cap. 5. This Councell did professe our Faith and receive our Councels and Sacraments though they added five Sacraments more reade Surius Tom. 4. Sessione 3 4 5. Thus have I travelled through Histories Fathers Schoolmen and Councels to satisfie the demand of them who when all is done will denie all Histories Fathers and Councels which make against them I might have gone a neerer way thus You baptize Children daily in your Church and then you professe my Faith the Apostles Creed and minister our first Sacrament You have your Masse or Common Prayer with the Communion often in your Churches then also you professe my Faith reade parcels of our Scriptures and minister our other Sacrament intire to the Clergie though by halfes to the Laitie You have published many Missals under the names of Saint Iames Saint Marke Saint Chrysostom and others every one of these allow and use my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have your Ordo Romanus that approveth my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have published many writers upon the Masse in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum as Walafridus Strabo Ino Corvotensis and others named by mee in my Catalogue all these professed our Faith and received our Sacraments and also our Scriptures But as for your Creed it was never professed in Baptisme it is found in none of those Missals nor in your Ordo Romanus nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Masse for one thousand five hundred yeares Let mee conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis The holy Church a diligent and wary keeper of those Doctrines which were committed unto her doth not change adde or diminish any thing therein it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary nor adde any thing that is superfluous it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianitie nor usurpe that which belongeth to other Sects of Religion in the world CHAP. XIX Fisher 1. THat faith is affirmation and not negation by which rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scriptures to pertaine to faith 2. That they that are in the affirmative must prove and not those who are in the negative but which seemeth to follow that a man who had time out of minde quietly possessed his land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary who denyeth him to have right have given a good reason of his denyall 3. That what was not a point of faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of faith as if there were not some points which were at first not held necessary to be beleeved even by Orthodox fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessary to be beleeved as that whosoever did not beleeve them were accounted not Orthodox but Hereticks And 4 that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds And the Anabaptist Church is a societie of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be Iudge it will be held so to be Rogers Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title Master Rogers his weake grounds where he spake not one word of my grounds and here he doth passe over the most with silence but he speaketh against some few of them In my former answer after my definition of a Protestant I laid some few distinctions or grounds thus I desire you to distinguish between matter 1. Of discipline and 2. Of Doctrine Secondly to distinguish between 1. Doctrine accessory and 2. Doctr. fundamentall Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not accessory but fundamentall By this distinction I meane the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 1. Per se 2. Per accidens These 3 distinctions passe without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second viz 1. Doctrine accessorie 2. Doctrine fundamentall As if he would overthrow it but indeed saith nothing in the world against it nor can for it is the distinction of Saint Augustine of Bellarmine of all the Schoole Lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 12. In Scripturis plurima sunt quae ex se non pertinent ad fidem being the same with that of Aquinas in matters of faith into res fidei 1. Per se in themselves 2. Per accidens or accidentally The words of Aquinas are these and thus cited by Valenza Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 2. § 1. as an undoubted ground or principle Habitus fidei 1. Per se primariò respicit ea circa quae distinguuntur articuli fidei 2. Alias verò propositiones quae divinis Scripturis continenter respicit secundariò per accidens The habit of faith 1. In it self and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed 2. Vpon other propositions which are contained in Scripture it looketh accidentally and secondarily This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Non enim unius sunt formae omnia verae doctrinae capita All heads of true Doctrine are not of one nature Some are necessary to be knowne which all men ought to receive as undoubted there are others Quae inter Ecclesias controversa fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant Wherein particular Churches may dissent and yet not breake the unity of faith Thus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther and others but I will onely cite Saint Augustine who in his first booke against Iulius Pelagius writeth thus Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi Regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant etalius alio de una re meliùs aliquid dicit verius Hoc