THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH EXISTENT.
CHAP. I. Master Fisher observeth neither Art, nor Order in answering Master Rogers.
MAster Fisher, or whosoever you are, that undertake for him; if you would have done by me, as I did by Master Fisher; namely, have set downe all my grounds, and answered to them in particular, as I did to Master Fishers Propositions; it might have given the Reader better satisfaction, who thereby might see, whether we doe agree in any thing that I have written, or dissent in all; whether you reject all those grounds which I laid, or admit of some; as I did by your Propositions, approving some, rejecting others;In solutione argumentorum duae tā tum solutiones, distinguendo, vel tollendo, Ego autem hic de Propositionibus loquor. and in those you reject, if you would have answered to them in their place, & punctually, and not go roving, so to puzzle the Reader with disorder. I tooke those Propositions that were offered to me as they lay, I answered to every period, vel concedendo, aut distinguendo, aut negando, either granting, distinguishing, or denying; and where I found any ambiguity in your termes, or sentences, I desired you to explicate, and cleere the same, which you have not done; yet you know that no disputation may be [Page 2] undertaken, no Argument framed, no Treatise composed without this; no not so much as one bare Proposition, or Sentence may subsist with aequivocation, and amphibologie, words or sentences of double signification, and doubtfull sense, untill they be cleared by explications, and distinctions. This you know to be the advice, and practise of the Philosophers, and Divines which have written. But such are your termes & Propositions as that they seeme to be made of purpose in ambiguous words, or contexture, so to leave open some starting hole, or evasion, and answering your Adversary out of order, to draw a curtaine before the understanding, not onely of the Reader, but also of your Adversary, Aristot. Elench. 2. We are ignorant of what wee formerly knew when it is misplaced and disordered. and your selfe, [...]. Thus have I beene served by others besides you. Is not this catching at a word here, and passing by a whole side of a leafe elsewhere, without saying one word to it? afterward leape backe a leafe, or two, and snarle at an Argument, or snap at a distinction, and so away; Is not this (I say) like the Dog drinking of Nilus, lap a little, and runne away; lap againe, and runne away? This was applyed by one to Antony, flying after Cleopatra from the Battell at Actium, who being asked, Quid agit Antonius? Answered, Quod canis ad Nilum, lambit, & fugit: so much was hee besotted with that Harlot. Thus you the Champion of that Purple Harlot that sitteth upon the seven hils, fight her quarrels, a snatch and away, a snap and be gone; or if you make a short stand, you will but shew your teeth, grin, snarle, but hardly bite. That I may draw you from this course of disorder, I will put downe what Master Fisher proposed, vvhat I answered, and then vvhat this Author replied, or vvhere hee did not reply.
CHAP. II. The occasion, and time when this Author Master Rogers was first interessed in this matter.
ATt that time, when our now Soveraigne was in Spaine, a Gentleman delivered me those Propositions following, in the presence of divers, I being then in London [Page 3] 100. miles from my dwelling, and my Bookes. That night I delivered this answer following after Master Fishers Propositions. The Gent: was then almost become Romanist, having beene (not many dayes before) at Masse in the Spanish Embassadors house, and Master Fisher coming to this Gent: Chamber left those Propositions with him.
The like verbatìm the Right Honourable Earle of O. did shew me, saying, that it vvas all written with Master Fishers owne hand.
The Propositions are these.
Fisher.
IT being granted that there must bee a Visible Church in 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 [Page 4] 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.
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.
[Page 5] 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 1
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 2
Thirdly, that they should defend them to hold nothing contrary to the doctrine of Protestants contained in the 39. Articles, unto 3 which all English Ministers are sworne.
[Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 hee were a man, or not; and whether hee could shew mee the names of his Ancestors in all ages untill Adam? would you give me one answer unto both? if affirmative, then you had a great taske, and such as I think you neither can performe, nor would undertake: if negative were your answer to both, then you are no man. You would think it unreasonable that I should tye you thus to prove your selfe a man. Thinke it as unreasonable, that you should tye me thus to shew my selfe a Christian, especially considering this kind of proofe is but weake, uncertaine, full of exceptions, and at the most but humane, Cui potest subesse falsum, the testimonies of men, qui & falli possunt, & fallere, who may deceive, and be deceived.
You would thinke it reasonable, that if you were to prove your selfe a man, a humane creature, or that you are descended from Adam, I should leave the maner of proofe to your self, & you would go to work a shorter way, & more effectually thus:
Every living creature consisting of a reasonable soule and humane bodie, is a man.
I am a living creature consisting of such a soule, and such a bodie:
Ergo: I am a man.
This would give me satisfaction, I would not reject it, and bid you shew the names of your Ancestors out of Histories in all ages, or you are no man.
You would have me prove my selfe a Christian: give me leave to chuse, and frame mine owne Argument thus:
Whosoever doth professe that faith which is, and ever hath bin required of those who by Baptisme are made Christians, is therein baptized, & doth therin continue, is a Christian.
But I was baptized in that faith, and doe therein continue, and professe the same.
Ergo: I am a Christian.
Will you now, M. Fisher, say unto mee, Not so; but you must shew me a Catalogue of those who held your faith in all ages, or you are no Christian, you have no Church. Is this [Page 8] your charitie, M. Fisher? will you not grant me as a Christian? what I grant you as a man?
Bellarmine, Baronius, Valenza, Aquinas, and ascending higher, Ruffinus, Cyrillus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, tell mee you can require no more for an explicit faith, such as profession requires, at my hands, then this, which all children in our Churches are taught to beleeve, to know, and to professe: adding this implicit faith, that they, besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed, are prepared to entertaine, & will believe all things revealed in the word of God. I will begin with Valenza, who saith:Tom. 3. disp. 1. c. 1. p. 5. ‘Nota inter omnes orthodoxos convenire, articulos fidei Catholicis credendos esse illos qui Apostolorum Symbolo continentur. Note, that it is agreed amongst all those who are right beleevers, that the Articles of faith which Catholiques ought to beleeve, are those which are contained in the Apostles Creed.’ If there were any other Articles, he should not have said, these were the Articles, but some of the Articles. Againe, the same Valenza saith; ‘Now in the time of grace there is a command said upon all, that of necessitie they must explicitè credere, i. actually know, and immediatly beleeve those Articles of faith which are contained in the Apostles Creed; Et sic decent communitèr Theologi, & D. Thomas; This is the common doctrine of Divines, and so saith Aquinas. But other truths of faith, which besides those Articles of the Creed, are contained either in the holy Scriptures, or in the definitions of the Church, Non necessarium est necessitate medij, ant praecepti explicitè credi à vulgaribus fidelibus: They are not necessarily to be beleeved by common Christians, either as a meanes without which men cannot be saved, or by a necessitie imposed, or commanded.’ Wherein observe how the Iesuit addeth, and paralelleth Definitions of the Church to the Scripture, whereas Aquinas cited by him saith thus: Dicendum est ergò quod fidei objectum per se, Q 2. Art. 5. est id per quod homo beatus efficitur, ut supra dictum est. Per accidens autem aut secundariò se habent ad objectum virtutis omnia quae in sacra Scriptura divinitùs tradita continentur, sicut quod Abraham habuit duos filios; quod David fuit filius Isai, & alia hujusmodi. Quantum ergo ad prima credibilia quae sunt articuli fidei, tenetur [Page 9] homo explicitè credere, sicut & tenetur habere fidem. Quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere, sed solum implicitè, vel in preparatione animi, in quantum paratus est credere quicquid divina Scriptura continet: sed tunc solum hujusmoditenetur explicitè credere, Q. 1. Art. 8 quando hoc ei constiterit in doctrina Fidei contineri. Wee must therefore conclude, that the proper object of Faith is that by which a man is made happy, as we have said before. But accidentally, and secondarily all those things belong unto the object of that vertue, which are delivered from God, and contained in Scripture; as for example, that Abraham had two Sonnes, and that David was the Sonne of Ishai, and such like. Therefore as farre as concernes those prime objects of mans beliefe which are the Articles of Faith, a man must beleeve the same expresly, as hee must have Faith. But as for other objects of Faith a man is not bound to believe them expresly, but onely implicitely, or in a preparation of minde to belieue whatsoever is contained in the holy Scripture: but then he is bound to belieue those things expressely, when it shall plainely appeare unto him that they are contained in the doctrine of Faith. Thus farre that Schooleman.
To the same effect Carbo the best Epitomizer that I haue seen, who in his smaller Booke hath all the marrow of Aquinas his Summes. The next shall be Baronius.
Hoc ipsum Symbolum Catholica Ecclesia semper adeo est venerata, ut in sanctis Conciliis Oecumenicis, Baron. 44. n. 18. quasi basis quaedam & fundamentum structurae Ecclesiasticae consueverit, imprimis recitari. The Catholique Church did alwaies so farre reverence this Creede, that it was a Custome to repeate the same in holy Generall Councels as a ground-worke and foundation of all Ecclesiasticall buildings, (saying moreover concerning the Romane Church) that it had preserved the same Apostles Creed, sincerè, & illibatè, without any addition or diminution, as Ruffinus hath testified in these words: In divers Churches some things haue beene added, but in the Church of Rome, Adjectionem unius saltem sermonis non admittit auditus, Their eares abhorre to heare the addition of one sentence.
Bellarm. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de Iustificatione cap. 9. I am verò [Page] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] quod vetus Ecclesia senserit, ac tradiderit de fide ad justificationem, & salutem necessaria; quid ea videlicet sit, & quod objectum habeat non potest clarius intelligi quam Symbolo fidei, quod Catechumenis initio traditur, ut cum fide recta, & salvâ ad lavacrum Regenerationis accedant. Concerning that Faith which is necessary to Iustification and salvation, what was the opinion of the Primitive Church, and what it did deliver concerning the same; namely, what Faith is, and what object it hath, cannot more cleerely bee understood then by that Creede which was delivered to those that were Catechized before Baptisme, that so they might come to the Laver of Regeneration with a right and sound Faith. Tom. 3 lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 24. He saith that the repeating of this Creed is the fourth Ceremony of Baptisme, of which Ceremony mention is made, as he there writeth, by Clemens, Dionysius, Origen, Cyprian, Cyrill, Hillary, Hierom, Augustine.
And that the summe, and whole object of Faith is therein contained, though briefely, Saint Augustine doth teach, Serm. 115. de tempore, besides others that teach the same, where (saith Bellarm:) he doth define the Apostles Creede, in these words, Est inquit Symbolum comprahensio fidei nostrae simplex, brevis, plena: ut simplicitas consulat audientium rusticitati, brevitas memoriae, plenitudo doctrinae. The Creed is plaine, briefe and a full comprisall of our Faith, that the plainesse may helpe the simplicitie, brevitie may helpe the memory, and the fulnesse may provide for the learning of the hearers.
Lib. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. Lib. advers. Praxiam.Saint Irenaus doth expound the rule of the Christian Faith, the same also is done by Tertullian: but both of them doe teach, that nothing else is to be believed besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed, although they haue not the name of the Creede. So saith Bellarm: lib. 1. de Iust. c. 9. Leo the first, ep. 13. doth charge Eutiches to haue made a dissention contrary to the entirenesse of the Catholique Faith. Est siquidem ipsius Catholici Symboli brevis, & perfecta confessio, quae duodecem Apostolorum totidem est signata sententiis. For in the Apostles Creed is contained a perfect confession of Faith. Thus he is cited by Binius, Tom. 1. Conciliorum pag. 946.
Baronius Anno 1016. num. 1. saith, That one Simeon a holy, [Page 11] man of Armenia comming to Rome, and there being accused of Heresie, and demanded what faith hee was of?He made a perfect confession of faith, by rehearsing the Apostles Creed, &c. Respondens Catholicae, & Apostolicae fidei perfectionem ita confitendo perdocuit, qualitèr per universum orbem, Apostolorum Symbolum in Nicaena Synodo peroratum clara voce personuit. And by and by after Baronius addeth these words: Innotuit protinus Papae, & omnibus qui aderant virum Dei (scilicet Simeonem) verae fidei esse professorem. Lastly, the sufficiency of this Creed is acknowledged not onely by those which I have above named, but also the Councell of Ephesus concluding, doth repeat this Creed, adding these words: Huic sanctae fidei omnes affentiantur oportet, est enim piè sufficienter (que) ad totius orbis utilitatem exposita. Let all men assent to this holy Faith, for it is piously, and sufficiently expounded to the benefit of the whole world.
Having thus out of the Fathers, Schoolemen, Councels, and your owne Writers shewed the Antiquitie, necessitie, trueth, perfection, sufficiencie, and fulnesse of my Faith in which I was baptized, and which all wee of the Protestant Churches doe professe, how can you say that we are not of the Church, or require us to adde other Articles unto these in which wee all have been baptized, and in which alone, not onely wee, but all of your Church, and all Churches of the world since the Apostles times have been baptized, been made Christians, been admitted into the Church? This is the Covenant of faith as well in your Church as in ours: for there is no other profession of faith in Baptisme amongst you, but the Apostles Creed; there is no mention there, no promise, no covenant that wee doe beleeve unwritten Traditions, Indulgences, Purgatorie, Invocation of Saints, seven Sacraments, worshipping of Images, Communion under one kinde, Transubstantiation, and the Primacie of the Romish Church. When a Farmour is told, that he hath forfeited his Lease, that he hath broken his Covenants; he will aske in what point? and when it is told him in particular wherein, he repaires unto his Lease, lookes upon his Covenants; and if this which is layd to his charge be not there expressed, hee will reply; It is not h [...]ere, I am not bound unto it, it is no Covenant of mine; and his [Page 12] Land-lord were unjust to presse him beyond his Covenant.
Wee have made a Covenant with God in Baptisme, we are admitted Tenants in his Church; you say wee have forfeyted our Grant, broken our Covenants, vve are no longer Tenants, vve are no more of the Church. I aske you, why? you say, because I will not beleeve your new Creed, and that the Pope is head of the Church (for that is your primarius fidei articulus. Bellarm. to Blackwell.) I reply, there is no such thing in my Covenant; I was baptized in no such faith, I was made a member of Christ, I was not made a member of the Pope, I will leave that for you vvho make him your head. And thus farre of explicite faith, of justifying faith necessary to salvation, of the primary fundamentall propositions which belong to faith per se, non per accidens, out of which I will collect some few Arguments:
Whosoever was baptized into, and still doth professe a whole, full, perfect, true, sufficient faith, is of the Church.
But the Protestants were baptized into, and still doe professe a whole, full, perfect, true, sufficient faith.
Therefore the Protestants are of the Church.
Every word of the Major and Minor is prooved in this Chapter, in that I have proved all these titles to belong to the Apostles Creed.
A second Argument.
Whosoever doe professe that Faith by which men are made Christians, doe still continue Christians.
But the Protestants doe professe that faith by which men are made Christians.
Ergo: The Protestants are Christians, and consequently of the Church.
A third Argument.
To prove that those Doctrines of their new Creed can be no Articles of faith, because the Articles of the Apostles Creed being already perfect and compleat, can admit of no essentiall addition; and all Articles must be essentiall, quia per se.
There can be no essentiall addition to that which is perfect and compleat, as the Apostles Creed is.
But the Articles of Faith are essentiall unto Faith.
[Page 13] Ergo: No new Articles may be added to the Apostles Creed, being perfect and compleat.
CHAP. IV. Of the totall object of faith, as it includeth not onely the primary essentiall matters of faith, but also the secondary and accidentall matters contained in the revealed truth, and that from hence demonstrations may bee drawne to prove the Protestants to be a Church.
THose things we beleeve by an infused divine faith, are of two sorts: 1. Some prime, proper, essentiall, as those things contained in the Apostles 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, Dixit (que) 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? Fortuna (que) perdat
[Page 14]Opposita virtute minas laudanda (que) 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 Ʋriah, 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, its 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 Ʋalenza; 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, [Page 16] 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 Ʋalenza dealeth by revealed verities, Vel per Canonicum 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 [Page 17] reconcile contradictions. The most incompatible opposition that is; without which being laid as a groundworke, 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 [Page 18] 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 Ʋalenzaes 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 Romànists 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 since the Apostles, and because those things which I shall alleage out of him, being versed in the same Question betweene him, and the Donatists concerning the Church, are most proper to this question betweene us and the Romanists, whether we bee a Church or no, and will answere most doubts and objections that are made herein: but seeing that this Chapter is growne so long, I will reserve it for another.
CHAP. V. Shewing out of Saint Augustine and others, that there is no other way to demonstrate a Church to bee a true Christian Church, but by the Word of God.
I Desire you Mr. Fisher, and whosoever will vouchsafe to reade these my poore Labours, to take my meaning in citing these Fathers, Schoolmen, and Iesuites which I have alledged in the precedent Chapters, not to be such, as if by their authoritie alone wee endeavour to proove our selves to be a Church; but to shew that in matters of Faith, and in this Question of the Church no demonstrations, no strong, proper, and necessitating Arguments can bee made but out of Scripture. All other Arguments are but probable, without any necessary illation, and forrein, not proper to Theologie: As after I have done with S. Augustine, I will shew out of your owne Schoolmen.
This Father is he out of whom our later Writers have had [Page 21] (next after the sacred Scriptures) most of the excellent, solid, deepe Divinitie which they have: This was hee that was stiled Malleus Haereticorum, the Hammer of Heretikes:Sabellicus Vir super omnes qui ante eum, & post eum huc usque fuerunt mortales, admirabili ingenii acumine praeditus. A man (as your Sixtus Senensis writeth of him) indued with a sharpnesse of wit above all mortals that have been before him,Bibl. 5. l. 4. or after him to this time, full of humane learning; but in the divine Scriptures by farre the most learned of all others; and in the Exposition of Scriptures raised to so high a pitch of incomparable subtiltie, or acutenesse, ultra quam dici queat, more than the tongue of man can expresse.Dr. Kinge. This was hee of whom a learned Preacher, and powerfull speaker of ours spake in the Pulpit, that hee confuted the Heretikes so fully, answered all their objections and demands so weightily, that of him next after the Sonne of God himselfe it may bee sayd, they durst aske him no more questions. And if I in my poore judgment and reading may expresse what I have observed, and doe conceive, that was the most fruitfull age of Heresies that ever was, and some of those Heretikes so learned, especially Pelagius, the grand enemy of the grace of God, that if Saint Augustine had not been borne in those times, Pelagius, and many more had not been confuted. This man amongst other Heretikes wrote against the Donatists, who did appropriate the Church to themselves, as now the Romanists, or Papists doe: so that it is the same question now betweene us and the Papists, which was then betweene Saint Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists did tye the Church to Africke, the Papists to Rome; not that either the one or the other did, or doe denie Christians to be in other parts of the world, but that all men in the world must bee of their Church, and hold union with them, and dependance from them.
The first place that I will cite out of Saint Augustine, shall be his words in his second Booke of Christian Doctrine, ca. 9. All those things which doe containe faith and manners of living, are found amongst those things, quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura, which are plainly put downe in the written Word. This doth proove what wee intend, namely, that this [Page 22] Quaestion of theirs, if it be necessary, is found in Scripture, and not onely so, but in plaine Scripture; which answereth the objection of obscuritie in the Scripture, that though it bee true, that in Scriptures some things be obscure, some be plaine; yet all necessary things are plaine in Scripture.
Ex Augustino lib. de Ʋnitate Ecclesiae cont. Petilianum Tom. 7. p. 109.
Cap. 2.
Inter nos & Donatistas quaestio est, ubi sit Ecclesia? Quid ergo facturi sumus, in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an in verbis capitis sui Domini nostri Iesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quarere debemus qui veritas est, & optimè novit corpus suum, novit enim Deus qui sunt ejus.
Cap. 3.
Sed ut dicere coeperam, non audiamus haec dico, haec dicis, sed audiamus haec dicit Dominus: sunt certè libri dominici, quorum authoritate utrique consentimus, utri (que) credimus, utri (que) servimus: ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram: Auferantur ergo [Page 23] illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliundè recitamus— Quaerat fortassis aliquis, & dicat mihi, Cur ergo ista vis auferri de medio, quandò communio tua etiamsi proferantur, invicta est? Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis Oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari; si enim sanctae Scripturae in Africa sola designaverunt Ecclesiam, & in paucis Romae Rupitanis, & Montensibus, & in domo, vel patrimonio unius Hispana mulieris, quicquid de chartis aliis aliud proferatur, non tenent Ecclesiam nisi Donatista.
Si in paucis Mauris Provinciae Caesariensis eam sancta Scriptura determinat ad Rogatistas transeundum est. Si in paucis Tripolitanis, & Byzacenis, & provincialibus, Maximianistae ad eam pervenerunt. Si in solis Orientalibus, inter Arianos, & Macedonianos, & Eunomianos, & si qui illic alii sunt, requirenda est. Quis autem possit singulas quasi Haereses enumerare gentium singularum.
Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum divinis, & certissimis testimoniis, [Page 24] in omnibus Gentibus designata est; quicquid attulerint, & undecunque recitaverint qui dicunt ecce hic Christus, ecce illic; audiamus potius, si oves ejus sumus vocem Pastoris nostri dicentis, Nolite credere.
Istae quippè singulae in multis Gentibus ubi ista est non inveniuntur, haec autem quae ubique est, etiam ubi illae sunt invenitur: Ergo in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis eam requiramus.
Cap. 4.
Totus Christus caput, & corpus est, quicun (que) de Christo rectè sentiunt, sed ab Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte seperata inveniatur, manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Gatholica.
Quapropter, quia cum Donatistis nobis Quaestio est non de capite sed de corpore, id est, non de ipso Salvatore Iesu Christo, sed de ejus Ecclesia; ipsum Caput de quo consentimus ostendat nobis corpus suum de quo dissentimus, ut per ejus verbum jam dissentire definamus. — Prioribus [Page 25] temporibus per Prophetas sonuit verbum, deindè per seipsum, deindè per Apostolos. — In his igitur omnibus quaerenda est Ecclesia.
Hoc etiam praedico, atque propono uti quae aperta, & manifesta deligamus: quae si in sanctis Scripturis non invenirentur, nullo modo esset vndè aperirentur clausa, & illustrarentur obscura.— Seponenda sunt quae obscurè sunt posita, & figurarum velaminibus involuta.— In talibus figuris nolo quaeramus Ecclesiam, non quia falsae sunt, sed quia interpretem quaerunt.
Cap. 6.
O Donatistae Genesin legite, Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes Gentes terrae, Genes. 22. Quid dicat Apostolus audiamus,Gal. 3.— In semine tuo quod est Christus— Ecce Testamentum Dei: quare vos irritum facitis Testamentum Dei, dicendo nec in omnibus Gentibus esse completum, & periisse jam de Gentibus in quibus erat semen Abrahae? Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere [Page 26] Christum, nisi ubi poterit cohaeredem habere Donatum? Non invidemus alicui; Legite nobis hoc de lege, de Prophetis, de Psalmis, de ipso Evangelio, & Apostolicis literis legite & credimus, sicut nos vobis legimus & de Genes. & de Apostolo; & benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae, & in semine tuo.
Date mihi hanc Ecclesiam, si apud vos est, ostendite vos communicare omnibus Gentibus quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici —
Cap. 7.
Quid in Prophetis, quam multa, & quam manifesta sunt testamonia Ecclesiae per omnes Gentes toto orbe terrarum diffusae.Isa. 11. — Repleta est vniversa terra ut cognoscat Dominum.Isa. 27.—Germinabit & florescet Israel, & replebitur Orbis terrarum fructu ejus.—
Psal. 27.Posui te in lucem Gentium ut sis salus usque ad fines terrae. Laetare sterilis quia non paris, erumpe, & exclama quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam ejus quae habet virum.
[Page 27]Comparent isti multitudinem suam in Aphrica constitutam cum multitudine Iudaeorum per omnes terras quacunque dispersi sunt, et videant, quam sint in illorum comparatione paucissimi. Quomodo ergò de se dictum assignabunt: multi filij desertae, quam ejus quae habet virum?
Rursus comparent multitudinem Christianorum per omnes Gentes quibus non communicant, & videant quam pauci sint in comparatione omnes Iudei, & tandem aliquandò intelligant in Ecclesia Catholica toto orbe diffusa istam prophetiam esse completam. Iam pauca de Psalmis audiamus:Cap. 8. Dabo tibi Gentes haereditatem tuam, & possessionem tuam fines terrae.
