of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of learned Protestants themselves I will prove it yet first let me tell you that here you deliver a most grosse untruth if by Catholick you meane Roman to say that divers learned Protestants doe confesse that your Roman doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers This I say is a most manifest and grosse untruth seeing no learned Writers of our side doe say so much Why doth Bellarmine make Scripture a part of the Rule not the whole Rule but to bring in unwritten Traditions writing a whole Booke de verbo Dei non scripto of the unwritten Word of God And Valenza in his fourth Tome upon Thomas Aquinas is very full in seeking to prove the same in his first disputation de objecto fidei delivering these Propositions viz. That the authoritie to judge in matters of Faith is not contained onely in Scripture Disputatione prima puncto septimo quaestione tertia Sect. 4. And againe Sect. 5. The Scripture alone is not the Judge of Faith As also Sect. 6 7 8 9 10 11. As also in the eight question Sect. 44. in his Tract de Traditionibus Apostolicis Neither doe I remember that ever I read any of your late Writers but hold as these men did so that in the opinion of these men you must be but halfe a Papist because you receive but halfe that Rule of Faith which the Church of Rome receiveth for not to trouble the Reader with the opinions of private men it is the first Doctrine the first Decree of your Councell of Trent the puritie of the Gospell Fontem omnis salutaris veritatis Sess 4. morum disciplinae contineri in libris scriptis sine scripto Traditionibus The fountaine of all saving Truth and the guide of life is contained in the written Bookes and unwritten Traditions Have you any other Faith then the Councell of Trent This is to be a Protestant in the maine point in that which is the Rule of all other points of Faith and life necessary for all men to know Is this your easie answering Master Fisher to grant your Adversarie that which hee most desireth to dissent from your Councell of Trent would you but adde this to what you have written which followes necessarily I will not subscribe to Bellarmine I will not be led by Valenza herein I will leave the Councell of Trent I will hold no Doctrine which is not proved by plaine testimonie of Scripture without flying unto unwritten Traditions I would rejoyce to see you a Protestant in the maine ground-worke and Principle of all our Religion hoping that if you continue in this mind you will shortly agree in the rest Now let us see how the second Argument may be retorted against the Protestants by onely changing the word Protestant into Catholicke 2. Arg. A Signis The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquitie Vniversalitie and consent of Fathers and other Writers in all Ages had visible Professors in all Ages But the Faith of Catholickes had these testimonies Ergo The Faith of Catholickes had visible Professors in all Ages What one word is here against Protestants wee grant both the Premises and Conclusion so doe not you For they be your owne words within a few lines viz. That some points were at first not held necessarie to be believed even by Orthodox Fathers which after by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessarie to be believed as that whosoever did not believe them were accounted not Orthodox but Haereticks These are your owne words from whence it doth follow that many necessarie points were denied in precedent Ages by Orthodox Fathers and thence it must follow againe that they wanted the testimonie of all Ages being denied in some Ages by the Orthodox Fathers Such testimonies the Articles of your Roman Faith may have yet Orthodox Fathers denie them and therefore to frame the Arguments againe not according to your words which I have done already by changing Protestant into Catholicke but into Roman for that I thinke you understand by Catholicke Let it be thus The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages But the Roman Faith is contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Roman Faith had visible Professors in all Ages Would to God your Minor were true I would be glad to meet with you in the Conclusion But I have already shewed out of your owne Writers and Councell of Trent that you hold the contrary and your new Creed being examined by Scripture will finde more contradiction there then proofe unwritten traditions equalled to the word of God Seven Sacraments improperly so called halfe Communion Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images have neither testimony of Scriptures nor Fathers this you know well enough and therefore you could passe over a great deale of my Reply without any mention of what I had replied My words were these Having gone thus farre at this time I undertake for the rest and doe require the like from the Romanists viz. That they would shew me the names of such as taught the now faith of the Church of Rome in all ages and let them set me downe the names as I have done And for instances in points of Roman faith in all ages I require these men to shew me the names of those who in the first second third Centurie of yeares did preach or professe unwritten Traditions to be the rule of faith Secondly that the vulgar Latine translation is authenticall Thirdly that there are seven Sacraments improperly so called and no more Fourthly