autem vnde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta There are other things wherein the most learned and best defenders of the Catholicke Rule may dissent one from another and one man speaketh better and more truely then another upon the same subject But this whereof we now speake belongeth to the very foundation of faith Thus farre Saint Augustine This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with but not in that order as I placed them but after two or three other grounds of mine which in mine answer were placed after this Thus he to puzzle the Reader that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer what he doth not answer never observes order Yet I that he may in nothing escape my hands will follow him in his order so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter My next ground was this I distinguish between 1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church and 2. Negation In those Articles of our English Church Our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therefore no part of our faith for no man
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 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 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 Tâ—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 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 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
all Ages of which all sorts must learne Faith necessary to salvation Rogers in his first Answere The perpetuall Visibilitie of the Church I acknowledge but I pray you set mee downe vvhat a visible Church is and vvhat you meane by these vvords all sorts vvhether Children dying before they come to yeares of discretion to learne this Faith be not after Baptisme parts of the Visible Church Secondly vvhat you meane by learne Whether 1. An actuall explicit knowledge Or 2. An habituall onely implicit knowledge Thirdly vvhat points of Faith you hold necessary to Salvation Rogers second Answer That some grounds must be layd for all Discourse I thinke my Adversary will not deny seeing all discourse is a drawing of Conclusions from some precedent received premisses whether of Principles naturally manifest and cleare of themselves or of some supposed received and agreed upon Some grounds I laid which Mr. Fisher or his Second here would have the Reader beleeve hee hath refuted for almost every Page hath this Title Master Rogers most weake grounds But how effectually he hath performed it shall appeare in his place The first thing I requested here of M. Fisher was to define a visible Church and to explaine an ambiguous phrase both as necessary grounds as may be for discourse for ambiguities are thickets wherein Sophisters doe hide themselves and the first grand fallacy which they use who would deceive others and doe often deceive themselves neither is the Respondent bound by Rules of Art to answer such an Opponent Aristot Elench 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is cleare that an aequivocator deserves no answer The other ground which I requested him to lay was a definition of the visible Church To this the Author of this Treatise giveth no answer although if he have any Schoole-learning hee must confesse that this is the first ground to be layd and best meanes to begin any Treatise to attaine exact knowledge of what we enquire after and to resolve all doubts that may arise Without this all Disputations are full of difficulties saith Arist This is the scope of all Logick saith Zabarel your learned Logick and Philosophie Reader of Padua You propose a question Whether the Protestants be a Church what more requisite here than to explicate your Termes and define a Church which I formerly requested you to doe and now againe make the same motion Fisher The Question propounded by M. Fisher at the entreatie of a Gentleman who desired satisfaction was Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers in his first Answer A Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now doe was visible in all ages and I do undertake to prove it out of good Authors Rogers in his second Answer To this M. Fisher or his Second have made no reply not as much as to say whether that will serve their turne or whether I must shew the names of Protestants in all ages If this later then may I require of M. Fisher or any other Iesuit to shew mee the names of Iesuits in all ages whose name began within these hundred yeares or not much more and for defect of such names argue against them thus They who are of the Church can shew their names to have been in all ages since Christ But no man can shew the name of Iesuits to have been in all ages since Christ Ergo No Iesuite is of the Church If I should call upon you for the names of Iesuits I should serve you as you serve us but I wil not use such poore miserable shifts as these which are no other then the cavils of men that have nothing to say that is worth the hearing as I will after shew in his due place Let this suffice for this place I professe that if Master Fisher or any other Iesuit can shew me that a Church professing the same faith which the Iesuits now doe was visible in all ages I will be of their faith though they can not shew me the names of Iesuits in those former times Fisher CHAP. III. M. Fisher undertooke to defend the negative part so as it did belong to his Adversary to prove the Affirmative MAster Fisher explicated the meaning of his Question to bee that first His Adversarie