Nonne Apostolus de Praedicatoribus Novi Testamenti dictum exposuit quod scriptum est in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum,Psal. 18. & in fines orbis terrae verba eorum.Psal. 56. Et super omnem terram gloria tua: & undè gloria ejus super omnem terram, nisi quia Ecclesia ejus per omnem terram, & replebitur [Page 28] gloria ejus omnis terra,Psal. 71. fiat, fiat. Ite nunc vos Donatist. & clamate, non fiat, non fiat. Vicit vos Verbum Dei dicens, fiat, fiat.
Quid ad haec dicturi sint quae commemoravi ex Lege, ex Trophetis, ex Psalmis. Audiamus ipsius verbi vocem ore propriae carnis expressam: Sic scriptum ect, & sic oportebat Christum pati, & resurgere à mortuis tertio die.
Hic ipsum caput ostenditur quod ipsum se manibus discipulorum prebuit contrectandum. Ʋide quemadmodum de corpore adjungat quod est Ecclesia, ut nos nec in Sponso nec in Sponsa errare permittat. Et predicari (inquit) in nomine ejus poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem? Quid hac voce veratiùs, quid diviniùs, quid manifestiùs? Me piget commendare verbis meis, & haereticos non pudet oppugnare verbis suis. Dicant ea testimonia quae posui de Lege, & Prophetis, & Psalmis obscura esse, & figuratè dicta, etiam aliter posse intelligi, quanquam & in eis egerim quantum potui ut nec audeant dicere. Sed ecce dicant [Page 29] nunquid & obscure dictum, aut aenigmatis velamento adumbratum est quod ipse Christus dixit, quia sic scriptum est, & sic opportebat Christum pati, & resurgere tertio die, & predicari in nomine ejus poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes.Epist. 48. Audi dicit Dominus, non dicit Donatus, aut Rogatus, aut Vincentius, aut Hilarius, aut Ambrosius, aut Augustinus, sed dicit Dominus. Quomodo ex divinis literis confidimus accipisse nos Christū manifestum si non indè accepimus & Ecclesiam manifestam. Necesse est incerti sint qui pro sua societate testimonio utuntur non divino, sed suo. Nisi cognoveris teipsum non in verbis calumniosorū, sed in testimoniis librorum meorum. In Scripturis didicimus Christū,Epist. 116. in Scripturis didicimus ecclesiam. Has Scripturas communiter habemus quare nō in eis et Christum & Ecclesiam cō muniter retinemus.— Ecce Scripturae communes, ecce ubi novimus Christum, ecce ubi novimus Ecclesiam.
Those words of St. Augustine I apply to our present purpose, concluding in the same manner against the Romanists, as this Father did against the Donatists, changing onely Donatist for Romanist.
Cap, 2.
The Question betweene us, and the Romanists is, where is the Church? What then shall we doe, shall we seeke for the Church in our owne words, or in the words of her Head, and our Lord Christ Iesus? I think we ought rather to seeke her in his words, who is the Truth, and best knoweth his owne body, For the Lord knoweth who are his.
Cap. 3.
But as I began to say, let us not heare (these words) I say this, thou saist that; but let us heare this, thus saith the Lord, Our master hath left books unto us, to the authority of which Bookes wee both consent, wee both beleeve, we both submit; there let us seeke the Church, there let us examine our cause: [Page 23] Away with those words from amongst us which we cite not out of the Canonicall Books of God, but elswhere.—Some man peradventure wil say unto me, why wil you have those things taken away, seeing your cause, though those things were alleaged will stand invincible? Because I would have the Church demōstrated, not by human reason, but by divine oracles. For if the holy Scriptures haue designed the Church to be in Italy alone, & in those few wch concur with Rome; whatsoever may be brought out of other Bookes, none but the Romanists do possesse the Church.
If the holy Scripture doe limit the Church to a few more of the Province of Caesarea, we must passe unto the Rogatists. If it be amongst those few of the Provinces of Tripolis, and Byzacene, the Maximinianists are come unto it. If onely amongst the Easterlings, vvee must seeke for the Church amongst the Arrians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, and others, if there be any more there; for who is able to recount the severall Haeresies of every Nation?
But if the Church be assigned to all Nations, by divine and most certaine testimonies of [Page 24] Canonicall Scripture, whatsoever they shall bring, or whatsoever they shall recite, who say, Loe here is Christ, loe there is Christ; let us rather heare, if we be his sheepe, the voice of our Shepherd, saying, Believe them not.
For those severall (Sects) are not found in many Nations where the Church is. But this church, which is every where, is found also vvhere those severall (Sects) are: Therefore let us search for the Church in Holy Canonicall Scriptures.
Cap. 4.
Christ is wholly a Head, and a Body, whosoever have a right opinion of Christ, but doe so dissent, that they communicate not with the whole Church, wheresoever dispersed; but with some part thereof, severed from the rest; it is cleare, that they are not in the Catholike Church.
Wherefore, seeing the question betweene us and the Romanists is not concerning the Head, but the Body; that is, not concerning our Saviour Iesus Christ, but concerning his Church; let the Head, concerning whom we doe agree, shew unto us his Body, about which wee doe differ, that so [Page 25] by his words wee may end the difference.—In former times this word was delivered by the Prophets, then by himselfe, then by his Apostles. — In all these the Church is to be sought for.
This also I warne aforehand, that wee chuse such places of Scripture as are cleare and manifest: for unlesse there were such to bee found in the holy Scripture, there were no means how those things might be laid open which are shut, or those things made cleare which are obscure. — Wee must lay aside those things wch are there obscurely set down, or wrapped in the vaile of figurative speeches, not because they are false, but because they require an Expositor.
O you Donatists (O you Romanists) reade Genesis, there you shall find written, In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed. Let us heare what the Apostle saith of this seed, In thy seed, that is Christ. Behold, this is the wil & Testament of God; why doe you cancell the Testament of God, in saying that this is not fulfilled in all nations, and that the seed of Abraham is perished from amongst the Nations? why doe you adde unto his Testamēt, saying, that Christ [Page 26] hath no inheritance in the earth but where the Pope of Rome is his Copartner? Wee envie no man; Reade us this out of the Law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalmes, out of the Gospell, out of the writings of the Apostles; reade it there, and we will beleeve it; as we doe reade unto you out of Genesis, and out of the Apostle, In thee, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth bee blessed. Give me this Church if it be amongst you, and shew me that you hold Communion with all those nations, which now we see blessed in this seed.
Let us passe from the Law to the Prophets: how many, and how manifest testimonies are there found of the Church spread through all Nations of the world. The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. Israel shall blossome, and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.
I have put thee for a light unto the Gentiles, a Saviour unto the ends of the world. Rejoice thou barrē that didst not beare; break forth into singing, & cry aloud thou that didst not travell with child, for more are the children of the desolate, then the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
[Page 27]Let these (Romanists) compare their multitude in Italie and Spaine, and their scattered Proselytes elsewhere, with the multitude of Iews wheresoever dispersed through all lands, and they shall see how fewe they are in comparison of them. How then can they thinke the words of the Prophet were spoken of them, which saith, Many more are the children of her that was forsaken, then of her that hath an husband?
Againe, let them compare the multitude of Christians through all Nations with whom they hold no Communion, denying them to be of the Church, as the Greeke Church more large then the Latine, the Southerne Churches not inferiour to the Latine, the Easterne Churches more by farre then the Greek and the Latine put together, and they shall see how fewe the Iewes are in comparison of them; and they may understād that this prophesie was fulfilled in that Catholike Church which is diffused through the world. Now let us heare something out of the Psalms, I wil give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, & the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words unto th'end of the world; [Page 28] which the Apostle expounded to be spoken of the Preachers of the new Testament. His glory is over all the earth, because his Church is in all the world; let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen, Amen. Let it be, let it be.
Goe now (ye Romanists) and cry, not so, not so, let it not be, let it not be. The word of God hath overcome you, saying, Let it be, let it be. What will they answer to these words of the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalmes? Let us heare the words of Christ himselfe, saying, so it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. Here the head it selfe is shewed unto us, which gave himselfe to bee handled by his disciples. See what hee addeth cōcerning his body, which is the church, that so we may erre neither in the Bridegrome, nor in his Bride. And (saith he) that repentance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his Name through all nations, beginning at Hierusalem. What can be spoken more truly, more divinely, more clearly? I hold my words unworthy to commend it, and yet these Heretikes are not ashamed to oppugne it. They may say that those words which I have cited out of the Law, and [Page 29] the Prophets, & the Psalmes, are darkly & figuratively spoken, & may be otherwise understood; although I have laboured herein to stop their mouthes. But say they should say so, I aske again, whether that be darkly spoken, or shadowed with a vaile, as if it were a riddle wch was spoken by Christ himselfe, that so it is written, and so Christ ought to suffer, and to rise again the third day, & that repentance, and remission of sinnes should be preached amongst all nations in his name. Hear what the Lord saith, not what Donatus, or Rogatus, or Vincentius, or Hillarius, or Ambrose, or Austine doe say, How doe we trust that we may clearly find Christ in the Scripture, if we cannot find there clearly his Church.— They must needs be doubfull, who use in defence of their society their own testimony, not the testimony of God.— Vnlesse thou know thy selfe, not in the word of cavelling people, but in the testimonies of my Books. In the Scriptures have wee learned to know Christ, in the Scriptures have we learned to know his Church. Wee have these Scriptures common to us both, and why out of these doe not we hold Christ and his Church common to us both. And againe, Behold the Scripture common to both; loe where wee have known Christ; loe where we have known his Church.
[Page 30]Reflecting now upon what wee have cited out of this incomparable Father, wee may observe how plainly, how frequently, how perseveringly he maintaineth, that this Question concerning the Church may be proved plainly, manifestly, clearly out of Scripture; That hee would not have men use Humane testimonie in this question; and they which doe use Humane testimonies herein, and not Divine, stand upon uncertainties:Aquin. 1. q. 1. art. 8. Carbo. to the same purpose the Schoolmen say, That Humane reasons, in hac doctrina non valent ad probandum, are not of force to prove: yet it useth Humane reason, not to prove Faith, and what it believeth, but to declare other things as a forreine Argument, and probable: but it useth Divine Authorities as a proper, and necessary Argument.
Secondly, let us observe, that this Father writing upon this Question, so many Books as make more then halfe a great Tome, yet never used any other Argument in those Bookes but Scripture; hee never called upon his Adversaries, to shew names of their Professors in all Ages, nor did hee attempt that for himselfe, but chose rather to cite the same Scriptures, twenty times at least in severall Bookes of that subject, out of which places I will collect two Arguments; first, desiring the Reader to observe, That things expresly contained in Scriptures, and things thence deduced are of a different nature, these later inferior to those; those are Principles, these are but Conclusions; those depend upon supernaturall light of Divine Revelation, these Conclusions are grounded upon those Divine Principles which men apprehend by Faith, and then doe search, and find the illation, and consequence of these Conclusions by the light of naturall reason, improved by Industry, and refined by Art: I doe not say that I can shew in Scripture, that the Protestants are the true Church, which were to make it a point of Faith, but out of Scriptures I can prove that the Protestants are a Church, and so make it a Theologicall conclusion, and the Arguments demonstrations; because drawne out of the proper Principles of Theologie or Divinitie, thus:
1. Argument.
They who professe that Faith which was preached through the World, are a true Christian Church.
[Page 31]But the Protestants holding the Apostles Creed, and the doctrine of the Apostles, doe professe that Faith which was preached through the World.
Ergo, The Protestants are a true Christian Church.
2. Argument.
They who hold Communion, and acknowledge themselves to be a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World, are a true Church.
But the Protestants doe hold Communion, and acknowledge themselves to bee a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World.
Ergo, The Protestants are a true Church.
Secondly, out of the same Principles I will prove, that the Church of Rome is not the Church, as excluding all other Churches, thus:
1. Argument.
The Church doth professe that Faith which was preached, and received through the World.
The Roman Church holding a new Creed of unwritten Traditions, Transubstantiation, worshipping of Images, &c. doe therein not professe that Faith which was preached, and received through the World.
Ergo, The Church of Rome is not the Church.
2. Argument.
The Christian Church hath many more Children then the Church of the Iewes.
But the Romane Church hath not more Children then the Church of the Iewes.
Ergo, The Roman Church is not the Christian Church.
The Major Saint Austine doth bring out of Scripture in those words, The barren hath many more children then shee that hath an husband. The Minor will appeare, if we say unto these Romanist [...], as Saint Austine did to the Donatists, Let them compare their multitude with the multitude of the Iewes dispersed over the world, and they shall see how few they are in comparison of them, the Iewes being by the calculation of the Brirewood in his Enquiries. most learned in Historie, and Geographie, as many as will [Page 32] people all Europe. The Roman Church when it was entire, being not much more then halfe Europe, if so much, and now having lost halfe that it was, is farre lesse. This I shall enlarge morefully hereafter, when I shall come to maintaine my former Arguments. Now I addresse my selfe to Master Fishers Replie.
CHAP. VI.
Fisher. Concerning M. Rogers his Answer to M. Fishers five Propositions.
BY this which hath been said against Master Bernard, his Looke beyond Luther, it may be easily seene, that M. Rogers hath not sufficiently answered M. Fishers question aforesaid; for with a bold audacitie he nameth for Protestants, famously knowne Romane Catholikes, to wit, these Writers of the first seven hundred yeeres, and amongst others even Saint Bede, whose Writings, and profession of life (being a professed Romane Catholike Monke) shew him to bee no Protestant.
Rogers.
I can see no such thing in what you have said against Mr. Bernard, neither have you said any thing there which may touch me, but you have the same in this your Treatise against me: you have written, not halfe a sheet, in Reply to Mr. Bernards Booke of eight, or nine sheets, and yet you would have men see in your short Reply to him, a Confutation also of what I have written.
I have read, that Alexander the Great, seeing a companie of Indian Apes marching along a Hils side, tooke them to be an armie of Enemies, but when he came neere, he found them to be as they were, poore, silly, fearfull Apes, that ran into the woods to hide themselves. Hee that thinkes hee seeth in your Reply to Mr. Bernard, a confutation of him, or me, is as much mistaken as Alexander was in the Apes; the reason is, hee looketh a farre off, as Alexander did, when hee tooke them [Page 33] for armed men; but hee that commeth neere unto your Writings, vieweth, and examineth them diligently shall find, that there is no armie, there are no armed men, no sword, no weapon, no Scripture, no reason to wound us. You strout, and stalke a farre off, but when wee draw neere, you flye into the thickets of some darke speeches, ambiguous phrases, aequivocating termes, like those, Liguranes quos major aliquantò labor erat invenire quam vincere. It is more labour to find you out, then to conquer you. Mr. Bernard, I doubt not, is able to answer any thing that you have objected unto him, if he think such poore objections of yours to be worthy of any Reply. I wil addresse my selfe unto what you object unto mee, you say that I have not sufficiently answered Mr. Fishers Question aforesaid; For (say you) with a bold audacitie hee nameth for Protestants, famously knowne Roman Catholicks, to wit, the chiefe Writers of the first 700 yeares. As for Audacitie, I hope to cleare my selfe, by performing all that I have undertaken herein. And the grounds I layed, doe manifest to the learned indifferent Reader, that I did so intrench my selfe, so fortifie my cause, as that I feare not any open force of a stronger enemie then you are. I named for Protestants, knowne Romane Catholicks (say you) distinguish Romane Catholicks, whether you meane the present Romane Church, or that which was in the first seven hundred yeares: these two are as different as Christian, and Antichristian, as Orthodox,Non Apostolici, sed Apostatici. Such as were fallen from all Christianity. Baron. an. 908. n. 4. speaking of the Popes of that age. and Haereticall, as Apostolike, and Apostaticall. I oppose the present Romane Church, not the Primitive; and therefore I oppose this, because shee is so different from that, and no more like unto those former Romane Catholicks, then those Indian Apes were unto the valiant Porus, and his Indian Souldiers. They of those first seven hundred yeares did not equall unwritten Traditions unto the Word of God, they did not worship Images, nor was your new Creed any part of their Faith; and this is the reason why we oppose the present Roman Church, because she hath so far declined from what she was.
Returne you to that Primitive Romane Church, and wee will returne to you; these Writers of the first seven hundred yeares are ours, and not yours: insomuch, that I doe require [Page 34] 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:
[Page 35]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. 1 [...]. 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,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. [Page 36] 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 Ʋrbicus, and you shall see him (saith he) with most injurious termes to abuse penè universam Ecclesiam Christi ab ortu Solis usque ad occasum, almost all the Church of Christ from the rising of the Sunne to the setting of the same; meaning those who differed from Rome, so that here this Father did distinguish the universall Church from the Roman, And againe the question is (saith he) Vtrum Sabbato jejunandum sit? whether Christians ought to fast upon the Saturday? which question I would he did so demand, or so affirme as not openly to blaspheme the Church dispersed over the circumference of the Earth except the Roman, and some few more of the West. And againe in the same Epistle he saith: Non tibi persuade at urbem Christianam sic laudare Sabbato jejunantem, ut cogaris orbem Christianum daemnare praudentem. Let him not perswade thee so to commend a Christian City (viz. Rome) fasting on the Saturday, as to cause thee to condemne the Christian world denying that day. Here Rome was a Christian City, but the Church besides is termed the Christian world, Seeing then that the Roman Church is but a part, say not that it is the whole Church out of which no man can be saved. This was the claime of Donatus, and some of his distracted followers to stile themselves the whole Church, as you do, they being as you are in proportion to the Catholike Church, that is the whole Church but frustum de frusto majore precisum, a part of that Westerne Church which was but a part of that Catholike Church, of the whole Church. Doe not play with the Church as Martial did with Tongilianus. Anaxagoras shall sooner perswade me nivem esse nigram, that the snow is black then you shall make me to deny one of the most manifest [Page 37] principles that are in the world, which every child understandeth, and doth assent unto: if he be but seven yeers old, viz. That Omne totum est majus aliqua sua parte; the whole is greater then any part thereof; a child knowes this sooner then he knowes the right hand from the left: divide him an apple, and aske him whether he will have all or a peece? he will say all, aske why? he will say it is more. Divide him his bread, and butter in peeces, and aske him whether he will have a part or the whole? he will chuse the whole because it is the bigger. The Roman Church is not the Aethiopian Church, nor the Greeke Church, nor the Armenian, Nestorian, Indian Church, all these and many more are but parts of the Catholike Church, Will you say that any part of this whole Church is as bigge as the whole? A greater degree of stupidity then this did I never reade, or heere of. Would you make us lesse then children, more simple then infants? When you tell us of your Roman Catholike Church, in that sense you expound it, not as concurring with but including the whole Catholike Church: Thus much for making the Catholike Church to be the Roman Church. Rome was a sound, and eminent part, and member of the Church before the seventh age, but in that age it began to bee troubled with the head-ach, when the Bishop of Rome claimed that proud swelling title of universall Bishop, which Gregory the first so much condemned; in succeeding times that Church became heart-sick, and more diseased (I speake as I conceive) then any one eminent member of the Catholike Church; her diseases, her heresies, her usurpations, innovations, superstitions, Idolatries we have left, that is her Papacie, not that faith by which she was, and is a Church though diseased, sick, all over infected with a leprosie; as I would shunne a man that is a leper, and yet not deny him to be a man. But Beda was a member of the Catholike Church, of the Roman Church such as then it was, not such as now it is; hee was not sicke of your greatest diseases.
Neither is your Argument of force as it is drawne from the title of Monke, no more then if I should conclude him to be of my religion, only by saying that he was a Presbyter of [Page 38] the English Church as now I am. Let us see your Argument in forme.
All Roman Monkes of all ages are of one faith, of one Church.
But Beda was a Roman Monke 900 yeeres past.
Ergo: He is of the same faith, and Church with the now Roman Monkes. Thus much for you.
Now for my selfe let me make the like Argument from St. Beda as a Presbyter of the English Church, and you know that title of Presbyter is more frequently given to Beda, then Monke.
All Presbyters of the English Church in all ages are of one faith, one Church.
But Beda was a Presbyter of the English Church, and so am I.
Ergo, Beda was of the same faith and Church with me, and all other Presbyters of the now English Church.
This is your kind of arguing, sillie, and simple. The major is most false, a meere aequivocation, the Monkes of the Primitive Church agreeing with your Monkes only in name, but not in nature, in signification, in definition.
Zozomen: l. Hist: Eccl: l. 1. c. 13.The first Monachi were such as in time of persecution fled into the Wildernesse, and there lived; yours contrarily take this order upon them, and live in cities, and Courts of Princes.
Ibidem & Hieron: ep. ad Pauli: or rather single life.2. They medled not with civill affaires, yours, especially your Iesuits are great States men.
3. They had no vowes, yours have vowes of chastity, poverty, and obedience which Bellarmine maketh essentiall to Religious orders, so that they are not of one nature they differ essentially.
4. They were Lay, and were forbidden by divers Canons to meddle with the Priests office. These have intruded so far into the Priests office as that they must yeeld the place to them. And your Bishops in your Trent Councell did complaine much of them.
Beda was no such Monke as now you have Quibus caruit Ecclesia eo tempore cum fuit optima. Agrippa de Van. Scien. Such as the Church had [Page 39] not when it was best. They lived by their labour; yours by the sweat of other mens browes; they fared hard;Palingenius. yours duntaxat ventri, veneri, somnoque vacantes. These onely eate, and drinke, and whore, and sleepe, so that these later Monkes are as opposite to the former as necessitated, and voluntary professions; as retired solitary men, from Statesmen; as Votaries, from not Votaries; Lay-men from Priests; men of sparing diet, from Epicures. Beda was a Monke before this definition was reade. Monachus est cadaver mortuum, è Sepulchris egressum, pannis funebribus involutum, à Diabolo inter homines agitatum. A Monke is a dead carkasse comming out of the Grave, wrapped in his winding sheet, driven amongst men by the divell. Beda lived 700 yeeres or thereabouts before your Pope Pius the 2. said that a wandring Monke was the devills slave, If you prove St. Beda to be such a one I will grant him to be yours, but of those Monkes, and these I may say, O quantum hic monachus monacho distabat ab illo, How much doth your Parsons, and other Monkes differ from Beda, and those more ancient Friers, or Monkes, or religious Orders, call them as you please.
Fisher.
The like may be said of divers others, but at this time it may suffice to give this one example to shew that Mr. Rogers naming all those he named spake without Booke, or without having at hand or looking into his bookes, and that he might as well have named the Pope, and Cardinalls, and Bishops, Priests, Monkes, and all other religious persons of the present Roman Church to be Protestants as he nameth the said ancient Fathers.
Rogers.
And so I will when I come to my Catalogue name Popes, Cardinalls, Bishops, &c. for confirmation of my faith whether it be for my Creed which are more principall, and proper points or articles of faith, or for all those bookes of Scripture which I beleeve, or things therein revealed from God, Because the testimony of an adversarie for an adversary is most strong, and will take away your personall exceptions, Thus [Page 40] Paul did cite a Heathen to perswade Heathens, yea the inscription of an Altar dedicated to the unknowne God, found amongst Heathen Idolls. Thus the Fathers Augustine, and others in the Primitive Church did cite the Iewes for confirmation of their doctrine, and that they did not misaleadge the Prophets, and writers of the old Testament.
Iudaei inimici nostri sunt, de chartis inimici convincatur adsarius. The Iewes are our enemies, out of the bookes of our enemies wee convince our adversaries, Augustine upon the 40th. Psalme, and often in other places. Master Fisher, or his Second would have exclaimed hereat saying, what meanest thou Augustine, wilt thou perswade mee that the Iewes are Christians? if not why citest thou their bookes? nay, what meanest thou Paul to cite the Greeke Poets? wouldst thou perswade me that they are Christians; as if it must follow that they whose testimonie we cite in some things, must be our friends in all.
