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
Question aforesaid For say you with a bold audacitie hee nameth for Protestants famously knowne Roman Catholicks to wit the chiefe Writers of the first 700 yeares As for Audacitie I hope to cleare my selfe by performing all that I have undertaken herein And the grounds I layed doe manifest to the learned indifferent Reader that I did so intrench my selfe so fortifie my cause as that I feare not any open force of a stronger enemie then you are I named for Protestants knowne Romane Catholicks say you distinguish Romane Catholicks whether you meane the present Romane Church or that which was in the first seven hundred yeares these two are as different as Christian and Antichristian as Orthodox Non Apostolici sed Apostatici Such as were fallen from all Christianity Baron an 908. n. 4. speaking of the Popes of that age and Haereticall as Apostolike and Apostaticall I oppose the present Romane Church not the Primitive and therefore I oppose this because shee is so different from that and no more like unto those former Romane Catholicks then those Indian Apes were unto the valiant Porus and his Indian Souldiers They of those first seven hundred yeares did not equall unwritten Traditions unto the Word of God they did not worship Images nor was your new Creed any part of their Faith and this is the reason why we oppose the present Roman Church because she hath so far declined from what she was Returne you to that Primitive Romane Church and wee will returne to you these Writers of the first seven hundred yeares are ours and not yours insomuch that I doe require you to shew me any one Father of those seven hundred yeares that held your now Romane Creed and I will be of your mind And whereas you make choice of Saint Bede for your instance I will pitch upon that very man and deny him to be of your now Romane Faith I meane as farre as your now Romane Church doth differ from other Christian Churches herein I am in the Negative so that it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative Whereas you say Saint Bedes Writings and profession of life being a professed Romane Catholicke Monke shewes him to be no Protestant first for his Writings shew mee out of his Writings what part of the Apostles Creed hee did denie I have no other Articles of Faith if hee held these as I know hee did and his Writings doe manifest it hee is of my Faith hee is of my Church I of his both of one Church both of that one Faith which the Protestants doe professe Secondly I beleeve all the revealed written Word of God as it was received in the Primitive Church doth Saint Bede deny any of these shew mee where But say you his profession of life proves him to be no Protestant for hee was a Roman Catholicke Monke First as for Roman I have already answered that your present Romane Church differs from that which then was in all those Doctrines wherein we differ from you although it then began in matters of Discipline to swerve from what it had beene I say in matters of Discipline not of Doctrine if in any Doctrine not in Doctrines of Faith they enacted enjoyned necessitated no new Articles as now you have done in your Councell of Trent whereas you adde Catholick to Roman Hoc est Pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere like that of dividing all the world into Kent and Christendome or rather to say that Kent is all Christendome Roman is but a part of the Catholick Church and to say as you doe that the Roman is the Catholick Church is as if one should say that one particular man were all men and that one limbe of a man were the man as the Poet said of Tongilianus Tongilianus habet nasum scio nec nego nasum Nil praeter nasum Tongilianus habet The man had a great nose and therefore the Poet said hee was all nose as if he had no other parts neither eyes nor mouth nor hand nor arme nor legge nor foote So you because your Roman Church is somewhat large you say that the Church is all Roman whereas it is not much larger in proportion to the Catholike Church then Tongilianus his nose in respect of the rest of the body I know you will say that the Roman Church is extended to the East and West Indies and there acknowledged Alas that is but by a few of your owne Emissaries cooped up in some small Ilands and Forts in the East Indies and as for your West India Converts Bartholo Casas in his Spanish colonies p. 1â— they are such as being forced by the Spanish tyranny doe professe a poore faith being taught to say there is one God one Pope one Catholike King This is all their Creed these are the Christians you there make this is the converting of Nations you bragge of your imposture and cousenage in suborning a couple of unknowne fellowes to come and submit themselves to the Roman Church a Historia Concilij Trident. l. 5. as if they had beene the Patriarches of Alexandria and Mozall is long since discovered so that by these poore shifts to vaunt unto the world or thinke with your selves that the Roman is as large as the Catholick is as if Tongilianus sniting his nose upon his garments and there seeing it sprinkled here and there upon his leggs upon his feet should therefore thinke that his nose did reach unto his feet that which you deliver in this kind being but vaunting of falshoods and grosse lyes I may well call the excrements of a divellish braine seeing the divell is the father of lyes and yet this must make your silly simple hudwinckt followers thinke that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church and as you afterwards say that none can be saved out of the Roman Church Aug. ep 86. Rabanus Maurus 400. yeeres after divided the Church into East Greek and Latin l. 2. c. 34. Saint Augustine in his time did distinguish betweene the East and West Churches and then did subdivide the West making the Roman but a part of the West yea and distinguishing betweene some neighbour places and the Church of Rome In those times and even to this day the Easterne Churches doe differ from the Roman Church in that they fast not upon the Saturday as also a great part of the Westerne Churches even in Italy it selfe then did Whereupon one Vrbicus wrote against those that did not fast upon Saturday which caused one Cassalanus a Presbyter to write unto Saint Austin requesting his resolution herein who replying unto him saith In those things concerning the which the word of God doth not lay downe any certaine rule the custome of Gods people the ordinances of their Ancestors are to be held for a law He did not say heere the decrees or custome of Rome must stand for a law to all other Churches He bids him observe the words of Vrbicus and you shall see him saith