should set downe Names of men in all ages whom they thought to bee Protestants Secondly that they should shew out of good Authours proofe that they were Protestants Thirdly that they should defend them to hold nothing contrary to the doctrine of Protestants contained in the 39. Articles unto which all English Ministers are sworne Rogers in his first Answer To the First I wil shew the names of such as maintained our now Faith in all ages and bring good proofe To the second the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some doctrines established in the said Councell To the third It is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our faith Fisher his Question Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers Mr. Fisher you here confound two Propositions or Questions delivering them both as one whereas they are very different and may subsist the one without the other For a Protestant Church may bee extant in all ages and yet no names of the Professors to be found for every age and this existence of such a Church may be proved by generall testimony of History as that the Christian Religion was here in Britaine before the comming of Augustine the Monke Hist. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. may be proved out of Beda who maketh mention of British Bishops but nameth none of them In vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 18. Here M. Fisher and his Second would say Shew me their names or I will not grant there were any Let us ascend a little higher wee may prove it out of Eusebius 300 yeeres before that this Country was Christian Here Mr. Fisher would say Shew the names of those Christians or I will not beleeve it So it is plaine that these are two Questions Arist. Elench 2. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not well to require one answer to two questions This is as if a man should aske whether Iohn a Nox and Iohn a Stiles be at home when the one is forth the other at home and enjoyne the Respondent to answer to both at once yea or no by which answer he must speake an untruth because the questions are two really distinct This is a trick of Sophistry M. Fisher let me give you one instance more If I should aske M. Fisher whether
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 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 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 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 Paul did cite a Heathen to perswade Heathens yea the inscription of an Altar dedicated to the unknowne God found amongst Heathen Idolls Thus the Fathers Augustine and others in the Primitive Church did cite the Iewes for confirmation of their doctrine and that they did not misaleadge the Prophets and writers of the old Testament Iudaei inimici nostri sunt de chartis inimici convincatur adsarius The Iewes are our enemies out of the bookes of our enemies wee convince our adversaries Augustine upon the 40th Psalme and often in other places Master Fisher or his Second would have exclaimed hereat saying what meanest thou Augustine wilt thou perswade mee that the Iewes are Christians if not why citest thou their bookes nay what meanest thou Paul to cite the Greeke Poets wouldst thou perswade me that they are Christians as if it must follow that they whose testimonie we cite in some things must be our friends in all All the faith of the Protestants is confirmed by the Papists all their explicite all their implicite faith all that belongs to our faith vel per se vel per accidens essentially or accidentally primarie or secundarily as an Article of faith or as an illustration of the same expressed in Scripture and yet the Protestants are no Papists the Papists are no Protestants because the Papists have a new Creed which Protestants deny and I call God to witnesse that I desire to die a thousand deaths rather then to approve it because I assure me it is false in all and in some things blasphemous The Papists have such exercise of Religion worshipping of Images praying to Saints which I abhorre as being Idolatry In discipline also they have such tenents of absolute supreme power over Bishops Kings Lawes oathes as is full of pride sedition usurpation and impiety Now here we differ here I am in the negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the affirmative It is a just law and your owne Master Fisher for these I need not produce testimony seeing I doe not avow maintaine beleeve any such Creed any such practise of Religion any such discipline But for my faith either explicite or implicite all that is revealed by God in his word I may bring my Adversaries to depose for me Paul said unto Agrippa a Iew no Christian Iuvenalis yea a wicked incestuous King if Roman Authors wrong him not incestae dedit hoc Agrippa sorori Yet to this bad man this unconverted Iew Paul saith O King Agrippa beleevest thou the Prophets I know thou beleevest them And may not I say Master Fisher beleeve you the Apostles Creed I know you doe beleeve it I have no other Articles of faith no other primarie propositions of faith againe for the totall object for the secondary propositions of faith contained in Scripture may not I aske you and say Master Fisher doe you beleeve the Bookes of Moses the Psalmes the Prophets and all those Bookes of the Iewish Canon as also all the new Testament I know you doe Master Fisher why then herein is my faith limitted whatsoever doctrine is plainely hence inferred or out of principles of nature I