All the faith of the Protestants is confirmed by the Papists, all their explicite, all their implicite faith, all that belongs to our faith vel per se, vel per accidens essentially, or accidentally, primarie, or secundarily, as an Article of faith, or as an illustration of the same expressed in Scripture: and yet the Protestants are no Papists, the Papists are no Protestants: because the Papists have a new Creed, which Protestants deny, and I call God to witnesse that I desire to die a thousand deaths rather then to approve it, because I assure me it is false in all, and in some things blasphemous, The Papists have such exercise of Religion, worshipping of Images, praying to Saints which I abhorre as being Idolatry. In discipline also they have such tenents of absolute supreme power over Bishops, Kings, Lawes, oathes, as is full of pride, sedition, usurpation, and impiety.
Now here we differ, here I am in the negative, and so it doth belong to you to prove the affirmative. It is a just law, and your owne Master Fisher: for these I need not produce testimony seeing I doe not avow, maintaine, beleeve any such Creed, any such practise of Religion, any such discipline. But for my faith either explicite, or implicite all that is revealed [Page 41] by God in his word I may bring my Adversaries to depose for me; Paul said unto Agrippa a Iew, no Christian,Iuvenalis. yea a wicked incestuous King if Roman Authors wrong him not— incestae dedit hoc Agrippa sorori. Yet to this bad man, this unconverted Iew, Paul saith, O King Agrippa beleevest thou the Prophets? I know thou beleevest them. And may not I say Master Fisher, beleeve you the Apostles Creed? I know you doe beleeve it, I have no other Articles of faith, no other primarie propositions of faith; againe, for the totall object, for the secondary propositions of faith contained in Scripture, may not I aske you and say, Master Fisher doe you beleeve the Bookes of Moses, the Psalmes, the Prophets, and all those Bookes of the Iewish Canon, as also all the new Testament? I know you doe Master Fisher, why then, herein is my faith limitted, whatsoever doctrine is plainely hence inferred, or out of principles of nature I receive as doctrines, or truths convincing my understanding, but they are no part of my faith.
After these, all doctrines, and lawes Ecclesiasticall, or civill in the Church or State wherein I live, not contradicting the word of God, or my conscience I receive with humility. May I aske you Master Fisher againe, whether the Apostles Creed and those bookes of old and new Testament received by our Church of England had not professors in all ages? nay were not professed, and beleeved of the Popes, and Cardinalls of all ages; I know you will not deny but they were so professed; why then may not I vouch these Popes, and Cardinalls for my selfe, as I intend to doe when I come to my Catalogue.
CHAP. VII.
Fisher.
ANd I marvaile why having gone halfe the way (as hee saith) hee maketh a stop there, and doth not with the like audacity goe on, in naming other famous Roman Catholikes in every of the other ages.
[Page 42]Rogers.
Because Master Fisher offered in like proportion to name, and defend Professors of Roman religion, holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent; these were your words in the first Paper I received of yours. I have gone halfe my journey, you not a step; in proportion you should have gone as farre as I did, especially seeing you would have no other meanes of triall: whereas I have, and hold other, and better meanes to prove my Faith and my Church; yet to satisfie others, to stop your mouth, and to meet you at your owne weapon, I undertooke this as a probable, forreine, humane, uncertaine Argument, yet such as maketh more for us then for you.
Fisher.
Namely, such as Gualterus in Latine, and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote in English, have set downe for members in the Roman Church.
Rogers.
If they have done it sufficiently and effectually, it had beene the lesse labour for you, Mr. Fisher, to have transcribed them; but wee may guesse what makes you neither take a Catalogue out of them, nor make one of your owne: after your example, I might transmit you to Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis, or The mysterie of Babylon, vvritten by Sir Phillip Morney, the learned Lord of Plessis, who have performed this for the reformed Churches, farre better then yours have done for your Church.
Yet when I come to the place where you have cited my Catalogue, I will make it out; but let mee aske you vvhy, instead of naming such as professed the Romane Religion, holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent, now you put members of the Romane Church, as if it were the same, a member of the Romane Church may give testimonie against you, and for me; Caiphas, even then when he persecuted Christ, might prophesie truly of Christ: Pilate, [Page 43] 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.
[Page 44]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 neithe [...].
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.
[Page 45]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 Ʋs, 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 [Page 46] 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 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 [Page 47] 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.
Ʋsqueadeo 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, natus (que) & passus sit, & resurrexerit hoc emendamus, eaque infidelitate destituta fidem qua haec creduntur instruimus, Item quod errant umbris veterum Sacramentorum [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] & manebit Ecclesia. l. 3.
Nihl aliud est consentire male facientibus; nisi mala facta eorum approbare atque laudare. l. 1.
Nemo conjungitur cum infidelibus, nisi qui facit peccatum Paganorum, vel talia facientibus favet: nec quisquam fit particeps iniquitatis nisi qui iniqua vel agit, vel approbat. l. 2. c. 17.
Vbi Moses, & Aaron, ibi murmuratores sacrilegi, ubi Caiphas, & caeteri tales, ibi Zacharias, & Simeon, & caeteri boni: ubi Saul, ibi David, ubi Ieremias, ubi Isaias, ubi Daniel, ubi Ezechiel; ibi Sacerdotes mali, & populi mali. cap. 7. Et sicut grana inter paleas non videntur, ita pie viventes inter iniquorum turbas non facile apparent.
My Baptisme is such, and so undoubted as that the sacrilegious hereticks themselves will not rebaptize those whom I have baptized, Saint Augustine doth answer thus, He doth not commit sacriledge who dares not rebaptize, after that baptisme, which is not thine but the baptisme of Christ.
The baptisme is Christs, the rebaptizing is thine, I correct in thee that which is thine, and acknowledge that which is Christs; for this is just that when wee reproove the evils of men, we should approve whatsoever good things we find in them, because they are Gods: I say, this is just, that even in a sacrilegious person I should not violate that true Sacrament which I find in him: neither that I should so correct a sacrilegious person as thereby to commit a sacrilegious sinne.
For they are evill, though the baptisme amongst them bee good, as the Iewes were evill, though the law was good; And even as the Iewes shall bee judged by that law, wch they (though defiled) could not defile: [Page 49] So (the Donatists) they shall be judged by that baptisme which they could not deprave though them [...]elves be depraved.
Wee therefore thus deale with a Iew when he commeth unto us to bee made Christian, wee doe not destroy in him the good that he hath from God; but the evill that he hath of himselfe, for we amend, and, destroy in him his infidelity whereby hee doth not beleeve that Christ is come already, was borne, hath suffered, is risen againe: and we instruct him in the faith of these things.
Wee also disswade him from those errors whereby he still sticketh to the shadow of the old Sacraments, and we shew unto him that the time is come already, wherein the Prophets foretold that these things were to bee taken away, and changed. But in that hee beleeveth one God is to bee worshipped, which made Heaven, and Earth; that he doth abhorre all the Idolls, and sacriledges of the Gentiles; that hee doth expect the day of Iudgement; that hee doth hope for eternall [Page 50] life, we commend him, approve him, acknowledge him, wishing him to beleeve as he had beleeved, to hold as he had held.
So also when a Schismatick, or an heretick doth come unto us to bee made a Catholick; we disswade; destroy, and take from him his schisme, and his heresie; but as for the Sacraments of Christ if wee finde them in him, and whatsoever other truth he holdeth; farre be it from us that we should violate or minister againe that baptisme which was once received; least while wee cure the vices of men, wee condemne the saving graces of God, and seeking to heale that which is not wounded, we should wound a man there where he was whole. Thus farre Saint Augustine.
These words of this Father make so plaine for our reformed Churches, as that they need no application, let the Reader understand Papist, where he readeth Donatist, and he shall find the Argument to follow. We so left you as that we retained whatsoever you had from God, and reject that which was from man: we retained that which made you a Christian Church, we rejected that which made you Popish, and Antichristian.
In the former we communicate with you, in the latter we disclaime. So those whom I have, and shall cite, did communicate with you in some things, but not in all; for if they had communicated with you in all things they would not have reproved,Aug. l. 2. cor. op. Par. c. 21. and disliked so many things. Qui communicat, consentit, qui consentit corrumpitur. If hee communicate, [Page 51] hee doth consent, if hee consent hee is corrupted.
To consent to evill is nothing else but to approve, and commend that which is evill; neither is there any man joyned in evill but he that doth commit evill, or favour it; act it, or approve it. In those good men which are displeased with those evills, the Church doth continue, hath continued, and will continue for ever. And as the graine unwinnowed is hid in the chaffe: So the godly doe not easily appeare amongst a multitude of the wicked.
The people may be good, where the Bishops are bad; as the people were bad, though Moses a good man was their Prince: where Moses, and Aaron were, there also were sacrilegious murtherers: Where Caiphas was, and many like unto him, there were also Zacharias and Simeon, and others like unto them: Saul, and David were in the same Synagogue, &c. So that I doubt not but some may be found in all ages, who did not communicate with your new doctrines, superstitious worship, tyrannicall discipline, although they did communicate with you in the Scriptures, and Apostles Creed, as wee and all the famous Christian Churches in the world doe. Know then that whereas you say that the Fathers and others alleadged by some of your men did communicate with the Roman Church, unlesse you can say in all things, you conclude nothing: Syllogizari non est ex particulari; for otherwise I might argue thus,
Some living creature is an Anabaptist,
Master Fisher is a living creature,
Ergo: Master Fisher is an Anabaptist.
Because they communicate with you in some things, thence to inferre you are the same in all things, is fallacia à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter.
CHAP. IX.
Fisher.
AND (as ancient Fathers have done before them) condemned some or other Protestants Doctrine, even of those 39 Articles of the English Protestant Church, although they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches.
Rogers.
I told you in my first Answer, that it is no prejudice to our Faith, if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions, not concerning Faith, as long as they maintaine our Faith, and that the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages, who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell.
These were my words in my first Answer, to which you reply not at all; to this purpose I also used that distinction of
- Discipline,
- and Doctrine;
and distinguished between Doctrine
- Accessary,
- and Fundamentall:
Adding also, that matter of Faith consisteth not in Discipline, but Doctrine; and that Doctrine not Accessary, but Fundamentall. By which distinction I meane (as I then expressed) the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei, Per
- Se—
- Per accidens.
To this purpose I then distinguished Dogmata,
- 1 Schola,
- 2 Ecclesiae,
- 3 Fidei.
Between
- 1 Opinions of Schoole.
- 2 Doctrines of the Church; &
- 3 Articles of Faith.
To all which grounds of mine, and more which I th [...]n layed, you make no reply at all, saving that some other [Page 53] grounds of mine you cavill at (viz) my Definition of a Protestant, and my Distinction of
- Affirmation,
- and Negation, which I will justifie in their places.
Why would you say nothing to these grounds, Master Fisher? If they were true, why would you not grant them? If false, why not deny them? If ambiguous, why not distinguish them? I know no other Answer, but one of these three wayes, Concedendo, negando, vel distinguendo. You will doe none of these to my grounds, and yet write in the top of your Booke for divers pages, these words, Master Rogers his most weake grounds; viz. pag. 26, 27. and in both these pages, not one word spoken of my grounds. Thus would you perswade your silly Proselytes, who must reade no more then the Title of your Bookes; That you have answered all, when you have answered nothing, Likewise, pag. 22. you write over head, Master Rogers his most weake Arguments; whereas, there is not in that page any one Argument of mine.
You can passe all those grounds of mine with a tricke of Rhetorick, to take notice of that which you cannot answer unto; and in stead of that, must strike at a stander by, namely, our Booke of Articles; saying, ‘That they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches;’ which I deny, as most false: neither need it any further Reply, being an indefinite exception, and as it seemeth, spoken of purpose to draw mee from that matter proposed, to goe a roving as your selfe have done, with impertinent discourses.
Fisher.
I might therefore without more adoe, conclude, that Master Rogers hath not sufficiently answered Master Fishers Question.
Rogers.
With as little adoe as you can inferre, abrogating a Law from that word which is the most proper for enacting the [Page 54] same,Decret. 1. part. dist. 4. c. 4. Lugduni Edit. anno 1584. jussu Greg. 13. Statuimus, id est, abrogamus, Wee doe enact it, that is, wee doe cancell it; or as you say, the Roman Church, that is, the Catholicke Church, a part, that is a whole, a piece of man, that is a whole man, this is quidlibet ex quolibet, from the staffe to the corner.
Fisher.
In regard hee hath neither named Protestants in all Ages, neither hath hee sufficiently proved them hee named to be Protestants, but by such false suppositions, and bad definitions, and such other shifts as any Arrian, or Anabaptist, or whatsoever other absurd Sectary may by the like defend the same persons to have beene of their Religion, or Sect.
Rogers.
The Question was, whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages? This I prooved by divers Arguments to which you have made such answer as wee shall see anon. To this I have not sufficiently answered (say you) in regard, 1. I have not named Protestants in all ages: As if there were no other means to decide the question but this, no other proofe then induction, or that my adversary proposing the question, should limit me what kind of proofe I must use: As if the King of France denouncing war against the King of England, should send him word: If you will warre against mee, you must doe it by land, not by sea; and you must land in Picardie, not in Normandie, or Britaine, or Poitou; and you must chuse your place of battell in large Plaines, and fight with horse, not with foot; and bring no Archers into the field, or else confesse that you are no Warrier, your Englishmen, Scots, and Britaines no Souldiers, your proceedings not justifiable by the law of Nations.
Would Charles of France the Frentick, have sent such a message, such a challenge to our Henry the fift?
Yet Master Fisher saith, If any Protestant will answer the Premises, let him set downe names of Protestant Preachers in all Ages, who taught the people Protestant Doctrine in everie severall Age; or else confesse that there were no such before Luther, or at least, not in Ages to be found in History.
[Page 55]As if I should say, If any Iesuit will answer mee, let him shew mee the names of Iesuit Preachers in all Ages, who taught the people Iesuiticall Doctrine in every severall Age, or else confesse that there were no such before Ignatius Laiola. We will deale with you as Edward the third with Phillip, who presented himselfe before Paris; saying, Hee did call upon him to open fight in the view of France, and before his great Theater of Paris.
He did not limit him to any one kind of fight, or weapon, hee left him to his choise, so doe wee with you: prove your selves to be the only Church, and that all are excluded from salvation unlesse they hold Communion with, and subjection to your Pope: prove it by any testimonie of Scripture, or demonstration from the Principles of Scripture, or Reason; frame your Argument as you thinke best for your owne advantage: there are many places for Arguments, viz. 24. wee exclude none, but will admit them in their degrees, some as necessary, some as probable. These are places of Art, or Learning: yet you will exclude us from all these, and bring us ad loca inartificiata, to testimonie.
And whereas those are
- Divina, of God or Man.
- vel Humana: of God, or Man.
You will have none but the later, which can be but weak, there being no Historian or Father but might be deceived, and very few against whom you have not taken some exceptions.
Of all the formes of arguing, a Syllogisme is that principall forme which alone hath constringencie, and necessary illation, and to which, all other formes, as being imperfect, are reduced; this we must not meddle with, but bring exemplum, or inductio, or at the most, an Enthymeme, which is curtatus, & imperfectus Syllogismus, all of them unsufficient, parere scientiam, to worke and produce true knowledge, and yet we must use onely these. This is, as if the King of France should have sent to our King, that when hee fought, hee should not put on his best Armour, nor use his best Sword. [Page 56] Saint Augustine in this question excluded humane testimony, yet you will have nothing else.
Non audiamus, Haec dicit Ambrosius, Augustinus, &c. Sed haec dicit Dominus. Your Schoole also granteth that Scriptures are the principles in Theologie, and all demonstrations must bee ex proprijs principijs out of proper principles. Yet you will none of them; onely names out of Histories you call for. This was a kind of proofe which I did not approve at first, but denyed the consequence of your 5th. Proposition thus.
The summe of your fift Proposition is briefly this, If the names of Protestant Pastors in all ages cannot be shewed, then the Protestants are not the true Church. This I deny to be of undoubted consequence, for that argument negatively from authority is of no force. In your demand you require the names of such as taught the Protestant doctrines: whereas all your Propositions before were of faith: as if all doctrines were points of faith.
I undertooke to shew a Church professing the same faith, which the Protestants now doe, in all ages; and in all your Propositions you speake of faith, here you speake of doctrines. You know all doctrines are not articles of faith. I have named Authors for 800. yeeres, and in this my second Reply I will for the rest. Was not my request more reasonable to call upon you to goe on so farre, it being your owne way, it being a course proposed by your selfe: yet he that hath not gone one mile findeth fault 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.
[Page 57]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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 those other things which we find in some singulars, or particulars, but not in other, or at sometimes, but not at other. This is the rule of reason, but you of Rome contrary to this course in framing your definitions, have collected those things which are to be found in one particular Church, viz. your owne, and wherein you conceive other particular Churches to be defective, things accidentall to the Church, as without which the Christian Church hath beene, and may be hereafter; wheras all those things that belong to the definition of any thing, must be essentiall, universall, inseparable; and being taken alltogether must shew, and explicate the whole nature of the thing, and exclude all things else of a different nature or kind: as for example, Bellarmine after a long dispute concerning the definition of the Church, rejecting all other, concludeth thus.
Nostra autem sententia est Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, & illam unam, & veram esse caetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione, & eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatam, sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum, ac praecipuè unius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani pontificis. Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant. Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis, professio verae fidei, Sacramentorum communio, & subjectio ad legitimum Pastorem Romanum Pontificem. Ratione primae partis, excluduntur omnes Infideles tam qui nunquam fuerunt in Ecclesia ut Iudaei, Turcae, Pagani; quam qui fuerunt, & recesserunt ut Haeretici, & Apostatae. Ratione secundae, excluduntur Catechumeni, & excommunicati, quoniam illi non sunt admissi ad Sacramentorum Communionem, isti sunt admissi. Ratione tertiae, excluduntur Schismatici qui habent fidem, & Sacramenta, sed non subduntur legitimo Pastori, & ideò foris profitentur fidem, & Sacramenta percipiunt. Includuntur autem omnes alij, etiamsi Reprobi, Scelesti, & Impij sunt.
But this is our opinion, that the Church is onely one, [Page 61] not two, and that one and true Church is an Assembly of men knit together in the profession of the same faith with Christ, and Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors, and especially under one Vicar of Christ on Earth the Bishop of Rome. Out of which definition may easily bee collected who are of the Church, and who are not; for in this definition are three parts, 1. profession of faith; 2. communion of Sacraments, 3. subjection to a lawfull Pastor, the Bishop of Rome. The 1. of these doth exclude all Infidells aswell Iewes, Turkes and Heathens, as Heretickes, and Apostates which having beene of the Church departed from it. The 2. part doth exclude those Catechumeni that are instructed in the principles of Christian Religion, but are not yet baptized, and those that are excommunicate, for the first of these were never admitted to the Communion of the Sacraments, these latter were admitted, but are by excommunication excluded. By the 3. part are excluded Schismatickes which have the faith, and the Sacraments, but are not subject unto the lawfull Pastor, and therefore doe professe the faith, and receive the Sacraments out of the Church. All others are of the Church although they bee Reprobates, wicked, ungodly men. Thus farre Bellarmine.
Ʋalenza to the same effect writeth thus.
Ʋera Ecclesia non est alia, Tom. 3. in Tho. pa. 144. nisi ea fidelium congregatio quae paret Romano Pontifici pro tempore existenti. There is no true Church but that Congregation of faithfull people which is obedient to the Bishop of Rome for the time being.
Binnius the last, and largest compiler of the Councells, hath this. Illam dicimus Ecclesiam quae decreta Sancti Consilij Tridentini universalis aecumenici tenet pariter, & honorat. To. 2. pa. 721 notis in Corc Tolet. 3.
We call that the Church which doth hold, and honour the decrees of the Holy generall Councell of Trent.
Thus wee see, that obedience to the Bishop of Rome is put by your late great Goliahs in the definition of the Church, and by consequence it is of the essence, and being of the Church, so that no man can be saved by their Doctrine, [Page 62] which is not obedient to the Bishop of Rome. Nay, the Christian Church cannot subsist without the Bishop of Rome, and obedience unto him, because nothing can subsist without his owne being.
If this be a true definition of the Christian Church, then millions of Soules were damned when the Church of Rome was divided for many yeares, and many descents (for there could be but one true Pope at the same time) some cleaving to one Pope, some to the other, this Schisme during seventy yeares. The want of this obedience (if their Doctrine be true) hath excluded all the reformed Churches from hope of salvation, which containe many millions of Christian Soules which receive, and believe the Scriptures of old and new Testament, as they were received in the first, second, third, fourth Centurie of yeares; which receive, and professe the Apostles Creed, are therein baptized, and receive for Orthodox Doctrine, the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councels, and some of them receive six of the first Councels, and yet must they be damned to the pit of hell, because they will not be obedient to the Pope?Histor. Concil. Trid. p. 450. The Queen of France somewhat above sixty yeares since, wrote unto the Pope, that there being none of the Reformed, who deny the Articles of Faith, nor the six Councels, many thought it fit to receive them into Communion. Let us passe from the Latin Church to the Greeke, a Church larger in extent then the Latine Church. This, with all the number of Christian Soules therein contained, for denying the Popes Supremacie, are out of the Church, have lost their hold of Christ, have no interest in his sufferings, although most of them suffer much for the profession of Christ under Turkes, and Tartars. Let us goe somewhat further, and observe the miserable condition of the Churches of Africke, which when they were at the best, were three times as large as the Roman Church, and yet, though the Mahometans have much prevailed against them, not inferior to the Latine Church; all these are without hope of Heaven, damned for ever to the pit of Hell, if this definition be true.
Eusebius the compiler of the Ecclesiasticall History for the [Page 63] first three hundred and odd yeares, assisted therein by Constantine the Great, and esteemed by him worthy to be Bishop of all the world, writeth,Lib. 3. c. 14. that The Church was dispersed through the world by the Apostles. Then speaking of the next Age, viz. Anno 137. writeth,Lib 4. c 6. c. 28. that The Churches did then shine like bright starres, through the world; and the faith in Jesus Christ did flourish in universo humano genere, amongst all mankind: As in Mesopotamia, in France, in Asia, in Phrygia. Lib. 6. c. 1. In India, where Pantenus the Christian Phylosopher found Christians, and the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Hebrew,Lib. 5. c. 9. Anno 180. left unto them by Bartholomew, who preached the Word in those parts.
Irenaeus the learned Bishop of Lions in France, died about these times, and had heard Polycarpus the Disciple of Saint Iohn (as hee himselfe confesseth) hee writeth thus; The Church dispersed through the universall world into the ends of the earth, received from the Apostles,Lib. 1. c. 2. and their Disciples, that Faith which is in one God, the Father Almightie, &c. as hee there setteth it downe more at large; cap. 3. hee saith, This Faith the Church dispersed through the world, doth constantly keepe, as if they dwelt in one house, as if they had but one soule, one heart, one mouth; neither doe the Churches in Germany believe otherwise, nor the Iberians, nor the Celtes, nor the Churches of Egypt, nor those in the East, nor those of Lybia, nor those which are placed in the middle of the world.
Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the yeare 234,Euseb. l. 7. c. 4. writing to Stephen Bishop of Rome, saith, Scias nunc frater, &c. Know now Brother, that all the Easterne, and those Churches which are more remote, are at unitie. Where he names the Bishops of Antioch, Caesarea, and Ierusalem, of Tyre, of Laodicea, all Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, Bythinia. Euseb. de vita Constantini, l. 3. c. 7. The Ministers of God came together to the Councell of Nice out of Syria, Cilicia, Phaenicia, Arabia, Pabestina, Egypt, Thebais, Africa, Mesopotamia, Persia, Scythia, Pontus, Galatia, Pamphilia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia; thither came the Thracians, Macedonians, Achaians, Epirots, and they whose dwellings were far more remote.
[Page 64]Much could I cite to the same purpose out of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and other Ecclesiasticall Historians, much out of the Fathers, much out of the late Travellers, but I will make choise of two, or three which shew the multitude of Christians over the world.