that the bookes of Machabees are Canonicall Fiftly Transubstantiation Sixtly Invocation of Saints Seventhly worshipping of Images c. This rule of shewing the names of such as professed the faith in all ages is proposed by them which though it be no necessary consequence of faith yet it bindeth them that propose it to make it good in particular Out of their owne Position thus I argue First Argument That is a true Church whose faith hath had visible professors in all ages whose names may be shewed out of good Authors to be such The Romish faith had not such visible professors in all ages Ergo The Roman is not a true Church Second Argument The true faith hath the testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent But the Romish faith as farre as they differ from the Protestants faith which they doe in all the points above alledged hath not testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent Ergo The Romish faith in those points wherein they differ from the Protestants faith is not a true faith Let the Romanists answer these two Arguments in those particular points above written and I will be of their Church Thus much in my former answer to which you have made no replie at all you have neither given any instance which point of my faith is not contained in Scriptures or wanteth
Scriptorem vel per alium legitimum definitorem fidei whom he afterwards concludes to be the Pope I therefore chuse to speake as the Fathers doe yea and as the more Ancient Schoolemen did Aquinas Carbo and others That the Scripture is Regula credendorum which excludeth Bellamines Verbum non scriptum and Valenzaes Papall decisions And to this purpose I will cite such places of the Fathers which are acknowledged by the Adversaries to be true Fathers and true quotations The sacred Writers Evangelium in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1. columnam fidei nostrae futuram haue delivered the Gospell unto us in the written Word to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith Here Bellarmines Verbum non scriptum his unwritten Word hath no place This Father who lived in the first Age after the Apostles saith In Scripturis in the written Word Here Valenza's unwritten Revelations of Traditions or Papall decisions being his definitor fidei have no place to reconcile these two Scriptum and non Scriptum is to overthrow the first fundamentall Propositions of all learning in the world to reconcile contradictions The most incompatible opposition that is without which being laid as a ground-worke no man may treate of any thing Arist Meta 4. ca. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is impossible that the same thing at the same time should bee and should not bee this no man can bee ignorant of this is the first principle in Metaphysicke in Logicke though in other termes viz. two contradicting Propositions cannot be both true nor both false This is the first principle of all other Sciences as the fornamed Author Fonseca Suarez as Aquinas your great Schooleman Fonseca and Swarez your fellow Iesuits and great writers upon Metaphysicke your learned writer upon the Demonstrations Zabarel and others whom I could name doe undoubtedly teach Reconcile me Irenaeus his Scriptum est and your non scriptum Bellarm. de Verbo Dei and as you have taken away the Rule of divine knowledge by denying the sufficiencie thereof by denying it to bee a totall Rule but a part a piece of a Rule which is as much as no Rule as a part or piece of a man is no man so by denying this first principle of all humane knowledge you take away all Naturall and Morall Philosophie all Logicke all Metaphysicke and then what remaineth but that we be no more creatures endued with reason and your Pope shall rule us as please him Sed habebit imperium in belluas hee must transforme us into this beastly ignorance Thus having taken away your distinction of Scriptum non Scriptum which I desire may be observ'd in the rest of the Fathers that follow for I will cite none who use not this word Scriptures which is the written word I will presse my Argument thus First Argument Whosoever doth hold the foundation and pillar of Faith is of the Church But the Protestants believing the Scriptures doe hold the foundation and pillar of Faith Ergo The Protestants are of the Church What will you Master Fisher answer to this Argument will you distinguish Verbum Dei with Bellarmine or Revelatio Divina with Valenza ad terminos what word in my Syllogisme doe you distinguish or what proposition doe you deny Lib. cont Gentes seu contr Idola The second testimony shall be Athanasius his words are these Sufficiunt sanctae ac divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae ad instructionem veritatis out of which I thus argue Second Argument Whosoever doe professe that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth are of the Church The Protestants professing the Scriptures do professe that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth Ergo The Protestants are of the Church Neither is here any place for Bellarmines unwritten word or Valenzaes unwritten revelations Basil It is an Argument of infidelity and a sure token of pride to reject any thing that is written or to bring in any thing that is not written saith Saint Basil in his Sermon of the confession of Faith Third Argument But the Romà nists doe add vnto the Faith things that are not written Ergo The