receive as doctrines or truths convincing my understanding but they are no part of my faith After these all doctrines and lawes Ecclesiasticall or civill in the Church or State wherein I live not contradicting the word of God or my conscience I receive with humility May I aske you Master Fisher againe whether the Apostles Creed and those bookes of old and new Testament received by our Church of England had not professors in all ages nay were not professed and beleeved of the Popes and Cardinalls of all ages I know you will not deny but they were so professed why then may not I vouch these Popes and Cardinalls for my selfe as I intend to doe when I come to my Catalogue CHAP. VII Fisher ANd I marvaile why having gone halfe the way as hee saith hee maketh a stop there and doth not with the like audacity goe on in naming other famous Roman Catholikes in every of the other ages Rogers Because Master Fisher offered in like proportion to name and defend Professors of Roman religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent these were your words in the first Paper I received of yours I have gone halfe my journey you not a step in proportion you should have gone as farre as I did especially seeing you would have no other meanes of triall whereas I have and hold other and better meanes to prove my Faith and my Church yet to satisfie others to stop your mouth and to meet you at your owne weapon I undertooke this as a probable forreine humane uncertaine Argument yet such as maketh more for us then for you Fisher Namely such as Gualterus in Latine and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote in English have set downe for members in the Roman Church Rogers If they have done it sufficiently and effectually it had beene the lesse labour for you Mr. Fisher to have transcribed them but wee may guesse what makes you neither take a Catalogue out of them nor make one of your owne after your example I might transmit you to Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis or The mysterie of Babylon vvritten by Sir Phillip Morney the learned Lord of Plessis who have performed this for the reformed Churches farre better then yours have done for your Church Yet when I come to the place where you have cited my Catalogue I will make it out but let mee aske you vvhy instead of naming such as professed the Romane Religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent now you put members of the Romane Church as if it were the same a member of the
perfectly of the Church for they are as living members in the body Againe some are of the soule but not of the body as those which are instructed to beleeve the principles of Christian Religion but are not yet baptized or those who are excommunicated if they retaine faith and love which may bee done Lastly some are of the body but not of the soule as those who have no inward vertue but for some temporall ends do professe the faith and partake of the Sacraments under the government of Pastors and such are as the haire or nailes or ill humors in mans body Thus farre Saint Augustine This last doth make a man to bee a part of the visible Church Bellar. de Eccl. l. 3 c 2. As then in man there is the inner and the outward man the soule and the body the one is visible the other is not visible So in the Church there is a mysticall Church which is not seene to bodily eyes and an outward profession of Christ and receiving of Sacraments which makes the visible Church we can see the men we can see them baptized comming to the Temple receiving the Sacraments we can heare them make confession of the Christian faith call upon God the Father by Christ all these things are sensible and most of them visible as the men their meeting their receiving of the Sacraments the lifting up of their hands in prayer the opening of their lips in confession of their faith in prayer and thankesgiving Where there is a society of men thus professing the faith of Christ and partaking of his Sacraments under the government of Pastors there is a visible Christian Church These doe communicate in the same Sacraments in the same confession of faith and that maketh them to be of one Church of the visible Church though they be never so far remote one from another and unknowne one to another in the same essence of faith the principall and necessary articles whereof are contained in the Apostles Creed in the same essentiall forme of baptisme whereby men are admitted into the visible Church we communicate with the Roman Church and so doe all Christian Churches in the world that is in all that which must necessarily be professed and done to make a Church Now whereas my adversarie saith that those Popes Cardinalls Bishops others named by Gualterus and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote did communicate with the Church of Rome that will not serve his turne for so doe we communicate with them in many things in the Apostles Creed in the principall Sacraments in the Iewish Canon of the old Testament and in all the new This doth make them and us a Church in these we have not left them but in their new Creed in their bookes added to the ancient Canon of the Bible in their unwritten Traditions in other their new false hereticall doctrines in their superstitious practise of Religion and Monarchicall discipline tyrannizing over the families of Christ These we hold to be the corruption sicknesse leprosie of their Church there we have left viz their Papacie not their Church we left them