It is too true, that about seven hundred yeares after the comming of our Saviour in the flesh, Mahomet gained much from the Christians, the Turkes more, about foure hundred yeares after that; and the Tartars, I may say, almost as much as both; the last of these, about foure hundred yeares past,Saving, one mentioned by Mathew Paris. subduing the mighty Christian King of Teuduc, became Mahometans, and their Successors ever since: yet so, as Christians are found in all their dominions to this day: yea, and within these foure hundred yeares and lesse, Burchardus hath recorded that in the hither halfe of Asia, from Tanais Westward, to Imaus Eastward, and from thence to the South of Asia, there were thirty Christians for one Mahometan. I will end this with an Historian, and Traveller of your owne, Andrew Thevet, Cosmographer to the French King in his Cosmographie: I assure you (saith he) that I found at Ierusalem, in the holy (Passion) weeke, more then foure thousand Christians of severall (remote) Nations, my selfe being sole with an Almaine of the Roman Church. And anon after hee saith, All those Nations doe acknowledge neither Pope, nor Cardinall, King nor Emperour of ours. And againe, None can shew that the Abyssines, Armenians, Maronits, Georgians of Persia, Nestorians, Iacobites, Syrians, Iavans, which be of the Ilands next the Orientall India, Burians, Darians, Cephalians, the men of Quinsay, most remote of all the Orientall India (of all which Nations I saw in Ierusalem, in the holy (Passion) weeke) ever learned from us (of the Latine Church) their Sacred Mysteries (or Liturgie) which they affirme themselves to have received from the Apostles. Thus far Thevet. Yet by your definition, all these, so many Christians of severall remote nations, are damned to Hell; for they do not acknowledge the Pope, nor did for one thousand five hundred yeares. And must all the Christians for one thousand five [Page 65] hundred yeares, of so many severall Nations, be damned for not acknowledging the Pope? The devils in Hell would triumph if this were true: The ten persecutions in the Primitive Church, and the great inundation of Mahometisme lenarged far and wide, by the conquest of Sarazens, Turkes, and Tartars, did never cut so many soules from Christ, drive so many out of the Christian Church, and consequently damne them to Hell, as this definition hath done, if it were true. I have read in one of your owne Writers, Matthew Paris, That a Priest deceased,Anno 1072. about thirty dayes after appearing to another Priest, his former acquaintance, bade him give over his function and repent, if he would be saved; and opening his hand, shewed him a writing, wherein the Devill, and all the societie of Hell did give thankes to the whole Order of the Clergie; because, that giving themselves wholly to pleasure, and neglecting to preach, they suffered more soules to come to Hell, then had beene seene in any Age before.
All the service that the Romish Clergie of those times did doe to the Devill, in bringing infinite numbers of soules to Hell, was nothing to what this Iesuiticall definition, and Doctrine doth doe.
If this definition be true the judiciall proceeding in the later day must be not as our Saviour hath laid downe in the 25. of Saint Matthew, Come yee blessed of my Father, Ver. 34, 35, 36. inherit the Kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world, For I was an hungred, and yee gave mee meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave mee drinke, I was a stranger and yee tooke mee in, naked and yee clothed mee, I was sicke and yee visited mee, I was in prison and ye came unto mee. But thus it must be, if this definition be true, Come yee blessed, who have submitted your selves unto my Vicar generall, who have been obedient unto my Bishop of Rome, acknowledging him to have authoritie over all Bishops, that hee is above Councels, above Kings,Valenza, Tom. 3.1. qu. §. 6. Bellarm. l. 4 de Pont. Rom. c. 4, 5. above Emperours, Lord of all the world, that in him is invested all the authoritie of the universall Church; that all the Church, without him, may erre; that he doing the office of a Pastor, or intending to teach, the Church cannot erre.
[Page 66]Our Saviour said, Not every one that saith unto mee, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, but hee that doth the will of my Father; but now the case is altered; Every one that saith Lord, Lord, to the Bishop of Rome, and none but hee alone is in the Church, out of which there is no salvation.
Our Saviour said, Hee that doth the will of my Father: but these say, Hee that doth the will of God and the Church, shall be saved; and by the Church, they understand the Pope.
Must all those remote Nations, amongst whom many millions never heard of the Bishop of Rome, and those who are oppressed under the Moores, Turkes and Tartars, for the Faith of Christ, must they, I say, be examined in the last day, in that great Iudgement, whether they did obey the Bishop of Rome, or no? and condemned for not obeying him? If they answer, Wee acknowledged our sinnes, and repented of them, wee believed in thy name Iesu, wee were baptized in that Faith, wee received thy body and blood, wee endured many indignities, reproaches, impositions; nay, our children are taken from us, if there be any more hopefull then other, and all because wee are Christians. Will Christ answer them, Away from mee; for you did not acknowledge my Vicar generall, my Bishop of Rome to have authoritie over all Churches, over all Patriarches, yea Kings and Emperors in ordine ad Spiritualia: I know you not, you are not of the Church.
Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 12.May not the Aethiopians reply, Wee have received the Faith, first by the relation of ourAct. 8.27. owne Countreymen, who were baptized by Phillip, afterward by the EvangelistSocrat. hist. l. 1. c. 15. Saint Matthew. Wee received it by the preaching of Bartholemew, say theChrysost. Hom. 22. de Apostolis. Armenians. Wee have received it by the preaching of Andrew, say theOrig. l. 3. in Genesin, & Scythians. We from thy beloved DiscipleEuseb. hist. l. 3. c. 1. Saint Iohn, say the Churches of the lesserEuseb. hist. l. 3. c. 1. Asia: with us he lived, with us he died, to us he vouchsafed to speake in his Revelations, we received it also from thy ApostlePaul epist. ad Ephes. & ad Galat. Paul, who preached amongst [Page 67] us, and wrote divers Epistles unto us. From him wee received thy Faith, say the Graecians, Macedonians,Paul ep. ad Roman cap. 15 v. 19, 26. Illyrians: To us hee hath vouchsafed to write, say the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians.Pet. 1. ep. cap. 1. v. 1. Peter preached in our Countries, and in our neighbour Countries of Anatolia, as inEuseb. hist. l. 3. c. c. 1. Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, Asia: it was to strangers scattered amongst us of his owne Nation; to theChrys. Hom. de duodecem Apostolis. The Church of Ephesus instructed by Paul, and afterwards continued by S. Iohn. Iren. lib 3. c. 3. The Gospel of the uncircumcissiō was committed unto me, as the Gospel of Circumcission was unto Peter. Gal. 2.7. dispersed Iewes, and not to us of the Gentiles.
Wee of the higherTheodor. de veri. Evang. c. 9. Osorius de rebus Emanuelis. Socrat. l. 1. c. 15. Asia received it from Phillip; wee from Simon Zelotes, say the inhabitants of Mesopotamia: wee of Parthia, Persia, Media, Brachmania, India, and other neighbour Nations from Thomas. We Indians also received it from Bartholomew, who left with us the Gospel of thy blessed Apostle and Evangelist Saint Matthew: wee saw not Peter, wee heard not of theI assure you that I found at Ierusalem, in the holy (Passion) weeke, more then 4000 Christians of severall (remote) nations hereafter mentioned; my selfe being sole (amongst them) with an Almaine of the Roman Church: they doe acknowledge neither Pope, nor Cardinall, King, or Emperor of ours. See more p. 42. The Christians of Iava, Taprobane, Caephala, Quinsay, and other remote Countries in the Orientall India; divers of which, as the Aethiopians, Indians, Armenians, Graecians, &c. were converted in the Apostles times, and are from these parts so far distant, as that the Latine Church was for many precedent Ages unknowne to sundry of them till the later times. Brearley, Tract. 3. §. 2. Sub. 1. in his booke of the Masse. pag. 288. Pope, we knew not Rome; neither, for ought wee know, were wee knowne unto thy Latine Church: and if it be necessary for all men that will be saved, to know and acknowledge the Pope of Rome, our Teachers have deceived us, the Gospel which wee have received is unperfect, the Scriptures are defective, which make no mention of the Bishop of Rome; nay, thy Word hath misled us, saying, There is no other name under heaven given to men, in whom and through whom they attaine health and salvation, save only in thy name, O Christ Iesu. We received not our Religion from Rome, wee were not converted by any sent from the Latin Church. We received it from thy Apostles, say theTheodor. de curat. Grae ca. affect. l 9. Tyberines, Hyrcanians, Caspinians, Scythians, Massagets, Sarmatians, the Serae, Cimicrians, Germans, Britaines, the Lagi, Samni, Anasgi, (ut (que) semel dicatur) omne hominum genus, all mankind may say, we received thy Faith from the Apostles; sundry of which were unknowne [Page 68] to the Latine Church. Yet myIn the Reply to Doctor White and Doctor Fratley, the Author in the second Chapter saith, That out of the Roman Church no salvation: this is the Title and drift of divers leaves together. Adversary here, if he sate in the judgement seat, would doe as Bellarmine, Valenza, Binnius and others have done, condemne them all to Hell, with an Away with you, I know you not, if you know not the Roman Church, if you live not in unitie with that: And no marvell he is so peremptory, seeing Pope Boniface hath decreed it thus; Declaramus, dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici. De Major.
Wee declare, say, determine, pronounce, that it is altogether necessary to salvation, that every man that will be saved bee obedient to the Bishop of Rome. These are the Lawes of Rome, this the doctrine of your Schooles, this the charitie of your Religion, to condemne ten times as many Christians to hell, as ever were of your Church, for not being obedient to him they never knew, they never heard of.
Arist. Tep. l. 6. c. 1. n. 1. [...].And because we are speaking of Definitions, let me request you to remember the lawes of a Definition, as first, that it must contain all that is defined, it must belong to every thing which is comprized under that which is defined.
2. It must belong to nothing else, but that which is truly and properly stiled by the name of that which is defined; as the definition of man must belong to all men, & to nothing else but man; as every man is Animal rationale, and nothing but man: the reason thereof is this, that a definition must shew, and expresse distinctly the proper essence of that which is defined: [...]. Artic. 2. Poster. cap. 3. If proper, then it can belong to nothing else; if essence, it must belong to all, for nothing can be without his owne being and essence. And for the same reason it is inseparable, immutable, and must perpetually be verified of that to which it once doth belong, as a true definition, which sheweth the essence or being of a thing:A definition doth make us to know what each thing it. because nothing can bee separated from his owne being, unlesse it cease to bee at all. If then Bellarmines definition, & 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 [Page 69] 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 [...]. 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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) [Page 72] 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.
[Page 73]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 [Page 74] 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.
[Page]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, [Page 76] 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, [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] Donatists did, which S. Augustin esteemedQuid 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, as if it were our Tenet, and this must be our ground to inferre that Proposition; this is your Petitio principii, you beg a Principle which I will not grant you, and so the building fals for want of a foundation. Your Argument is thus:
Major. If Protestants be the true visible Church of God, then all sorts of men, who in every Age had the foresaid infallible Faith, have learned it by hearing Protestant Preachers, whose names may yet be found in Histories, as the names of those are found, who in every former Age did teach and convert the people of severall Nations unto the Faith of Christ.
Minor. But the Protestants are the true Church.
Ergo, All sorts of men, &c.
Not to meddle with the sequel of your Major, which is false, as I will shew when I come to answer your reasons for the same; your Minor is most false, wee alwaies did, and ever will deny it; wee are A true Church, not The true Church; a part, not the whole, &c.
Whatsoever is in your Proposition more then what I expressed for the summe thereof, I granted not; and therefore you have committed so many falsifications, as there are words in your Proposition more then this (If the Protestants be a true Church, their Faith hath beene taught in all Ages by lawfull Pastors:) I never granted that all sorts of men in every Age did learne their Faith by hearing Protestant Preachers, I never granted that their names, or the names of all other Preachers were to be found in Histories: yet you say, I granted all this: Is there no truth, no modestie, no meane, no measure of falsifying? Are you not ashamed to write, that a man granted that which hee denied so fully, so frequently?
Fisher.
Onely it may be hee will make a bogge at the word Histories, as not finding it in his Copie, not thinking it, perhaps, necessary that the names of Protestant Pastors, who have taught the Protestant Faith in all Ages past, be found in Histories.
Rogers.
What you meane by Bogge I know not, unlesse it be a hollow myrie ground, whereon a man can set no sure, no [Page 80] firme footing; but hee that trusting to a greene surface shall walke thereon, sinketh in, and sticketh in the myre: such indeed are humane Histories in matters of Faith. But why should Master Rogers make the bogge, who proveth his Faith and his Church by other Arguments, and not by these? who out of Saint Augustine hath already protested against humane proofe in so divine a Question:Aug. de veritate Ecclesia. Quia nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari: I would not have the Church demonstrated by humane learning, but by the oracle of God. And with your Schoole; That nothing but divine authoritie,Th. Aquin. 1. quaest. 1. Art. 8. neither humane reason, nor authoritie of holy Fathers are proper unto Divinitie, or doe properly demonstrate. But you that shun the proving of your Church, of your Faith by other course, and flye onely to Histories, you make the bogge, and such a bogge whereon you dare not walke, without you fill it up with the rubbish of some other kind of Records, or Monuments.
If you meane by making a bogge at the word Histories, that I should be afraid to admit the same now, because it was not in my former Copy; you are deceived, I feare it not, let it come in, though with a Parenthesis, and let Histories extend to Records, or Monuments, so they be without exception, I well receive them in their degree as a humane, probable, uncertaine, unnecessitating proofe, and yet such, and so uncertaine proofe as it is, if you can shew mee your now Faith out of Histories for the first foure hundred years, which you your selves doe not accuse of errour, falshood, wilfull deceit, juggling, partialitie, heresie, I will be of your Faith, of your Church.
Fisher.
Things past cannot be shewed, but by Histories.
Rogers.
I have admitted your extension of Histories to Records and Monuments.
Fisher.
I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant [Page 81] the fourth Proposition, even as it was set downe by Master Fisher himselfe.
Rogers.
Within twelve lines before, you say (Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant) and here now you say (I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant it) there you say I did grant it, here you suppose I did not grant it. You see no reason why I should not grant. If it be evident, it hath reason why it is evident; and being your Proposition, you must shew that reason, and what your reasons are, and how proposed, let us see.
Fisher.
For if any visible Protestant Pastors were in all ages, teaching especially any such Protestant Doctrines as now are taught, they would have beene named, and spoken of, and written of, as well as others are, who have in Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines.
Rogers.
First you play the Sophister, in changing your termes: in your three first Propositions you speake of Faith, here you leave out Faith, and put in Doctrines, as if they were the same; whereas you know that the ancient Fathers, and late Writers of your side and ours doe confesse, that there are many Doctrines in the Church of different nature and necessitie; but let us see your proofe.
Others, who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines, are named, spoken of, and written in Histories.
Ergo, The Protestant Pastors in ages are named, spoken of, &c.
First, tell mee whether your Antecedent be universall or particular; if particular, you conclude nothing: you know the old rule, Syllogizari non est ex particulari; or if you will have it in the words of Aristotle, the rule is this,Arist. lib. Prior 1. c. 19. If both Premises be indefinite, or in part, it can be no Syllogisme; and such is yours, namely, an indefinite Proposition, which [Page 82] must be resolved either into universall, or particular. If yours be universall, thus:
All others, who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines, are named in Histories, I denie it. It is related by many Historians, that there were Christian Churches in Britaine in the third, fourth and fifth Age. But no man hath put downe all their names, who were their Bishops, or inferior Ministers: if you can doe it, shew it mee. Againe, the Arrians were so many in the fourth Age, as that a Father saith, Miratus est mundus se subitò factum esse Arrianum, The world wondered how it came on a sudden to be of the Faith of Arrius. And can you, Master Fisher, shew mee the names of these Arrian Teachers? I could be copious in alleaging divers false Doctrines, whose first Authors are not named, are not knowne, much lesse all that taught the same; so that if your Proposition be universall, it is false: I denie your Antecedent. If particular, thus; Some others, who taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines, are named in Histories. Ergo, I d [...]ie your Argument, and as well I might say,
Some men have no Noses,
Master Fisher is some man.
Ergo, As you inferre any conclusion out of your particular Antecedent.
Fisher.
In regard there cannot be assigned any reason either of the part of Gods providence, or humane diligence, why the names 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.
Rogers.
Yet you are in your indefinite saying (others, even false Teachers) you will neither adde all nor some, to make it universall, thus; The providence of God, and diligence of man hath preserved the names of all false Teachers in Histories. For then the falshood would be cleare: neither have [Page 83] you made it particular, thus; The providence of God, and diligence of men have preserved the names of some false Teachers. Ergo, of Protestant Teachers: for then it would appeare that this were a Non sequitur, that particulars can inferre no conclusion.
Fisher.
For doubtlesse, both God, who is zealous of his honour, and carefull to honour and preserve the memorie of them that would honour him, would for his honour sake have procured honourable memorie of such, as did by teaching truth honour him.
Rogers.
Ergo, Their names must be found in Histories, Negatur Argumentum. Is this the honour? Is this the glorie that God hath provided for his children, to be recorded by man? It is written as you have cited in your Margin,1 Reg. 2.30. Whosoever shall glorifie mee, I will glorifie him; and whosoever shall contemne mee, shall be ignoble. Who ever expounded this place of Scripture to be meant of humane testimonies, of being recorded in humane Histories, and not of that honour which is usually termed the state of glorie?
The other place cited in your Margin, is, The just shall be had in everlasting remembrance: Ergo, Psal. 111.7. Their names shall be recorded in humane Histories. Who ever made such collections? God hath promised eternall glorie unto his servants, and you will turne it to temporall: for what is humane testimonie, and humane glorie, but temporall? which shall end either before, or at least with time.
O presumptuous blindnesse of man! to accuse the providence of God as defective, if it record not all their names in humane Historie, whose names are written in the Booke of Life. I am loath to spend many words in answering such poore objections, but the impietie, prophanenesse, Atheisme that is implied in this Argument, opens my mouth to speak somewhat more. Whereas you say, If God will glorifie his servants, hee must record them in humane Histories: this must imply, that God hath no other way to glorifie his servants, as that there were no resurrection of the flesh, no immortalitie [Page 84] of the soule, no Book of Life, no Heaven, no happinesse in another world.
Fisher.
And men carefull of their soules health, which they cannot attaine (according to the ordinary course) but by hearing such Pastors onely who have had lawfull succession from Christs Apostles, have more reason diligently to looke that memorie 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.
Rogers.
Here are two trickes of a Sophister, the one to obscure a Proposition with a multitude of needlesse and impertinent words; for seeing hee was to prove this plaine and short Proposition, That the names of Pastors teaching divine Truth, are to be found in Histories: and that the Medium whereby hee would prove this, hee tooke from the diligence and dutie of Godly men, what needs all those additions which come in by Parenthesis, viz. (which they cannot attaine according to the ordinarie course) but by hearing such Pastors onely, who have had lawfull succession from Christs Apostles. The second tricke of a Sophister, is to speake indefinitely, and so making it doubtfull, whether your Proposition be universall or particular, not joyning either all or some unto others, as I have observed before. Your Argument which I must frame for you (or I am like to have none) is this:
Men carefull of their soules health, have reason to preserve the memorie of their Pastors: Ergo, They did so. Or to make it more large, thus:
Men carefull of their soules health, have more reason diligently to looke that memory be preserved of such Pastors, and of pure divine Truth taught by them, then of others, who have taught any other false, and not pure Doctrine. But they continued the memorie of the false Teachers. Ergo, They continued the memorie of the true Teachers.
First, you conclude not what you were to prove, viz. That [Page 85] the names of all true Teachers in all ages are to bee found in Histories.
Secondly, for your minor, if it be universall, it is false; if it be particular, it doth not inferre, it doth prove nothing, as I have already shewed more fully.
Thirdly, your Argument hath foure termes; in the major, your medium is the duty of men what they ought to doe; In the minor you speake of what they did, and suppose a falsehood, viz. that men carefull of their soules health have recorded the names of all false Teachers, and so you would inferre they did record the names of all true Teachers; and thus to prove the act from the duty in weake sinfull man, is no proofe, is like the rest, an egregious non sequitur. And as well I might argue thus, Master Fisher ought to have replied punctually in order, and alleadging my words in my answer to him: ergo, he did it. Or thus.
Eve should have abstained from the forbidden fruit: ergo, she did abstaine from it. Or thus:
Adam had more reason to hearken unto God, forbidding him to eate of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill, then to his wife perswading him to eate thereof: ergo, he did not hearken unto his wife. Or thus,
Iudas had more reason to defend his Master, then to betray him: ergo, he did not betray him. Or thus.
Peter had more reason to confesse his Master, then to deny him: ergo, Peter did not deny his Master.
If this kind of arguing were good, it were happy for us all in the day of Iudgement, when the Idolater should say, I had more reason to worship God, then to worship Idols: ergo, I did not worship Idols.
The murtherer would say, I had more reason to save, then to kill: ergo, I did not kill. The drunkard would say, I had more reason to be sober then to be drunke: ergo, I was not drunke. And so might all other sinners plead, if this argument were good.
Fisher.
Certaine therefore it is, that the names (or some thing [Page 86] 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.
Rogers.
I have shewed it to be most uncertaine, that as well you might conclude, that Iudas did not betray Christ, or Peter deny Christ.
Fisher.
And therefore if Protestants have had any Pastors teaching true doctrines in all ages, doubtlesse their names would be extant in Histories yet extant.
Rogers.
I have already shewed your Antecedent to be false, if universall; not to prove, if particular; and so this conclusion, if particular I grant, if universall I deny; and say, that an universall conclusion cannot follow out of particular premises. You know the unquestioned rule, Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem.
CHAP. XII.
Fisher.
WHich being presupposed and granted, as Master Rogers seemeth to grant, by granting Master Fishers fourth Proposition, I do not see how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition.
Rogers.
I neither supposed nor granted it: what I granted in the fourth Proposition was this, and no more; If the Protestants be a true Church, their faith hath beene taught in all ages by lawfull Pastors. What mention is there here of Names, of Histories, of Records, of Monuments? let the Reader looke [Page 87] backe to my former answer, and he shall find that this is all the issue I joyned upon in the fourth Proposition. This is audacity Master Fisher.
Fisher.
For it being supposed that Protestant Preachers were, their names would be found in Histories, (as Master Fishers fourth proposition granted by Master Rogers supposeth) it may be 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 Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth proposition, supposing he grant, as he granteth his fourth proposition.
Rogers.
You say that I supposing, and granting your fourth Proposition, I must yeeld unto the fifth; I have replyed more then once, your fourth Proposition, especially that which you most insist upon therein, names and Histories I deny, and this not being granted, your fifth Proposition cannot follow.
Fisher.
For although, absolutely speaking, an Argument drawne from negative authority, be (as Master Rogers averreth) of it selfe of no force: and so Protestant Arguments which are usually made against us out of negative authority; as for example, the Scripture saith nothing of this or that; or the Fathers of the first 300. yeeres make no expresse mention of this or that: ergo, no such thing is, or is of no force.
Rogers.
The subject of our discourse was humane History, and humane authority, and what I speake you grant; but you extend it beyond the boundes of our then subject, and more then I will grant, to Divine authority, to the word of God, to the Scriptures: I say the authority of man is like himselfe, uncertaine; his workes weake, and unperfect like himselfe; [Page 88] but the word of God is like himselfe, certaine, strong and full of perfection, and therefore the Argument drawne from divine authority, is certaine, though negatively, in those things which the word of God proposeth, and professeth fully to expresse; but in man it is otherwise, as in the next Chapter I will expresse more fully.
Fisher.
Yet when the negative Argument is grounded in an alreadie granted affirmative proposition, as it is in this our case, the negative argument is of great, and undeniable force.
Rogers.
This I grant, that negatives are so farre depending upon affirmatives, as that they cannot be understood, they cannot be defined, they cannot be demonstrated without affirmatives: and so, they may.
Fisher.
As for example, if we did grant this proposition; If such or such a thing were, holy Scripture would have spoken of it, or the Fathers of the first 300 yeeres would have made expresse mention of it. If I say we granted this, we could not deny the aforesaid negative Argument, usually made by Protestants to be of force against us.
Rogers.
I doe not see what I should mislike in this, onely it maketh nothing against me.
Fisher.
But wee deny, and Protestants cannot prove the said affirmative, and so the negative Argument hath no force against us.
Rogers.
You deny, but wee have proved the affirmative, that all things necessary unto salvation are plainely set downe in [Page 89] Scripture, and therefore the negative Argument is of force against your new Creed, the Articles whereof are not manifested in Scripture, as I have more fully set downe in the fourth Chapter.