Romanists are proude Infidels The Maior is Saint Basils the Minor is your owne not only delivered by private men but also enacted by your Councell of Trent Sess 4. Anno 1546. Fourth Argument Chrysost Whatsoever is requisite unto Salvation is wholly fulfilled in the Scriptures saith Chrysostme Com. in 22. Matth. But the Protestants doe professe all that is fulfilled in the Scriptures Ergo The Protestants doe professe all that is requisite unto salvation And doing so sure they are of the Church because none are saved out of the Church Idem Chrys Seing we have a most exact Ballance Levell and Rule of all things the sayings of the Law of God I beseech you all that forsaking what seemeth to this man or what seemeth to that man you would enquire after these out of Scripture Thus the same Father Hom. 13. in 2. Ep. ad Cor. I argue thus Fifth Argument They who professe and believe the most exact ballance levell and rule of Christians doe continue in the Christian Church But the Protestants beleeving the Scripture or written Word doe beleeve a perfect ballance levell and Rule of all things belonging to Christians Ergo The Protestants are in the Christian Church I reverence the fulnesse of Scripture Tertull contra Hermog Let Hermogenes shew me that it is written if it be not written let him feare the woe that is denounced against them that adde or diminish Sixth Argument They who adde to the fulnesse of the written Word are thereby subject to a great Woe But the Romanists denying the fulnesse of Scripture adde thereto unwritten Traditions Ergo The Romanists are subject to great woe Seventh Argument Diabolici spiritus est aliquid extra Scripturarum Sacrarum authoritatem putare divinum It is devilish to accompt any thing divine that is not in the written Word Theoph. But the Romanists doe accompt unwritten Traditions and Papall determinations to be divine Ergo The Romanists are devilish or have a devilish spirit in them I will conclude with Saint Augustine Eighth Argument Aug. l. 3. cont Petil. cap. 6. If any one either concerning Christ or his Church or concerning any other matter which belongeth unto Faith or life I will not say if wee but as Saint Paul added If an Angell from heaven doe declare unto you any thing besides that which you have received in the writings of the Law and the Gospell let him be accursed But the Romanists doe tell us of unwritten Traditions concerning masters of Faith and life besides the written word of the Law and the Gospell Ergo The Romanists are accursed I will adde more testimonies out of the same Father both because by consent of all Divines that I have reade both Roman and Reformed hee is the chiefest Divine
their society their own testimony not the testimony of God Vnlesse thou know thy selfe not in the word of cavelling people but in the testimonies of my Books In the Scriptures have wee learned to know Christ in the Scriptures have we learned to know his Church Wee have these Scriptures common to us both and why out of these doe not we hold Christ and his Church common to us both And againe Behold the Scripture common to both loe where wee have known Christ loe where we have known his Church Reflecting now upon what wee have cited out of this incomparable Father wee may observe how plainly how frequently how perseveringly he maintaineth that this Question concerning the Church may be proved plainly manifestly clearly out of Scripture That hee would not have men use Humane testimonie in this question and they which doe use Humane testimonies herein and not Divine stand upon uncertainties Aquin. 1. q. 1. art 8. Carbo to the same purpose the Schoolmen say That Humane reasons in hac doctrina non valent ad probandum are not of force to prove yet it useth Humane reason not to prove Faith and what it believeth but to declare other things as a forreine Argument and probable but it useth Divine Authorities as a proper and necessary Argument Secondly let us observe that this Father writing upon this Question so many Books as make more then halfe a great Tome yet never used any other Argument in those Bookes but Scripture hee never called upon his Adversaries to shew names of their Professors in all Ages nor did hee attempt that for himselfe but chose rather to cite the same Scriptures twenty times at least in severall Bookes of that subject out of which places I will collect two Arguments first desiring the Reader to observe That things expresly contained in Scriptures and things thence deduced are of a different nature these later inferior to those those are Principles these are but Conclusions those depend upon supernaturall light of Divine Revelation these Conclusions are grounded upon those Divine Principles which men apprehend by Faith and then doe search and find the illation and consequence of these Conclusions by the light of naturall reason improved by Industry and refined by Art I doe not say that I can shew in Scripture that the Protestants are the true Church which were to make it a point of Faith but out of Scriptures I can prove that the Protestants are a Church and so make it a Theologicall conclusion and the Arguments demonstrations because drawne out of the proper Principles of Theologie or Divinitie thus 1. Argument They who professe that Faith which was preached through the World are a true Christian Church But the Protestants holding the Apostles Creed and the doctrine of the