as an unsound Church not as a Church Thus the Primitive Church did deale with the Heathens Iewes and Hereticks as Saint Augustine writeth to the Donatists they retained what was good amongst them These Donatists held their owne society alone to bee the Church and excluded all others their owne baptisme to be true effectuall and no other so that they rebaptized those which were baptized by others in defence of their allegation objected thus Vsqueadeo meum est quod à me unicum datum est nec ab ipsis sacrilegis iteretur Sacrilegus non est qui unicum baptismum non quod tuum est sed quod Christi iterare non audet Etenim Christi est unica in baptismate consecratio Tua est unici baptismatis iteratio Corrigo in te quod tuum est agnosco quod Christi est hoc enim justum est ut cum mala hominum reprobamus quaecunque in illis bona Dei reperimus approbamus Hoc inquam justum est ut etiam in sacrilego non violem quod verum invenio Sacramentum nec sic emendem Sacrilegum ut in eo perpetrem sacrilegium Nam sic sunt isti mali in baptismo bono quemadmodum sunt Iudaei mali in lege bona Itaque ut illi per ipsam legem judicabuntur quam malitia sua malā fecerunt Ita isti per ipsum baptismum judicabuntur quod bonum mali tenuerunt Ergo quemadmodum Iudaeus cū ad nos venerit ut Christianus fiat non in eo destruimus bona Dei sed mala ipsius Nam quod errat non credendo quod Christus jam venerit natusque passus sit resurrexerit hoc emendamus eaque infidelitate destituta fidem qua haec creduntur instruimus Item quod errant umbris veterum Sacramentorum inhaerendo dissuademus jamque venisse tempus quo haec auferenda atque mutanda Propheta praedixerunt demonstramus Quod verò unum Deum colendum credit qui fecit Caelum terram quod omnia Idola Sacrilegia Gentium detestatur quod futurum expectat judicium quod vitam sperat aeternam quod de carnis resurrectione non dubitat laudamus approbamus agnoscimus sicut credebat credenda sicut tenebat tenenda firmamus Ita etiam cum ad nos venerit Schismaticus vel haereticus ut Catholicus fiat schisma ejus haeresim dissuadendo destruendo rescindimus Sacramenta verò Christiana si eadē in illo invenimus quicquid aliud veri tenet absit ut violemus absit ut si simel danda norimus iteremus ne dum vitia humana curamus divina medicamenta damnemus aut quaerendo sanare vulneratum quod non est hominem saucium ubi sanus est vulneremus August Tom 7. l. de un baptis cont Petil. cap. 2. 3. Possunt esse populi boni ubi fuerint Episcopi mali sicut potuit esse populus malus ubi fuit Moses Princeps Rector bonus li. 2. c. E. Parmen c. 4. In bonis quibus talia displicent semper manet mansit manebit Ecclesia l. 3. Nihl aliud est consentire male facientibus nisi mala facta eorum approbare atque laudare l. 1. Nemo conjungitur cum infidelibus nisi qui facit peccatum Paganorum vel talia facientibus favet nec quisquam fit particeps iniquitatis nisi qui iniqua vel agit vel approbat l. 2. c. 17. Vbi Moses Aaron ibi murmuratores sacrilegi ubi Caiphas caeteri tales ibi Zacharias Simeon caeteri boni ubi Saul ibi David ubi Ieremias ubi Isaias ubi Daniel ubi Ezechiel ibi Sacerdotes mali populi mali cap. 7. Et sicut grana inter paleas non videntur ita pie viventes inter iniquorum turbas non facile apparent My Baptisme is such and so
with him that hath gone 800. because I have not gone further whereas I had a neerer and safer way to my journeyes end viz by Scripture by demonstration by confession of my adversaries CHAP. X. Fisher NEither did hee sufficiently prove them he named to bee Protestants but by such false suppositions and bad definitions c. Rogers in his 1. Reply That my suppositions are false you say it I deny it when you shew any reason to convince them of falshood I will disclaime them If my definition bee bad you should have mended it and so much I requested you to doe and doe request it againe and againe But why is my definition bad why my suppositions false and why shifts because that Arrians Anabaptists or whatsoever other Sectarie may by the like defend the same persons to have beene of their Religion and Sect. What suppositions you meane I know not if you meane my distinctions I shall answer you when I come to your particular exception against them As for my definition it was this and thus delivered Master Fisher I desire you therefore to expresse without ambiguity the termes of this question whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages what you meane by Church what by Protestants what by visible I will deliver my opinion in defining a Protestant Church The Protestant Church is a society of men professing the faith expressed in the Canonicall Scriptures acknowledged to be such in the Primitive Church comprized in the Apostles Creed explained in the other two Creedes of Nice and Athanasius ministring the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper by men of lawfull calling and ordination Such a society as this was in all ages Ergo The Protestant Church was in all ages Thus farre in my former Reply this was the definition I brought and none other You say an Arrian may by this definition defend that those persons by me alleadged were of his Religion or Sect so may the Anabaptists or any other Sectary as you say what other Sectaries you meane I know not as for the Anabaptist I will answer you where you have made more full mention of him As for the Arrian because here only you name him here I will reply unto you concerning him You say that my definition may agree with an Arrian for so it must