the impression of this Law in the wisest of those Heathen that no Oracle could prevaile with them to crosse or cancell what the Law of Nature delivered as Principles which alone is properly the Law of Nature Excellent in this kind is that speech of Catoes in Lucan who being advised by Labienus to consult with the Oracle of Iupiter Ammon said unto him What wouldest thou have mee to demand of the Oracle An noceat vis ulla bono Fortunaque perdat Opposita virtute minas laudandaque velle Sit satis nunquam successu crescat honestum Scimus hoc nobis non altius inseret Ammon He that shall reade Phocilides a very ancient Greeke Poet shall there finde a Store-house of excellent morall Precepts as consonant to the writings of Moses and Salomon as if they had been thence drawne Aquinas Bellarm. Valenza alij All Divines of greatest note of your owne side hold that of the Apostle Hebr. 11. v. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seene to be a definition of faith and then the proper object of faith must bee non apparentia non visa things not evident to the naturall man to the eye of reason such as these morall Precepts are which I last mentioned Lib. 1. de Iustific c. 4. So that howsoever Bellarmine doe cavill with that distinction of Historicall Faith and justifying Faith yet reason will evince the distinction to be good and needfull for those Histories of Esaus selling his Birth-right of Abrahams two wives of Dathans rebellion of Davids adulterie although they are not essentiall to explicite saving faith yet those Stories and whatsoever is recorded in the Word of God to have been done or spoken wee beleeve to have been done and spoken although the act sometime bee wicked and the speeches false and blasphemous as the murther of Vriah the rayling of Shimei the words of the Serpent to Eve So the beliefe and credit we give is not to those actions or speeches of theirs as if the one were well done and the other truly spoken for this were to justifie the false Prophets rayling Rebels and the Devill himselfe but wee beleeve that Historicall Narration of the Holy Ghost that such vvicked sinnes vvere committed such false blasphemous vvords spoken and shall vvee not call this Faith being a credit wee give unto the Relation because it is by divine inspiration in the Pen-men not in the Actors or first speakers Historicall If it bee faith L b. 1. de Iustific c. 9. either a justifying faith or an historicall faith or some other but no other is named and it is no justifying faith Ergo an historicall faith That it is not a justifying faith I proove against Bellarmine out of his owne vvords The whole object if justifying Faith is contained summarily and briefly in the Apostles Creed But those Stories of sinfull actions lying Prophets blaspheming Devills are not at all in the Apostles Creed Ergo The relations of them are no object no article no part of saving Faith If neither of saving Faith nor any other then of Historicall Faith Againe no division of things contained in Scripture is more frequent amongst Fathers Schoolemen and latter Writers Roman Reformed then that of Faith and life Credenda facienda what we should beleeue how wee should liue and if they be members of one division they cannot bee affirmed one of another As therefore those Morall precepts are rules of actions so they belong to Charitie it s their proper place As it is related they came from God so they are the object of Historicall Faith So that the Articles of the Creed wheresoever found in Scripture are the proper object of iustifying Faith And all things that are registred and declared by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets and Evangelists inspired by the Holy Ghost are the object of our Faith Historicall I say the relation not every thing that is related which Historicall Faith I define to be a supernaturall infused assent or credit we give to the relation of things in the Word of God as revealed from him So that I thinke I may say that rightly understood both sides doe agree thus farre 1. That the primary materiall compounded object of Faith as the Schoolemen and Iesuits speake or more plainely that the principall propositions of Faith are in the Apostles Creede 2. The totall object of Faith are omnes revelationes divinae as Valenza or Verbum Dei as Bellarmine or rather the divine Scripture as the Fathers as Aquinas Carbo and the Reformed Churches doe say For Valenza doth aequivocate with his Revelationes Dei and Bellarmine with his Verbum Dei. Who would not be glad to reade in these two great Iesuits That such is the nature of Faith Tom. 3. di 1. q. 1. §. 4. p. 1. that it can assent to no Proposition but as it is revealed by God So Valenza and Faith ought to levell at nothing besides the Word of God for Faith cannot be certaine and infallible unlesse it relye upon his authority who can neither deceiue nor be deceived So Bellarm Who that desireth the peace of Sion would not be glad hereof Lib. 1. de Iustif c. 10. I did much rejoyce when at first I read it but when I saw that Valenza did extend his divine Revelations not onely to Canonical Writers but also to the Pope And Bellarmine to divide Verbum Dei the Word of God into Scriptū non scriptum written Word and unwritten Traditions my joy turned into griefe and searching better into the Questions I found these were poore shifts to hemme in their Pope for when they are prest with arguments or Authorities of Fathers concerning the fulnesse and sufficiency of the Word of God Bellarmine comes in with his distinction of Verbum Dei Scriptum non scriptum saying that the one alone is Regula partialis a piece of a Rule but both together are Regula totalis a whole Rule Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 1. §. 4. So Valenza dealeth by revealed verities Vel per Canonicum