Apostles doe professe that Faith which was preached through the World Ergo The Protestants are a true Christian Church 2. Argument They who hold Communion and acknowledge themselves to be a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World are a true Church But the Protestants doe hold Communion and acknowledge themselves to bee a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World Ergo The Protestants are a true Church Secondly out of the same Principles I will prove that the Church of Rome is not the Church as excluding all other Churches thus 1. Argument The Church doth professe that Faith which was preached and received through the World The Roman Church holding a new Creed of unwritten Traditions Transubstantiation worshipping of Images c. doe therein not professe that Faith which was preached and received through the World Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Church 2. Argument The Christian Church hath many more Children then the Church of the Iewes But the Romane Church hath not more Children then the Church of the Iewes Ergo The Roman Church is not the Christian Church The Major Saint Austine doth bring out of Scripture in those words The barren hath many more children then shee that hath an husband The Minor will appeare if we say unto these Romanist◠as Saint Austine did to the Donatists Let them compare their multitude with the multitude of the Iewes dispersed over the world and they shall see how few they are in comparison of them the Iewes being by the calculation of the a Brirewood in his Enquiries most learned in Historie and Geographie as many as will people all Europe The Roman Church when it was entire being not much more then halfe Europe if so much and now having lost halfe that it was is farre lesse This I shall enlarge morefully hereafter when I shall come to maintaine my former Arguments Now I addresse my selfe to Master Fishers Replie CHAP. VI. Fisher Concerning M. Rogers his Answer to M. Fishers five Propositions BY this which hath been said against Master Bernard his Looke beyond Luther it may be easily seene that M. Rogers hath not sufficiently answered M. Fishers question aforesaid for with a bold audacitie he nameth for Protestants famously knowne Romane Catholikes to wit these Writers of the first seven hundred yeeres and amongst others even Saint Bede whose Writings and profession of life being a professed Romane Catholike Monke shew him to bee no Protestant Rogers I can see no such thing in what you have said against Mr. Bernard neither have you said any thing there which may touch me but you have the same in this your Treatise against me you have written not halfe a sheet in Reply to Mr. Bernards Booke of eight or nine sheets and yet you would have men see in your short Reply to him a Confutation also of what I have written I have read that Alexander the Great seeing a companie of Indian Apes marching along a Hils side tooke them to be an armie of Enemies but when he came neere he found them to be as they were poore silly fearfull Apes that ran into the woods to hide themselves Hee that thinkes hee seeth in your Reply to Mr. Bernard a confutation of him or me is as much mistaken as Alexander was in the Apes the reason is hee looketh a farre off as Alexander did when hee tooke them for armed men but hee that commeth neere unto your Writings vieweth and examineth them diligently shall find that there is no armie there are no armed men no sword no weapon no Scripture no reason to wound us You strout and stalke a farre off but when wee draw neere you flye into the thickets of some darke speeches ambiguous phrases aequivocating termes like those Liguranes quos major aliquantò labor erat invenire quam vincere It is more labour to find you out then to conquer you Mr. Bernard I doubt not is able to answer any thing that you have objected unto him if he think such poore objections of yours to be worthy of any Reply I wil addresse my selfe unto what you object unto mee you say that I have not sufficiently answered Mr. Fishers
I wrote thus As I did admonish Master Fisher to distinguish betweene Affirmation and Negation so I doe these men and that faith is Affirmation not Negation for no man beleeveth what he denieth Secondly In points of faith I like Master Fishers Rule They that are in the Affirmative must prove Now all that we affirme they affirme as one God three persons all the Creed So that we need not prove what our Adversaries do confesse But in those points in variance between us they are to prove because they are Affirmative we Negative as unwritten Traditions Latine Service Invocation of Saints c. Thus farre in my former Answer This is saying plainly this is not seeming Whereas you inferre that seeing all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes I grant the Consequence what is this to the question whether we are of the visible Church or no this which you would inferre doth rather prove us to be a part of the visible Church then any way gaine-say it Thus They which have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome are parts of the visible Church But the Protestants have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome Ergo The Protestants are a part of the visible Church The minor Master Fisher would inferre out of my Grounds as if I would deny it no I grant it and so I hope will he the major then the conclusion must follow We differ from you in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines and Discipline which you terme to be points of faith but we deny They are corruptions of faith Innovations Idolatrous Antichristian Doctrines You would force them upon us as points of faith we refuse them because the Scripture doth not expresse them the Primitve Church did not know them and the greatest part of the Christian Church to this day doth not approve them And your owne writers are distracted into many and divers opinions concerning them Paulus venet l. 1. 