Fisher.
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 Masters Fishers fifth, and so all his five propositions.
Rogers.
The Cuckoe, a Bird that makes no good musick, and hath but one note, yet is more frequent in venting that, then the Nightingale in tuning her excellent Musicke. Master Fisher having nothing else to say in defence of his Church, and against ours; cries for Names, and Histories; and not being able to prove his proposition, still sings the same song: Master Rogers doth not, nor in reason cannot deny, ought not to deny, but must needs grant: which being presupposed, and granted, as Master Rogers seemeth to grant, by granting I doe not see how Master Rogers can deny; I doe not therefore see, I say, how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition, supposing he granted, as he granteth his fourth Proposition, neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant; I doe not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition; all these grants are found in one leafe, and halfe a page, and yet I never granted it.
Fisher.
Which being granted, if he will make a good answer as hee pretendeth, he must first set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all ages, and not content himselfe with naming some whom hee thinketh to be Protestants, and with saying he hath gone halfe the way.
Rogers.
Yet more grants, I must againe deny the grant, this is right [Page 90] Petitio principij, a begging of that which is in question; I have oft enough denyed it, yet you will never leave begging it; belike you thinke to wrest it from me with importunacie: it will never be, I pray you looke backe, see what I answered to your fifth Proposition, there you shall reade thus.
In the fifth Proposition, I desire to know whether wee should shew the names of Protestants, or their faith. This we will shew, That we need not, for the names of Protestants is but arbitrary, and accidentall, &c. And within a few lines after, you shall reade thus. But if it be really meant thus; let the Protestants shew that their now faith was taught by lawfull Pastors in all ages: I doe (with Gods helpe) undertake it, and require the same from the authors of these propositions, and demands.
Have I here granted that the names of all Pastors, and teachers true or false are to be found in Histories, which is the onely ground whence you would inferre your fifth Proposition, which being not granted by me, I needed not to have set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all ages, or in any age: My two first Arguments, the one, a causis, the other, a signis, might have served the turne, without the third, ab exemplis; and I might have contented my selfe with going lesse then halfe that way, which is your way, and not mine; I never tooke it for other then an uncertaine, darke, slippery, cumbersome way; it was your only way, and yet you would not goe one step.
Did ever any Iudge citing a man by writ to appeare before him at Westminster, limit him which way he should come? would you thinke it reason that a Iudge should command a Herefordshire man to come to London, not through Worcester or Glocester, but through Shropshire, Darbyshire, Yorke, &c. The two Evangelists, Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, deriving the pedigree of our Saviour from David, yet did it by different wayes,De Doct. Christiana. and divers lines; Saint Augustine saith, That two men differing in the exposition of some place of Scripture, he that erreth, yet if his exposition leade to charity, hee is like unto a man which missing his way, yet commeth to the end of his journey. My journey is to Christ, my scope to [Page 91] bring my faith, and my Church thither; you might leave me to chuse my owne way, which was the way of Saint Augustine, by Scriptures, who doth disclaime and dislike your way by humane testimonies. Yet even in this your owne way I doubt not but I shall goe as farre as you in a day, and shall come sooner to my journeyes end then you shall, for the reasons which now I will alleadge in the succeeding Chapter.
CHAP. XIII. Humane Histories no proofe of any Church.
YOu would bring this great triall concerning the visible Church to Histories only, which I might refuse, briefly for these reasons; 1
First, Histories humane in Divinity are weak, improper, and uncertaine proofes.
Secondly, your Index expurgatorius, blotting out of Authors,2 that which maketh against you.
Thirdly, You forge Authors, Records, and Councells to 3 further your cause.
Fourthly, You slight, and deny the best Authors. Yet to 4 give others satisfaction, I will enlarge these foure reasons in this Chapter; not that your objections require any such full answer in this point; that I have performed already. First, of the uncertainty of humane Histories, Bodin in that learned discourse of his, entitled; The Method of Histories, a man of your owne, who also dedicated that booke unto the chiefe President of your Court of Inquisition, doth make foure kindes of Histories. First, Humane; Secondly, Naturall; Thirdly, Mathematicall; Fourthly, Divine. The first he saies is uncertaine and confused; the second for the most part certaine; the third more certaine; the fourth most certaine, and unchangeable. Yet you Master Fisher in this divine question refuse the fourth which is divine, most certaine, and immutable, and will have no other proofe then the first, which is humane, uncertaine and confused. When Ticonius in the same question did alleadge Divini Testamenti tonitrua, those thundering [Page 92] testimonies of the word of God against Parmenianus the Donatist,Aug. cont. ep. Par l. 1. c. 1. which we doe produce against the Romanists, making the same claime to the Church which they did, and tying the Church to Rome as the Donatists did to Africk. Parmenianus on the other side opposeth the relation of the Priests of his owne side; say then (saies Saint Augustine) that we ought rather to beleeve your Colleagues then the Testament of God: shall the smoake of earthly lyes prevaile against this light which came from Heaven? If Parmenianus were not in love with his Episcopall Chaire, he would rather choose to beleeve the written word of God, then his fellow Bishops.
Thus much, and much more to this purpose in that Booke, and divers other Bookes of the seventh Tome: but I will conclude this of the uncertainty of humane testimony, with the words of that Father in his second Tome, in his 48. Epistle, Necesse est incerti sint qui pro sua societate, testimonio utuntur non Divino sed suo. It is of necessity that they must be uncertaine, who defend their society not by the testimony of God, but by their owne.
Thus much of the uncertainty in it selfe, but much more uncertaine is all that you shall alleadge, since you have by your Index Expurgatorius altered Authors, to your purpose, at your pleasure.
The Pope himselfe and the Ordinaries, in their severall jurisdictions, as also the Officers of Inquisition against Haeretickes are carefull to prevent the publishing of any Bookes, which may seeme any way to derogate from the power of the Pope;Widring. in Apol. pro jure princ. pag. 343. and if any such Bookes be published, they endeavour wholly to suppresse the same, or at the least forbid any man to reade them without speciall licence untill they be purged. Thus a Priest of your owne hath written. These your purging Tables are of two sorts; some doe forbid whole Authors, some doe blot out sentences, or words; so that if any Author speake against you, you will either deny the whole Booke, or produce some Edition, licenced by your Inquisitors, wherein those words are not to be found, as having passed under the Purgatory of your penne. Your severall bookes called Indices expurgatorij, purging Tables printed in divers [Page 93] places, as atAn. 1584. Madrid in Spaine, atAn. 1607. Rome, atAn. 1586. Lions, are witnesses that you have left no witnesse in the world without exception.
If Saint Augustine say,Tom. 4 ed: Parisi: apud Catol. Guil. viduam▪ etc. Anno 1555. Mortuorum animae non sentiunt res viventi [...]m, The soules of the dead know not the estate or affaires of the living: Your Belgian Index doth purge out this with a deleatur, let it bee blotted out, fol. 115. litera. l. If Saint Gregorie Nissene say, We have learned to worship and adore that nature alone which is uncreated, you can purge out this with a deleatur dictio solummodò, blot out this word (alone) saith your Spanish Index, pa. 20. If Saint Chrysostome, speake for the perspicuity of Scripture as hee doth in many places, as namely in his third Sermon upon Lazarus, deleantur, let those words be blotted out, saith your Index of Spaine, reprinted at Samiur. If the same Father speake for the sufficiency of Scripture as he doth in his Commentary on the 95. Psalme, the same Index hath a deleatur for it. If hee say, the Church is founded upon the Rock of Faith, and not upon Saint Peter, the same Index hath a deleatur for it, let it be blotted out. Much could I cite to this purpose, but as the rule is, Qui semel pejerat, &c. He that is once convicted of bearing false witnesse, is never after to be admitted for a witnesse: so hee that is once found to falsifie, and blot out Records, looseth for ever his credit in any thing he shall produce out of his owne Registerie. Thus much concerning your Index Expurgatorius, blotting out of Authors, that which maketh against you.
Now followeth the third exception against your authorities, your forging of Authors, and Councells. As Abdias Stories of the Apostles urged by Harding, and others, censured by your owne Sixtus Senensis for fained, and utterly rejected by Cardinall Baronius. Linus Bishop of Rome, of the passion of the B: Apostles, Peter and Paul, urged by Coccius, yet acknowledged by Bellarmine, Baronius, and Possevine to be fained, fabulous, erronius. Clemens his Apostolicall Constitutions, and his Recognitions are urged many times by Coccius, Harding, and others; the first of these by Baronius, and Possevine, the second by Bellarmine, Baronius, and Sixtus [Page 94] Senensis are rejected with many more. Besides, the Fathering of divers Treatises upon St. Cyprian, upon St. Origen, upon Saint Athanasius, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and others, of which I will not speake, but referre the Reader to your owne greatest Writers, Bellarmine, Baronius, Sixtus Senensis, Possevine, who in divers places do naile these Authors to the pillarie, as false, fained Witnesses, and palpable forgerers, wishing the learned Reader to have recourse unto these, when hee readeth any ancient authoritie, cited and alleaged by the Romanists, and hee shall find it usuall amongst men of your side to quote, cite, and triumph in such forgeries, as if they were true and undoubted testimonies: as one of your side, M. Fisher, did alleage 27 Fathers for Invocation of Saints, to which I having made an answer within the compasse of two daies, for longer time hee would not grant me, pretending that hee must be gone out of the Countrey: I discovered so many forgeries and impertinencies, as that in his next Reply hee fell off from 27 to 16, and of those 16, some also forged, and very few or none at all to his purpose. Amongst others, hee doth triumph in a Quotation out of Athanasius in his Sermon de Sancta Deipera, the words in that Sermon as hee cited them, besides others, are these: O Mistresse, Lady, Queene, and Mother of God, make intercession for us: then thus hee trumphs; How now Master Rogers, are you not yet contented to pray to Saints?De Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis. 8. an. 48. Platina, Cusanus, Marsil. Pata. Lauren. Val. Ant. Floren. Otho. Fri. Hiron▪ P. Cate. Volateranus, Nauclerus, Capnian. Mullineus, Aeneas Syl. Shall Saint Athanasius teach you your Ave Maria? whereas this was but a forgerie, for Bellarmine and Baronius doe hold it not to be written by Saint Athanasius, and doe bring many reasons to prove the same: and Bellarmine saith, That it was not a worke of that Age, but written after the sixth Councell, which was above 300 yeares after Athanasius. And to insist no further upon the forging of particular private men, the most notorious, injurious, incroaching, impudent forgerie was that of Constantines donation, urged as true and undoubted by Harding, and the forging of the Councell of Nice by Pope Sozimus; the first of these two, the donation of Constantine, whereby he doth give and grant unto the Bishop of Rome, all Italy, France, Denmark, Sweden, Britaine, &c. [Page 95] with authoritie and power over all the world, more then that of the Empire is, and that hee be honoured and worshipped more then the Emperour. This is adjudged a forgerie by more then a Jurie of Roman Writers. The other forgerie was discovered by a Councell of Africke, consisting of 217 Bishops, whereof Saint Augustine was one, who wrote to the Pope thus; Touching that you wrote unto us concerning the Nicene Councell, in the very true Councell of Nice, which wee have received from the happy Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Constantinople, wee find no such matter. Boniface the second was so much moved hereat, above an hundred yeares after, as to say,Ep. ad Eulalium. That all these Bishops (whereof Saint Augustine was one) were all inflamed and led by the Devill. Thus much concerning your forging Authorities.
But say that wee produce some Histories, or Fathers which have not come under your Index Expurgatorius, nor beene refined in your forge; how will you slight, scorne, abase, deride, slander and revile them? I know not whom of the Ecclesiasticall Historians, nor whom of the Fathers you will admit for a Witnesse without exception.
For what Authors, what Records shall serve against them, who with a bold impudencie will deny those Historians, who lived in the fittest time to write of those things which they have committed to memorie, viz. in the Ages next following; when they neither feare to offend the present, nor with too much distance cannot discerne what is more remote. Such as were the Histories of Eusebius, Artic. Historiae non minus vetustate, quam novitatae fabulosae, & injucundae sunt. Bellarm. de Cler. l. 1. cap. 20. Baron. Ann. 324. n. 19. especially of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret; yet all these shall be rejected if they speake any thing that may disadvantage the Papacie, as Socrates, and Sozomen for relating the Storie of Paphnutius speaking for the married Clergie in the Councell of Nice, are thus handled by Bellarmine, Multa mentitur Sozomenus, Socrates tria mendacia dicit. Socrates & Sezomenus haeretici. Sozomen tels many lies, Socrates tels three manifest lies; Sozomen and Socrates were Haereticks. Neither doth Baronius handle them any thing more respectively, saying, Sozomen was not advised; behold, into what errors ignorance hath [Page 96] cast him, n. 22. it doth plainly appeare how far hee was deceived, hee did erre concerning the Nicene Councell, an. 325. n. 10.Anno 169. concerning Paphnutius, concerning Arrius, an. 327. n. 7. hee was deceived concerning the Councell of Ariminum, and other things, an. 355. n. 27. hee doth often relate untruly concerning Athanasius, an. 335. n. 6. an. 354. n. 21. an. 356. n. 85. These were the things of greatest moment in that Age, the Councell of Nice, the most famous that ever was in the world.
The Haeresie of Arrius, the greatest that ever was in the Church; the labours, troubles and constancie of Athanasius against this Haeresie of greatest note, and most glorious of any Confessor that ever the Christian Church had before or since.
Sozomen lived in the fittest Age to be informed of these things, in the fittest Church, namely in the Greeke Church, where these things were done; and yet is he so full of errors in matters of greatest moment, on which the eyes of all the Christians in the world stood at a gaze? Is hee so full of errours in these things which were so cleare as the Sun in the firmament, so many Records being preserved of those passages, so many Letters passing from one Bishop to another? must wee thinke that Baronius, who lived 1200 yeares after, and no member, no Inhabitant of the Greeke Church knew these things better then Sozomen did, and kicke him off, with saying, Hee was an impudent fellow? an. 324. n. 19. That hee was a Novatian Haereticke? n. 63.
But you would thinke that Baronius should not thus reject, debase, disgrace Sozomen, unlesse hee had some other grave Historian of those times to crosse and contradict Sozomen. No such matter: the other famous Historians of that Age, were Eusebius and Socrates; though Eusebius somewhat more ancient, beginning his Historie of the Church from Christ, and continuing it untill the death of Constantine. Socrates and Sozomen, to whom wee may adde Theodoret, all three began their Historie where Eusebius ended, continuing the same unto the raigne of Theodosius junior, which was about the yeare 400. All these were Greeke Writers, [Page 97] and of the Greeke Church, to whom if wee adde the short Historie of Ruffinus, who was a Presbyter of the Latine Church, wee have all the professed Historians of note that I have seene and read for those times; so that if the authoritie of these men be slighted, and excepted against as erroneous, false, impudent, lying Haereticks, I know not what Histories Master Fisher will produce for the chiefest time of the Primitive Church, the first 400 yeares. Of Sozomen I have already spoken; the next shall be Eusebius, who was of that repute in the Age wherein he lived, and the next succeeding Age, that the other Historians, Ruffinus, Socrates and Sozomen doe begin their Histories where hee left, onely speaking something more fully concerning Arrius and the Councell of Nice, Sozomen stiling him a man most expert in holy and humane learning. This man, besides his Historie, wrote a Chronologie, which Baronius truly stileth a Ground-work,Baron. an. 325. n. 213. n. 215. and foundation whereon the whole fabricke and frame of Historie must relie; yet herein hee is so erroneous, as that Baronius must correct him.
What, so erronious in the foundation, the whole building must fall then? Thus Diodorus Siculus, of whom Iustine Martyr the Christian Phylosopher writeth, saying, Diodorus Siculus, whom you account the most famous Historian, so divided his Historie, as to terme his Relations before the Trojan wars, The Narration of Res & fabulas, matters mixed with fables, because hee had no certaine ground how to describe the times.
Varro, a man admired for learning, dividing time into three portions; the first, before the Flood, which he calleth Obscure: the second, from the Flood unto the first Olympiad, which hee termeth Fabulous: the third, after the Olympiads, because of a computation of time hee calleth Historicum. So great a matter in Historie is Chronologie; and yet herein Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Ruffinus are charged to be erroneous very often by Baronius; and besides this, hee layeth other imputations upon them. Eusebius was an advancer of the Arrian Heresie, a cunning Juggler; in his Historie he doth favour the Arrians, he doth omit many [Page 98] things,Anno 318. n 79 & 80. an. 324. n. 154. n. 45. n. 144. an. 340. n. 40. n. 38. hee doth deale deceitfully, hee doth falsly relate the time and place of Constantines baptisme, hee is false in the storie of Estathius; like a Stage-player, being an Hereticke, hee acted the part of a Catholick, he was called the Ensigne-bearer of the Arrians. Socrates dealbat Aethiopem, doth but wash a Blackamoore, in seeking to cleare him from the Arrian Heresie; though hee subscribed to the Nicene Councell, yet hee afterwards returned like the Sow to wallow againe in the mire, and like the Dogge unto his vomit. Hee and Eusebius of Nicomedia, like two Coach-horses drawing the chariot of Impietie, did run headlong with equall pace and violence to their owne destruction, and the destruction of others, being driven by a wicked Spirit. Thus far Baronius; saying moreover, That Sixtus Senensis (a learned Writer of his owne side) may be ashamed that hee reputed him a Catholick Writer. Doth not Baronius rave like Hercules furens upon the Stage, to deprave a learned painfull Bishop, a great Writer, and the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Historian of the Primitive Church, who is his chiefest Author for those times, cited by him in his three first Tomes, 700 times at least, so well reputed, that Ruffinus translated his Historie into Latine? Sozomen stileth him, A man full of Learning, both divine and humane; to whom these two, together with Socrates and Theoderet, did succeed in compiling the Ecclesiasticall storie. The last of these, Theodoret, alleaging a large Epistle of his in defence of the Nicene Creed against Arrius. All these, and besides them, Acasius, who succeeded him in his Bishoprick of Caesarea, doe cleare him from such imputations, and did reverently esteeme of him; and shall we thinke that these men, who lived in the same Age, and within few yeares after Eusebius, did not know Eusebius better then Baronius, who lived twelve hundred yeares after his time, and more then 1200 miles from the place where hee was Bishop, where hee lived and died, and where those occurrences of the Councell of Nice, of Arrius, of Athanasius, were better knowne then in Rome, a Church more remote, and of another language, then that wherein that Councell was celebrated, and those Fathers did write? I may not insist much [Page 99] upon the other Ecclesiasticall Writers before named; but they are all reputed ignorant, false, erroneous; by Baronius.
Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Baron. an. 34. n. 29. and they which followed them, erred in the time, and fell into other lyes. Socrates is accused of him for falshood neere twentie times, and most of them in those matters which were of greatest note, and wherein hee and Sozomen doe agree concerning the Councell of Nice. Athanasius, Paphnutius, Eusebius, and Arrius the Heretick; Ruffinus is accused of him for the like falshood in the same matters, concerning Arrius, Athanasius, An. 338. n. 2. as also concerning Saint Hilarie, Gregorie Nazianzen, and Basil. He saith, That Ruffinus was an inverter of times, that hee was unlearned, that hee did mis-interpret the sixth Canon of the Councell of Nice.
I will adde one example more. The renowned Athanasius saith, That hee wrote his Creed in his banishment. No, saith Baronius, Non exul, sed reus tunc Romae fuit; An. 34. n. 13. He was not then in his banishment, but called to answer before the Bishop of Rome, as his Judge. What authoritie, what reason doth Baronius produce? none at all. And you must believe Baronius, a Sycophant of the Roman Church, before Athanasius, that most glorious Confessor. Shall wee thinke that hee would lie, who was in trouble 40 yeares for the truth? or doth Baronius, 1200 yeares after, without any Author to leade him, know better what Athanasius did, then Athanasius himselfe? I should be thought very impudent, if I should say, That being here in England I did see of my selfe, and know what Baronius did in his studie in Rome, better then himselfe. There are not more miles betweene England and Rome, then are yeares from Athanasius his time to Baronius.
Linceus, the Son of Amphiaraus, Valerius Maximus. that could see through the walls; and that other Sicilian Linceus, who could number the ships comming out of the Haven at Carthage, himselfe being at Litybed in Sicilie, 130 miles off, could not see so well as those men. Honorius primus, the first Pope of that name, was condemned for an Hereticke in three Councels, accursed for an Heretick by two Popes that succeeded after [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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.100
St. Iohn, Ignatius, Polycarpus Iustinus Martyr, Irenaeus. 200
Tertullian, Clemens Alex: Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius. 300
Athanasius, Cyrill Hierosol: Ambrozius, Nyssenus, Hieronimus. 400
Ruffinus, Chrysostomus, Augustinus, Cyrillus Alex: Theodoretus,500 Socrates, Sozomenus.
Fulgentius, Evagrius, Gregorius primus. 600
Beda; Damascenus, Alcuinus. 700
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.
[Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 cast a dart, or shoot an Arrow. This is,
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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] doth testifie the same; for they are admitted into the Church who professe the Faith. Thus farre Bellarmine. So then by Faith, in this Argument of the visible Church, is alwayes understood the outward profession of Faith; whereas the Protestants doe professe, that they believe nothing but what is contained in the Scriptures: this Respondent hath the face to say, wee doe not professe it. If but one man should come into the face of a congregation, and say, I doe professe, and believe onely those things which are contained in Scriptures: were not hee very impudent, and had a face harder then brasse, who would say to this man, Thou dost not professe that Faith which is contained in Scriptures. That Argument is not easily answered, which driveth the Respondent to such miserable shifts.
Wee professe no Articles of Faith, but those which are contained in the Apostles Creed; which of these Articles are not contained in Scriptures? Ad Partes, Master Fisher, this is the law of answering to a Proposition that hath many members; wee professe that with a religious divine Faith, wee receive nothing but what is contained in the five books of Moses, or Ioshua, Iudges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, the two books of Esdras, Esther, the booke of Iob, or the Psalmes, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or the Canticles, or the foure greater, or twelve lesser Prophets; Or in the foure Evangelists, or in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Revelation and Epistles of Saint Iohn, or the Epistles of Saint Paul, Saint Iames, Saint Peter, Saint Iude: which of these bookes is not Scripture? Thus wee professe our Faith; doe not wee every where professe with Saint Augustine, De Doct. Christiana. l. 2. c. 9. and against you; That all things concerning Faith and life, necessarily to be knowne and believed, are plainly set downe in Scripture? With Saint Basil, Serm. de fidei confess. Lib. cont. Hermogen. and against you; That it is pride and infidelity to adde unto the Scriptures? With Tertullian, against you and Hermogenes, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: Si non Scriptum, timeat vae illud, &c. Shew where it is written, or else feare that woe which is denounced against those who adde unto the Word of God. And will you say that [Page 107] 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.100
St. Iohn, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Iustinus Martyr, Irenaeus.200
Tertullian, Clemens Alex: Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius.300
Athanasius, Cyrill Hierosol: Ambrozius, Nyssenus, Hieronimus.400
[Page 108] 500 Ruffinus, Chrysostomus, Augustinus, Cyrillus Alex: Theodoretus, Socrates, Sozomenus.
600 Fulgentius, Evagrius, Gregorius primus.
700 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 [Page 109] 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.
[Page 110]Rogers.
All the proofe that this man will bring, is (for ought I can see: or thus (Who doth not see?) I doe not see: If it be granted, &c.) as I have observed before: for if these Arguments might be retorted against the Protestants, by changing of one word, why did hee not performe the same? I must doe it for him.
Major: The Faith contained in the Scriptures, had visible Professors in all Ages.
Minor: But the Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures.
Conclusion: Ergo, The Catholicke Faith had visible Professors in all Ages.
Here I have onely changed the word Protestant into Catholicke; and what one word is here against Protestants, who doe hold, and professe no other Faith then what is contained in Scriptures? as I have already shewed out of our sixt Article; wee grant this whole Argument, Major, Minor, and Conclusion: which if you doe grant, I will take the Minor, and inferre a dangerous Conclusion against the Church of Rome thus:
The Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures.
The Roman Faith is not contained in the Scriptures.