cap. 5. This Councell did professe our Faith and receive our Councels and Sacraments though they added five Sacraments more reade Surius Tom. 4. Sessione 3 4 5. Thus have I travelled through Histories Fathers Schoolmen and Councels to satisfie the demand of them who when all is done will denie all Histories Fathers and Councels which make against them I might have gone a neerer way thus You baptize Children daily in your Church and then you professe my Faith the Apostles Creed and minister our first Sacrament You have your Masse or Common Prayer with the Communion often in your Churches then also you professe my Faith reade parcels of our Scriptures and minister our other Sacrament intire to the Clergie though by halfes to the Laitie You have published many Missals under the names of Saint Iames Saint Marke Saint Chrysostom and others every one of these allow and use my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have your Ordo Romanus that approveth my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have published many writers upon the Masse in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum as Walafridus Strabo Ino Corvotensis and others named by mee in my Catalogue all these professed our Faith and received our Sacraments and also our Scriptures But as for your Creed it was never professed in Baptisme it is found in none of those Missals nor in your Ordo Romanus nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Masse for one thousand five hundred yeares Let mee conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis The holy Church a diligent and wary keeper of those Doctrines which were committed unto her doth not change adde or diminish any thing therein it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary nor adde any thing that is superfluous it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianitie nor usurpe that which belongeth to other Sects of Religion in the world CHAP. XIX Fisher 1. THat faith is affirmation and not negation by which rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scriptures to pertaine to faith 2. That they that are in the affirmative must prove and not those who are in the negative but which seemeth to follow that a man who had time out of minde quietly possessed his land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary who denyeth him to have right have given a good reason of his denyall 3. That what was not a point of faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of faith as if there were not some points which were at first not held necessary to be beleeved even by Orthodox fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessary to be beleeved as that whosoever did not beleeve them were accounted not Orthodox but Hereticks And 4 that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds And the Anabaptist Church is a societie of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be Iudge it will be held so to be Rogers Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title Master Rogers his weake grounds where he spake not one word of my grounds and here he doth passe over the most with silence but he speaketh against some few of them In my former answer after my definition of a Protestant I laid some few distinctions or grounds thus I desire you to distinguish between matter 1. Of discipline and 2. Of Doctrine Secondly to distinguish between 1. Doctrine accessory and 2. Doctr. fundamentall Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not accessory but fundamentall By this distinction I meane the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 1. Per se 2. Per accidens These 3 distinctions passe without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second viz 1. Doctrine accessorie 2. Doctrine fundamentall As if he would overthrow it but indeed saith nothing in the world against it nor can for it is the distinction of Saint Augustine of Bellarmine of all the Schoole Lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 12. In Scripturis plurima sunt quae ex se non pertinent ad fidem being the same with that of Aquinas in matters of faith into res fidei 1. Per se in themselves 2. Per accidens or accidentally The words of Aquinas are these and thus cited by Valenza Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 2. § 1. as an undoubted ground or principle Habitus fidei 1. Per se primariò respicit ea circa quae distinguuntur articuli fidei 2. Alias verò propositiones quae divinis Scripturis continenter respicit secundariò per accidens The habit of faith 1. In it self and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed 2. Vpon other propositions which are contained in Scripture it looketh accidentally and secondarily This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Non enim unius sunt formae omnia verae doctrinae capita All heads of true Doctrine are not of one nature Some are necessary to be knowne which all men ought to receive as undoubted there are others Quae inter Ecclesias controversa fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant Wherein particular Churches may dissent and yet not breake the unity of faith Thus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther and others but I will onely cite Saint Augustine who in his first booke against Iulius Pelagius writeth thus Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi Regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant etalius alio de una re meliùs aliquid dicit verius Hoc autem vnde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta There are other things wherein the most learned and best defenders of the Catholicke Rule may dissent one from another and one man speaketh better and more truely then another upon the same subject But this whereof we now speake belongeth to the very foundation of faith Thus farre Saint Augustine This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with but not in that order as I placed them but after two or three other grounds of mine which in mine answer were placed after this Thus he to puzzle the Reader that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer what he doth not answer never observes order Yet I that he may in nothing escape my hands will follow him in his order so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter My next ground was this I distinguish between 1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church and 2. Negation In those Articles of our English Church Our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therefore no part of our faith for no man