if thereby he may proove those to whom this definition doth belong to be of his Religion then which nothing could be spoken more ignorantly if you thought as you wrote or more impudently if you knew the contrary being so manifest a truth as nothing that ever happened in the Christian Church is more frequent in Ecclesiasticall Histories in Fathers in Councells then that Arrius was condemned in the Nicene Councell and the more full explication of the Apostles Creed was made in that Councell onely to exclude and condemne Arrius which explication is commonly called the Nicene Creed to the same purpose did Athanasius compose his explication of the same Creed I make mention of both these in my definition saying that the Protestant Church professeth that faith comprised in the Apostles Creed explained in the other two Creeds of Nice and Athanasius All these three doe say that Christ is God Arrius doth deny it these are contradictories can you reconcile them if you can you will doe more then all the Divines all the Philosophers could doe nay more then God himselfe can doe The Apostles Creed saith that Christ is the onely begotten Sonne of God and therefore God as the begotten Sonne of man is man the onely begotten Sonne of God because he alone is the Sonne of God by generation all others either by creation or by regeneration The Nicene Creed saith Christ is begotten of the substance of the Father God of God true God of true God Athanasius his Creed runnes wholly on the same straine that Christ is God that hee is uncreate eternall incomprehensible Almighty Arrius denyed all this in denying him to be God This definition I alleadge not as proper to the Protestants distinguished from other Churches but common to all true Christian Churches for two reasons first my drift is not to proove that onely the Protestants make the Church as I have fully expressed in my first Answer My words speaking to Mr. Fishers 4th proposition were these I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants be the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others wee leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists we chalenge it not we are a true Church not the true Church we are a part not the whole we include our selves we exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. so they deny no fundamentall parts of the faith either directly or by consequence 2. Because there can be but one definition of one Church and such is the Catholick Church of Christ acknowledged to be and this one definition must accord and may be verified of every particular society that professeth the faith of Christ and ministreth those Sacraments which were ordained by Christ as necessary unto all men under the government of lawfull Pastors for these particular societies are of the same nature as the whole Partes homogeneae quarum idem nomen cum toto eadem nominis definitio parts of one kind with the whole and one with another which have the same definition because they have the same nature and essence as every drop of blood is blood and every little peece of flesh is flesh and have all the same definition As therefore when I would proove my selfe to be a man I would use no other definition then animal rationale a reasonable creature endued with a living sensible body Haec Articulis lex definiendi for singularia non habent definitionem nisi speciei particular and individuall things have no proper peculiar definition of their owne but all of one kind or species have the same definition so being to proove my selfe a Christian I will use no other definition then that of Christians in generall viz. that I hold the faith of Christ am admitted by baptisme into his visible Church wherein I doe continue under the direction and government of my Pastors If you should reply that is no good definition because it belongeth to you of the Roman Church to those of the Greeke Armenian Aethiopian Indian Churches and to all other sects of Christians as well as to me I answer that unlesse it doe belong to all Christians it were no good definition as animal rationale were no good definition of a man unlesse it did belong to every particular man excluding none for this is the rule of defining this is the direction that is given by the most learned that we must passe through every singular observing what is to be found in them all and at all times and put those things alone in our definition excluding
those other things which we find in some singulars or particulars but not in other or at sometimes but not at other This is the rule of reason but you of Rome contrary to this course in framing your definitions have collected those things which are to be found in one particular Church viz. your owne and wherein you conceive other particular Churches to be defective things accidentall to the Church as without which the Christian Church hath beene and may be hereafter wheras all those things that belong to the definition of any thing must be essentiall universall inseparable and being taken alltogether must shew and explicate the whole nature of the thing and exclude all things else of a different nature or kind as for example Bellarmine after a long dispute concerning the definition of the Church rejecting all other concludeth thus Nostra autem sententia est Ecclesiam unam tantum esse non duas illam unam veram esse caetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatam sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum ac praecipuè