Ergo, The Roman Faith is not the Catholicke Faith.
If you denie this Minor, as it seemes by those words of yours before alleadged, you will denie, viz. Our Catholick Doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, even by confession of learned Protestants themselves.
I will prove it; yet first let me tell you, that here you deliver a most grosse untruth; if by Catholick you meane Roman, to say that divers learned Protestants doe confesse, that your Roman doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers. This, I say, is a most manifest and grosse untruth, seeing no learned Writers of our side doe say so much. Why doth Bellarmine make Scripture [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 Ʋniversalitie, Antiquitie, and Consent.
[Page 114]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 the testimony of Vniversalitie, Antiquitie, and Consent, or was not beleeved, and professed by those Fathers by me alledged.
Secondly, you have not answered to those instances of Roman faith, though I required it but for three ages, nor to the Arguments which I made against you, though this were a rule of your owne, to shew names in all ages, and denied by me to be a necessary consequence of faith; onely this you say, first, that my grounds are slight, and may fit all sorts of Hereticks, and you instance in the Anabaptists. Secondly, you say my grounds are false, to both which I will reply whē I have made out my Catalogue for the other succeeding ages before Luther.
CHAP. XVII.
THough my faith relie not upon this Catalogue of names, or humane authority as I have formerly often professed; yet to provoke and draw on the Romanists to make good what they have undertaken, viz to bring a Catalogue of such good Authors as they require frō us, who did in al ages professe the now Roman faith contained in the Creed of Pius Quartus, dated at Rome in the year 1564. Which I assure my selfe they cannot doe, and I doe verily perswade my selfe never meane to attempt; onely because they would say some thing, they will lay a false ground, and require their Adversaries to build upon those Sands, which when we have done, they [Page 115] will never proceed to doe as much for their faith; but cavill at others, and never speake any thing in defence of their owne faith; being assured in their consciences that it is impossible they should be able to performe it. First, for the novelty of those points of faith acknowledged by some of themselves. Secondly, for the want of learning and good Authours in many of the succeeding ages. For to speake a little of the first, what Authors can they finde for their halfe Communion in the first ages, seeing it is confessed by most of them that ever I heard, or read, that the contrary was practised for a thousand yeeres after Christ? This much was acknowledged by one, who (as I have been since informed) was a Iesuite, in the presence and hearing of Sir Sa. A. of his Lady, Master Westph. and others. And your most industrious quoter Master Briereley can finde no Author for it before the Councell of Constance, which was 1400 yeeres after the comming of Christ in the flesh; unlesse he relie upon the Haereticks, the Maniches. What Authors will they finde in the first ages for worshipping of Images, for Purgatory, for Invocation of Saints, for Indulgences, &c? as I have before mentioned. If they be able to descend but three ages from Christ, and produce good Authors which did beleeve these, and make them matters of faith, as the Church of Rome now doth, I will be of their Church, I will leave the Church of England; nay, I will leave (which I will not doe for a thousand Empires) my hope of heaven. This offer of theirs I know to be so vaine, false, impudent, and impossible.
Secondly, It is very hard for him that hath no other meanes to prove his Church, and his faith, then by a Catalogue of names drawne out of Histories, or other good Authors, to have any certainty of his Church, or faith, because of the ignorance of many ages, and want of good Authors.
Baronius who spent all his life in this search,Tom. 2. [...]n. 1. and in describing the state and condition of the Church in all ages, complaineth of this difficultie, saying, that it is most hard to be knowne, and like the way of a ship in the midst of the Sea, and the way of a Serpent upon a Rocke. This is his complaint in the beginning of his second Tome, yet hath he more cause to [Page 116] complaine of this difficulty in those succeeding ages, whereof I am now to give a Catalogue;Canus l. 11. c. 6. which times the learned Causabon doth doubt whether he shall call them times of ignorance, or times of wonder:S. Tho. Moor in ep. ante Dial. Luciani. In Chrond. the most Historians of those times, being but Legendaries of Fables, as is confessed by many of your owne side. Bellarmine saith of the ninth age, Vide seculum infoelix in quo nulli scriptores illustres, nulla Concilia, Pontifices parum solliciti de Rep. Behold, an unfortunate age in which there were no famous Writers, no Councels, and the Popes tooke little care of the common good. An age saith Baronius usually stiled, an abscure, a leaden, and an iron age, as barren of good, as if it had been iron; so loaded with evill, as if it had beene with a burthen of lead; and obscure for want of Writers: saying also; The weake conscience is to be admonished that he be not troubled, if he see the abomination of desolation, sitting in the Temple. In this age there rose such a mighty flood of wickednesse, as that the ship of Peter might have seemed to have been overwhelmed with the waves, and forsaken almost of any Governour, n. 2. Certainely the Church never seemed to be in greater hazard, or more manifest danger of utter ruine then in that age; for the persecutions of Heathens of Haereticks, of Shismaticks, were but childish sports in comparison of what the Church suffered in this age, n. 3.
An. 900. n. 1. Stephen was an invader of the Apostolicke See, was driven out, cast into prison, and there strangled.
An 908. n. 1. Christopher was violently deposed, bound, cast into prison, and constrained to become a Monke. After him Sergius, mounteth into the Chaire, being powerfull in the forces of the Marquesse of Tuscanie. Vitiorum omnium servus, facinorosissimus omnium, quem constat post malum ingressum deteriorem (que) progressum, pessimum demum esse consecutum egressum. This was a man that was the slave of all vices, the most wicked of all men; bad was his entrance, worse was his proceeding but worst of all was his end; all men cry him down for no lawfull Pope, but for an Intruder. numb. 2.
Divers of these usurping Popes were to be termed not Apostolicall, but Apostaticall, n. 4.Theodora Scortum impudens, Romanae civitatis Monarchiam obtinebat, quae duas habuit natas Maroziam atque Theodoram sibi non solum aequales, verumetiam Veneris exortivo promptiores. Harum una Marozia ex Papa Sergio Ioannem, qui post Ioannis Ravennatis obitum, Sanctae Romanae ecclesiae obtinuit dignitatem, nesario genuit adulterio Lutprandus, lib. 2. cap. 13. An. 912. n. 7. Theodora an impudent Whore did rule all the rost in Rome, she had two daughters, Marozia, & Theodora, two verier Whores [Page 117] then her selfe. The first of these had by Pope Sergius, a sonne called Iohn, who was afterwards Pope of Rome. She and her daughters were so powerfull by their bawdery, and whoredome, that they placed Popes, and displaced them at their pleasure. numb. 6.
Who considering these things would not thinke that God had forgotten his Church. n. 7. So great were the evills of this whole age, ibidem.
The Queene Theodora did raise one Iohn a Minister of Ravennas, (whom she shamefully loved) to be Pope. Such was the unfortunate condition of the holy Church of Rome at that time, that all things were governed and altered at the pleasure of a powerfull Whore. Lando was no true Pope, n. 12.An. 915. n. 3. Iohn the 10, was an Intruder, a Theefe, a Ruffian,An. 925. n. 12. Quo turpior nullus cujus ingressus insamissimus, exitus infandissimus, dignus quem infamis foemina, infami opere in Petri solium intrusisset: The filthiest of all men, who entred the Popedome shamefully, and ended wickedly, a fit man to be thrust by an infamous woman into the Chaire of Saint Peter. Note the visibility of the Church of Rome. O what was then the face of the holy Church of Rome, was it not most foule and filthy, when powerfull and base Whoores did rule all at Rome? at whose pleasure Sees were changed, Bishops were made, and which will make a man tremble to heare, and is more wicked then can be spoken, their lovers falsly termed Popes thrust into Peters Chaire, who had never been written in the Catalogue of Roman Bishops, had it not been thereby to reckon the yeares, and set downe the times. For who can say that these men thrust in by Whoores without Law were lawfull Roman Bishops? There was no man at all of the Cleargies Election or consent, all Canons were silenced, Decrees of Popes smoothered, ancient Traditions, and old Customes in chusing the Pope were banished, the holy Ceremonies, and former use were wholly extinguished. Lust backed with worldly power, mad,Dormiebat, tunc planè (ut apparet) sopore Christus. and franticke with a desire of rule, challenged all unto her selfe. It appeareth plainely that Christ was then in a dead sleep in the ship, when the strong winds thus blowing, the ship it selfe [Page 118] was covered with the waves.Ista non vtdere dissimulans. I say, hee was asleepe, who dissembling, as if hee did not see those things, did suffer them so to be done, and did not rise to vengeance. And that which did seeme worse, there were no Disciples, who with their cries would awake their Master, thus sleeping; for they were all asleepe, that they snored againe. And what kind of Presbyter, and Deacon Cardinals, shall wee thinke were chosen by such Monsters, seeing nothing is more firmly graffed in nature, then this, that like should beget like? And who can doubt, but that these did in all things consent unto those by whom they were chosen? And who will not easily believe that they did imitate them, and tread in their steps? And who cannot understand, that all these did wish that Christ had slept for ever,Anno 912. n. 8. and should never wake, nor rise in judgement to examine and punish their offences. Thus farre Baronius.
But you will aske mee, what needeth so much labour in shewing that wee had some bad times, and some bad Popes? for so you are used to extenuate all that wee alleadge in this kind. You say, that Christ himselfe, having but twelve Apostles, had one devill amongst them. But what I have alleadged here, doth shew, that divers of those who supplied the place of Christ himselfe, his Vicars generall upon earth, as you terme them, men to whom the Church is essentially joyned, and must be obedient, were devils, monsters, the dearlings of Whores, some of them Bastard children of Popes, by these notorious Whores; and all their Priests, Deacons and Cardinals like themselves, so Atheisticall in their courses and desires, as to wish that Christ might sleepe everlastingly, and never rise to judgement: nay, the visible government of the Roman Church, which you will have to be the onely Church, was not so much in them, as in these whores, who made and unmade Bishops and Popes, without any regard of Canons, or Customes Ecclesiasticall; and this wickednes was praevalent, not for a few years, or a few Popes, but for this whole Age, Toto hoc saeculo, saith Baronius, which is for 100 yeares. Yet you Romanists will have all Christians in the world to behold, and to be led by the visible Roman [Page 119] Church, though the face, and whatsoever was visible therein, was most foule and filthy, not onely in him who sate in the Chaire of Peter, as you say; but also in all his Consistorie, in all his Deacons, Priests and Cardinals. But you will say, These were no Popes; then will I say, that by your Doctrine, you had no Church: for the Pope is now a part of the definition of the Church with you, and therefore no Pope, no Church. You know the Rule, A parte definitionis negative sequitur argumentum.
Or will you say (for so Baronius doth) Shall any man, shall all men in the world pin their soules upon the sleeves of such Monsters? cleave unto them, and be obedient unto them, only because they sate in the Chaire, though usurpingly? And will you undertake to prove your Church to have had visible Professors in all Ages, when in a whole Age there was nothing visible, but what your selves are ashamed to looke backe upon? You will have much adoe to find a Catalogue of names in this Age, because you must not goe out of the Roman Church: but wee acknowledge the Greeke, Aethiopian, Indian, Armenian, Syrian Churches, have a larger scope, and shall more easily passe through this difficultie, seeing there was in this Age, in Armenia, one Nico magnus, Baron. An. 961. n. 4, 8, 10. Anno 976. n. 2. 980. n. 7, 8, 9. & sanctus Orientis Praeco; a great and holy Preacher of the East: and the Church of Greece had in this Age, two men famous for learning and holinesse, Nilus and Nico, as the same Baronius confesseth.
CHAP. XVIII. Shewing a threefold Catalogue of Names from the Age wherein my former Catalogue did end, unto Luthers time, of such as professed and received the Faith, and Sacraments of the reformed Church, whom the Papists call Protestants.
MY first Catalogue (Mr. Fisher) shall be of Bishops, Pastors, and Writers of the Latine Church, such as are acknowledged by your Church for Orthodox, men of a right Faith.
[Page 120]Ab Anno 800, ad 900.
Agobardus Episcopus Rem. Rabanus Maurus Moganti: Hincmarus Rem. Amalarius Fortunatus. Leo 3. Episcopus Rom. Ionas Aurelianensis. Walafridus Strabo. Theodulphus Aurelianensis.
Ab Anno 900, ad 1000.
Baron. An. 901. n. 10. Theodulphus Episcopus legatus Regis Franc. in Concilio Ovetensi.
Ermenegildus primus Archiepisc. Ovetensis in Gallaecia.
Baron. An. 900. n. 10. Fulco Remensis laudatissimus ille Archiepiscopus, columen Francorum.
Baron. An. 904. Grimbaldus Presbyter vir magnae sanctitatis in Anglia.
Iohannes Papa 9. qui tribus Conciliis à se celebratis summam sibi laudem comparavit. —velut alter Ieremias, in cujus Epitaphio inter alia haec habentur. Conciliis docuit ternis qui dogma salutis, & mox. Et firmata fides quem docuêre Patres.
146. Baron. An. 905. n. 4. Herveus Remensis, who first converted the Normans to the Faith, and held a Synod, in which they said, That the Rock whereon Christ promised to build his Church, was the confession of Peter. At this Councell were present also,
Rothomagensis Archiepiscopus.
Rodolphus Landunensis Episcopus.
Trodoardus Hist. Rem. l. 4. c. 13. Baron. An. 930. Erlimus Bellovacensis Episcopus: alii (que) multi. Whose names are subscribed.
This Herveus held many Synods.
Ʋnus Hambargensis Archiepiscopus qui convertit Danos.
Glaber temporis ejus auctor. Hist. l. 2. c. 11, 12. Baron. An. 100 n. 4. Tom. 10. Lib. de officiis Missae edito Parisiis, Anno 1610. Bellarm. de Script.Ab Anno 1000, ad 1100.
Lebuinus Episcopus in Gallis, qui populum suum ex parte deceptum Catholicae plenius restituit fidei.
Anno 1000. Baronius, n. 3.
Petrus Archiepiscopus Ravennas qui Vilgardum Haereticum docentem fidei sacrae contraria damnavit.
Berno Augiensis Abbas qui testatur post Evangelium, in missa recitari Symbolum Constantinopolitanum, & à Concilio Toletano statutum, id omni die Dominico secundum morem Orientalium Ecclesiarum decantari. In hoc Authore miror Bellarmini oscitantiam, ne quid gravius dicam, qui ita scripsit. Ex quo libro, [Page 121] cap. 2. (viz. Baronius de officio Missae) discimus hoc primum tempore, coepisse in Rom. Ecclesia cani ad Missam Symbolum fidei. Cum contrarium doceat Walafridus Strabo, lib. de rebus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 22. Qui vixit aliquot seculis ante Bernonem, obiit enim ut placet Hiltorpio, Anno 849. Berno autem, Anno 1048. Et ipse ordo Romanus idem doceat apud Hiltorpium, col. 4. Miror inquam, quod non distinxerit ambiguitatem vocis Romanae, quae pro Latina Ecclesia saepe usurpatur, cum hic intra urbem, & suburbicanas Ecclesias vel saltem intra Italiae fines claudatur ut apparet ex Bernone.
Micrologus, whose Bookes of Ecclesiasticall Observations, Pamelius doth preferre before all others that wrote upon that subject; as Amalarius Walafridus doth witnesse,Cap. 46. that Creed in Vnum, &c. viz. The Creed cōmonly reputed the Nicene Creed,Iuxta Canones in omni Dominica debet cantari, & in omnibus, &c. according to the Canons, is to be read upon every Lords day. In his 19 chapter hee is very full for communicating in both kinds, citing Ordo Romanus, and Iulius, Papa 36. & Gelasius, Papa 51. very peremptorie in this kind. This Author lived about the yeare 1080, saith Pamelius in his Preface before the worke.
Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus, who speaketh of our Sacraments, and of the Apostles Creed professed in Baptisme, Serm. de Sacramentis. And in his Sermon De Convenientia veteris, & novi sacrificii, he briefly proveth all the chiefe heads of Christian Faith; who in the later end of that Sermon speaketh of communicating in both kinds. And in his Sermon De coena Domini, hee saith, Let none of the Faithfull this day absent himselfe. Dwell you in Christ, that Christ may dwell in you, and you be worthy Receivers of his Body and Blood. Hee in his Sermon, In Cathedra Sancti Petri, saith, That that Feast was in memoriall of that day wherein Peter at Antioch was made Bishop, and Pastor of Gods people— And that hee was called Peter, because of the confession of his Faith.
Ab Anno 1100, ad 1200.
Sanctus Bernardus. Rupertus, Tutiensis.
Algerus, who denieth your halfe Communion, citing those words of Pascasius; under the name of Saint Augustine, Nec [Page 122] caro sine sanguine, Lib. 2. de corpor. & sang. Christ. cap. 8. Bellarm. nec sanguis sine carne ritè communicatur.
Rich. de Sancto Victore, who refuseth your Canon of the Bible.
Hugo de Sancto Victore, who denieth Penance to be a Sacrament.
Ab Anno 1200, ad 1300.
Alexander of Hales, who denieth the Sacrament of Confirmation, as a Sacrament to be instituted by Christ, parte 4. q. 5. membro 2.
- Hugo Cardinalis,
- Bonaventura,
Both which denie your Canon of the Bible; Hugo, in his Prologue before Ecclesiasticus, Bonaventura pr. parte. q. 89. Art. 8. ad 2. Gulielmus Episcopus Parisiensis.
Ab Anno 1300, ad 1400.
Lib. 4. Sent. dist. 26. Durandus, hee denies Matrimonie to be a Sacrament.
Nicholaus Lyranus, hee holdeth the same Canon of the Bible that wee doe, and denieth yours.
Franciscus Mayron. Qui inter alia scripsit de Articulis fidei.
Simon de Cassia. Qui scripsit expositionem Symboli Apostolici.
Ab Anno 1400, ad 1500.
Dionysius Carthusianus, who denies your Canon of the Bible; Prologo in Ecclesiasticum.
Gregorius Heymburgensis, who wrote against the Popes Supremacie.
Panormitanus. Picus Mirandula.
Hist. Trid. Concilii. Sleidanus in Commentariis. Thomas Cajetanus, who had conference with Luther.
All these are Latine Authors, acknowledged by you of the Roman Church for Orthodox, at least two of them in every Age, which were sufficient; but I can make it good for all, out of Bellarmine, Baronius, Surius, Hiltorpius, or Synods, allowed by your Church. Thus therefore I argue:
Major: All orthodox, or right believing Christians doe receive and professe the Apostles Creed, the Bookes of old and new Testament, received for Canonicall by the Fathers [Page 123] of the first 400 yeares, together with the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, which the Protestants professe.
Minor: But these Authors aforenamed in my Catalogue, from the yeare 800, to the yeare 1500, are all orthodox, or right believing. Ergo,
Conclusio. All these Authors aforenamed in my Catalogue, from the yeare 800, to the yeare 1500, doe receive, and professe the Apostles Creed, the said Bookes of the old and new Testament, the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, which the Protestants receive and professe.
Or thus:
Major: Whosoever receive our whole Faith, and all our Sacraments, are of our Church, and wee of theirs.
Minor: But all these Authors receive our whole Faith, and all our Sacraments. Ergo,
Conclusio: All these Authors are of our Church, and wee of theirs.
But you, having another Faith, a new Creed, new Articles cannot prove these, or any other to have held that your new Faith entirely; and I have shewed most of these Authors expresly to denie, some one, some another Article of your new Creed: so that a man may be orthodox, and yet denie your Faith, your Creed.
No man can be saved that denieth the true Faith.
But many are saved who denie the Roman Faith.
Ergo, The Roman Faith is not the true Faith.
The Major I know you will not denie. The Minor you must grant, or your Saints, and greatest Writers were damned for want of your Faith.
A second Catalogue, viz. of Greeke Authors, who being of the Greeke Church, did professe our Scriptures, Faith, Sacraments, and Councels: but doe reject divers points of the Roman Faith, and all the Councels of the Latines since the yeare 800; as appeareth by their profession in the Councell at Ferrara, made by Marcus Bishop of Ephesus, Sess. 5. in a [Page 124] grave and learned speech, recorded by your owne Surius in the fourth Tome of Councels imprinted at Colonia Agrippina, Anno 1567.
Definitiones, & Decreta aliarum omnium Synodorum recitanda nobis videntur, ut haec nostra Synodus non solum ab illis non discrepare, verumetiam ipsas in omnibus imitari velle videatur, quoniam nos firmiter credimus majores nostros nil prorsus silentio praeterjiffe quod ad nostrum fidei Symbolum spectet. Marcus Ephesinus in Generali 8. Synodo Sess. 3. apud Surium Tom. 3. Pag. 375.
Porro autem quoniam de Divinis primi ac alterius Concilii dogmatibus, nil aliud reperitur nisi duae tantem fidei nostrae expositiones, hoc est, duo Symbola quae tamen pro uno a caeteris Conciliis suscepta fuerant: idcirco à recitandis tertii Concilii gestis auspicandum nobis censemus, vobis probare promittimus Christianorum omnium unam esse, Catholicam fidem, ad quam accessionem aliquem fieri, aut quicquam ab ea non liceat auferri. In primis ergo Nicenum Symbolum à trecentis decem, & octo Patribus Niceae celebratum, recitetur. Legatur etiam ejusdem Concilii definitio, ut idem Nicenum Symbolum immutabile, ac immobile permaneret, neminique fas esset aliam fidem proferre, Sess. 5. Quartum Concilium, viz. Ephesinum definit, atque determinat, ut aliam fidem conscribere, aut componere, aut sentire, aut docere liceat nemini.
Concilium 5. viz. Constantinopol. idem definit, & qui aliud Symbolum docuissent anathemati subjiciunt. Sic etiam 6. Concilium seu Trullanum priora Concilia & dictum Symbolum amplectitur, & obsignat. Sic etiam 7. ac ultimum generale Concilium, Hactenus Marcus Ephes. ibidem.
Ab anno 800. ad 900.
- 1. Theodotus Melissenus.
- 2. Iohannes Sixtus.
- 3. Photius.
All these three were Patriarchs of Constantinople, as is acknowledged by Baronius an. 835. n. 25. All zealous adversaries to your worshipping of Images; for which Baronius [Page 125] there calleth the first Haereticum Iconoclastam, an haereticall Image-breaker;
The second, Haeresis promulgatorem acerrimum.
The third, namely Photius, held a Councell at Constantinople, planè numerosum admodum Concilium, it was a very full Councell, in so much as Michael the Emperour gloried that it equalled the number of the Fathers of the great Nicen Councell, teste Baron. an. 861. n. 1. This was accounted a Generall Councell by Photius, and by Theodorus Balsamon Comenting upon it, Sic ait Baron: ibid. n. eodem. In this Councell was condemned the worshipping of Images.
Ab anno 900. ad 1000.
Nilus Calaber. Habuit hoc saeculo Graeca Ecclesia duos, doctrina, & sanctitate illustres, Nilum Calabrum, & Niconem Lacedemon. Baron. an. 900. n. 8.
Nico. Lacedemon. Hic non à Graecis solum, sed etiam à Latinis inter Sanctos est relatus, Baron. an. 961.
Ab anno 1000. ad 1100.
Simeon Armenus. Vir Sanctus, & verae fidei Professor. Baro. an. 1016. n. 7. 8.
Theophilactus Episcopus Bulgarorum. He in his writings imitateth Saint Chrysostome, but he is a Schismaticke, saith Bellar. de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis.
Ab anno 1100. ad an. 1200.
Euthimius Zigabenus, who wrote against all Haeresies, and upon the 4. Evangel. Bellarm. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae.
Theodorus Balsamon, Who commented upon Photius his Nicene Canon, and divers Councels. He was an enemie to the Church of Rome, saith Bellarm.
Ab Anno 1200. ad 1300.
Arsenius Patriarcha Constantin: A man for vertue, and the service of God not farre short of the highest perfection, ut Nicephorus Gregor. lib. 3. p. 31. edit. Basiliensis, an. 1562. cum Caesarea Majest. privilegiis.
[Page 126] Gregorius Patriarcha, Idem Gregor. l. 6 pag. 80.
Ioannes Glices, Patriarch also of Constantin. a most learned, grave, wise man above all men, Nicephorus Gregoras, lib. 8. pag. 123. &. 132.
Ab Anno 1300. ad 1400.