will deny his owne faith To this my Adversary doth thus reply Fisher That faith is affirmation and not negation by which Rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scripture to pertaine to faith Rogers You inferre that in your conclusion which is not in my grounds I say that faith is affirmation I doe not say that all that doth pertaine to Faith is affirmation I say that negations are no part of my faith you say that negations doe pertaine to faith Non facis elenchum you inferre not my proposition in your conclusion with a contradiction what you say is not contrary to my grounds for that may pertaine to faith which is not faith and that may pertaine to faith which is no part of faith as that may pertaine to Master Fisher which is not Master Fisher nor any part of Master Fisher The button of Master Fishers doublet doth pertaine to Master Fisher yet I may not say Master Fisher is a button or that this button is any part of Master Fisher A joyned stoole may pertaine to Master Fisher but I will not say Master Fisher is a joyn'd stoole The distinction of matters of faith out of Aquinas and others of that which belongs unto faith properly from that which belongs unto faith accidentally doth exclude those things which onely pertaine unto faith from being faith or any part of faith You know Master Fisher Aristot Zabarella that Propositiones per se habent essentialem connexionem Man is that which he is of himselfe properly and essentially a creature consisting of a humane body and a reasonable soule not that which is accidentall unto man as to be blacke or white to be a Musician to be a Carpenter to be a Fryer or a Priest a Jesuite or a Dominican These things are not man nor any part of man It doth not therefore follow that because negations pertaine to faith therefore they are faith or part of faith Your Argument from Scripture if I should grant your medium cannot inferre against my ground altering part of faith into that which pertaineth to faith Your Argument in forme will discover it selfe to be a fallacie All propositions found in Scripture pertaine to faith Some negative propositions are found in Scripture Ergo If you inferre against me your conclusion must be thus Negative propositions are faith or parts of faith This is no Syllogisme here are foure termes there is that in the conclusion which is not in the premisses but if you would have all propositions that are in Scripture to be matters of faith or parts or points of faith then I deny your major you know there are many propositions in Scripture delivered by wicked men yea some by the Devill himselfe As that which was spoken unto Eve you shall not die Whereas God told them they should die if they did eate of the forbidden fruit And shall these be parts of your faith will you beleeve the Devill when he speaketh against God But of this I have spoken more fully before Cap. 4. proving the contrary to this out of your own men Yet I will here adde some few reasons to shew that Negations or negative Propositions cannot be Articles of faith or Principles of faith Lib. 1. Poster c. 23. Aristotle doth prove by two Arguments that an affirmative proposition is better then a negative First because the affirmative is better knowne then the negative for the negative cannot be knowne without the affirmative but the affirmative may without the negative as the habit may be defined without privation but not privation without the habit as seeing may be defined without any mention of blindnesse but blindnesse cannot be defined without mention of seeing Secondly Affirmation doth speake of being Negation of not being but being is better then not being To the same effect in his bookes Lib. 2. c. 3. De Coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Affirmation is before privation He is the same man in his Metaphisicks where he putteth Negations inter entia rationis which have no being in themselves if no being how can they be principles in any Scicence much lesse in Divinitie It is a true note of your Zuarez upon the Metaphisicks that Mensura debet nota esse certa ut sit nota oportet ut entitatem habeat ut fit certa oportet ut in indivisibili consistat That cannot be knowne which hath not entitie reall entitie saith your Suarez when any Negation is knowne of necessitie we must first know that whereof it is a Negation Prima primae q. 72. 63 secunda secundae q. 79. 3. Andreas Vega Francisc Hist. Trid. Con p. 1. 179 In Metaph. â—5 c. 7. q. 6. Idem Suarez This is the Doctrine of your great Schooleman Aquinas He was one of your greatest Divines who said at your Councell of Trent that no true Negative hath in it selfe the cause of his truth but is so by the trutth of an affirmative Negations as negations nullam omninò dicunt entitatem sed solam absentiam ejus quod negatur they tell of no being but onely an absence of that which is denyed saith your Fonseca Seeing then that Propositions of faith are principles and principles cannot be proved by any thing that is before them or better knowne then they and that nothing can be known without reall being and that negations are proved by affirmations how can they be Propositions or principles of faith And lest you should wander in your Replie I will presse two Arguments out of your owne men Entia rationis non sunt principia in ulla scientia Suarez in his Metaphys in fine Negationes sunt entia rationis Ergo Negationes non sunt principia in ulla scientia praesertim in Theologia Principia fidei habent causam finalem Negationes non habent causam finalem Ergo Negationes non sunt principia fidei Propositions of faith are foundations and a foundation must be positive or it will beare nothing upon it go round about a building and say a thousand times over here is no stone and here is no stone and so all along you will never lay a foundation Shall the Mason by saying I will not lay this nor that foundation come and claime his wages Shall the Tyler by laying on no Tyle say that he hath covered the house or the Carpenter by squaring and joyning no Timber build the Walls The Articles of our faith are in the Apostles Creed all affirmative and positive there is not one Negation among them The question betweene us is about unwritten Traditions Purgatory Invocation of Saints Transubstantiation worshipping of Images and the rest before alleadged out of Paulus Secundus his Creed all which I deny and therefore are no Articles of my faith for no man would deny his owne faith All those we deny we lay no such foundation let them which have laid it maintaine it We are contented that Purgatory Transubstantiation