which is denounced against those who adde unto the Word of God And will you say that wee professe any Faith besides that which is contained in Scriptures This is your easie answering Master Fisher to denie that wee professe that which we doe professe in all our Bookes in all our Schooles in all our Pulpits in all our Discourses of this subject viz. What wee ought to believe You will as easily answer the other Argument let us see the Argument and your answer 2. Arg. A Signis thus The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent of Fathers and other Writers in all ages had visible Professors in all ages But the Faith of Protestants hath these testimonies Ergo The Faith of Protestants had visible Professors in all Ages To this you answer by denying the Minor or second Proposition thus The Protestant Faith hath not testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent Ad partes Master Fisher which Article of the Apostles Creed doth want the testimonie of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent which of those Bookes received for Canonical of the Church of England and named of mee a little before want these testimonies of Antiquitie Universalitie and consent Is it Genesis or Exodus or any other Booke of Moses Is it the Psalmes or Proverbs or Histories that want this testimony Or is it Esay or Ieremie or Ezekiel or Daniel or any other of the Prophets Is it Matthew or any other of the Evangelists or Apostles name the man name the Church name the time if you cannot then say your easie answering is no answer 3. Arg. Ab Exemplis thus Names of such as professed the Protestants faith in all ages Christ and his Apostles St. Iohn Ignatius Polycarpus Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alex Origen Cyprian Lactantius Athanasius Cyrill Hierosol Ambrozius Nyssenus Hieronimus Ruffinus Chrysostomus Augustinus Cyrillus Alex Theodoretus Socrates Sozomenus Fulgentius Evagrius Gregorius primus Beda Damascenus Alcuinus Thus having gone halfe way I conclude with this Argument The Protestant faith being that which is contained in Scriptures was received and taught by all the Orthodox Fathers But the Fathers above named be all Orthodox Ergo Now what answer doe you Master Fisher give to this Argument of mine not a word unlesse to denie the conclusion be to answer an Argument I hope you will not acknowledge your selfe to be so ignorant in Logicke you know the Rule Ex veris possit nil nisi vera sequi If my Premises be true my Argument in forme as you neither deny my Premises nor except against the forme of my Argument the conclusion must follow must be true for out of true Premises can follow no conclusion but what is true Arist De Sophist Elench c. 17 18 c. this is not easie answering but not answering Looke into Aristotle concerning the duty of a Respondent and the divers kinds of answering You not being able to answer this Argument say I must bring out some or other good Authors who doe clearly shew these before named to hold all or some principall points of Protestant Faith differing from the Catholicke Roman Faith I have proved what I undertooke and what is sufficient by such Arguments as you cannot answer you dare not examine but flye from them knowing their strength and your weaknesse But you will have me prove them by Authors is any humane authoritie of a private man better then reason And what Authors would you have will not their owne profession and their owne workes together with the esteeme and reputation of Orthodox Writers which they have had in all Ages serve the turne to shew what their Faith was doe any men know what they did believe or what they did professe better then themselves As for your Roman Catholicke Faith I have alreadie shewed how fond how vaine how simple a conjunction you make of them that no child ordinarily of seven yeares of age understanding the termes but will wonder with what face you can say That a part of a Church is a whole Church that a part of a Kingdome is a whole Kingdome that a part of mans Body is the whole Body You say also that I must prove out of good Authors that they doe not condemne any of the 39 Protestant Articles Here you not being able to answer as I thinke doe dissemble conceale and passe by what I did put downe in answer to this demand of yours viz. 1. It is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our Faith 2. The Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell This you can conceale and passe over knowing that you are not able to performe it for your Councell of Trent I undertooke for matters of Faith not for secondarie Doctrines to produce Authors in all Ages professing our Faith though they might dissent from us in other Doctrines of an inferior nature not revealed in Scripture nor belonging to the foundation and Principles of Christian Religion As for the sufficiencie of my Arguments I have already made it good for any thing that you have yet spoken against them Let us now see what you say further against them CHAP. XVI Fisher WHo doth not also see that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants by onely altering the word Protestant into Catholick in regard our Catholick Doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers A most bold falshood even by the confession of divers learned Protestants themselves Rogers All the proofe that this man will bring is for ought I can see or thus Who doth not see I doe not see If it be granted c. as I have observed before for if these Arguments might be retorted against the Protestants by changing of one word why did hee not performe the same I must doe it for him Major The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages Minor But the Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures Conclusion Ergo The Catholicke Faith had visible Professors in all Ages Here I have onely changed the word Protestant into Catholicke and what one word is here against Protestants who doe hold and professe no other Faith then what is contained in Scriptures as I have already shewed out of our sixt Article wee grant this whole Argument Major Minor and Conclusion which if you doe grant I will take the Minor and inferre a dangerous Conclusion against the Church of Rome thus The Catholicke Faith is contained in the Scriptures The Roman Faith is not contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Roman Faith is not the Catholicke Faith If you denie this Minor as it seemes by those words of yours before alleadged you will denie viz. Our Catholick Doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies
it is the very same essentially though not accidentally still a body and still the same body though sometimes more healthy then other and in some parts more sound then other Now Master Fisher to what end is your great discourse of Anabaptists seeing I grant him to be of the Church If hee be such a one as you suppose him who agreeth with mee in all things else viz. in the Scripture in the Creed in the Sacraments in the essence of the Sacraments in their matter and forme in their force and efficacie onely differs from mee in the circumstance of time namely when Baptisme is to be conferred and bestowed upon Children of Christians whether before or after they are come to yeares of discretion CHAP. XXI Fisher AND fifthly That having distinguished Faith as Master Rogers doth into Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessory or not necessary hee may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not to be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth hee is unsatisfied and consequently being left to his owne libertie may apply this distinction as hee shall please accounting onely that to be necessary which hee listeth so to account I wish I say that such an Anabaptist were imagined and that Master Rogers were to be his opponent That it might be seene whether this Anabaptist could not as well by these aforesaid Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend his Faith and Church to have beene alwaies visible against Master Rogers as Master Rogers doth or can by his Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend the Protestant Church to have beene alwaies visible against Catholicks or whether Master Rogers could better convince such an Anabaptist not to have the ancient Faith or not to be a member of the continuall visible Church then a Catholicke can convince Master Rogers Rogers Concerning this Distinction I have spoken afore that some Doctrines are more necessary then others now let us see whether this man saith any thing against it and what it is I doe not find hee doth denie it or grant it so that I know not what hee meanes by the words following viz. He may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied First you mightily falsifie this Parenthesis upon mee my words were these I doe confesse that none of your side or ours have given me full satisfaction in this point what are res fidei per se And in the words next going before I said thus Master Fisher I desire you also for the avoiding of confusion to deliver your opinion Whether all the Affirmative Doctrines of the Councell of Trent are matters of Faith per se fundamentall and necessarie to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas datur discendi who being come to yeares of discretion have capacitie to learne This much in my first Answer to this my request he makes no reply either hee is ignorant or dare not expresse whether all the affirmative doctrines of his Councel of Trent are matters of Faith and necessary to be knowne and believed though I then told him I proposed this question as desirous to learn This much concerning my question and my request Now to my Assertion viz. That none of his side or ours hath given me full satisfaction herein he hence infers that I am unsatisfied without any limitation or if wee will looke backe beyond the Parenthesis as if I were unsatisfied in that which is taught in any Church ours or his This is the right fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I said I was satisfied by none of theirs or ours in the instances of one distinction what Doctrines were to be reduced to either member of the Distinction namely what Doctrines were necessary what not necessary what was fundamentall what accessory what matter of Faith properly what accidentally and hee would traduce mee as if I were unsatisfied in all other Doctrines this is the Devils Logicke Master Fisher who is the father of lies to say I confessed that I never did As well I might prove that you have never a nose on your face or that you are blind thus Mr. Fisher hath never a Nose on his brest Ergo Mr. Fisher hath no Nose As you say Master Rogers doth confesse hee is unsatisfied in some things belonging to one distinction Ergo Master Rogers is unsatisfied in any Doctrine Or thus Mr. Fisher doth confesse that hee doth not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition Ergo Master Fisher doth confesse he doth not see Master Fisher I am satisfied in the doctrines of my faith in the doctrines of my Church in the truth of ours and the falshood of yours as that I desire to die rather then receive your faith or forsake any of mine and I doe hold your Roman Church the most corrupted erroneous usurping part or member of the Christian Church that is in the world I distinguished between doctrines of Faith the Church and of the Schoole These latter being private opinions of men in distinguishing defining or arguing being neither contained in Scriptures nor delivered by the Church I might be unsatisfied in and the rather because the greatest Writers of your side and ours doe vary herein or speake indefinitely which is no resolution Thomas secunda secundae quest 2. saying one thing Occham another and Valenza differing from both Tom Lib. 4. c. 11. de verbo Dei 3 disp 1. q. Bellarmine speaking indifinitely some things in the Doctrine of Christianity as well belonging to faith as manners are simply necessary to all men that will be saved such is the knowledge of the Apostolicke Creed of the ten Commandements and of some Sacraments non nullorum Sacramentorum not defining which and giving small satisfaction with his individuum vagum of some Sacraments not telling which so also amongst our Writers Calvin Hooker Doctor Field Doctor Vsher doe all thus distinguish but when they come to expresse what belongeth to either member they doe not all speake alike Calvin Institut l. 4. cap. 1. n. 12. saith some things are necessary for all men to beleeve as that there is one God that Christ is God and the Sonne of God that our salvation consisteth in the mercy of God similia and such like This word similia leaves it undetermined Hooker holdeth these three to be fundamentall necessary and essentiall unto the Church one Lord one Faith one Baptisme but under that of faith he understandeth as necessary the Articles of the Apostles Creed so that he and Doctor Vsher differ very little or nothing at all Doctor Field is somewhat more full in his third booke of the Church the fourth Chapter yet not in reall addition but
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 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 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 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