Catechuzenus. Pachimaerus. Nicephorus Gregoras.
These three were Fathers of the 14 age, saith Bzonius in the end of that age. Tom. 13. in his Supplement of Baron. his Ecclesiasticall History, an. 1299. They did teach contrary to the doctrine of the Haereticks (so Baronius calleth us) but I may truly say that the first, and last of the three teach contrary to their faith, and so the other professed, or he could not be of the Greeke Church, who deny the Popes primacie of power, deny Purgatory, Communicate in both kinds.
For Catechuzenus, in the election of Iohn Bishop of Constantinople, doth say, that all Bishops of greater, or lesser Cities receive equall grace. Baronius addeth his owne Glosse, saying, True equall grace, of Order, not of Iurisdiction.
Nicephorus in his 10 booke, disputeth at large against the Latine Church, à pag. 230 ad finem ejusdem libri.
To. 6. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 99. Ep. ad lect.To these I may adde Cabasilas, whom together with Balsamon, Genebrard calleth two famous Greeke Fathers, for which words he is blamed by M. De la Bigne, who calleth the same men Schismaticks, and enemies to the Church of Rome, Tom. 6. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 101. 102.
Gentianus Hervetus, another of your side, doth write in defence of Cabasilas, in his Preface to the Reader, before Cabasilas his booke, intituled, A Compendious Interpretation upon the Divine Sacrifice, extant dicto 6 Tom. Bibl. Sanctae pag. 159. But he is thus blamed by your De la Bigne.
Dealbat Aethiopem. Gentianus labouring to excuse Cabasilas, doth but wash a Blackamoore; for it is manifest he was a Schismaticke, that he burned with hatred against the Church of Rome, and wrote an Haereticall Booke against Tho. Aquinas. Yet he is placed by Bellarmine amongst his Ecclesiasticall Writers, in a distinct Columne also of his Chronologie from Haereticks.
[Page 127]Ab Anno 1400, ad 1500.
Marcus Ephesinus, Insignis Theologus, as hee is stiled in the Acts of the Councell of Florence, Sessione 2. apud Surium, Tom. 4.
Laonicus Chalcondilas, who being of the Greeke Church, testifieth, that the agreement made at Florence, was not received in Greece. lib. 1. de rebus Turcicis non longè à principio.
Thus have I finished my Catalogue of Greeke Writers, having many more to insert, if any just exception can be given against these. I will conclude concerning them, with these two Arguments: the one, to prove that they were of our Faith and Church; the other, to prove that they were not of the Roman Faith, or Church, thus:
All they that doe professe the Apostles Creed, as it was explicated in the Nicene Councell, that receive the Scriptures received by the Protestants, that receive the foure first Generall Councels, and the two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist under lawfull Pastors, are of the Protestants Faith, and Church.
But those Authors, as all others of the Greeke Church did professe, and receive the said Creed, Scriptures, Councels and Sacraments under lawfull Pastors.
Ergo, They are of the Protestants Faith and Church.
The Proposition is A definitione ad 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 [Page 129] thus; Then all men keeping silence,Tunc tacentibus cunctis ex Niceno Concilio fides Catholica à Di [...]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 [Page 130] 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: so saith Ruffinus, who lived about the yeare 400.
[Page 131]This assembly is recorded by Baronius, in the yeare 44. n. 7. which was before the two later Councels mentioned; the one, Acts 15, and the other, Acts 21. I thinke Master Fisher will not denie, but these Councels professed the Apostles Creed.
From the yeare 100, to 200. Seculum 2. The 2 Age.
Anno 190. Wherein were Presidents,1. A Councell in Palestina. Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem, Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 21.2. A Councell in Rome.
Under Victor. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 11. Anno 198. saith Baronius.
Wherein was President,3. A Councell of the Bishops of Pontus. 4. A Councell in Gaul. Palma. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21. Anno 198. Baronius.
Wherein was President, St Irenaeus, whose learned Booke against Haereticks is extant. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21.
Wherein Polycrates was President, who dissented from the other Councels in the day of celebrating Easter,5. A Councell in the lesser Asia. and of Fasting, and were therefore excommunicated by Victor Bishop of Rome.
But this pleased not all the Bishops (who were of this opinion) who did advise him to relish those things which might further peace, unitie, and love with his neighbours; especially the forenamed Saint Irenaeus, who wrote unto him to this effect, telling him that all these Easterne Churches, dissenting concerning Fasting, yet did agree in one Faith. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23.
From the yeare 200, to the yeare 300. The third Age.
Eusebius, lib. 7. cap. 26, 27. Anno 265.1. 2. Concilium Antiochenum. against Paulus Samosatenus, who taught that Christ was an ordinary man as we are. At which Councell were present great lights of the Church, Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappad. Theo: Bishop of Caesarea in Palestina, the Bishop of Hierusalem, &c.
Eusebius, lib. 7. cap. 28. anno 270. (or 272. ut Baronio placet) in which great Synod of very many Bishops,2. 3. Concilium Antiochenum. the said Paulus Samosatenus was condemned and excommunicated, saith Eusebius.
[Page 132] 1 Concilium Africanum.Under Saint Cyprian, an. 258. inquit Baronius, n. 6. against the restoring of Martialis and Basilides, after their fall to Gentilisme, returning againe to Christianitie, and desiring to be restored to their severall Sees of Leon & Asturia in Spaine. See S. Cyprian, Ep. 68. & Ep. 70. & 72. And concerning rebaptizing of those that had sacrificed to Idols, saith Balsamon in his Preface before this Councell. Which in persecution denied (Christ) saith Nicephorus, An. 258. n. 31, 32, 33. lib. 6. cap. 2. But therein hee lies extremely, saith Baronius; for hee would only baptize those who were formerly baptized by Haereticks, an. 258. n. 18. but herein they used such Christian modesty, as that they did not herein prescribe Lawes to others concerning this, not to be de Fide, a matter of Faith, for which they that did doe otherwise should be termed Haereticks. Thus far, and much more Baronius. And Saint Ierome against the Luciferians, to the same purpose speaking of Saint Cyprian: Let them know that hee did not publish this with any Anathema against those who did not follow him, for hee held communion with them who did gainsay his opinion.
The fourth Age.From the yeare 300, to the yeare 400.
Concilium Ancyranum.About the yeare 308, saith Caranza, or 314, saith Baronius. This was a Provinciall Councell, but confirmed by the sixth Generall Councell, saith Balsamon and Caranza; at which were present, many Fathers who did good service in the Councell of Nice, saith Baron. ibid.
1. Vniversale Concil. Concilium Nicenum.This was the first, and most famous Generall Councell after the Apostles time, celebrated in the yeare 325, or 326, called by that famous Emperor Constantine the Great. Baron. Caranza, Surius, Bellarm. Binius. These professed the Apostles Creed.
2. Vniversale Conc. Constantinop. 1.This was the second Generall Councell, called about the yeare 381. as Baronius; 383, as others: this did confirme the Nicene Faith, and a little in exposition enlarge it, to that which wee commonly call the Nicene Creed, one word only excepted. Surius, Tom. 1. Balsamon, Caranza.
From the yeare 400. to the yeare 500. The fift Age.
This was the third Generall Councell about the yeare 430.3. Vnivers. Concil. Consil. Ephesinum. 4. Vnivers. Concil. Chalcedon. saith Onuphrius, 431. saith Baronius n. 41. 434 sait Bellarmine Surius Tom. 1. Balsamon.
This was the fourth Generall Councell, about the yeere 451. saith Baronius, and Onuphrius, 454. saith Bellarm. See Isidore fol. 83. Balsamon, Binius, Surius.
Carthaginense, for it hath the former Title in Surius, Concil. Africanum 2. Vel Carthag. Tom. 1. and the latter in Balsamon, in whom it is the second, though Baronius make it the fifth Councell of Carthage, ann. 419. n. 59.
All these three Councells did approve the precedent Generall Councells, as appeareth by the Acts of the Councells in Isidore, Balsamon, Surius and others.
And in this of Africke were forbidden Appeales to Rome, though the Popes Legates were there, and did labour to the contrary, having a Commonitorie, or direction from Pope Zozimus, so to doe, citing therein a Canon out of the Councell of Nice to that purpose, Balsamon, pag. 592, 593, To this Alypius an African Bishop first answered, to which the whole Synode did assent, That they would reverently observe what what the Councell of Nice had decreed, but in those Copies of the Nicene Councell which they had there in Carthage, they found no such Decree; they decreed therefore to send Embassadors to the Patriarches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch for Copies under their hands, of the Nicene Councell.
Two Copies were obtained, and the Popes for ever since were detected of falsehood, and signified by the Councell, Balsamon, pag. 567.
From the yeare 500, to the 600. The sixth Age. 5. Vnivers. Concilium Concilium Constant.
About the yeere 550. This also approved of the foure precedent Generall Councells. [...]. It confirmed the Doctrines of the fourth Generall Councell saith Balsamon, pag. 354. and Surius Tom. 4. in Concilio Florentino, Sess. 3. & 5. apud Baron. an. 553. n. 39.
[Page 134] Concilium Toletanum.About the yeere 589. against the Heresie of Arrius, which Councell made a most sincere profession of their faith, sayes Baronius, an. 589. n. 10. wherein also they approved the foure first Generall Councels. Idem Baronius, n. 30.
And whereas it was also enacted that after the manner of the East, this profession of the faith, should be made alwayes before the receiving of the Communion. Idem. n. 39. In the beginning of this Councell of all Spaine, the King Ricaredus made confession of his faith, confirmed the foure Generall Councels, repeated the Nicene Creed, and the Constantinoplitane Creed, and after subscribed to them, both he, and his Queene, Surius Tom. 2 pag. 670. for which the whole Councell of the 72. Bishops did glorifie God, ibid which faith the Councell doth professe, pag. 671. and promise to preach, and teach.
This is (say they) the true faith by profession of which the Church through the whole world is reputed and proved to be Catholicke, he that liketh not this faith, let him be accursed. He that shall despise the faith of the Councell of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, let him be accursed, Then they repeat and record these Creeds, Surius pag. 672.
From the yeere 600. to the yeere 700.
The seventh Age. 6. Vnivers. Concilium Concilium Trullanum Surius Tom. 2. pag. 899.About the yeare 680, saith Baronius, n. 41. their first Canon did decree that the Apostles Creed should be kept unchangeably without any innovation. Balsamon p. 360. They confirme the foure precedent Generall Councels, as also the fifth, and sixth, whereof this was a branch adding Canons to the fifth and sixth, and therfore called Quinisexta, stiled an aecumenicall Councell also by Baronius, & Balsamon.
Concilium Romanum.Of 125 Bishops under Pope Agatho, who sent their Legats with a profession of their faith to the sixth Councell approving all the precedent Generall Councells. This is recorded in the fourth Act of the sixth Councell. See Surius Tom. 2. pag 922.
Concilium Mantuanum.Which in all things consenting to the fifth Generall Councell were Catholickes, sayes Baronius, anno 605. numb. 5.
[Page 135]This sixth Generall Synod is called erroneous by Beda, saith Bellarmine, deservedly. The reason, I take it, was because this Councell did condemne Honorius the Pope of Rome for Haeresie, as appeareth by Surius, Actione 12, 13. and was found to be contained in his Epistles, the Councell using all diligence in examining the Records of the Church of Constantinople, to see if the originall Epistle sent from Pope Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople, did accord with the extracts which were produced, & constitit, it appeared to be so, ait. 12. apud Surium, pag. 990. Bellarm. lib 4. de Pontifice Romano, cap. 11. and Baron. an. 681. doth labour much to excuse this, but with as little successe, as Baronius would cleare Zosimus for forging the Councell of Nice. The Councell was deceived, saith Beda and Bellarmine. The Tract of the Councell was forged, saith Baronius, n. 25. Peradventure those Epistles were forged, saith Bellarmine, loco citato.
From the yeare 700, to the yeare 800. The eighth Age.
Under Charles the Great,Concilium Francosurtense. for the Historicall and Civill use of Images, but against all religious worshipping of them. Baron. an. 794. Here began the Greeke and Latine Church to be divided about Images. The Emperors and Councels of the East being sometimes for them, sometimes against them. And in the West, the Churches of France, Spaine, and Germanie under Charles the Great, forbidding them to be worshipped; the Pope and his adherents of Rome commanding to worship them. Yet all these three Councels did receive and professe the Faith of the six precedent Generall Councels. Balsamon, pag. 494. cau. 1. Coucil. Niceni, & Baronius, an. 754. n. 30, & Surius, Tom. 3. pag. 182.
Hence arose the division of the Empire,Baron. an. 726. n. 38. Pope Gregorie the second forbidding the Italians to pay the Emperor Leo Isaurus tribute for this onely cause. For hee doth commend in the Emperor an every way right religious, and irreprovable profession of the Orthodox Faith, in his Epistle to the Emperor, an. 726. Baron. n. 26.
Wherein Cutbert Archbishop of Canterbury, Concilium Saxonum in Anglia. an. 747. with other [Page 138] Bishops of the Saxons, amongst other things, decreed, that the Presbyters should in the English tongue learne, and teach the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, and that Prayers should be made for Kings and Princes. Malmsburiensis de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum. cap. 1.
The ninth Age. Concilium Aquisgranense.From the yeare 800, to the yeare 900.
Anno 809. n. 52. It received the six Generall Councels, and did professe the Nicene Creed, Baron. loco citato.
Concilium Foroniliense.This did professe the Nicene Creed, and decreed thus; Let every Christian commit to memorie the Creed, and the Lords Prayer, all age, all sex, &c. for without this none can, and with this, so they abstaine from sinne, all may be saved, Surius, Tom. 3. pag. 262, 263.
Concilium Constantinopolitanū. Anno 861. saith Baronius, stiled a Generall Councell by Michaell the Greeke Emperor, who summoned it, and was present at it, consisting of 318 Bishops, approving the Nicen Councell, as appeareth Canon 8. and the 6th Generall Councell, Canon 12. apud Balsamon.
Concilium Parisiense. Anno 825. which condemned the second Nicene, and an Epistle of Pope Adrian for worshipping of Images as superstitious, holding it lawfull to set up Images, but not to worship them, Baron. an. 825. n. 4, 5. & an 794. n. 43, 51.
So here are two Councels approved by the Romans, the first and second: two by them rejected, but received, the one by the Greeke Church, the other by the French Church, but all foure professing our Faith; and two of them denying an Article of the Roman new Creed, videlicet, worshipping of Images.
Tom. 3. pag. 530.Histories (saith Surius) speake of a three-fold eighth Generall Councell held at Constantinople: the first, that wherein Photius was made Patriarch. The second, that which restored Ignatius. The third, that which after the death of Ignatius restored Photius againe.
It is worth the note, how Surius can deny, that this Councell of Paris under Lewis, and that of Francford under Charles, did decree against the second Nicene Councell for advancing Image-worship, and charge us with forgerie, seeing all [Page 137] the Chronicles, and learned men of that Age recorded it. See Baronius, an. 794. n. 40.
From the yeare 900, to the yeare 1000. The tenth Age.
This is that Age which was commonly stiled a leaden, iron, obscure Age, because it was as barren of good, as iron; loaden with a burthen of wickednesse, as heavie as lead, and obscure for want of Writers, saith Baronius, an. 900. n. 1. An unhappy Age (saith Bellarmine in his Chronologie) in which were no Councels, no Writers of note, and the Bishops were such as tooke little care for the Church.
Surius in this Age recordeth no Councell Generall, or Provinciall; for after Triburense Concilium, which was celebrated under Arnulphus the Emperor (who died about the yeare 899. as Baronius accounteth; some yeares sooner, as Bellarmine:) Surius hath no Councell till we come to Alexander the third Pope of that name, who began his Popedome Anno 1160. that is for two whole Ages and a halfe. But Baronius will furnish us with some.
All three Councels held under Pope Iohn the ninth,Concil. Romanum. 1. Concil. Romanum. 2. Concil. Romanum. 3. Con ilium Suessionen. an. 909. n. 1. Baron. Concil. Constantinop. who in those three yeares of his Papacie held three Councels, Ex quibus summam sibi laudem comparavit; by which hee got to himselfe great praise, saith Baron. an. 905. n. 1. no doubt these were orthodox Councels in the estimation of Baronius, or else the Pope could not get such praise by them.
Anno 944. reproved by the Romans for deposing of Triphon, not noted of any error in Doctrine. Baron. an. 944. numb. 1, 2.
Anno 963. called by Otho the second, wherein Iohn the twelfth was convicted of Murther, Perjury, Sacrilege,Concilium Romanum. and Incest with two of his owne Sisters; which Councell Baronius, n. 31. doth confesse to have beene an assembly of orthodox men, but is much offended with them for deposing the Pope, calling it Indignum facinus, audax, & insolens. Bellarmine also saith, this Emperour was a godly man, and this Pope was one of the worst: but hee blameth them for deposing the Pope, lib. 2. de Pontifice Romano; cap. 29.
The eleventh Age. Concil. in Legione Hispaniae. Concil. Aurelianense.From the yeare 1000, to the yeare 1100.
Anno 1012. Baronius, n. 16. who doth there alleadge many Decrees of that Councell.
Anno 1017. Against the Manichees; in which Councell there was an inquirie made of the Clergie, what opinions every one did hold? and whether those things which the Catholicke Faith received from the Apostles, they doe unchangeably keepe, and preach? Baron. n. 2, 3.
Concil. Basiliense. Anno 1061. which Baronius reproves for condemning Pope Nicholas, and disanulling all his Decrees. n. 4.
Concilium Woormatiense Concil. apud Buxiam. Anno 1076 which Baronius also rejecteth for pronouncing sentence against Gregorie the seventh. n. 12, 14.
Anno 1080. which is also rejected by Baronius, n. 18, 19. for deposing Gregorie the seventh, guilty of many crimes, and an enemie to all godlinesse. Quicquid quietè inter piè viventes stare videbatur concussit.
Concil. Londinense. Anno 1075. Malmsburiensis, fol. 117.
The 12 Age. Concilium Romanum.From the yeare 1100, to the yeare 1200.
Anno 1102. Baronius, n. 1, 2. wherein, besides the confirming of the ancient Decrees of the Fathers, after the accustomed manner they also, &c.
Concil. Lateranense 2. Anno 1116. under Pascalis the second, Baronius, n. 1. calleth it a Generall Councell, and numb. 5. an Universall Councell.
Concil. Lateranense 3. Anno 1179. under Alexander the third, this is stiled a Generall Synod by Baron. n. 1. and by Bellarmine in his Chronologie.
Concil. Londinense. Anno 1102. under Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury, Malmsburiensis fol 129.
In this Age, I desire the Reader to observe with mee, how well the Popish Doctors, and Historians doe agree in this so great a matter.
Caranza can find never a Generall Councell in this Age; Surius can find one, namely, Lateranense tertium, sub Innocentio 3. Bellarmine can find three Generall Councels, Latera. 1, 2, 3. Baronius can find six, 1. Romanum, anno 1102. 2. Lateranense, [Page 139] anno 1116. 3. Rhemense, anno 1119. 4. Lateranense, an. 1122. 5. Romanum, an. 1139. 6. Romanum, an. 1179.
From the yeare 1200, to the yeare 1300. The 13 Age.
Anno 1215. This is received amongst the Romanists for a Generall Councell, and no one Councell is more alleadged for Poperie, saving that of Trent, then this: yet in their profession of Faith, cap. 2. I find nothing dissenting from ours, but onely this, that they have added Transubstantiation. But no one of the other twelve Articles of our new Romish Creed. That there was such a Councell, I grant, but that those decrees, or chapters recorded by Surius were there enacted, I denie: for these authorities following, Matthew Paris, a Monke of Saint Albans, who lived in those times, saith, that 60, (70 it should have beene, saith Mr. Widrington, Discuss dissentionis Decreti. pag. 4. a Priest of your owne) Chapters were read in full Councell, which some liked, others thought but — And the same Author in his lesser Historie, saith thus: This Generall Councell, which after the Papall manner at the first made a great shew, turned to laughter and scorne. The Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Deanes, Archdeacons, and all that came to the Councell being deluded; for they seeing nothing done, craved leave to depart; and paying a great summe of money, obtained it. Many things were consulted of (saith Nauclerus) but nothing could be decreed openly. Nothing commendable, or worthy of memory was there done (saith Godfrey a Monke of those times) save that the East Church submitted to the West, which was never heard of afore. Nothing could be decreed, saith Platina▪ in the life of Innocentius.
This Councell was not published for 300 yeares after, not by Merlyn, who published later Councels (as that of Constance, and that of B [...]sil) at Collen, anno 1530. and now it comes not out of the Vatican, but from one Iohn Cochleus a German. Thus Widrington. Concil Generale Lugdun. 1. Concil. Generale Lugdun. 2.
Anno 1244. under Innocent the third, Bellar. de Conciliis. & in Chron.
Sub Gregorio 10. anno 1274. Bellarm. and Baronius. The profession of Faith sent from the Pope to Michael the Emperour, [Page 140] wee receive, but not other Doctrines there added. vide Baronium. anno 1274, & 1275, & 1276.
The 14 Age. Concil. Viene [...]se.From the yeare 1300, to the yeare 1400.
Anno 1311. This is reputed a Generall Councell by Bellarmine, Baronius, Caranza, Platina, Onuphrius.
The profession of Faith made by them, as is recorded by Baronius, n 12. we receive, although we receive not all their other Doctrines and Constitutions. As that they condemne them for Haereticks, who shall denie the reasonable soule to be the forme of mans body per se, & essentialiter, properly, and essentially. This may be an error in Philosophie, but no Haeresie, because it is not in point of Faith.
Concil. Bonon. Concil. Hispanicum. Concil. Provincialia.This was a Provinciall Councell, an. 1309. Baron. n. 12.
In ditione Walliselentum, stiled a most noble Councell by Baronius, anno 1321. n. 9.
Provinciall Councels, and Synods in severall Diocesses were held almost every where by holy men, saith Baronius, anno 1309.
The 15 Age. Concil. Constantiense, an. 1413.From the yeare 1400, to the yeare 1500.
This is reputed a Generall Councell by the Romanists, Bellarmine, Baronius, Caranza, Surius, Tom. 3. p. 769.
This Councell did professe our Faith, viz the Apostles Creed in Masse before every Session; although in some other things wee refuse them, as in their halfe Communion, never decreed before in any Councell, and there acknowledged to differ from the institution of Christ, and practise of the Primitive Church. Let the Papists give us leave to repudiate this in part as they doe, viz. in their first Decree, Sess 4. That the Councell is above the Pope. So Bellarmine, lib. de Conciliis cap: 6. reckons this amongst the Generall Councels, partly rejected, and partly approved.
Concil. Besiliense. Anno 1431. This also is partly confirmed, partly rejected by the Romanists; for this did depose Popes, and decreed that a Generall Councell is above the Pope, as appeareth in Surius, Caranza, and Bellarmine.
Concil. Florentinum. Anno 1439. This is a Generall Councell, approved by [Page 141] the Papists, Bellarmine, lib. de Conciliis. 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.
[Page 143]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 Ʋalenza, 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 [Page 144] & 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 [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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. [...]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 [Page 147] 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, worshipping of Images, Indulgences, &c. be buried in oblivion, and never mentioned amongst us, which we would not doe, if they were Articles of our faith, for all men ought to be ready to confesse, and professe their faith. It was truely written by one of your owne, Doctor Iames Gordon Hanley of Scotland, a Iesuite,In Lib. de Traditionibus cap. 6. that the whole Controversie betweene you, and us, is of the unwritten points of faith, which you affirme, and we deny: as for example, you affirme and [Page 148] beleeve Purgatorie, I doe not beleeve it; will you say now that Purgatory is a part of my faith? can that be a part of a mans faith, which he doth not beleeve? If I doe not beleeve it, it is not my faith, if it be my faith, I doe beleeve it so. You beleeve Transubstantiation, I doe not beleeve it, can this be a point of my faith? Your Schoole saith truely, that to beleeve is the proper, internall, inseparable act of faith, they goe together, they stand, or fall together: So that I wonder with what face, with what braine, you can say, or thinke, that those negations are points of my faith, and I say they are not? Yet lest you should not take my word, I will adde one reason more. I say with the learned of both sides, that faith is habitus principiorum, is that assent we give unto revealed principles. And that Negations cannot be principles, I prove thus.