2 What Antiquity have you for your halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. What Universality seeing the Church of Greece of Syria the Georgians Circassians Mengiellians Breitenbachius Purgr c. de Iacobitis Vitrivius Histor orientalis c. 76. the Moscovits and Russians the Christians of Babylon of Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media of Cassar Samarcham Charcham Chinchtalis Tanguth Suchir Ergimal Tenduck Caracam Mangi the Iacobits whose Sect is extended and spred abroad in some fourty Kingdomes which I assure my selfe is more large then all the Roman Church do communicate in both kindes worship not Images deny Purgatory and which with you is more then all the rest deny the Popes Supremacy So you have neither Antiquity nor Universality to which I might adde nor Consent among your selves in those additions of yours contained in your new Creed As for one Instance the Councell of Trent hath made the bookes of Machabees Canonicall Melitus Sav. Origenes Athanasius Hilarius Epiphanius Cyrillus Nazianzen Amphiloch Hieronymus Ruffinus which is left out of the Canon by ten Fathers that is I take it by all the Fathers that dyed within 400 yeares after the Incarnation and wrot of that subject Your Nicholaus Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo and Thomas de Vio Cardinals whereof this last was one of the most learned that ever the Church of Rome had insomuch that in the Councel of Trent it was said I thinke no man heere doth thinke himselfe so great a Divine but that he might learne of Cajetan All these I say of your side exclude those Bookes from the Canon as we doe yet will you not say they were of another faith then the Church of Rome which you must say if your new Creed and Decrees of Councels be points of faith as you here say And lest you should escape with your wandring discourses and your flying from the question I will presse my argument in forme Whosoever denyeth the new Creed or any Articles thereof the Councell of Trent or any Doctrine thereof is an Hereticke and denyeth the faith But Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio Cajetan both Cardinals deny some Articles of the new Creed and some Doctrines of the Councell of Trent Ergo Lyra Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio are Hereticks and deny the faith I am sure you will hold this Conclusion to be false if so then one of the premisses must be false not the minor ergo the major which is your Tenet whereby you would proue us to be Hereticks and to deny the faith Fisher Out of which it will further follow that those English Protestants who shall hold some of the 39 Articles and deny the rest may be said to have no faith different from those which subscribe to all the 39 Articles Rogers I grant it doth follow so that those same Articles which they deny be not those Articles which concerne the Unity of the Godhead the Trinitie of persons and all those things which are contained in the Creed I say therefore they differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or Discipline not in faith so they receive the Scriptures and Apostles Creed Fisher Which last consquence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the bookes of Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Rogers They may be excomunicated for gaine saying Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or the established Discipline of the Church they may be excommunicated as erroneous Shismaticks Fisher Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church Rogers Andrewes in his Defence of the Apologie for the other Bilson in his perpetuall government of the Church Carleton against the Appeal They must be imprisoned as Schismaticks Our Bishops doe all professe that there are no Puritane Doctrines that the difference is onely in matter of Discipline they count them neither Hereticks nor wholly excluded out of the Church here you have supposed two falshoods in two lines those learned Protestants from beyond the Seas whose Discipline doth somewhat vary from ours doe testifie that the purity of Doctrine doth flourish in England purely and sincerely So Beza from Geneva that by Queeene Elizabeths comming to the Crowne God againe had restored his Doctrine and true worship So Zanchius that the whole compasse of the world hath never seene any thing more to be wished then is her Government So Daneus Fisher And why not Roman Catholicks by as good or better right account Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks Excommunicated and no members of the Ancient and present Catholick Church Rogers If we did the one you may doe the other but I have shewed the falshood of your supposition that we count them Hereticks who discent from us in any of our Articles they may be erroneous in a lesser nature then Heresie turbulent in those errours they may be Schismaticks