unius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani pontificis Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis professio verae fidei Sacramentorum communio subjectio ad legitimum Pastorem Romanum Pontificem Ratione primae partis excluduntur omnes Infideles tam qui nunquam fuerunt in Ecclesia ut Iudaei Turcae Pagani quam qui fuerunt recesserunt ut Haeretici Apostatae Ratione secundae excluduntur Catechumeni excommunicati quoniam illi non sunt admissi ad Sacramentorum Communionem isti sunt admissi Ratione tertiae excluduntur Schismatici qui habent fidem Sacramenta sed non subduntur legitimo Pastori ideò foris profitentur fidem Sacramenta percipiunt Includuntur autem omnes alij etiamsi Reprobi Scelesti Impij sunt But this is our opinion that the Church is onely one not two and that one and true Church is an Assembly of men knit together in the profession of the same faith with Christ and Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawfull Pastors and especially under one Vicar of Christ on Earth the Bishop of Rome Out of which definition may easily bee collected who are of the Church and who are not for in this definition are three parts 1. profession of faith 2. communion of Sacraments 3. subjection to a lawfull Pastor the Bishop of Rome The 1. of these doth exclude all Infidells aswell Iewes Turkes and Heathens as Heretickes and Apostates which having beene of the Church departed from it The 2. part doth exclude those Catechumeni that are instructed in the principles of Christian Religion but are not yet baptized and those that are excommunicate for the first of these were never admitted to the Communion of the Sacraments these latter were admitted but are by excommunication excluded By the 3. part are excluded Schismatickes which have the faith and the Sacraments but are not subject unto the lawfull Pastor and therefore doe professe the faith and receive the Sacraments out of the Church All others are of the Church although they bee Reprobates wicked ungodly men Thus farre Bellarmine Valenza to the same effect writeth thus Vera Ecclesia non est alia Tom. 3. in Tho. pa. 144. nisi ea fidelium congregatio quae paret Romano Pontifici pro tempore existenti There is no true Church but that Congregation of faithfull people which is obedient to the Bishop of Rome for the time being Binnius the last and largest compiler of the Councells hath this Illam dicimus Ecclesiam quae decreta Sancti Consilij Tridentini universalis aecumenici tenet pariter honorat To. 2. pa. 721 notis in Corc Tolet. 3. We call that the Church which doth hold and honour the decrees of the Holy generall Councell of Trent Thus wee see that obedience to the Bishop of Rome is put by your late great Goliahs in the definition of the Church and by consequence it is of the essence and being of the Church so that no man can be saved by their Doctrine which is not obedient to the Bishop of Rome Nay the Christian Church cannot subsist without the Bishop of Rome and obedience unto him because nothing can subsist without his owne being If this be a true definition of the Christian Church then millions of Soules were damned when the Church of Rome was divided for many yeares and many descents for there could be but one true Pope at the same time some cleaving to one Pope some to the other this Schisme during seventy yeares The want of this obedience if their Doctrine be true hath excluded all the reformed Churches from hope of salvation which containe many millions of Christian Soules which receive and believe the Scriptures of old and new Testament as they were received in the first second third fourth Centurie of yeares which receive and professe the Apostles Creed are therein baptized and receive for Orthodox Doctrine the Decrees of the foure first Generall Councels and some of them receive six of the first Councels and yet must they be damned to the pit of hell because they will not be obedient to the Pope Histor Concil Trid. p. 450. The Queen of France somewhat above sixty yeares since wrote unto the Pope that there being none of the Reformed who deny the Articles of Faith nor the six Councels many thought it fit to receive them into Communion Let us passe from the Latin Church to the Greeke a Church larger in extent then the Latine Church This with all the number of Christian Soules therein contained for denying the Popes Supremacie are out of the Church have lost their hold of Christ have no interest in his sufferings although most of them suffer much for the profession of Christ under Turkes and Tartars Let us goe somewhat further and observe the miserable condition of the Churches of Africke which when they were at the best were three times as large as the Roman Church and yet though the Mahometans have much prevailed against them not inferior to the Latine Church all these are without hope of Heaven damned for ever to the pit of Hell if this definition be true Eusebius the compiler of the Ecclesiasticall History for the first three hundred and odd yeares assisted therein by Constantine the Great and esteemed by him worthy to be Bishop of all the world writeth Lib. 3. c. 14. that The Church was dispersed through the world by the Apostles Then speaking of the next Age viz. Anno 137. writeth Lib 4. c 6. c. 28. that The Churches did then shine like bright starres through the world and the faith in Jesus Christ did flourish in universo humano genere amongst all mankind As in Mesopotamia in France in Asia in Phrygia Lib. 6. c.