Arist. annal. [...]. cap. 8. &c. 21.Principles depend upon no precedent proofe.
Negations depend upon precedent proofe.
Ergo, Negations are not Principles.
Both propositions are Aristotles. Now let us see what he next misliketh in my grounds.
CHAP. XX.
Fisher.
MAster Rogers framed to himselfe false Rules. First, that faith is Affirmation, not Negation. Secondly, That they which are in the Affirmative must prove, and not those who are in the Negative.
Rogers.
In my former answer, I said thus, In points of faith I like Master Fishers Rule, That they that are in the Affirmative must prove. It was Master Fishers Rule proposed by him, admitted by me: for these were his words in his first Paper, Master Fisher undertooke to defend the negative part, so it did belong to his Adversary to prove the affirmative. Why now [Page 149] doe you say that Master Rogers doth frame false Rules to himselfe? This is Master Fishers Rule, framed by him, approved by me. It was a Rule that your Doctor Cole, and others stood upon in the Disputation at Westminster, In Historia Concil. T [...]id. Per naturam, factum negantis probatio nulla. 6. q 5. cap. 2. Negationum non sunt causae. gl. ibidem. as Bishop Iuel often layes to his charge. Let us adde one more of your men, the forenamed Andreas Vega; No Proposition was ever false, but because another is true: neither can the falsitie of the one be knowne, but by him who knoweth the truth of the other. Therefore the opinion of the Lutherans cannot be condemned of Haeresie, untill the opinion of the Church be set downe; loco supra citato. Let us see what good reason Master Fisher bringeth to overthrow this Rule.
Fisher.
By this it seemeth to follow, that a man who time out of mind, quietly possessed his Land or Religion, were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversarie (who denieth him to have right) hath given a good reason of his deniall.
Rogers.
Even as the Wheele-barrow goes to rumble, to rumble, so Doctor Eld. W. owes mee two Shillings. His similitude and yours held much alike, Master Fisher. And yet, if your similitude were good, Symbola non sunt argumentativa: Similitudes are no proofes, they illustrate and cleare obscurities, if they be good and apposite; otherwise, they doe more hinder the understanding, then helpe it. Who doth strive with you about the possession of any thing that is controverted betweene us, to take it from you? Would wee take from you to our selves? Or doe we challenge any right, title or portion in your unwritten Traditions? your invocation of Saints, Purgatorie, Indulgences, and the rest of your new Creed? No such matter: we disclaime from them; we leave them to you: wee say they are yours, yours in possession, yours in proprietie of title, take them, hold them, hugge them in your armes, and thinke as well of them as the old Ape did of her yong one, when she presented him before the Lion, as the goodliest, prettiest, fairest yongling amongst all [Page 150] the beasts of the field. Wee in the meane time smile at your folly, and laugh at such bables; take them unto you, father your owne children, they looke as like you as the yong Ape did the old. Now let us see what is next?
Fisher.
The third false Rule framed by Master Rogers is, that what was not a point of Faith in the Primitive Ages, cannot after be a point of Faith.
Rogers.
This Rule was not framed by mee, but it was the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, and so alleaged by mee in my Answer, confirmed also by their great Schoolman Aquinas, and something then cited out of both, thus:
Religion, or points of Faith are without addition, as Lirinensis saith. Imitetur animarum Religio rationem corporum, quae & quot parvulorum membra tot virorum, &c. And as Aquinas saith;
The Articles of Faith doe grow, quoad
- 1. Explicationem, non
- 2. Substantiam.
That which was no point of Faith for the first 1200 yeares, could be none afterwards; ut supra Vinc. Lirin. & Aquin.
But Transubstantiation was no point of Faith before the yeare 1200. Scotus.
Ergo, Transubstantiation is no point of Faith.
To all this, contained in my former Answer, is no Reply made: the Authoritie and saying of Lirinensis, Aquinas, Scotus, together with my Argument, are past over with silence, but supplied with two or three falshoods; 1, by saying that I framed that Rule which was framed 1200 yeares at least before I was borne. 2, By calling that a false Rule, which was received without controll, no learned man having the face to denie it, till the lame Laiola furnished the world with audacious Jesuits: for never was there a new Creed made before the Councell of Trent. But let us see [Page 151] what reason hee hath to denie this Rule? His words are these:
Fisher.
As if there were not some points which were at first, not held necessarie to be believed by orthodox Fathers, which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels, were made so necessarie to be believed, as that whosoever did not believe, were accounted not Orthodox, but Haereticks.
Rogers.
A Boy that wanted a couple of Verses to make up his full number, desired one of his fellowes to helpe at a pinch, no matter whether it were to the Theme, no matter whether they were good or no, so they fill'd up the Paper, made up the number: I care not (saith he) though they be all botches, for I hope they will never be read. One of his fellowes, to helpe him at his need, made this Verse:
Semper, quotidiè, sic, jam, nunc, at (que) 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, [Page 152] 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, [Page 153] 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, [Page 154] nor passed by many Arguments and grounds without any mention of them; and those you mention, to passe them over with, It seemeth, to the first; Seemeth, to the second; As if, to the third; As if, to the fourth; Hee may be yet further allowed, to the fift; whereof I am next to speake.
Fisher.
And fourthly, that the Anabaptist Faith is that which is contained in Scripture, and the ancient Creeds; and the Anabaptists Church is a societie of men, which professeth the Faith contained in Scripture, and the ancient Creeds: as (if an Anabaptist may be judge) it will be held so to be.
Rogers.
I will grant, that the Anabaptist is a member of the visible Church, Ecclesia verae, quamvis non sanae: and that Church to have beene alwaies in Ages whereof hee is a member; yea Membrum verum, quamvis non sanum; a true member, though a diseased, as a goutie foot of a man, that is otherwise in health, and sixtie or seventie yeares old, is a true member, though not a sound member of that body which in all other parts is sound; and this foot thus gouty, though it became gouty but within a few daies before, may truly say, that that body whereof it is a member, hath beene 10, 20, 30, 40, 70 yeares the very same body which now it is, the very same essentially, though not accidentally; still a body, and still the same body, though sometimes more healthy then other, and in some parts more sound then other. Now Master Fisher, to what end is your great discourse of Anabaptists, seeing I grant him to be of the Church? If hee be such a one as you suppose him, who agreeth with mee in all things else, viz. in the Scripture, in the Creed, in the Sacraments, in the essence of the Sacraments, in their matter and forme, in their force and efficacie; onely differs from mee in the circumstance of time, namely, when Baptisme is to be conferred, and bestowed upon Children of Christians, whether before, or after they are come to yeares of discretion.
CHAP. XXI.
Fisher.
AND fifthly, That having distinguished Faith (as Master Rogers doth) into Doctrines fundamentall, and necessary, and Doctrines not fundamentall, but accessory, or not necessary: hee may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie, and not to be satisfied with what is taught by any Church, ours or his owne, (as Master Rogers confesseth hee is unsatisfied) and consequently being left to his owne libertie, may apply this distinction as hee shall please, accounting onely that to be necessary which hee listeth so to account. I wish, I say, that such an Anabaptist were imagined, and that Master Rogers were to be his opponent: That it might be seene whether this Anabaptist could not as well by these aforesaid Rules, Definitions and Distinctions, affirme, prove and defend his Faith and Church to have beene alwaies visible, against Master Rogers; as Master Rogers doth, or can by his Rules, Definitions and Distinctions, affirme, prove, and defend the Protestant Church to have beene alwaies visible, against Catholicks: or whether Master Rogers could better convince such an Anabaptist not to have the ancient Faith, or not to be a member of the continuall visible Church, then a Catholicke can convince Master Rogers.
Rogers.
Concerning this Distinction, I have spoken afore, that some Doctrines are more necessary then others: now let us see whether this man saith any thing against it, and what it is. I doe not find hee doth denie it, or grant it: so that I know not what hee meanes by the words following, viz. He may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie, and not be satisfied with what is taught by any Church, ours or his owne (as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied.) First, you mightily falsifie this Parenthesis upon mee, my words were these; I doe confesse, that none of your side or ours have given me full satisfaction in this point: what are res fidei per se? [Page 156] 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.
[Page 157] 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 Ʋsher, 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 [Page 158] 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,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, [Page 159] 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 R [...] 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 agai [...]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, [Page 160] 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.
[Page 161]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 I deny. If the delay of seven or eight yeares for Baptisme, doe exclude them out of the Church, because many thereby are deprived of Baptisme, then a shorter delay of fourty daies, or eighty daies, should exclude men out of the Church, because many children may die at twenty or thirty dayes old, and yet we know many Churches in the world, as the Coftie in Egypt, doe not baptise their children before the fourtieth day, though they should die without Baptisme.Th. a Ies. lib. 7. p. 1. c. 5. So Th. ibid. c. 6. Leo primus. The Maronites whose Patriarch resideth in Syria, Baptize not their male children till fourty dayes, nor their female till eighty dayes after their birth.
He was a Pope of Rome which commanded, that Baptisme should not be ministred at any other time then at Easter, and Whitsontide, and can we thinke but that many children in the meane space did die. Socrates Scholasticus, testifieth,Hist. Eccl. 5. c. 21. l Tom. 4. disp. 4. puncto. 4. that in Thessalie, by reason of deferring of Baptisme untill Easter, it happened that many, yea, the most dyed before Baptisme. Your Gregory de Valenza, doth confesse, that in the Primitive Church [Page 162] many holy, and godly men did deferre their Baptisme for a long season.
Disp. de Sacramentis Tom. 1. Concil. in decretis Leonis primi Can. 6.And your Suarez, and Binius doe say, that the former custome of the Church, and Decree of Pope Leo, were changed by the Church, because of the danger which by so long delay did ensue.
If therefore the Anabaptist bee excluded from the visible Church, because of the danger which by delay of Baptisme, doth ensue to children; Then Pope Leo the first for Decreeing a delay of Baptisme, with the like danger, and a great part of the Christian Church, for observing the same, were excluded out of the visible Church. This was it you should first have proved, that the Anabaptist is out of the Church afore you tooke it as a premise, or undoubted Proposition, thence to inferre a Conclusion; let me propose the Argument againe in that forme which you most affect with Iffs and Ands.
If Master Rogers Grounds be true, the Anabaptist receiving the Scriptures, Apostles Creed, and agreeing with the Protestants in all things, saving this, that he will not Baptise children, is of the Church.
But such an Anabaptist is not of the Church.
Ergo, Master Rogers Grounds be not true.
Negatur minor; you have not spoken one word to prove that such an Anabaptist is not of the Church, which till you prove, your conclusion cannot follow; all that you say is in proofe of the major which I grant.
Whereas you say, and would have it supposed, that I cannot produce as many proofes against this Negative of the Anabaptist, as the Romanists doe usually produce against Negatives, is most false; for instance, if you will bring me one Author for your halfe Communion, your Transubstantiation, the Bookes of Machabees, Irenaeus, Origen. Cyprian. confessed by Bellarm. lib. 1. de bap. cap. 8. to be Canonicall; in all which you are Affirmative, and I Negative; I say, if you bring one Author in the first 300 yeeres for these your affirmatives, I will bring three to one for our Affirmative of Baptizing In the same time.
I will produce for this my affirmative, Antiquity, Vniversality, and Consent; doe you the like for your Affirmatives, [Page 163] and I will be of your Church. All the rest of your frivolous chat, concerning the Annabaptist, what he may say, what exceptions he may take against Authors, against Translations, is nothing against any thing that I have written, you name no Authors, you name no particular exceptions. So you cavill againe with my distinction of Doctrines fundamentall, and doctrines accessory, not being able to produce one Argument against them; and ignorantly, or impudently deny a destinction delivered by Saint Augustine, received by your great Schoolman Aquinas, by your great Iesuites, Bellarmine and Valenza, acknowledged by the Divines of our Church, as I have formerly shewed out of these Authors, and the thing doth manifest it selfe, doe not some things that are contained in Scripture more neerely concerne our salvation, then others? Can any man be saved without knowing Christ to be the Saviour of the world? And may not a man be saved without knowing that Iacob loved Rachel better then Leah? Or that Pharaoh dreamed of fat and leane Kine? To what tends your Schoole distinction;
Of
- 1. Fides explicita.
- & 2. Fides implicita.
of necessitas.
- 1. Medii.
- 2. Praecepti.
And their large disputes, what are to be beleeved, necessitate medii, without which a man cannot be saved; and what necessitate praecepti, things that they ought to beleeve, and offend if they doe not, but not with so great danger, as if they beleeve not the former: What meane these two Distinctions? and that which I cited out of Aquinas, and by which I explicated my owne distinction of fundamentall, and accessorie, I meane res fidei
- Per se.
- Per accidens.
If this be answering to except against the Grounds of Fathers, Schoolemen, Iesuites, and reformed Divines, without framing one Argument against them, it is easie answering indeed.
Whereas you say that none of the Authors by me alleadged, not Luther himselfe held the entire Protestant Faith, is untrue: and you bring no proofe, but a false supposition, that all Protestant [Page 164] Doctrines different from the faith of the Roman Church, may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith, this I formerly denyed, and you bring no reason to the contrary, yet still you urge it as your onely medium, or principle. I have shewed you reasons to the contrary, which when you answer, I will eat Pauls Steeple, one thing which I delivered in my first Answer, maketh it cleare: the question betweene you and me, is of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatorie, Indulgences, worshipping of Images, &c. Which you affirme I deny, and therefore they are no points of my faith, for no man would deny his owne faith, I will reduce it into forme.
No man will deny the points of his owne faith.
But we Protestants deny Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatorie, and all your new Creed.
Ergo, Neither Transubstantion, nor Invocation of Saints, nor Purgatory, nor any part of your new Creed, are points of Protestant faith.
And they being your faith, you are bound by the rule of Saint Peter, to give an account of your faith, 1 Pet. 3, v. 15.
CHAP. XXIII.
Fisher.
BUt if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the Roman Church her faith, be not Doctrines of Protestant faith, I require Master Rogers to shew me which (in particular) be, and which be not Doctrines of Protestant faith, that it may be discerned, who did, and who did not hold the Protestant faith, and that withall he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture, why those particular points which he shall assigne, are points of Protestant faith, rather then others, contained in the 39 Articles; If he say (as 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 [Page 165] 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.
[Page 166]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, [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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 [Page 169] 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 [Page 170] 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 [Page 171] 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 disobedient unto Government, and so excommunicated, and imprisoned for either of those, without Heresie.
If all Decrees of Councels be Doctrines of faith, as you affirme, your Cardinall Bellarmine is deceived who saith that in Councels the greatest part of those things which are done doe not belong to faith, neither the Disputations concerning faith, nor the reasons which are added, nor those things which are brought for explication, and illustration, but onely the very naked Decrees, and not all those, but they alone who are proposed as matters of faith. To this subscribed Widrington, in the Preface above alleadged, and he voucheth Canus for the same opinion.
CHAP. XXIIII.
Fisher.
I Aske what Scripture, or reason assureth that no Negative Doctrine pertaines to faith? for Scripture having in it so many Negative sentences which are to be [Page 172] beleeved, assureth the contrary; neither is there any reason which can assure a man that he is freed from beleeving: for example this Negative, Deus non mentitur, God doth not lie; rather then from beleeving this Affirmative, Est Deus Verax, God is a true speaker, for both being said by one, and the same God, our Lord, Trueth it selfe, and both being propounded by one and the same Catholicke Church his Spouse, assisted by his Spirit, the Spirit of truth, as spoken by God in holy Scripture, both are equally to be beleeved; neither can any without danger of eternall damnation deny, or doubt of either those or any other, even the least point of Catholike faith, as we may learn out of Saint Athanasius Creed, saying, that, Whosoever will be saved, it is needfull that he hold the Catholike faith, which unlesse each one hold entire (that is in all points) and inviolate (that is, in the true uncorrupted sense of the Catholike Church) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. So as whether the Doctrine be Negative or Affirmative, whether fundamentall, or accessory, supposing it to be a Doctrine propounded by the Catholike Church, as revealed by God, it must be beleeved explicite, or implicite, and may not rashly, or (which is worse) advisedly be denyed, or doubted of, and much lesse may the contrary be obstinately maintained against the knowne judgement of a lawfull Generall Councell, or the unanime consent of the Pastors of the Church, in regard our Saviour hath expresly averred, That he who despiseth them, despiseth himselfe, and him that sent him, to wit, God his Father. And againe, he that will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen, and Publicane. All which sheweth that such as do obstinately deny, or doubtingly dispute against any the least point knowne by Church proposition to be a point of Catholike faith, is worthily accounted an Heretike, a despiser of God, an excommunicated person, and no member of the true Catholike Church, and one who if he so live, and die without repentance, cannot be saved. But (as Athansius without any want of charity pronounceth) he shall without doubt perish everlastingly.
Rogers.
I have answered you more then once, and given you reasons more then one, or two, why Negations are not matters of faith, per se. fundamentall, and necessary, for I brought this distinction of Affirmation, and Negation after those distinctions of Doctrine.
- [Page 173]1. Accessorie, of res fidei per se & res fidei per accidens.
- 2. Doctrine fundamentall of res fidei per se & res fidei per accidens.
Then I added this distinction of Affirmation and Negation, so that my meaning appeared by the connexion it had with that which went before, that Negations are not points or Articles of faith, are not fundamentall doctrines, are not res fidei per se, I did not say but they might be res fidei per accidens, as all propositions revealed in Scriptures, whether affirmative, or negative are, besides those Articles of faith. Here then you doe not dispute, ad idem, non facis elenchum, you prove what I doe not deny, you prove that Negatives contained in Scripture, pertaine to faith, which I do not deny, but you do not prove that they are points of faith, fundamentall Doctrines, res fidei per se, things proper and essentiall unto faith, as your great Schooleman Aquinas, your Bellarmine, and Valenza have written, cited by me afore; where I have also shewed the difference betweene being a matter of faith, and pertaining to faith, neither doe I say that any man is freed from beleeving this Negative; God doth not lie, or any other Negative revealed in Scripture, but that an implicite faith may serve in all Negatives, as well as those Affirmatives which are not Articles of the Creed, I say againe that,
Negatives in Scripture are res fidei
- per accidens
- non per se.
They are accidentall unto faith not essentiall.
There is no generall necessity to beleeve them, fide explicita, so to beleeve them as actually to know them, but it is sufficient to beleeve them, fide implicita, with a minde prepared actually to beleeve them, when they doe appeare unto us actually to be revealed in Scripture.
All things revealed in Scripture have
- aequalem veritatem,
- non aequalem utilitatem.
They are equally true, but not equally profitable.
For these propositions, God is not a lyer; God is not as man, the heathen hath no knowledge of his Law. Pharaoh was not obedient. And all that are Negatives in Scripture, being put together, cannot informe a man in that saving truth which is sufficient for his soules health to beleeve; but a few Affirmatives, [Page 174] twelve Propositions contained in the Creed can doe it.
Againe I say that,
All things revealed in Scripture have
- aequalem necessitatem credendi,
- non aequalem necessitatem cognoscendi.
It is not a like necessary for us to know all things revealed in Scripture: but it is a like necessary for us to beleeve them when we know them.
As you have falsified the predicate of my Proposition, by changing points of faith unto that which pertaineth unto faith, fundamentall into accessory; proper, and essentiall into that which is accidentall; so have you falsified the subject of the same Proposition: for immediately after that distinction of Affirmation, and Negation, my words were these; In those Articles of our English Church, our Negation is partly a traversing, partly a condemning of your novelties, and additions, and therfore no part of our faith, for no man would deny his owne faith. Thus farre in my former Answer, as also in a few lines after, my words were these, The first instance of Negation in our Articles, is part of the sixth Article concerning those Bookes of Esdras, Tobit, Iudith, &c. whereby it appeareth manifestly, that I spake not of Negatives revealed in Scripture, but of Negatives in Doctrines Ecclesiasticall. Now that you should argue from Negatives in Scripture to Negatives out of Scripture, is à baculo ad angulum from the staffe to the corner, my Tenet therefore is that,
Negatives revealed in Scripture are res fidei
- per accidens,
- non per se,
Negatives not revealed in Scripture, are not res fidei
- vel per se,
- vel er accidens,
Are neither essentially nor accidentally the object of faith.
That which you alleadge out of Athanasius; I willingly embrace, I receive his Creed, I have often professed it in publicke, but what is that to your new Creed? I finde in Athanasius his Creed, neither Purgatory, nor Indulgence, nor Transubstantiation, nor Invocation of Saints, nor seven Sacraments, nor worshipping of Images.
Wheras you say I must hold it in the uncorrupted sense of the [Page 175] Catholike Church, I doe imbrace it, but I will not understand the Church of Rome, or the Pope for the Catholike Church as you doe. The Catholike Church never received your Purgatory, your halfe Communion, your worshipping of Images, as I have shewed already; I will obstinately maintaine nothing contrary to the known judgement of a lawfull Generall Councell, but your Councels of Trent, and Lateran are no such, they are but fopperies, and the jugling tricks of the Popish faction to cozen the world. Whatsoever we deny, when you prove it out of Scripture, we will beleeve it; here is no obstinacie. Whatsoever is determined by Councels, we will receive, fide humana, but not divina, as the saying of Reverend men, but not as the Oracles of God. So also we approve the unanimous consent of the Fathers, in receiving all revealed truth, we are farre from Heresie: in submitting to the Catholike Church, and Decrees of Councels, we clear our selves from being Schismatikes: in following the unanimous consent of the Fathers, we shew our selves to be no Innovators; but you by worshipping of Images, shew what respect you have to Scripture; by your new Creed you shew what reverence you have to Generall Councels, seeing the Councell of Calcedon decreed, having repeated that which is commonly called the Nicene Creed,Isidor. fol. 83 and urged by the Grecians in the Councell of Florence. Surius Tom. 4. Ses. 5. Ferrariae habita. Lib. 7. c. 1. de loc. The. pag. 422, 423. De rebus Muscovitarum pag. 38. In apara. Sacr. in Diamperi. Conc. that no man should write or say other Creed, and whosoever did, if Bishops and Clergie-men, let them bee deposed; if Monkes, and Lay men, let them be accursed. What regard you have to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, appeareth by your Doctrine, that the Virgin Mary was conceived without originall sinne, contrary to Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, and all the holy men that made mention of that point, as your owne Canus confesseth: and so you are Innovators, Schismaticks, and Heretikes, despised, and excommunicated by all other Christian Churches in the World. By the Graecians, as appeareth by Posevine your owne Jesuite; by the Indians, as is acknowledged by the same Author; by the Coftie of Aegypt, and consequently by all the rest of the Iacobites the Aethiopians, and others acknowledging all subjection unto the Patriarch of Alexandria, so that upon you alone that curse is fallen.
You hate, you condemne all Churches of the World; and [Page 176] they condemne you, you account them for Schismaticks, and Hereticks, and they you for Schismaticks, Hereticks and Idolaters; your worshipping of Images, hinder the conversion of the Iewes and Turkes, who for this cause esteeme you for subtill Atheists, and heathenish Idolaters, falling downe to a blocke, and worshipping the worke of mens hands. We worship God.
Fisher.
Whereas therefore it is certaine that Protestants hold divers Negative Doctrines, not onely not found in, but contrary to Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers, and other Orthodox Authors in all Ages; It evidently followeth, that Master Rogers hath not yet named, nor can name, nor hath proved, nor can prove, or defend any of those he named, or undertaketh to name, to have beene visible Protestants in all Ages before Luther, and consequently he cannot be said to have made any good answer, either to Master Fishers Question, or to his five Propositions, or to his other Paper, written to explicate the sense of the said Question.
Rogers.
What you say, certainely is most false, that Protestants hold divers Negative Doctrines contrary to Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers, if you understand Generall Councels, and unanimous consent of Fathers. We hold many Doctrines not expresly set downe in Scriptures, but none contrary to Scriptures, neither doe we count any thing matter of faith, but what is expresly contained in Scriptures. Whereas you say, that I have not yet named, nor proved Authors of the Protestants faith in all Ages, the present discourse will shew to be false, which I referre to the Reader.
Deo gloria in aeternum.