Romane Church may give testimonie against you and for me Caiphas even then when he persecuted Christ might prophesie truly of Christ Pilate who did crucifie Christ did write that of Christ which was true viz. that hee was King of the Iewes Matthew Paris was a member of the Romane Church who said that your Church did never reject any that came unto her if they brought white or red with them Silver or Gold This member of the Roman Church said that a principall member viz. That Pope Gregorie the seventh did confesse on his death-bed that by the instigation of the devill hee had troubled the world yet this was such a member as that Innocentius the fourth Matthew Paris the then Pope vvrote of him that hee vvas vir probatae vitae Religioris expertae Such a Writer as that Baronius giveth this testimony of him Take away from his Booke his calumnies Anno 996. n. 63 64. invectives taunts and blasphemies against the Apostolick See often repeated and you vvill say it is a golden Commentarie taken vvord by vvord out of the publike Records and very vvell compiled together Thus farre Baronius As if a man should except against a vvitnesse and say you must not believe him in this vvhich he sayes against me but in all things else you may believe him hee speakes nothing but vvhat is upon publike Record Cajetane was a learned member of your Church and yet he held the Canon of Scripture as vvee doe contrarie to that vvhich the Councell of Trent hath defined Sixtus Senensis vvas a member of the Roman Church and yet hee did denie some part of the Scripture to be Canonicall which the Councell of Trent defined for Canonicall and that after the Councell Bellarm. de Verbo Dei l. 1. c. 7. I will fit you with many such members in my Catalogue Fisher Neither can I see any reason why hee did not with like audacitie goe on in naming other famous Romane Catholickes in every Age but that as it seemeth hee was not resolved whether hee were better to put in his Catalogue the names of damned Haeretickes which disagree in divers points of Faith from all ancient and present Pastors and Doctors of the Church even from the Protestants themselves Rogers Who you meane by these Haeretickes I know not and therfore I need not reply unto you herein if you had laid that imputation upon us I would have enlarged my selfe in the defence but you say they differ in points of Faith from the Protestants Fisher Or else to put in names of Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes and other religious men whose Writings and profession of life palpably shew that they held the present Roman Doctrine and communicated with the Roman Church Rogers I have answered you already that I will name Popes Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes and others of your Church and why but such as neither their Writings nor profession of life doe palpably shew that they held the present Roman Faith If their Writings expresse what you say I will yeeld but that their Roman profession of life should include the now present Roman Faith I deny and besides what I formerly spake concerning your Writers I will adde some few instances now Gratian. Can Comp. de consecr dist 2. Gelasius was a Pope and yet hee held your present halfe Communion to be Sacriledge and decreed thus Aut integra suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them receive the Communion in both formes or in neitheâ— Nich Lyranus was a Catholick and yet hee held the Canon of Scripture contrary to that of the Councell of Trent as Bellarmine confesseth So did Hugo and Thomas de Vio two Cardinals Irenaeus Basil Chrysostome Augustine and others whom I cited before cap. 4. were Bishops and yet they held the fulnesse and perfection of Scripture without the supply of unwritten Traditions contrary to the Councell of Trent Ierome was a Priest and a Monke yet denied those Books to be Canonicall which we deny contrary to that the Councell of Trent hath taught and decreed As the hand of a man may smite himselfe and yet continue a member of his body so these might be members of the Roman Church and yet give testimonie in something against your Church The Embassador De Ferrias of France was a member of the Roman Church and a French man Histor Concil Trid when in the Councell of Trent speaking of the miseries of France hee said If they should demand why France is not in peace hee could answer nothing but that which Iehu said to Ioram How can there be peace there remaining and concealed the words following but added You know the Text. The Cardinall of Loraine was a principall member of the Roman Church and the second Clergie man in the Latine Church yet hee speaking of the miseries of France said in the Councell of Trent If you would demand who hath caused this tempest and fortune I can say nothing but this That this fortune is come by our meanes cast us into the Sea By Vs hee must understand the Roman Clergie Iudas that betrayed Christ gave a true testimonie against himselfe when hee said J have sinned in betraying innocent blood And the limbs of Antichrist may give a true testimonie against Antichrist Now whereas you say that they communicated with the Roman Church I grant they did in some things or else they had not beene members of that Church but not in all for not in those things they did disavow reprove condemn and that this may the better be understood I will enlarge my discourse herein CHAP. VIII What it is to communicate with others How farre wee yet communicate with the Roman Church and wherein wee refuse to communicate COmmunio est multorum unio Communio quid Communion is the union of many They that agree in one opinion are so farre united they are one They that enjoy any thing in common are so farre united Rom. 12. The Church is one body 1 Cor. 12. Christians are severall members of this one body as therefore the members being many are united in one body and doe communicate in divers of the selfe same things from that one body and communicate one unto another the service of those things that are proper unto them as they are severall members So in the Church all Christians make but one body collective which are united together by many things some outward some inward some both outward and inward because it is corpus vivum a living body wherein there is saith Saint Augustine a soule Augustin Breviculo Collat. 3. Collat. 9. and a body The soule are the inward gifts of the holy Ghost faith hope and charity c. The body are the outward profession of faith and receiving of Sacraments Whence it comes to passe that some are of the soule and of the body of the Church and therefore united to Christ their Head both inwardly and outwardly these are most